Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

My view is that the principle of the importance of containing targets in the strategy can be in the bill, but if we become overly rigid in determining those targets in 2024—they will, inevitably, be only high-level targets—we will be at risk of distorting Gaelic language policy. It would be better to set targets out in the strategy, and to be far more responsive.

We are, in principle, sympathetic with the aims of the amendments, but some changes need to be made to them. We could perhaps work together in advance of stage 3 to address some of the issues through new drafting. Some areas of practice and legislative provisions would make it very difficult for us to support the amendments in their current form, but I want to set out some of the relevant provisions that are already in place or being developed.

The Scottish Qualifications Authority already makes some qualifications available in Gaelic. The Education (Scotland) Bill is proposing to replace the SQA with the new body qualifications Scotland. Section 7 of that bill will place a duty on qualifications Scotland to

“have regard to the needs and interests of persons using its services, including those who are receiving, or wish to receive Gaelic learner education”

or

“Gaelic medium education”.

That cross-cutting duty will apply where qualifications Scotland is exercising all its functions, including devising and awarding qualifications and accreditation.

Yes, absolutely. I envisage us being not just in a position to consider the issue before stage 3 but to support amendments at stage 3 that are, essentially, amendments 61, 75 and 84 with some minor drafting changes.

To be fair, I note that I had not yet turned to amendments 61 and 75—what I was saying was very much in relation to amendment 84.

Our point about amendments 61 and 75 is simple. Education Scotland is an agency of the Scottish Government, so it is not possible to use legislation to put duties on it. Any such duty would be placed on Scottish ministers. If members agree not to press the amendments, we are simply left with a question of drafting. In legislative terms, the burden would not be on Education Scotland; it would be on the Scottish Government.

I do not think that there is any disagreement. It is more the case that, from a legal and drafting perspective, some minor concerns have been highlighted on amendments 61 and 75. John Mason is right to say that the intention of the amendments is fairly straightforward: it is just a question of focusing the duty on Scottish ministers, not on Education Scotland.

On the SQA point, it is a question of the change that is going on in another bill, as well as making sure that we do not take a blanket approach but that, instead, the approach is quite targeted.

I would like to make two quick points. I want to highlight organisations that have not been referenced but do a lot of work to support Gaelic-medium education at the moment, such as Stòrlann Nàiseanta na Gàidhlig and Sabhal Mòr Ostaig.

That point about cascading was very well made, so we might want to think about how we incorporate that as part of our conversations on drafting of amendments.

Amendments 3, 6 and 7 respond to legitimate concerns that the committee raised. I think that Ruth Maguire, one of the committee’s former members, asked me about the matter that they address when I gave evidence at stage 1.

The aim of areas of linguistic significance is to give improved recognition to Gaelic in certain areas and to give communities a greater say in the development of a Gaelic-language policy that applies to them. That recognises the importance of, and the renewed focus on, communities.

Amendment 3 requires that, if the authority for an area that has 20 per cent of the population with Gaelic-language skills decides not to designate that area, it must make public the decision and its reasons for not proceeding.

Amendments 6 and 7 increase the level of community input into the process, which was a specific ask from the committee. They enable communities to commence the process of designating an area of linguistic significance by making that demand known to Bòrd na Gàidhlig, which must then request that the local authority must consider making a designation.

One criticism that has been made is that, often, Gaelic-language policy is very top down. Amendments 6 and 7 are about ensuring that people at grass-roots level—the community level—are able to make their views known and initiate a process that would give their area the status of an area of linguistic significance. Those amendments also give Bòrd na Gàidhlig a key role in the process and enable and encourage it to be active at a community level and act in line with community representation. That is to ensure that a third party can manage the process, and Bòrd na Gàidhlig is well placed to do that.

In principle, I am very supportive of amendments 4 and 5, in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy. I would be interested in progressing work with her in advance of stage 3. The provisions in the bill already allow consultation with community councils when those councils wish to engage. There is a broad consultation provision that refers to

“such other persons as the authority considers it appropriate”

to consult. Where there is an active and engaged community council, it would want to respond to any consultation for its area. However, it is possible—we all know this from doing work in our areas—that a community council might be inactive or fail to respond. It could therefore become quite difficult for the local authority to be sure that it had complied with the duty created by amendment 5 if a community council was not currently operational. There are also some small technical issues with the drafting.

I consider it important to give effect to the principle that Pam Duncan-Glancy is seeking to implement through the bill. I would be happy to support her amendments 4 and 5, but I ask her to work with me before stage 3 to ensure that the drafting of the provisions reflects those challenges and reflects more generally the diverse situation in communities where there is no operational community council.