Chamber and committees

It is an anticlimactic end, I am afraid, convener: I will not move the amendment.

Amendment 75 not moved.

Sections 36 to 38 agreed to.

Long title agreed to.

I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for her remarks and for her support for these amendments. I should give credit to Professor Wilson McLeod, who gave evidence to the committee at stage 1. Through my engagement with him, many of the proposals that I am making this morning came about, particularly the amendments in relation to inserting the word “national” to add clarity and amendment 18 on publicising the consultation. I also put on the record that amendment 78 is a proposal from the Law Society.

Amendment 2 agreed to.

On amendment 67, and touching on some of the issues that we have looked at so far, would the reporting requirements be better placed against the national strategy, rather than against the bill—or what would then be the act—given that the Parliament has a role in deciding what it does and does not want to do post-legislative scrutiny on? The strategy should, I hope, include much more in the way of specific actions whose impact we are trying to measure.

On Michael Marra’s amendment 32, can you clarify the Government’s expected timescale? Is within a year of royal assent too soon? Is it realistic to make it within a year of enactment? Do you have an indicative timescale at this point?

I should clarify at the outset that these amendments are relevant only when a report has been produced that concludes that a public body has failed in its duties under the bill—or the act, as it will be—and the Scottish Government agrees with that report. I think—I hope—that such circumstances would be incredibly limited; nevertheless, they would be serious. After all, when Parliament passes law, we expect public bodies to align with and fulfil their duties under it.

Although I hope that such an occurrence will be very rare, I think it appropriate to have the amendments to cover circumstances in which a report is produced that concludes that a public body has failed in its duties, and the Government agrees. The amendments would simply clarify that the Government must direct the organisation in question to implement the measures that were included in its plan by a certain date. Giving such organisations a timescale would be important to ensuring that the duties were fulfilled; the fact is that such duties will be put on bodies only if Parliament has agreed to them, which means that they will have legitimacy and the weight of law behind them. The timescale is also important to give the community confidence that the Government is committed to taking effective action to ensure that what has been campaigned for, and what has been agreed by Parliament, is fulfilled.

That is what amendment 51 does, while amendment 52 simply cleans up section 9.

I move amendment 51.

The question was on whether parents of pre-school children could be included, given that—as Miles Briggs pointed out—parents of children who are already in school often have to campaign for so long that their children have left school by the time they have achieved what they were looking for.

Amendments 79 and 80 are, like the amendments that I moved earlier, proposals from the Law Society. I have explained the rationale for them in relation to transparency. The cabinet secretary has indicated the Government’s support, so I do not think that I need to add any more.

I will just echo the cabinet secretary’s remarks. It is important that there is a role for Parliament, which is why my amendment 66 says that the review would result in a report being laid before Parliament. There is strong cross-party consensus on the importance of Sabhal Mòr Ostaig and its getting to the point of having the power to award degrees. Therefore, it is important that we preserve that role for Parliament and keep the process going to that shared outcome.

As has been mentioned, my amendment and Willie Rennie’s amendment 95 have a lot of crossover, so I am certainly happy to support his. I recognise that there may be a requirement to do a little bit of reconciliation at stage 3 on the issue, but I encourage committee members to support both amendments, given that there is a clear shared desired outcome, and that we can resolve the areas of overlap with some tidying up at stage 3.

I will press amendment 66.

Amendment 66 agreed to.

Amendment 95 moved—[Willie Rennie].

I am afraid that this is the start of quite a long run of amendments from me, but not all of my speaking notes are too long.

In this section, amendments 2, 9 to 12, 17, 19 to 25, 36, 42, 48 and 49 all simply insert the word “national” at various points in the bill. The intention is to ensure that there is absolute clarity that, when the legislation talks about the Gaelic language strategy, it is talking about the national strategy for which ministers have responsibility and which is replacing the national Gaelic language plan that exists as a result of the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005. There are lots of other documents that will be referred to as strategies, plans and so on that will be produced as a result of the bill, so the intention is to ensure that there is absolute clarity in that regard. That is the rationale behind all of those amendments, which I hope is simple and agreeable to members.

I have nothing further to add. I press amendment 51.

Amendment 51 agreed to.

Amendment 52 moved—[Ross Greer]—and agreed to.

Amendment 53 moved—[Kate Forbes]—and agreed to.

Section 9, as amended, agreed to.

After section 9

Amendment 54 moved—[Ross Greer]—and agreed to.

Amendment 55 moved—[Kate Forbes]—and agreed to.