Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

Essentially, it means that the Scottish ministers do not have a like-for-like replacement of the lost function of making EIA regulations. The order does not reinstate the Scottish ministers’ ability to amend the 2017 regulations but transfers EOR regulation-making functions to ministers, to replace the lost function of making EIA regulations in the same respect. Sorry—that paragraph from my notes was confusing.

The order does not completely reinstate what we had previously, because the UK Government does not have the power to do that—because we are out of the EU. Instead, it follows through on the consultation that Michael Gove initiated to look at how a new system of environmental assessment, which would not result in a lower level of environmental protection, might replace the EU-derived environmental assessment process. It is one of the many mop-up things that are required to deal with lost functions post-Brexit.

I was going to say, “It’s as simple as that,” but I have made it sound quite complicated. [Laughter.]

I emphasise that this is a Scotland Act 1998 order, so it is very much about where powers lie. It has nothing to do with the substance of those powers, which would be the point at which we would consult widely on what environmental assessment should look like.

Those issues dominate the Scottish ministers’ discussions, and I know that they feature high on the agendas of Gillian Martin and Alasdair Allan. The fact that we constantly consider those issues is partly why I made the point in my opening remarks that the regulations process is tried, tested and well understood. There is an argument that we should ensure that the substance of the regulations is in line with ministers’ objectives, rather than going back to the beginning and completely changing the process. What we are discussing today is whether ministers have the power to fundamentally change the regulations.

The argument that I made in my opening comments was that we will consult on what the substance should be, but we have no intention, in the short term, of making fundamental changes to the processes.

Yes. I go one step further and say that, although it is not for me to defend the UK Government, the 2023 act, which I referenced in my answer to somebody, stated that EOR regulations must not result in a lower level of environmental protection than existed under environmental law at the time of the 2023 act being passed. It is not the Scottish Government’s intention to lower protections. Either way, the 2023 act is quite clear.

Yes. [Laughter.]

Independently of the process around this instrument, the Scottish Government keeps a close eye on what changes are happening at an EU level.

Stewart Cunningham will keep me right on this, but the non-regression clause in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023—the act that gives rise to this transfer of powers—includes a safeguard that means that any environmental outcomes report regulations must not result in a lower level of environmental protection than existed under environmental law when the 2023 act was passed. The 2023 act also says:

“EOR regulations may not contain provision that is inconsistent with the implementation of the international obligations of the United Kingdom relating to the assessment of the environmental impact of relevant plans and relevant consents.”

So, although the proposal does not represent a like-for-like replacement, it captures a moment in time—the 2023 point—and it is for the Scottish ministers to ensure that, where we have the power to make changes, concurrently with the Secretary of State or otherwise, we can do so.

If this instrument does not pass—in other words, if the power is not transferred—we are, essentially, at the mercy of a situation in which we have to either accept or reject whatever EOR regulations the UK Government makes in future in relation to electricity works in the context of environmental assessments, and so on. There is more scope for divergence if this instrument passes than if it does not because, if it does not, we would have to accept whatever the UK Government does in terms of EOR regulations.