Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3
For the next item of business, there will be contributions in Gaelic. Members who wish to hear an interpretation in English should ensure that the channel on their console is switched to number 1. The volume should be set to a comfortable minimum in order to reduce any possibility of interference.
Tha sinn a-nis a' gluasad air adhart gu ìre 3 de Bhile na Gàidhlig (Alba).
We now come to stage 3 proceedings for the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill.
As usual, we shall deal first with amendments to the bill and then move on to the debate on the motion to pass the bill. Members should have copies of the bill as amended at stage 2, the marshalled list containing all the amendments that I have selected for debate and the groupings that I have agreed. In addition, I ask members to note that, under rule 9.10.6, I have decided to allow amendment 49, in the name of Peter Peacock, to be moved today. Amendment 49 was lodged yesterday as a manuscript amendment, and a supplement to the marshalled list on members' desks sets out the text of the amendment. It will be debated with the other amendments in group 5 and will be disposed of after amendment 28, which is on page 3 of the marshalled list.
Section 1—Constitution and functions of Bòrd na Gàidhlig
Group 1 is on the status of Gaelic. Amendment 5, in the name of Alex Neil, is grouped with amendments 6, 7, 43 and 46.
I do not anticipate a great deal of controversy in this afternoon's debate, but my amendments in this group address one of the areas in which there will perhaps be a difference between my party and the Scottish Executive.
My amendments are designed to strengthen the bill. A clear message has to go out from the Parliament about the importance of the Gaelic language, not just in terms of what we are trying to do for the language itself but in regenerating the language as a key part of regenerating the culture, traditions and heritage of all of Scotland. One of the great myths is that Gaelic is relevant only to people in the Highlands and Islands but, as many people in the chamber will know, there are actually more speakers of Gaelic in Glasgow than there are still in the Highlands and Islands.
The purpose of amendment 5 is to incorporate the aspiration of the Executive to build into the bill the terminology of equal respect for Gaelic, but to strengthen that further by giving Gaelic equal validity, as recommended in evidence to the Education Committee by Bòrd na Gàidhlig. The purpose of doing that is so that, when Gaelic is used, it will have the same meaning in law, the same validity and the same level of importance as the English language.
We do not suggest—no one suggests—that Gaelic should be used as a second language in every instance. The amendments in my name do not propose such an approach; they propose that in situations in which Gaelic is used, the language should have equal validity with English. If the amendments are agreed to, they will send a clear signal about how important Parliament considers Gaelic to be and ensure that the validity with which Gaelic is treated is built into the bill, as is the concept of respect.
At this late stage, I ask the minister to reconsider the matter and to agree to reasonable amendments. Such unity in the Parliament would be the first sign that we can approach the bill on a consensual basis. Let us ensure that we treat Gaelic and English on the basis of equal validity, as well as with equal respect.
I move amendment 5.
Alex Neil is unconscionably reasonable, as he has been throughout the consideration of the bill, but his arguments are not terribly persuasive. I want to take time to set out clearly why that is, because his amendments would create complications.
The status of Gaelic has properly been a recurrent theme throughout discussions before and after the introduction of the bill. At stage 2 we debated concepts of status at some length. We considered equal validity, which is the concept that Alex Neil proposes again, and equal respect. My proposals in relation to equal respect were accepted by the Education Committee. As I said during the stage 2 debate, on one level the two concepts are very close to each other, but there are important, material differences between them, which I am glad to explain to the full Parliament.
Throughout the passage of the bill, I have made clear my strong desire to do what I can to enhance the status of Gaelic, which the bill will significantly move forward. The language should not suffer from any lack of respect at individual or corporate level. There should be a generosity of spirit towards the language. In fairness, I think that all the parties in the Parliament share that objective.
As a result of amendments in my name at stage 2, the bill gives clear recognition to the language
"as an official language of Scotland commanding equal respect to the English language".
Those amendments ensured that the Gaelic language would not suffer from a lack of respect, while ensuring that the bill remained sufficiently flexible to be able to take account of the differing use of Gaelic across Scotland. Bòrd na Gàidhlig has explained that it wants the language to have a status that requires public bodies to treat it with a generosity of spirit and good will. That aspiration, which the Education Committee supports, can be achieved by requiring the Gaelic language and English to be treated with equal respect, for which the bill provides.
There would be a real danger that, if Alex Neil's amendments were agreed to, the courts could interpret the new provisions as giving the language a status that Parliament does not intend and which could not be delivered. As I said clearly at stage 2, the phrase "equal validity" carries a significant risk that a court might rule that the legislation conferred the right to demand the use of the language in a wider range of circumstances than is intended. Bòrd na Gàidhlig itself has expressed little sympathy with the view that, in the current circumstances, all public services should be made available in Gaelic in all places, to anyone who requests that. Alex Neil said that he did not believe that his amendments would carry that force. However the interpretation that I have set out would be a real possible consequence of his amendments being agreed to.
The Education Committee supported the position that I have set out and said that any formulation of status should not confer rights on individuals. Indeed, Alex Neil said at stage 2—and has repeated today—that he does not think that anyone is asking for a provision that would require Gaelic to be able to be used on every occasion on which English is used. He said that he wanted the language to have equal validity, but he did not explain what he meant by that. As Fiona Hyslop said at stage 2, if an amendment that uses the phrase "equal validity" were agreed to, the bill would need to contain a definition of "validity". However, Alex Neil has not supplied the Parliament with such a definition. I suspect that that is because he is unable to come up with a definition that encapsulates the principle that he supports without conferring unintended rights.
All parties agree that we do not want a formulation that could create expectations of an approach that would be undeliverable or which could change the priorities to develop the language in order to address rights that might flow from legal interpretations. As I said at stage 2, the courts normally refer to the normal usage of phrases such as "equal validity". Alex Neil wants Gaelic and English to be treated on a basis of equal validity and with equal respect, as he indicated, but he has not lodged an amendment that provides an interpretation of the phrase that would explain what is intended to readers of the bill. If amendment 5 were agreed to, the courts would have to find a definition for "equal validity and respect".
Alex Neil may not like the following definitions, but it is critical that Parliament should hear them. The Oxford English Dictionary—which is the dictionary to which the courts would refer—defines "validity", among other things, as the
"quality of being valid in law; legal authority, force, or strength".
In contrast, to "respect" means, among other things, to
"treat … with … esteem, or honour; to feel or show respect for".
At stage 2, Alex Neil said that he treated ministers' views with respect; but he also said
"I do not think that those opinions have any validity."—[Official Report, Education Committee, 2 March 2005; col 2239.]
If Alex Neil were legally obliged to recognise the validity of my views, it would clearly undermine the flexibility and independence of his position and would deprive us of his very considerable wit. I therefore ask Alex Neil to think logically about this. If the Gaelic language were to have equal validity in its strict sense—
"legal authority, force, or strength"—
one logical result would be that any public authority would be obliged to make Gaelic provision available for any service on demand and to be in a position to respond to such demand. I ask him to concede that that risk would be a logical consequence of his proposals.
Will the minister take an intervention?
Yes, of course.
Before the intervention, I ask members not to hold conversations while the minister is on his feet.
The legal advice from the Executive on the Food Standards Agency was entirely wrong, so how can we have any faith in its legal advice on this matter?
I ask Alex Neil to wait until we have a debate on the Food Standards Agency. He will have to work very hard to convince me, but he knows that I am a reasonable man and that I will listen to his arguments.
We may all aspire to the use of the Gaelic language across Scotland in all situations, but it is patently clear that not enough resources are available to allow that.
I return to the normal usage of the word "respect", which is to
"treat … with … esteem, or honour; to feel or show respect for".
I believe that those terms accurately capture the sentiments of what we have all tried to aim for in the bill. They offer a sound basis for the future development and expansion of the use of the Gaelic language.
I acknowledge the spirit in which Alex Neil has lodged his amendments—and, indeed, the spirit in which he has approached the bill in general. However, I ask him not to press amendments 5 to 7 and 46. Today, we have a bill that recognises Gaelic as an official language of Scotland, commanding equal respect with the English language. That is reflected in my amendment—amendment 43—to the long title of the bill. As it stands, section 1 will provide Gaelic with the status that it so richly deserves while leaving intact a bill that is capable of implementation Scotland-wide and of targeting the activity that is needed to develop Gaelic.
All of us want to give the maximum encouragement to Gaelic, but we must do so in a way that is not oppressive and which will command the support and good will of Scotland's population. I therefore believe that the minister is right to demand that Gaelic should have equal respect to English, but I am concerned that including the words "equal validity" could have unintended legal consequences. The issue that we are discussing is of a kind that could lead to test cases.
Support for the minister on this group of amendments should not be interpreted as a blank cheque. After the bill is enacted, we would all wish it to be reviewed in the light of experience, because we are anxious that Gaelic should be effectively promoted and safeguarded.
I would like to pay tribute to Alex Neil's contribution to the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill, which was considerable and restrained throughout stage 2. However, with this group of amendments, he has gone a little bit off track, which is unfortunate.
The Education Committee was given guidance from the Welsh Language Board, whose practical experience was obviously considerable. The phraseology that it used, oddly enough, was less precise and less favourable than the wording that the minister is presently arguing for.
The chamber should pay heed to the wording of the bill. When talking about the constitution and functions of the Gaelic board, the bill says:
"The functions conferred on the Bòrd by this Act are to be exercised with a view to securing the status of the Gaelic language"—
there is no issue about that—
"as an official language of Scotland"—
there is no issue about that either—
"commanding equal respect to the English language".
It will do that through
"increasing the number of persons who are able to use and understand the Gaelic language"
and
"encouraging the use and understanding of the Gaelic language".
All of that seems to me to express exactly what the committee, in its stage 1 report and its stage 2 considerations, wanted.
I must confess that I am somewhat at a loss to understand what additional standing or status would be created by Alex Neil's formulation. The minister has got it right; his is an elegant formulation. The provision is widely welcomed across the Gaelic community. I hope that Alex Neil will not press amendment 5. He should leave the bill as it stands in this important respect; that is the unanimous view of the chamber.
It is important to note that, so far, the bill has the support of members of the Education Committee and, at the stage 1 debate, it had the support of parties right across the chamber. That support should guide people well; it should also entrench the future of the Gaelic language, which, at the end of the day, is the substantial and central issue in this debate. I support the minister's position on amendment 5.
I too ask Alex Neil to reflect on the point that he is making in amendment 5.
The Education Committee debated the question of the status of the Gaelic language exhaustively. It is fair to say that we agreed that we want the most bold and comprehensive assertion and expression of the future of the Gaelic language. In doing so, we took a planning-based approach to the language, which is the one that is adopted by the bill, and not a rights-based approach.
It is misleading for Mr Neil to suggest that he wants to go further than members of the committee or the Executive wanted to go. It is also misleading to suggest that the use of the term "validity" is somehow stronger than the present wording of the bill. Unlike Mr Neil, the majority of committee members feared that the term "validity" did not add anything to the bill and that it could lead to problems of interpretation.
I ask Mr Neil to accept the consensus on the point and not to create artificial division. I also ask him not to press amendment 5. The Parliament wants to send a strong message to the Gaelic community that we are united in our respect for the Gaelic language and that we are unanimous on the equal status that the Gaelic language should enjoy.
As I have said before in the Parliament, the Conservative party has always shown its support for Gaelic-speaking people, the Gaelic language and Gaelic culture. We have done so ever since we tried to stop the Liberal Whig peers and their supporters perpetrating the Highland clearances. That was one of their first so-called social experiments. The Tories have always supported rural communities and we are as intent on keeping people in the Highland glens today as we were in the past.
In fact, we are the only party with a Gaelic name and the only party that was present in the old Scottish Parliament before the act of union of 1707. We are the true national party of Scotland. It makes us happy that, at least on Gaelic, the other parties in the chamber are obviously thinking what we are thinking.
It would be a sad day for devolution if Scotland did not bring renewed hope for Gaelic. Let us hope that the bill will provide a framework within which Gaelic is reinvigorated in the same way that the Conservative party reinvigorated it with incentives and injections of cash in the early 1980s.
That was very good, Mr McGrigor, but you did not speak to the amendment.
I ask Mr Neil to wind up and to say whether he will press or seek agreement to withdraw amendment 5.
I press amendment 5.
The question is, that amendment 5 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Byrne, Ms Rosemary (South of Scotland) (SSP)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Curran, Frances (West of Scotland) (SSP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Leckie, Carolyn (Central Scotland) (SSP)
Lochhead, Richard (North East Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Swinburne, John (Central Scotland) (SSCUP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Against
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McConnell, Mr Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Turner, Dr Jean (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Ind)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 27, Against 70, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 5 disagreed to.
Amendments 6 and 7 not moved.
Section 2—National Gaelic language plan
Amendment 9, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 10, 12, 15 and 22.
At the request of the Education Committee, I lodged an amendment at stage 2 that would require the national Gaelic language plan to be updated regularly. Provision is in place to ensure that the national plan will be updated at least every five years, or earlier if requested by ministers. Amendment 9 ensures that the five-yearly update applies from the date of approval of the most recent plan rather than every five years from the date on which the first plan is approved.
Amendments 10 and 12 are tidying-up provisions that remove the duplication of a provision enabling ministers to require Bòrd na Gàidhlig to prepare a new national Gaelic language plan at any time. The Education Committee accepted an amendment that I lodged at stage 2 that adds the national Gaelic language plan to the list of matters Bòrd na Gàidhlig must have regard to when determining whether to issue a notice to a public authority requiring the preparation of a Gaelic language plan. An unintended consequence of that amendment is that the bòrd cannot issue a notice until the first national plan is in place.
It is theoretically possible that there could be a delay between the commencement of the act and approval of the first national plan, although I do not expect there to be any such delay. However, it would not be right to leave the bòrd unable to issue a notice once the bill has been enacted. Amendment 15 is designed to take account of that theoretical situation by enabling the bòrd to issue a notice in the period between the commencement of the act and approval of the first national plan. That ceases to be an issue once the first national plan has been approved.
Amendment 22 is a tidying-up provision that introduces consistency between the matters that Bòrd na Gàidhlig must have regard to when determining whether to request a public authority to develop a language plan and the grounds on which a public authority may appeal the bòrd's decision to the Scottish ministers as being unreasonable.
I move amendment 9.
We support the amendments. Provision exists for the national language plan to be reviewed on a five-yearly basis. That will allow Bòrd na Gàidhlig to plan both for the longer term and within its five-yearly cycle without the threat of constant restructuring and refocusing of priorities. The provisions are sensible and will make for effective long-term planning, with sustained delivery, which is one of the bill's purposes.
Amendment 9 agreed to.
Amendment 10 moved—[Peter Peacock]—and agreed to.
Group 3 is on Gaelic education. Amendment 11, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 1, 4, 47, 40 and 48.
Education has been central to the debate on the bill as it has progressed through Parliament. I have made clear on a number of occasions my firm belief that Gaelic education is critical to the future prospects of the language. The Education Committee's stage 1 report clearly demonstrates that it is of the same opinion. As I have demonstrated on a number of occasions, where action needs to be taken on Gaelic education matters, I am prepared to take it. Shortly before the bill was introduced to Parliament, I issued guidance to education authorities on Gaelic-medium education, which requires education authorities to set out what constitutes "reasonable demand" for Gaelic education in their area and how they will respond to reasonable demand where it exists.
In May 2004, I announced financial assistance of £2.75 million to Glasgow City Council to assist its development of the first-ever, all-through Gaelic-medium school in Scotland. I also established a working group under the chairmanship of Bruce Robertson, Highland Council's director of education, to progress the development of a virtual Gaelic-medium secondary curriculum. I have established a short-life action group on Gaelic teacher recruitment to make recommendations to me before the summer of this year. I fully intend to remain active on all those fronts—and wider fronts—and for the Executive to continue to provide a lead in the on-going development of Gaelic education.
The bill as introduced to the Parliament contained provisions for Bòrd na Gàidhlig to issue guidance, which must be approved by ministers, on matters relating to Gaelic education. That provides Bòrd na Gàidhlig, as expert ministerial advisers on Gaelic education matters, with a clear, strategic education advisory role. At stage 2, I amended that provision to require the bòrd to issue a draft of its guidance for public consultation prior to its being submitted to ministers for approval, to ensure that all necessary interests could be put into the guidance. Those initiatives will ensure that the critical areas of Gaelic education that need to be addressed will be.
I have lodged two further amendments that will further enhance the development of Gaelic education. Amendment 40 will create linkages between any Gaelic language plan that an education authority produces under the bill and the discharge of its Gaelic-medium education duties under the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000. Amendment 11 will make explicit in the bill the fact that Bòrd na Gàidhlig, in developing a national Gaelic language plan, must—I stress that—include a strategy for the development of Gaelic education.
I am of the view that an education strategy should be placed in the national plan, which is a centrepiece of the bill. That strategy will allow the various strands of development activity that I have listed today to be pulled together and will provide an agreed national approach for the future development of Gaelic education in tandem with other aspects of Gaelic development that will be contained in the national plan.
It is my firmly held view that the education strategy that Bòrd na Gàidhlig is to develop within the national plan must be the product of discussion among the bòrd, the Executive, local authorities and other education interests, such as Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education. Only as a result of such partnership working will a strategy for the future development of Gaelic education be agreed, be fully mainstreamed and, ultimately, receive ministerial approval.
One of the clear benefits of having the national strategy for Gaelic education as a clear component of the bòrd's national plan is that, as a result of an amendment that I lodged at stage 2, all public bodies that develop Gaelic language plans under the bill must do so having regard to the national plan. That makes provision for individual language plans to be developed with a view to contributing to the implementation of the national language plan and, for bodies that are education authorities or have education responsibilities, to the implementation of the national Gaelic education strategy, which will be part of the national plan.
That is a neat and complete way of meeting the requests for a national education strategy. First, it ensures that such a strategy will exist. Secondly, it places that strategy firmly within the context of wider Gaelic development. Thirdly, it binds any body with an education function to ensure that its plan contributes to the national education strategy—that provision catches the Executive itself in its Gaelic language plan. Fourthly, it ensures that, as part of the national plan, the Gaelic education strategy will have to obtain ministerial approval, which ties ministers directly into the national education strategy and will ensure that they are satisfied with it.
That addresses all the points on which Highland Council in particular has been lobbying and which lie behind Fiona Hyslop's amendment 1 and John Farquhar Munro's amendment 47, which supports amendment 1. However, amendment 11 is stronger than Highland Council's suggestions, because it will ensure that the national education strategy fits within the national language plan while fulfilling everything else that Highland Council sought. In the light of that, I ask Fiona Hyslop not to move amendment 1 in the knowledge that what she seeks to achieve will be achieved far more powerfully. If she did that, John Farquhar Munro's amendment 47 would not be necessary.
One of the bill's key features is flexibility. I stated clearly during the stage 1 debate that the bill is not about imposing the Gaelic language plan on anyone where there is patently no demand for it. On Gaelic education in particular, I want resources to be targeted and deployed where they can have most impact. That means doing so where there is reasonable and sustainable demand for provision.
It was agreed at stage 2 that, while the bòrd should monitor and report on the implementation of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages in Scotland, the charter should not take the place of the bòrd's national Gaelic language plan as the key document for implementing the intentions of the bill. The same arguments apply to John Farquhar Munro's amendment 4.
If implemented, amendment 4 could have the effect of requiring all local authorities to provide pre-school, primary and secondary education through the medium of Gaelic. That is the force of the charter obligations. I have spoken to John Farquhar Munro and am aware that he did not intend his amendment to have that effect but seeks reassurance about the importance of the charter beyond the important reporting arrangements that were agreed at stage 2. I give him that reassurance. When issuing ministerial guidance to Bòrd na Gàidhlig on the exercise of its functions, I will require it to include in its guidance on language plans advice to education authorities on how they can act within the spirit of article 8 of the charter—which is what John Farquhar Munro is concerned about—while remaining consistent with the directions that are set out in the bòrd's national plan. In the light of what I have said, I ask John Farquhar Munro not to move amendment 4.
Fiona Hyslop's amendment 48 partly duplicates my amendment 40, which will require an education authority to discharge its Gaelic-medium education duties having regard to any Gaelic language plan that it has in place. I consider such provision to be entirely sensible, which is why at stage 2 I agreed to lodge such an amendment. However, there is a danger that the other part of Fiona Hyslop's amendment, which would delete the ability for an education authority to set out the circumstances in which it will deliver Gaelic-medium education, goes too far. Deleting that provision could have the result of requiring all education authorities, regardless of demand in their area, to make Gaelic-medium education available. Given what I have said about the need for flexible implementation of the bill and given the scarcity of resources, particularly teachers, I do not believe that it would be helpful to remove the provision that enables education authorities to set out the circumstances in which they will make Gaelic-medium education available.
As Dr Elaine Murray pointed out at stage 2, there are situations in which education authorities should be able to access provision from a neighbouring education authority rather than having to make provision themselves. With the development of a virtual curriculum and the new all-through school in Glasgow, such flexibility should be retained. I ask Fiona Hyslop not to move amendment 48, in the knowledge that provision is in place to ensure that Gaelic education provision will be made where there is demand for it and the potential for growth.
Both my amendments in this group relate to education. Amendment 11 stresses the need for an education strategy as part of the bòrd's national plan and amendment 40 establishes a link between the Standards in Scotland's Schools Act 2000, reporting requirements and any language plan that an education authority has in place.
I resist amendments 1, 4, 47 and 48, which would introduce an unwelcome measure of duplication and would significantly reduce the flexibility that has characterised the bill and the debate on it.
I move amendment 11.
I, too, make reference to the tenor of the debate that we have had as the bill has progressed through Parliament. The process has been constructive and I thank the minister for the responsive manner in which he has dealt with the queries and concerns of the committee and members, particularly in relation to education. During the progress of the bill, we have seen a gradual knitting together of the education measures that have been introduced in the bill and those in the Standards in Scotland's Schools Act 2000.
The minister made an important reference to the mainstreaming of Gaelic. I propose to ensure that we mainstream Gaelic-medium education in the education system. Education will be a vital part of the preservation and promotion of Gaelic.
The purpose of amendment 1 is to identify the Scottish Executive as having the lead responsibility in setting out a national strategy for promoting and developing Gaelic education. That position was supported by the committee at stage 1 and is supported by Highland Council, which has made constructive proposals and is, perhaps, the lead authority in the promotion of Gaelic-medium education. It should be congratulated on that.
The reasons why the Scottish Executive rather than the bòrd should take the lead on Gaelic education are practical. The bòrd should produce advice in the context of wider Gaelic issues. However, we should remember that the bòrd as described in the bill will have only between five and 11 members. It will not have responsibility for the Scottish Executive Education Department's budgets, the funding that is available to local authorities or the provision of education generally. It cannot advance changes to legislation or to statutory regulation. The bòrd will not have the same number of staff or the same knowledge or experience as the Executive has. It will advise on devising a plan or strategy, but resources should be mainstreamed in the Education Department.
The bòrd will not have responsibility for organisations such as the careers service or for co-ordinating among the Executive's departments policies on training, workforce planning, economic development, equal opportunities, culture, transport, lifelong learning, colleges or universities. Why is that important? It is important because the promotion of Gaelic-medium education is not just about advice and guidance on aspects of implementing legislation. In Edinburgh, it is about school transport. That is why the Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning Department is important.
Universities, colleges and training are also relevant. We had questions today and a debate yesterday about the involvement of part-time and second-degree teachers. We have a shortage of Gaelic teachers. I recognise that the minister has produced a national action group on teacher recruitment, which is welcomed, but nationally, we need at least 30 primary GME teachers and we are about to have only 20 this year. We need at least 10 secondary GME teachers, but only two will graduate this year. We also need at least 10 secondary Gaelic teachers nationally, whereas a maximum of five will graduate in 2005.
The bòrd may recognise the scale of what is required, but there is no way that it will have the power or influence to deliver on the strategy, so the Scottish Executive is the right place for the responsibility to lie. The Executive's national strategy could feed into the bòrd's provision and national plan as set out in the bill, but the bòrd should not take the lead responsibility for Gaelic-medium education or Gaelic education generally. That must lie with the Executive.
I appreciate the minister's amendments, but they and my amendment 48 are not mutually exclusive. He is right to add the promotion of Gaelic education—its absence from section 2 was notable—to what must be in the national Gaelic language plan, so we will support amendment 11. I welcome the minister's movement on that. However, the central issue is whether we expect every local authority at some point to be able to provide Gaelic-medium education and Gaelic education. I think that the Parliament's message is that it does expect that. I accept the minister's argument that that must be practical and deliverable, and I do not expect every local authority to have to provide that from day one. Any provision would be in the context of an authority's language plan as provided to Bòrd na Gàidhlig for approval by the minister.
I argue for planned obsolescence for a provision in the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000 that sets out the circumstances in which a local authority provides Gaelic-medium education. That would not disappear overnight. Amendment 48 says that, when each local authority has provided Bòrd na Gàidhlig with a plan on the provision of Gaelic-medium education, the opt-out in the 2000 act, which discusses the circumstances in which local authorities provide Gaelic-medium education, will disappear over time. Eventually, the provision in the 2000 act would no longer be relevant.
Amendment 48 would send out a strong message. It is practical and sits in the context of Peter Peacock's amendments. The shift in the course of the bill's consideration towards putting education more centre stage in the bill is welcome. In that frame of mind, I also accept John Farquhar Munro's point about how we manage the national strategy. His points are well made.
If the Parliament wants to send out the clear message that Gaelic-medium education will not just be preserved in the few local authorities that can provide it now but will continue and will develop, my amendments would allow us to take a step further towards making that commitment.
I speak in favour of amendments 1 and 48.
Tha mi toilichte dha-rìridh a bhith an-diugh a-staigh an seo, far a bheil cothrom againn a bhith a' deasbad ghnothaichean timcheall air Gàidhlig agus fàilte a chur air a' bhile Ghàidhlig ùir a tha a' dol tro Phàrlamaid Dhùn Èideann.
Nise, mar a tha fhios aig a h-uile, bha mi a' dol a thogail puing no dhà gus adhartas no neartachadh a chur anns a' bhile. Ach bhon a thàinig mi a-staigh an seo, dh'èist mi ris na thuirt am ministear mu dheidhinn dè cho math 's a tha e air a bhith a' dèanamh agus an ùidh a tha air a bhith aige anns a' bhile, tha mi a-nis dhen bheachd gum biodh e mòran nas freagarraiche nan seasainn air ais agus na puingean sin fhàgail sin leis a' mhinistear.
Bhon a thàinig am bile a-staigh an toiseach chun na Pàrlamaid, bha feadhainn ann an saoghal na Gàidhlig a' gearain gun robh gnothaichean anns am bile car lag. Ach bhon uair sin, tha sinn air èisteachd fhaighinn bhon mhinistear, is sluagh bhon Ghaidhealtachd is bho Alba air fad air tighinn a-staigh a chur beachdan air a bheulaibh agus air beulaibh nam ball Pàrlamaid. Tha an èisteachd a fhuair iad follaiseach anns a' bhile a tha air beulaibh Pàrlamaid an-diugh. Leis an sin, tha mi toilichte na h-atharrachaidhean 4 agus 47 a tharraing air ais. Fàgaidh mi e aig a' mhinistear airson neartachadh a thoirt dhan bhile a bheir toileachas dhan h-uile duine aig a bheil ùidh ann an Gàidhlig.
I am pleased that today the Parliament has the opportunity to debate Gaelic matters and, in particular, to welcome the new Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill that is to be passed by the Parliament.
As members know, I had intended to make a few points about strengthening the bill, but having listened to how well the minister is doing, it would be much more appropriate to stand back and to leave that to him.
There have been complaints in the Gaelic world that the bill is somewhat weak, but since its introduction, people from all over Scotland, including the Highlands, have come to the Parliament to speak to members and the minister. The Executive's amendments to the bill make it quite clear that the minister has listened to what they said. I am pleased not to move amendments 4 and 47 and to leave the strengthening of the bill to the minister.
A considerable number of members want to speak, so I will restrict them to a tight two minutes.
I support the amendments of John Farquhar Munro—which I had thought would be moved—and Fiona Hyslop. I echo what Highland Council says. It is closely engaged with some of the Executive's working groups, which are looking into a range of issues that should be covered by a national plan, such as those to do with teacher supply and Gaelic teaching. The council is encouraged that the Minister for Education and Young People is considering how to tackle some of the challenges that face Gaelic education and, by establishing those groups, is acknowledging that he rather than Bòrd na Gàidhlig is ultimately responsible for education provision. The council feels that ministerial oversight is essential to ensure that Gaelic is not developed in a vacuum, but operates on a cross-sectoral, cross-departmental level. I very much agree, and that is why I support the amendments of John Farquhar Munro and Fiona Hyslop.
The bill seeks to put Gaelic into the main stream of Scottish society, so I do not want even part of it to be hived off. Like education, Gaelic education should be the responsibility of the Minister for Education and Young People. I do not think that the bill is bad without amendments 1, 4, 47 and 48, but they would make it better.
It has been recognised from the outset that education must form one of the central planks of what must be achieved in Gaelic. It is acknowledged across the board that the administrative and strategic responsibilities must lie with Scottish ministers, who are accountable to the Parliament. It is important to recognise that democratic link to ministers' powers and I do not think that Fiona Hyslop's amendments do that. The device that she has used is rather clumsy and her proposal would not work in the right way.
What ought to happen is what the minister suggests: proposals from the bòrd should be considered and approved by the Executive and should then feed into progress on mainstream education. On issues such as teacher supply, it is vital that the Minister for Education and Young People and the local authorities have the lead role and the operational responsibility.
John Farquhar Munro's amendment 4 mentions the European charter. At stage 2, I suggested that a requirement should be inserted in the bill that would mean that, in its reports to the Parliament, the bòrd should make reference to the extent to which the European charter is being dealt with. It is important that the matter is dealt with in that way, because I do not think that the provisions of such international arrangements—which have been designed more generally—can be incorporated by by-blow and applied to the particulars of the Gaelic situation, which has peculiarities of its own. In that regard, it is appropriate that the minister's amendments should be supported. They fit very well with the views of the Education Committee.
I welcome amendment 11 and John Farquhar Munro's comments. I say in response to one of the points that Fiona Hyslop made that although the plan is the responsibility of the bòrd, its implementation is the responsibility of Scottish ministers. Therefore if the bill is amended in the way that the minister suggests, the national plan will require ministers to plan for not just the preservation and promotion of the Gaelic language but the promotion of Gaelic education in its widest sense, which includes, as well as Gaelic-medium education, learning Gaelic as a second language in schools and in adult education. In areas such as Dumfries and Galloway, the second and third aspects might be a more important part of the plan than GME.
The bill will also require ministers to promote Gaelic culture, which we all know is important to Scotland's cultural heritage and international image. I see the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport sitting in front of me and I am sure that she would confirm that Gaelic culture makes a valuable contribution to all three parts of her portfolio.
I urge members to resist any amendments that would restrict the way in which authorities such as Dumfries and Galloway Council and Scottish Borders Council can make provision to meet parents' demands for Gaelic-medium education. Members will know that in areas of the south of Scotland, there is concern about the structure in the bill being too rigid. We have tried to make the bill as flexible as possible so that the local plans can reflect the needs and aspirations of each community. I urge members to resist amendments that would restrict local authorities in the south of Scotland in developing those plans.
I have great respect for Mr John Farquhar Munro and I thought that his amendments had considerably more merit than he thought they had. However, given that he is not moving them, I will leave it at that.
On amendment 11, the Executive has made it explicit in the bill that Gaelic education should form a distinct part of the national Gaelic language plan. We welcome that and believe that it makes amendment 1 unnecessary. Executive amendment 40 is in conflict with amendment 48. The first part of amendment 48 would delete section 5(2)(c) of the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000, which would remove education authorities' ability to give an account of the circumstances in which they will provide Gaelic-medium education, in a way that could result in all education authorities being required to make provision for Gaelic-medium education. That might be called the Dumfries and Galloway question, which Elaine Murray has spoken about. That requirement would apply regardless of whether there was demand for such provision or whether Gaelic-medium education provision might be accessed more appropriately through a neighbouring education authority provider. We do not want to remove education authorities' ability to determine how best education in their locality should be provided.
I agree with those points and the points that Elaine Murray made. I do not expect that the guidance that the bòrd produces will say that, as of day one, every single authority will have to provide Gaelic-medium education. There will be flexibility, in which case there would not be a conflict between amendments 40 and 48.
The point to remember is that we can always revisit the issue. If there is any question of the bòrd not coming up to scratch and doing its job professionally and properly, of course Parliament will be able to consider that. However, I am confident that the bòrd will do a good job, and I believe that the minister should be supported, because he has got it right. We do not hesitate to say when we do not think that he has got it right so, in fairness, we should be objective on the matter. My recommendation is that we support the minister's amendments.
During the course of the Education Committee's deliberation on the bill, we came to acknowledge and accept the central role of education, in particular Gaelic-medium education, in the survival and future growth of the Gaelic language. It is worth reminding the Parliament that it is on education that the Executive has travelled furthest and has done most to create and build the consensus in the Gaelic community and in Parliament that now surrounds the bill. We should give the minister due credit for that.
To my mind, amendments 11 and 40 address the residual concerns that the committee raised at stage 2. The minister has outlined the importance of and need for the education strategy and I welcome his comments. However, we should acknowledge that there are complications when it comes to discussing education, in particular Gaelic education. There is a role for the Executive, local authorities, the General Teaching Council for Scotland, teacher training colleges and Bòrd na Gàidhlig. Those matters will have to be given due consideration and deliberation.
There was some confusion at stage 2 about the implications of Ms Hyslop's amendment 48, which was felt to be over-prescriptive. Nevertheless, we accept the central thrust of the amendment, which is to make the connection between the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000 and the Gaelic (Scotland) Bill. Amendment 40 does that. I urge Ms Hyslop to follow the example of John Farquhar Munro and not to move her amendments 1 and 48.
I welcome members' support for the amendments that the Executive has lodged and I welcome the arguments that they have made. Robert Brown is correct in saying that we have tried to get the right balance. I acknowledge the points that Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and Elaine Murray made about the Dumfries and Galloway question, which is the reason for section 5(2)(c) of the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000. As Lord James said—and as, I think, Ken Macintosh said at stage 2—there will be further moves or legislation on Gaelic in the future. If things are not working properly, the situation can be rectified at that point.
I also welcome the statesmanlike way in which John Farquhar Munro has handled the matter. He and I go back a long way. We were both members of the former Highland Regional Council and then the Highland Council. I pay tribute to the work that he did over many years in those organisations and when he led Skye and Lochalsh District Council. John Farquhar also worked with a group of politicians from Western Isles Council, including the Rev Jack MacArthur, and from Highland Council, including Duncan Grant from Lochalsh and latterly Dunvegan, James Henderson from Lochaber, and Neil McKechnie from Dingwall, who made a colossal difference to all that we are doing today. In fact, they are the origins of much of what we are doing on Gaelic-medium education. But for the contributions of John Farquhar Munro, the people I have mentioned and many others, we would not be having this debate.
We all share the same objective—to strengthen Gaelic education strategy—we simply choose different paths. As a former leader of Highland Council, I do not like to disagree with it; however, what lies behind its amendment is simply mistaken. It would be wrong to establish the powers of the bòrd, which we have strengthened throughout the bill, and then excise Gaelic education from the centre of its work and the national plan, which is where the Executive envisages that it should be. It would be wrong to have a minister acting apart from the national plan on a matter that is clearly integral to the whole development of the national plan and Gaelic development.
Nevertheless, I agree with Highland Council, Fiona Hyslop and others that ministers need to be tied into the strategy and must provide a lead in Gaelic-medium education. I have indicated the ways in which I have been trying to ensure that, and my intention is to continue to do that. I believe that my formulation, which is in the Executive's amendments, genuinely achieves that and links the education strategy into the national plan, ensuring that there will be a national education strategy after full consultation. It also ensures that the arguments that Fiona Hyslop made about ensuring that education relates to transport and further education will be covered in the national language plan, which will be an all-embracing document.
My formulation will place education in that context and will bind every public body that has an education responsibility to complement the strategy through its own strategy. It also binds in the Executive, which will produce its own language plan within which there will be an education strategy. Ultimately, it will also require ministerial approval, which ties ministers into considering the national language plan and its education strategy and giving ministerial authority to that plan. Ministers are clearly tied in.
There is one small contradiction in Highland Council's position, which I do not want to pick up unduly. One of the arguments that the council makes—which I find flattering, although I do not hold it to be true—is that it can trust me because I have a record of trying to do things for Gaelic. The implication is that all my successors cannot be trusted. I simply do not believe that. However, if that were to be true, it would surely be in everybody's interest to ensure that the bòrd, which sits apart from ministers, carries the responsibility for ensuring that there is a Gaelic education strategy.
The minister will recall that I, too, complimented him on his actions on Gaelic in general and in relation to the bill. Does he not agree that, if the Executive's responsibility for producing a national strategy was prescribed in the bill, even if the scenario that he has mentioned came about and a minister followed him who was not as acutely responsible, that minister would still have to provide the strategy to comply with the legislation, regardless of his personal preferences?
With respect, I think that that is in the bill. Amendment 11 seeks to insert in the bill a requirement for the national plan to include a clear education strategy. Because other public bodies, including the Executive, will have to follow or have regard to the national plan in producing their own strategies, we are caught by that provision. That strong, interlocking approach achieves all that Highland Council wants and indeed does so more powerfully than the approaches outlined in the other amendments that have been lodged. As a result, I commend amendment 11 to the chamber.
Amendment 11 agreed to.
Amendment 12 moved—[Peter Peacock]—and agreed to.
Section 3—Gaelic language plans
Group 4 is on the definition of public authorities. Amendment 13, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 14, 16 to 20, 21, 23, 24, 26 to 29, 32 to 39, 41, 45, 42, 8 and 44.
Amendment 41 discharges the commitment that I gave in response to an amendment that was lodged by Alex Neil at stage 2 to make it clear in the bill that all cross-border public authorities are included in it in so far as they exercise devolved functions. A series of consequential amendments alters "Scottish public authority" to "relevant authority".
On amendment 45, in the name of Alex Neil, which concerns the Food Standards Agency, I have received a letter from the FSA in which it commits to approaching Bòrd na Gàidhlig voluntarily to develop Gaelic language provision. Such an approach will benefit Gaelic language speakers and is the sort of action that I want as a result of the bill. Indeed, I believe that no matter whether amendment 45 is agreed to, that represents the best way of proceeding with the FSA. I want public bodies to approach the bill's passing in the spirit in which it is intended, to take full account of their local circumstances and to consider the action that they can take to support the Gaelic language. I encourage them to consider proactively how their work could benefit Gaelic speakers and how to build on the clear spirit of generosity and good will that has developed as a result of the bill's passage.
As I explained, Bòrd na Gàidhlig wished a spirit of generosity and good will to be taken towards the Gaelic language, and I will approach amendment 45 in that very spirit. I am content to accept the amendment, which would provide for the FSA to be treated as a cross-border public authority for the purposes of the bill. I am perhaps astonished to find that Alex Neil's drafting of the amendment is not unhelpful.
I move amendment 13, and am happy to accept amendment 45.
I have nearly been knocked off my chair.
I thank the minister for the ultimate sacrifice and his generosity in accepting amendment 45. Perhaps I should give the chamber a brief history behind the amendment. The FSA holds a unique position in the United Kingdom constitution as the only non-ministerial Government department. Ironically, the legal advice that the Executive gave us at stage 2 ran contrary to the advice that the committee received from the Parliament's legal people, who said that the FSA was not technically a cross-border agency. I am glad that the minister has now recognised that the Parliament's legal advice was bang on and that the Executive's advice was, to say the least, slightly wrong.
It is right to build the provision into the bill. I accept that, in any case, the FSA has given in writing its commitment to co-operate. However, the acceptance of amendment 45 means that if there are any problems with any future Administration, including the FSA, the bòrd or the Scottish Executive, we will not need to revisit primary legislation.
I thank the minister for accepting amendment 45. He will be glad to know that we will vote for all his other amendments.
I congratulate Alex Neil. His amendment 45 will be remembered because it confirms what we always suspected: lawyers are far from being infallible. Like Alex Neil, we are very glad to support all 27 amendments.
Amendment 13 agreed to.
Amendments 14 to 16 moved—[Peter Peacock]—and agreed to.
Amendment 1 moved—[Fiona Hyslop].
The question is, that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Byrne, Ms Rosemary (South of Scotland) (SSP)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Curran, Frances (West of Scotland) (SSP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Leckie, Carolyn (Central Scotland) (SSP)
Lochhead, Richard (North East Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP)
Against
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McConnell, Mr Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Swinburne, John (Central Scotland) (SSCUP)
Tosh, Murray (West of Scotland) (Con)
Turner, Dr Jean (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Ind)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 23, Against 73, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 1 disagreed to.
Amendment 4 not moved.
Is it possible for me to move amendments 17 to 21 inclusive?
It is not. I am sorry about that.
Amendments 17 and 18 moved—[Peter Peacock] and agreed to.
Amendment 47 not moved.
Amendment 19 moved—[Peter Peacock]—and agreed to.
Section 4—Review of, and appeal against, notices
Amendments 20 to 23 moved—[Peter Peacock]—and agreed to.
Section 5—Approval of plans
Amendment 24 moved—[Peter Peacock]—and agreed to.
Group 5 is on approval of plans. Amendment 25, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 49, 30 and 31.
I draw members' attention to amendment 49, which was lodged as a manuscript amendment and published in the supplement to the marshalled list.
Section 5(1) makes provision for Bòrd na Gàidhlig to approve or propose modifications to a Gaelic language plan that is submitted to it. At stage 2, the Education Committee accepted an amendment that introduced certain criteria at subsection 5(1A) to which the bòrd must have regard when considering whether to approve the plan or propose modifications under section 5(1). Amendment 25 is a tidying-up amendment that makes that linkage explicit.
I apologise to members for the fact that amendment 49 was submitted in manuscript form after the deadline for lodging amendments, but it is a necessary technical amendment to correct a minor drafting error that has come to light. At stage 2, I accepted an amendment that introduced a timescale for ministers to make a decision on the final content of a Gaelic language plan where agreement cannot be reached between Bòrd na Gàidhlig and a public authority. A cross-reference between the new provision that was introduced at stage 2 and the subsection of the bill as originally drafted was made incorrectly. Amendment 49 corrects that mistake; no substantive policy issue is involved.
The bill has been developed to ensure that Gaelic development can be approached in a flexible and proportionate manner, according to local circumstances. With that principle in mind, amendment 30 provides flexibility for a public authority to publish its Gaelic language plan in such manner as it thinks fit, having regard to any guidance that is given by the bòrd. The provision provides for publication according to local circumstances while retaining a strategic overview role for Bòrd na Gàidhlig in the process of the publication of language plans.
Amendment 31 is a tidying-up provision. It makes clear that the requirement for a relevant authority to implement its plan, once it has been approved by Bòrd na Gàidhlig or Scottish ministers, must be in accordance with its plan and, therefore, the timescales that the relevant authority has set out in its plan under section 3(4)(b).
I move amendment 25.
The amendments improve the bill considerably and we welcome them.
I take it that the minister does not need to sum up.
Amendment 25 agreed to.
Amendments 26 to 28, 49 and 29 to 31 moved—[Peter Peacock]—and agreed to.
Section 6—Monitoring of implementation
Amendments 32 to 35 moved—[Peter Peacock]—and agreed to.
Section 7—Review of plans
Amendments 36 and 37 moved—[Peter Peacock]—and agreed to.
Section 8—Guidance, assistance, etc by the Bòrd
Amendments 38 and 39 moved—[Peter Peacock]—and agreed to.
Section 9—Guidance on Gaelic education
Amendment 40 moved—[Peter Peacock]—and agreed to.
Amendment 48 moved—[Fiona Hyslop].
The question is, that amendment 48 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Byrne, Ms Rosemary (South of Scotland) (SSP)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Curran, Frances (West of Scotland) (SSP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Leckie, Carolyn (Central Scotland) (SSP)
Lochhead, Richard (North East Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP)
Against
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Swinburne, John (Central Scotland) (SSCUP)
Turner, Dr Jean (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Ind)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 23, Against 70, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 48 disagreed to.
Section 10—Interpretation
Amendment 41 moved—[Peter Peacock]—and agreed to.
Amendment 45 moved—[Alex Neil]—and agreed to.
Amendment 42 moved—[Peter Peacock]—and agreed to.
Schedule 1
Bòrd na Gàidhlig
Group 6 is on members of Bòrd na Gàidhlig. Amendment 2, in the name of John Farquhar Munro, is grouped with amendment 3.
Tha mi toilichte a dh'èirigh a bhruidhinn a-rithist ann an Gàidhlig air an latha mòr seo ann an eachdraidh nan Gaidheal. Tha mi toilichte leis mar a chaidh cùisean suas chun an seo.
Tha na puingean a tha mi airson togail an-dràsta a' bualadh air na buill a bhios a' suidhe air Bòrd na Gàidhlig. Tha mi dhen bheachd gum biodh e gu math freagarrach nam biodh buill a' bhùird fileanta ann an Gàidhlig. Chan eil sin a' ciallachadh gu bheil mi an aghaidh duine sam bith eile aig nach eil Gàidhlig a' tighinn faisg air a' bhòrd. Tha mi airson cothrom a bhith aig a' bhòrd duine sam bith a thaghadh aig a bheil sgilean proifeiseanta a nì feum dhan bhòrd. Leis an sin, chan eil mi a' faicinn gun dèanadh na h-atharrachaidhean milleadh mòr air obair a' bhùird. Tha am bile ag ràdh gum bi ballrachd a' bhùird air a dhèanamh suas de
"gun a bhith nas lugha na 5, no nas motha na 11, buill chumanta".
Tha sin freagarrach gu leòr. Ach chan eil mi a' faicinn carson gu bheil sin a' ciallachadh nach biodh cothrom aig a' bhòrd a tharraing duine sam bith a dhèanadh feum no cuideachadh dha.
Tha mi dhen bheachd gum biodh e gu math freagarrach dà phuing a chur còmhla ann an atharrachadh 2 agus atharrachadh 3, a tha a' bualadh air fear-cathrach a' bhùird. Tha mi dhen bheachd gur còir an neach-cathrach a bhith fileanta ann an Gàidhlig. Leis an sin, tha mi a' cur air beulaibh na Pàrlamaid gur còir buill Bòrd na Gàidhlig, agus gu h-àraid fear-cathrach a' bhùird, a bhith fileanta ann an Gàidhlig.
Tha mi a' gluasad atharrachadh 2.
Again, I am pleased to stand here and speak in the Gaelic language. This is a historic day for the Gaels and I am very pleased with matters up to now. The points that I wish to raise relate to the members who will sit on Bòrd na Gàidhlig. I think that it would be very appropriate if the members of the bòrd were fluent Gaelic speakers. That does not mean that we would want to prevent anyone who does not have Gaelic from coming anywhere near the bòrd. I want the bòrd to have the opportunity to select people who have professional skills that would be useful to it. I do not think that the amendments will create any great difficulty for the bòrd's work. The bill states that the bòrd should have
"no fewer than 5, nor more than 11"
members, which is appropriate. However, I do not see why the bòrd should not have the opportunity to attract people who it believes could be useful to it.
I thought that it would be useful to bring together two points in amendments 2 and 3. Amendment 3 relates to the chair of the bòrd. I am of the opinion that the chair should be a fluent Gaelic speaker. I suggest to the Parliament that the members and, in particular, the chair of Bòrd na Gàidhlig should be fluent Gaelic speakers.
I move amendment 2.
Amendments 2 and 3 are very much the work of John Farquhar Munro. As one would expect on a subject of this nature, his wise counsel should be heeded. He is saying that members of the bòrd should be able to speak the Gaelic language. His amendments go far deeper than just the issue of Gaelic. If we are to pursue excellence, we must have highly qualified individuals who know what they are talking about and what they are saying.
John Farquhar Munro speaks Gaelic extremely well. I have no doubt that, if a poll were taken of all others who speak Gaelic, they would agree almost unanimously that the bòrd, which is to spearhead the promotion and encouragement of Gaelic in Scotland, should include people with a range of different experiences and expertise, but that it would not be unreasonable to insist that they should all have the Gaelic. One would invariably find that members of boards for the promotion of French, German or Italian would have a basic knowledge of the subject concerned. I understand that the bòrd's proceedings will be conducted mainly in Gaelic, so a working knowledge of Gaelic should be a prerequisite of membership. We should not shrink from the promotion of minimum standards. It will be a dark day when the Parliament is afraid of recognising merit or the pursuit of excellence. It cannot be suggested that it is unreasonable for members of the bòrd to have the Gaelic.
One or two names have popped on and off my screen. If members wish to speak, they should be clear that their request-to-speak buttons are on.
I support the amendments in the name of John Farquhar Munro. We think that it is sensible that the members and, in particular, the chair of a board that is appointed with the express purpose of promoting Gaelic should be Gaelic-speaking people. For the reasons that Lord James Douglas-Hamilton outlined, it would be a perfectly sensible proposition to have Gaelic speakers running the show as far as the promotion of the Gaelic language is concerned. The Scottish National Party is happy to support—in English, unfortunately—amendments 2 and 3.
I understand clearly what drives John Farquhar Munro on this issue and have some sympathy with the sentiments behind his amendments. I expect that the working language of Bòrd na Gàidhlig will always be Gaelic. If not all the members of the bòrd are fluent speakers, a clear majority of them always should be. I cannot envisage circumstances in which the chair of the bòrd would not be a Gaelic speaker.
The make-up of the current bòrd demonstrates that a potential candidate's mastery of the language will be a matter to which ministers will have regard when making appointments. However, as John Farquhar Munro said at stage 1, the bòrd must welcome support from people who do not speak Gaelic, but who have special skills and interests. For absolute clarity, in case I did not understand properly what John Farquhar Munro said, the bòrd has no power under the bill to co-opt members who are non-Gaelic speakers on to the bòrd, and although it can create committees on to which members can be co-opted, those members would have no voting rights. So it is not possible to co-opt a non-Gaelic speaker on to the main bòrd in the way that I think John Farquhar Munro suggested.
I agree with the point that was made in the Education Committee's stage 1 report that the ability to speak Gaelic should not be prescribed in statute as a prerequisite for bòrd membership. The committee recognised that there might be benefit in ministers having flexibility to appoint members with, for example, experience of the development of another minority language. I can also envisage a circumstance in which people who have empathy with the language, who understand the threats that it faces, who are experienced in public policy development in education, for example, could make a positive contribution to the work of the bòrd.
Without wanting to be pedantic, I do not wish to get into circumstances in which any minister has to make fine judgments about an individual's level of language skill in order to make an appointment to the bòrd. I can think of a number of people—some of whom sat in the past where Alex Neil sits today—who might not be regarded as fluent Gaelic speakers, but who I would not want to be prevented from making a contribution to the bòrd if they were otherwise suitable.
That said, I repeat that I cannot envisage a circumstance in which the clear majority of bòrd members will not be fluent Gaelic speakers and further, I make it clear that I expect that Gaelic will always be the working language of the bòrd. I cannot envisage a circumstance ever when the chair would not be a Gaelic speaker.
With those assurances, I ask John Farquhar Munro not to press amendment 2.
I clarify that I suggested that anybody who had an expertise or professionalism from whom the bòrd wanted to take advice could be taken not on to the bòrd, but into a committee meeting where the bòrd could make use of their expertise and professionalism, even though they were not a Gaelic speaker. I suggested clearly that all members of the bòrd should be Gaelic speakers.
With those few words, I press amendment 2.
The question is, that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Byrne, Ms Rosemary (South of Scotland) (SSP)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (North East Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP)
Swinburne, John (Central Scotland) (SSCUP)
Turner, Dr Jean (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Ind)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Against
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Abstentions
Curran, Frances (West of Scotland) (SSP)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Leckie, Carolyn (Central Scotland) (SSP)
The result of the division is: For 37, Against 57, Abstentions 3.
Amendment 2 disagreed to.
Amendment 3 not moved.
Amendment 8 moved—[Peter Peacock]—and agreed to.
Long Title
Amendment 43 moved—[Peter Peacock]—and agreed to.
Amendment 46 not moved.
Amendment 44 moved—[Peter Peacock]—and agreed to.