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 extend my gratitude to members for lodging the amendments in the group, which enrich our debate. I will go back to the origin of some of the comments, which is the census figures.

The fact that we saw a reduction in some areas, but overall growth, indicates that we need to get behind the figures to understand what is really going on at local geographic level as well as in terms of depth of language. That requires a regular progress update.

I turn to the amendments. I agree that having things to aim for is important, and that aims should be disruptive, ambitious and aspirational. We have always been of the view that we should develop targets after undertaking consultation on the types of things for which we should have targets and what those targets should be. Our view was that that aspect should be in the Gaelic language strategy. A number of authorities and bodies already have targets for measuring their own activity, and that will be maintained.

I note that Michael Marra has another amendment that looks for reporting to be done every two years. The national census contains information on Gaelic speakers, broken down by area and region. It would be hugely challenging to produce those figures at the same level as the census every two years, so that might not suit the timeframe for reporting on the Gaelic strategy that is proposed in the bill.

I will speak to amendments 8, 13 and 15 specifically—amendments 37, 41 and 43 are consequential on those amendments—regarding a duty to create specific targets. There are a couple of things that make me want to resist the amendments at this stage—again, with a view to doing something at stage 3. Although there is merit in setting targets, our preference—as I said—would be for them to be contained in the strategy, rather than their being a matter of regulation. A basic point, for example, is that the regulation-making power is not currently subject to any parliamentary procedure.

The policy preference is for targets to be in the strategy, and we would want to look at the nature of those targets and whether they are the right ones. Overall, targets for people with Gaelic language skills probably would not help us to get behind the high-level figures that are already in the census with regard to the nature of those skills and the fluency level. In summary, I would like to have targets. I just—

I see that Michael Marra wants to come in.

I recognise that, which is why we have lodged amendments ourselves to measure progress.

With regard to amendments 8, 13 and 15, we are arguing that the opportunity to set targets is better provided for in the strategy, which can be updated faster, at pace: we would not need to wait for parliamentary cycles. The strategy will be consulted on with stakeholders within and outwith Parliament to make sure that the targets are right.

I am trying, in my comments, to be supportive of the notion behind Michael Marra’s amendments, because I think that he is right—it is just that I do not support the way in which he is currently trying to go about it.

In amendment 8, target (a), for example, specifies

“Gaelic speakers, broken down by geographical area”.

At present, we would use the term “people with Gaelic language skills” rather than “Gaelic speakers”. The bigger issue is that although we have seen in the census an increase in the number of people with Gaelic language skills, that might not tell us the whole story. We might want to know, for example, whether they have learned through Duolingo or are actually using the language in their daily lives.

My point is that I am not sure that they are the right targets to be measuring on, and I do not think that they should be in the bill, because what we need is a far more flexible response to the challenges that we face.

On amendments 33 and 34, I understand the importance of ensuring that the duties that we place on relevant public authorities strike the correct balance. Amendment 34, lodged by Emma Roddick, would achieve that. A duty to have regard to something is a commonly used formulation in law, and the removal of the reference to “desirability” in relation to having regard to Gaelic language and culture makes the duty more direct and, therefore, stronger, while still allowing the relevant public authorities flexibility and autonomy to consider what action they should take in their particular circumstances.

From our reading, the two-stage test that is set out in Ross Greer’s amendment 33 is less clear. I appreciate that that wording appears in the 2005 act, but that is in relation to the very different context of Bòrd na Gàidhlig giving advice and assistance to authorities. I am concerned that that test would be more complex for authorities to apply than the simple test of having regard to Gaelic language and culture, which Emma Roddick’s amendment 34 would achieve.

Therefore, I ask members to support amendment 34. On this occasion, I am not able to support amendment 33. [Interruption.]

Oh, sorry—I will keep going, as I need to turn to amendment 54, which relates to relevant public authorities that are to be included in the scope of the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005. I should say that our support for amendment 54 is another example of our trying to support as many amendments as possible, either now or at stage 3.

The Scottish Government’s position is that Scottish Rail Holdings and Scottish Water are already included in the scope of the 2005 act by virtue of the use of the definition, “Scottish public authority”. We feel that it is unnecessary to expressly specify them and that to do so might create doubt and even a narrowing of the definition, by suggesting that bodies must be expressly mentioned to be subject to the act.

Colleges in Scotland are already classed as part of the public sector, and they have some functions to which the duties in the 2005 act, as amended by the bill, will apply. There was an assumption that universities would be covered by the 2005 act. They have a mix of public and private functions. Their private functions are obviously not the concern of the bill, but it is undoubtedly the case that public functions are carried out in the sector that should be exercised with an appreciation of the Gaelic language. Indeed, that is happening already. Just last week, the University of Edinburgh launched its refreshed Gaelic language plan, which is a great example of how universities, through their activities in running the internal corporate aspects of their institutions and in providing for their student populations, can act positively for Gaelic.

The amendments make very minor corrections that will ensure that references to the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 follow the style of the act into which they are being inserted. That will ensure consistency and remove any possible ambiguity.

I move amendment 59.

Amendment 59 agreed to.

Amendment 60 moved—[Kate Forbes]—and agreed to.

Section 16, as amended, agreed to.

After section 16

Absolutely—we will give that some consideration.

I wind up by saying that everything that Miles Briggs said is true—he is absolutely right to describe how difficult the process is. I frequently receive correspondence from parents who are—to use the technical term—pulling their hair out in trying to engage with it.

He is absolutely right on the need to simplify the process. If we can ensure that the amendments answer some of the unanswered questions that I identified in my opening remarks, I think that we will have a very compelling package, in combining his amendments with the ones that I have lodged.

Amendment 63 agreed to.

Amendment 64 moved—[Kate Forbes]—and agreed to.

Section 20, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 21 and 22 agreed to.

After section 22

Amendment 84 not moved.

Amendment 65 moved—[Kate Forbes]—and agreed to.

Section 23—Extension of assessments to early learning and childcare

Amendments 85 to 94 not moved.

Sections 23 to 25 agreed to.

After section 25

The bill’s provisions for a Gaelic language strategy to be prepared by Scottish ministers bring new status and profile to language planning. I understand that Mr Greer’s intention in introducing the amendments is to emphasise that status. It is worth saying that, in my earlier evidence to the committee during stage 1 and in all subsequent meetings, I have made it clear to everyone here that I want to collaborate. Although we do not think that some of the amendments are absolutely essential, I want the bill to be shaped by all parties in Parliament, so, if Mr Greer feels that the suggested name for the strategy better emphasises the importance of Gaelic to our national life, I am happy to support the amendments.

The Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005 added the word “national” to Bòrd na Gàidhlig’s Gaelic language plan to distinguish it from the individual Gaelic language plans that were produced by public authorities. The national Gaelic language plan for 2023 to 2028 will remain with us in the coming years, and the many initiatives and commitments that it contains for Gaelic will be implemented. Having both a national Gaelic language plan and a national Gaelic language strategy might create the potential for confusion between the documents, which is partly why we did not include national in the title at introduction.

Of course, there are other strategies that are produced by Scottish ministers that are lent the status of a national strategy by default, such as the circular economy strategy, the fuel poverty strategy and the forestry strategy. They do not automatically include the word “national” in their titles, but one hopes and assumes that people know that, by their very nature, they are national. However, we are very happy to support the amendments in Ross Greer’s name that add the word “national” throughout the bill.

On amendments 18 and 78, it was always our intention for the consultation on the draft Gaelic language strategy that is included in the bill to be a public consultation and to allow for all interested parties to make representations about it. I am happy to support Ross Greer’s amendment 18, which makes that clear, and I am also happy to commit to publishing the result of the consultation and therefore to support Ross Greer’s amendment 78 to set that out in the bill.

If I have explained that correctly, that means that we are very happy to support all of Ross Greer’s amendments in the group.

Section 20 is quite an extensive section on Gaelic-medium education. Two amendments in the group are in my name. Amendment 63 will clarify the timescale within which an authority must establish a catchment area for schools that are providing Gaelic-medium education provision at the time when section 20 comes into force. The timescale will run from the date on which section 20 comes into force. It is a minor and fairly technical amendment.

On amendment 65, there is no question about the benefits of all-Gaelic schools, yet the parental experience is that the path towards their establishment can be far too long and is often frustrating. My amendment 65 seeks to address the situation by putting a clear process in place. The amendment will support parents who want a local authority to formally consider the establishment of an all-Gaelic school in their area.

If it is requested, the education authority must

“complete an assessment of whether it would be viable for the education authority to establish an all-Gaelic school in an area specified in the request.”

In completing the assessment, the authority must have regard to a number of considerations, as set out in the proposed new provisions. When the result of the assessment is that an all-Gaelic school would be viable, the authority must take steps to establish one.

All-Gaelic schools are ideal environments for providing immersion education, which is central to the success of Gaelic-medium education. Without doubt, all-Gaelic schools provide important benefits for Gaelic and go to the heart of what has been frequently identified in committee debate about the level of fluency in Gaelic.

Amendments 85 to 94 aim to simplify the process for parents who wish to have Gaelic-medium education for their children, and to combine the two stages—initial assessment and full assessment—in one process. I completely understand the sentiment behind the amendments and the desire to make things more straightforward, but they leave some gaps and some unanswered questions, which could unintentionally make the process longer and more complicated.

Amendment 85 would require an education authority to provide GME if there is demand from five or more children in a year group, unless it is unreasonable to do so, having regard to the matters that are set out in the amendment. However, it is not clear what decision could be made by the authority if there were fewer than five children, or whether it would even have to undertake an assessment in that case. It is also not clear whether a full assessment is the only possible route for the authority to take, even if it is content to provide GME. There are some questions outstanding about how the process would operate and there are some issues that would need to be addressed.

In view of that, I would like to give the matter further consideration, in consultation with Miles Briggs, to ensure that the drafting works in a technical sense and that it improves the position for parents, young people and all those who are involved in the delivery of GME. If we could come back to the issue at stage 3, which has become a refrain in our debate on all the groups of amendments, I think that we could have a good package of support for parents who are keen for there to be Gaelic-medium education in their area. I am keen to work with the member to that effect.

I move amendment 63.

You are asking how it operated prior to 2017.

As I said, we are already consulting on the 1994 habitats regulations. We consult on the most effective regulations within the current powers. However, the example that you put to me is a significant change, which would be subject to heavy engagement and consultation before we got to that point.

As I said, the move to EORs would be long term and complex. If you are asking whether the Scottish ministers will be back here next week to suggest substantial and widespread changes to the consenting scheme, the instrument does not enable that to a greater extent than would otherwise be the case.