Chamber and committees

I think that that is a compelling argument, which balances the concerns that I raised in my opening paragraphs in relation to whether bodies need to be expressly referenced in order to be captured. Of course, our view is that the whole of the public sector should be captured.

All the actions that universities are engaged in contribute to the wider public visibility of and respect for the Gaelic language and the opportunities to use it in Scotland.

In addition, through the bill, we are taking a power to require the Scottish Funding Council to impose conditions on the funding that it provides to universities to ensure that funds are used to enable, encourage and increase participation in higher education in the Gaelic language. That will ensure that the objective of improving Gaelic participation is met without risking the independence of universities.

I am content to support Mr Greer’s amendment 54, which would put coverage of the 2005 act beyond doubt.

I turn to amendment 68. I am aware of the calls that have been made for enhanced enforcement mechanisms to reinforce the duties in the 2005 act. Concern about enforcement has been raised by a number of members, including by Michael Marra in the debate on the previous group. I thank Ross Greer for explaining his amendment 68, which I am happy to support.

Michael Marra has touched on something that is broader than the bill: the extent of independent research generally when it comes to Gaelic, and the work within civic Scotland to consider policy improvements and policy changes. I am very conscious that, in a number of other spheres of debate, we are often extensively lobbied by a number of different organisations that have contributed significant time and effort to researching, evidencing and data gathering on policy issues in particular. I would like that to be developed further when it comes to Gaelic, but the member is absolutely right—I do not think that that should be owned by Government. Government should be the recipients of that lobbying or that challenge.

I agree that it is important to hear a robust debate on Gaelic policy, and I commend the committee for what it has done even in gathering evidence from a number of stakeholders. I hope that that does not end with the passage of the bill but continues. I commend a number of different organisations, not least Misneachd Alba, which has done a lot of work in that space.

I think so.

I thank Ross Greer for his collaborative approach. The fact that he had so many amendments throughout the bill speaks to his ability to engage across parties and with external stakeholders.

We always publicise arrangements for engaging in consultations on draft strategies and other documents. We also have a practice of publishing consultation results where appropriate. As amendments 70 and 97 reflect that existing practice, we are happy to support them.

Amendment 70 agreed to.

Amendment 97 moved—[Ross Greer]—and agreed to.

Section 27, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 28 and 29 agreed to.

Section 30—Power for Scottish Ministers to give guidance

Amendment 71 moved—[Emma Harper]—and agreed to.

Section 30, as amended, agreed to.

After section 30

Amendment 72 makes the same provision for Scots as was made for Gaelic by amendment 55, which I believe the committee has already agreed to—I hope that my memory serves me right.

As with Gaelic, it is important that ministers have the necessary powers to support their functions for Scots, including the ability to undertake research and inquiries and to collect and publish statistics on Scots. That will assist with the implementation of the Scots language strategy and ensure effective information gathering for its further development.

As this is the last time that I will speak in the meeting, I thank everybody for their engagement. I recognise that we have set ourselves a lot of work for stage 3, but the debate has clarified the priorities. I have said in every evidence session that I want the bill to be the product of the Parliament and not a Government-imposed bill. The more amendments that we can accept and on which we can work with members, the better, so that the bill reflects Parliament’s priorities. I look forward to the engagement on that.

I move amendment 72.

Amendment 72 agreed to.

Amendment 73 moved—[Kate Forbes]—and agreed to.

Section 31—Scots language education in schools

Amendment 74 moved—[Emma Harper].

Madainn mhath. I thank Ross Greer for explaining the purposes of the amendments. The bill as drafted grants Gaelic and Scots official status in Scotland, and our position is that the current wording gives both languages the requisite standing in Scotland’s public life. The inclusion in the bill of a clear statement of official status is an important part of recognising Gaelic and Scots. That was welcomed by Gaelic and Scots interests, because it is a means of countering some of the neglect and practices of earlier times. We want to reverse that neglect in the bill.

Our approach to drafting the bill is intended to signpost the high policy aspirations that we hold for these languages. Definitions in this area are difficult, and there is no standard universal understanding of concepts such as “official status” or “official language”. Those concepts have different meanings in different countries, which is why, instead of including a definition that cannot be consistently interpreted, we have carefully set out in subsection (2) of each provision how the statement that Gaelic and Scots have official status is given legal effect.

Therefore, we argue respectfully that amendments 76 and 96 would result in a lack of clarity on the legal effect of the statements on official status for Gaelic and Scots, which could create considerable legal and budgetary uncertainty and risk for public authorities. Of course, I believe in the principle of equal respect for Gaelic and Scots, but I believe that that can be better written into the bill through support for amendments 16, 35 and 50, which require that the principle should be considered at precise points, where that requires concrete and specific action by Scottish ministers and public authorities.

As Ross Greer said, amendments 16 and 35 modify the bill to require ministers to have regard to the principle of equal respect when preparing the ministerial Gaelic language strategy and guidance, and amendment 50 requires public bodies to have regard to the principle of equal respect when preparing their Gaelic language plans. Therefore, the principle must be considered at precise points.

We are happy to support amendments 16, 35 and 50 because they meaningfully strengthen the bill’s provisions in relation to equal respect at particular points and because they make the support for equal respect clear without creating the uncertainty that we believe would be the result of amendments 76 and 96. Therefore, we are disinclined to support those amendments and urge Mr Greer not to press them, while we fully endorse the principle of equal respect that his other amendments highlight.

I think that we should have a commitment to setting targets, but the nature of those targets should be clarified and defined in the subsequent strategy. We could support the principle of targets, and the principle of aims and ambitions, and there could be a role for Parliament in scrutinising whether we are meeting those targets.

However, with regard to the three targets that are set out in amendment 8, if you were to look at, say, the target for Gaelic speakers in isolation, you could say that we had met it this year, because the census has shown a marginal increase. However, you would not be getting beneath the surface of things.

I think that I am done.

I move amendment 56.

Amendment 56 agreed to.

Sections 10 and 11 agreed to.

Section 12—Power for Scottish Ministers to set standards relating to Gaelic education

I thank Pam Duncan-Glancy for explaining the purpose of amendments 81 and 82. Among the overarching aims of the bill is to put in place a new strategic approach to Gaelic education in recognition of the unique challenges that are faced by a minority language in a national education system. To tackle those challenges, it is necessary that standards and regulations for Gaelic education should be formed in a framework that is distinct from that which has been put in place for the wider English-medium sector.

The GTCS’s input will be sought as a valuable part of the process in forming standards and requirements for Gaelic education. A process for that is already in place, and the bill enables the GTCS to be consulted when it is appropriate to do so. However, in the spirit of wanting to accept as many amendments as I can, where we can do so, I recognise the wish for the GTCS to be specifically listed among the bodies that ministers must consult on education regulations, and I am happy to support amendment 82.

On amendment 81, not all regulations and standards under the power that is being amended will relate directly to teachers. The GTCS has functions that operate as a matter of law, and the power under proposed section 6B of the 2016 act should not be unduly curtailed or framed in that way. Our feeling about amendment 81 is that it is not necessarily appropriate in that place.

On amendment 83, in practice we publish consultation results when permission has been given and when that is considered appropriate. We are happy to support this amendment for consultation results relating to the preparation of standards and regulations.

Amendment 57 would amend the 2016 act by replacing Bòrd na Gàidhlig’s duty to prepare guidance on Gaelic education with a power for the Scottish ministers to produce that guidance. As that function is being reallocated to ministers from an NDPB, it was considered appropriate to frame it as a power rather than a duty. However, we are happy to support amendment 57.

Scottish Government amendment 58 removes the power for ministers to give education authorities a direction in relation to Gaelic education. That follows comments about that power from this committee and the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee at stage 1. I am content that the objectives of the power can be effectively achieved by other means.

Amendment 1 comes off the back of feedback from the committee and a number of stakeholders about the importance of refocusing our efforts on communities. It is important that Gaelic community development planning and support are prioritised. The bill will strengthen the focus on support for Gaelic at a community and grass-roots level.

Amendment 1 ensures that advice, assistance and support from Bòrd na Gàidhlig is in place. The amendment will make support for community language planning a requirement of Bòrd na Gàidhlig as part of its wider functions. The renewed focus on community activity, with support from the bòrd, will be important for Gaelic in the years ahead, securing a range of social, cultural, educational and economic benefits. I believe that the focus on community language activity was the committee’s biggest ask following the evidence session prior to stage 1.

I move amendment 1.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Section 2, as amended, agreed to.

Section 3—Bòrd na Gàidhlig corporate plan