Chamber and committees

I have no need to wind up, other than to say that I think that we have an agreed way forward.

Amendment 3 agreed to.

Amendments 4 and 5 not moved.

Amendments 6 and 7 moved—[Kate Forbes]—and agreed to.

Section 4, as amended, agreed to.

After section 4

I will make a couple of points. As I said in a previous debate, I would envisage that, in areas of linguistic significance in particular, an intensive monitoring exercise would be required. If we simply take the top level of figures, which is the overall number, that can tell us different stories. By and large, however, it is currently telling us that there is a rise in the number of speakers. We around this table know that that does not tell the full story, because the general national rise in people with Gaelic-speaking skills may mask what is happening in traditional communities, and we believe that those traditional communities would be the foremost contenders to be areas of linguistic significance.

I would envisage there being a requirement on public bodies, with the support of Bòrd na Gàidhlig, to evaluate the number of speakers, set out targets and monitor the success of those targets, which would inevitably require consideration of the number of speakers.

Their primary responsibility would be to increase the number of speakers and increase the depth of that understanding and that fluency in those local areas and, if we have not done so already, to look at a requirement to report in those areas. That is intensively local.

On parliamentary scrutiny, I dare not criticise the Parliament, but if there is a criticism of Government here, there is also perhaps a criticism of the Parliament for not taking sufficient interest in some of these issues—which this committee has done a lot to repair, to its credit. The way that this committee has taken evidence is commendable.

However, personally—if a Government minister dare say this—I would like to see the Parliament taking more of an interest, more regularly, in scrutinising the progress and the success of Gaelic language policies. I would like to see the Parliament asking ministers to report on that or to give further information—basically, for ministers to be scrutinised and held to account for what is or is not happening. There is nothing to stop that from happening right now.

That is a compelling argument for why I believe that this reporting should be done on an intensely localised basis. It is key to monitor progress within local communities. Even if you were to take a single island, the island of Skye, and look at the figures across that island, that would not tell you much about the health of the communities where the population is highly dense, in the north of the island.

Where we might want to move further is on how to report regularly to the Parliament on progress in the areas of linguistic significance, according to the plans that will have been established in those intensely local areas and on whether they are proving to be successful or not. That is where I whole-heartedly agree with the member and where I think that doing it purely on a national basis does not meet the aims and the ambitions.

Michael Marra’s amendment 67 requires us to look at the extent to which certain issues have been addressed by the bill’s provisions and at what other issues exist in relation to Gaelic communities and the use of the Gaelic language. Those are very laudable aims, but they are most relevant when applied to traditional Gaelic-speaking communities, so I think that that reporting should be done with regard to those areas. At the moment, the position would be that, if an area were designated as an area of linguistic significance, with a plan in place, that plan should then be monitored after consultation with local stakeholders.

On amendment 47, I take Michael Marra’s point that it does not have to be census methodology, but if there is a requirement to publish a report on the number of Gaelic language speakers in Scotland every two years, we may actually see very little fluctuation in those figures. We may see, for example, that more children are learning Gaelic, but the process is very resource intensive for getting quite a high-level view. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, there might be merit in looking at how we include more parliamentary scrutiny in the reporting, without going down the route of national high-level census figures every two years.

On amendment 67, which is about reporting on the specific issues that the bill seeks to address, that sort of thing is done at an intensely local level. If the Gaelic community plan for a particular locality says, “The three priorities here are X, Y and Z,” the question is how the Parliament scrutinises whether any of those plans are successful. There could be an amendment to that effect as part of the areas of linguistic significance requirements.

My understanding is that that is correct. When it comes to the 2005 act, we are aware that data gathering has been a challenge and that we need to do more on that. The committee, too, flagged a criticism about the robustness of the data that we gather. That was a frequent refrain from the committee, so amendment 55 highlights our commitment on that.

I turn to the other amendments. Amendment 47, from my reading of it, would essentially create a requirement to report on the number of Gaelic speakers, at the level at which the census reports, every two years. While we would not argue with the desire to have far more frequent reporting on progress among Gaelic speakers, our sense is that, considering that it takes quite a long time to do the census, the strict schedules in amendment 47 would require a significant amount of resources and staffing. Again, the risk is that that would distract from the urgent need for action by focusing resources on reporting rather than delivery. There are also deeper questions around the methodology that would be involved in such reporting, which would have to be settled before making it a requirement on ministers. The reason why we lodged amendment 55 was to address that issue. In a way, it is less onerous and will, we hope, provide a greater depth of information.

Amendment 67 concerns a desire for more information and would require reporting on particular issues. The Gaelic language strategy and standards are the way for us to assess the issues that affect the language and its communities. There is a concern that the requirements in this amendment would, again, require a significant resource investment that would focus efforts away from the delivery of the bill’s measures. Again, we have lodged amendment 55 to try to address the issue.

I have previously stated that the challenges facing Gaelic require action across a range of issues relating to social and economic matters as much as to the themes of education, institutional planning and community development that will be the main focus of the bill. Interventions are under way that indicate the Government’s recognition of the need to provide a comprehensive approach to the language.

I am heartened by your comments, convener. If we take what you, Ross Greer and Willie Rennie have all shared—and what I imagine other committee members may go on to share—we can see that there is a cross-party consensus on the need to move. The only difference between the two amendments in this group is the extent to which things would happen now or after some preparatory work. I emphasise that the Government would expect any preparatory work to happen at pace.

Representatives of Sabhal Mòr Ostaig have commented to me on the need for other bodies in the public sector to engage well with the college to reach the end point. Ross Greer’s amendment 66 is timestamped in requiring the proposed review to happen within a year. It would introduce a duty to ensure that the review is laid before Parliament, therefore inviting parliamentary scrutiny—it requires a report to be written, which considers all the various points.

I am very sympathetic to Willie Rennie’s amendment 95, although a few minor issues would need to be considered before it could progress. We would want to define in law the changes that would happen as a result of designation as a “small specialist institution”, because that does not have a definition in law right now. It should also be noted that it is not wholly within the gift of ministers to determine whether an institution has degree-awarding powers—that is for the Privy Council. There are some outstanding issues that need to be resolved that do not entirely sit on Sabhal Mòr Ostaig’s shoulders. In fact, other parts of the public sector will be required to engage well with those issues—for example, there are questions about funding.

Sabhal Mòr Ostaig is a very important part of the Gaelic community and of our higher and further education community. It is the national centre for Gaelic language, education and culture. In fact, we cannot meet any of the aims and objectives in the bill, or in our policy and strategy, without Sabhal Mòr Ostaig, so it must play an important role for many years to come.

Both amendments in the group indicate the need to move. Our position is that we will support Ross Greer’s amendment 66, on conducting a review. We want that review to be done well and for Sabhal Mòr Ostaig to be well supported at the point that it becomes either a small specialist institution or an institution with another status. That review needs to be done, and it needs to be done well, which requires a little time .

We will not vote against Willie Rennie’s amendment 95, in recognition of the important points that he highlights, but we think that it is important that the preparatory work is done and that other parts of the public sector engage well with that review, and that Parliament has an opportunity to respond to the report, which will be laid in a timestamped manner.

I want to be clear about the value that we place on Sabhal Mòr Ostaig and that we see the amendments as two different routes to get to our end goal. Some preparatory work is required first for Sabhal Mòr Ostaig to have the best chances of success.

I wonder whether we should consider that jointly with my earlier commitment to Michael Marra on regular reporting and evidence gathering in order to monitor progress. If I understand Ross Greer correctly, what he really wants to find out is whether we are making progress according to the aspirations that we have set. I would ask who is best to do the reporting and the evidence gathering, and how we ensure that that evidence is robust, because it is one thing to write a report that highlights all the activities that have been undertaken in a year and quite another to write one that monitors whether those activities have been in any way impactful. I wonder whether there is a bit of a crossover of the members’ aspirations here, so I would be very happy to consider in the round the issues of who is best to report, on what basis, how frequently and with what evidence.

Again, my thanks for the amendments.

Since the passing of the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005, data gathering in relation to Gaelic policy has been an issue. In this debate so far and in previous debates, we have heard about the consequences of the lack of data. My amendment 55 will improve the quality and extent of data gathering by public bodies in relation to their Gaelic policies and the implementation of the Gaelic language strategy. It will also create a framework for providing training and encouraging or assisting others to do those tasks. Those actions will be to the benefit of the strategy’s implementation and will address a concern that has been raised about the assessment of Gaelic language plans since the passage of the 2005 act. We recognise the importance of data and research.

I am happy to work with Michael Marra on including in the bill a commitment on targets. I would like a very localised approach to targets to be developed. In my mind, I envisage that working by creating a duty for places that are designated as areas of linguistic significance to have a community language development plan with specific local targets, the meeting of which all public bodies that work in the area would be required to support. That is definitely not necessary for the bill, although there are some amendments on community areas of linguistic significance.

Are you willing to work with me on both counts? We should protect local aims—for example, the north of Skye might need more houses—and we can explore a stage 3 amendment that commits the Government to establishing targets.

We could largely keep to that deadline, but, to give some flexibility in relation to those parliamentary moments, we could adapt it to two years. It is right to hold the Government to account for laying the regulations as quickly as possible, but two years would give a little bit more flexibility. It would be my aspiration to deliver as quickly as possible, but we could adapt the deadline.

On point 1, we will come back to you with greater consideration of what you perceive to be the difference between the two proposed new sections with regard to a child’s, or pupil’s, ability to make the request. We are dealing in some cases with early learning as well, so we will need to consider that.

On your last question, Comann nam Pàrant is not established in statute. Over the period of 40 years that Miles Briggs identified, it has evolved to become the primary national body for parents of GME pupils, and so it is the obvious group in that regard.

I have forgotten what your second question was, so feel free to intervene.