Seòmar agus comataidhean

I recognise that there was an assumption that colleges and universities were included under the 2005 act, and best practice has been mentioned. However, practice has not been consistent. There has been doubt, and the 2005 act has not been applied consistently by colleges and universities. Therefore, it is clear that some level of clarity is required.

I hope that this will be short. This is another proposal that originated from discussions that I had with the Law Society. Amendment 77 provides that ministers would have to give reasons for rejecting a corporate plan that had been produced by the bòrd. It is simply about ensuring greater transparency.

My expectation is that it would be extremely rare for things ever to get to the point at which any final corporate plan produced by the bòrd was rejected by ministers. My expectation is that, if there were any serious issues with a plan, there would be far greater engagement earlier in the process, when it was in draft form, and that back-and-forward dialogue would resolve issues.

If it were ever to get to the point at which the corporate plan produced by the bòrd was judged by ministers to be so deficient that they rejected it, it is an important point of transparency and a matter for public confidence that ministers should have to provide reasons for rejecting the plan, which is the rationale behind amendment 77.

I move amendment 77.

As amendments 70 and 97 are my last stage 2 amendments, I put on record my thanks to the bill team for all the work that they have put in and, in particular, their response to the very long list of proposals that I put to them over recent weeks.

Amendments 70 and 97 tread familiar ground for me. They are about a requirement to publicise how the public can input into the draft strategy for the Scots language, and, similar to previous amendments, about the publication of the results of that consultation.

I move amendment 70.

Amendment 83 is based on a proposal from the Law Society that there should be a requirement to publish the results of consultations. That proposal has been well covered as I have moved similar amendments in relation to various sections, so I will not repeat it.

Amendment 57 refers to section 13, which currently says that ministers “may” give guidance to public authorities about Gaelic education. That is the core of why we are here, so it should not be optional, and we should change “may” to “must”.

We recognise and have recognised for almost 20 years that Gaelic is one of our national languages, and there is a consensus that that should not change for the foreseeable future. If we ever ended up at a point at which Government ministers believed that it was no longer necessary to provide guidance on Gaelic education, that would be a significant enough change for them to have to come to the Parliament to change the legislation.

Amendment 57 makes a simple proposal to change “may” to “must”, to reflect the fact that such guidance is necessary; it is at the core of the bill and is why the bill was necessary in the first place.

I thank the cabinet secretary for that intervention and for the acknowledgment of that point. On that basis, I am happy not to press amendment 61, and to bring a version of it back at stage 3.

Amendment 61, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 17 agreed to.

Section 18—Gaelic education delivery planning

Amendment 62 moved—[Kate Forbes]—and agreed to.

Section 18, as amended, agreed to.

Section 19 agreed to.

Section 20—Transport to Gaelic medium education: application of Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010

The amendments are ultimately about teacher workload—an issue that the committee will be very familiar with, as it is a recurring theme in almost everything that we do. Teachers in GME schools face an additional and significant burden, because they have to do much of the work of translating materials that are produced in English by Education Scotland into Gaelic so that it is usable in their school settings. Education Scotland does some work, but, according to feedback that I have received from GME teachers, it is not routine enough.

We recognise the unsustainable workload across the teaching profession and it is only appropriate that we recognise the particularly acute additional workload pressures that GME teachers face. Amendment 61 in relation to Gaelic, and amendment 75 in relation to Scots, would simply put a duty on Education Scotland to consider whether any material that it produces in English should also be produced in Gaelic and Scots. They would not require it to do that in all instances—there will, of course, be instances where that is not necessary—but the amendments clarify that Education Scotland needs to take that matter into consideration. As far as I am concerned, Education Scotland has much more capacity to engage in that kind of work than a classroom teacher in a GME school does. That is the rationale behind the amendments.

I move amendment 61.

Yes, I am grateful for the member’s intervention on that important point. We will need locally appropriate plans and strategies across the country because different communities have different needs in relation to Gaelic and Scots, and those local strategies will require more flexibility. It is appropriate for Parliament to be a bit more prescriptive about what we want to see in the national strategy, but those local strategies should have that greater level of flexibility. My amendments are intended to clarify that, in the various sections that are relatively prescriptive about what should be in the national strategy, and which will perhaps be more prescriptive after the stage 2 amendments, we are prescribing for the national strategy alone, and that there is still the ability for local strategies and plans—whatever phrase is used—to be more flexible.

Amendment 18 simply adds that ministers must publicise consultation on the draft strategy. It is up to Government how that is done but, at the moment, there is no provision to share the consultation publicly or widely. Amendment 18 clarifies that, if the draft strategy is to be consulted on, that consultation has to be publicised at large.

On the same principle, amendment 78 is designed to ensure that there is a greater level of transparency to enable a more informed view to be taken of the basis on which the policy underpinning the strategy was formed. Accordingly, it requires the results of the consultation to be published. I have further amendments that we will come to later this morning to the effect that, wherever a consultation takes place, the results of that consultation should be published, simply so that we ensure that the process has maximum public confidence and buy-in.

Essentially, amendment 18 requires that the consultation is publicised, and amendment 78 requires that the results of any consultation are published.

I move amendment 2.

I have a couple of questions about amendments 63 and 65, but I thought that they would be best placed in a separate contribution rather than interrupting the flow of the Deputy First Minister’s speech.

In the first instance, can she address the question whether amendments 63 and 65 are compliant with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child? Much as I welcome the amendments overall, the proposed new section 13A of the 2016 act gives parents, but not young people themselves, the ability to make a request. Under the proposed new section 13B, however, young people themselves—“pupils”—can make an input once the process is triggered.

That seems to be a little inconsistent. If we are, under proposed new section 13B, allowing young people to have a role as part of the process, should we not, in particular given that the UNCRC is now part of our domestic law, give them an equivalent ability to make a request under proposed new section 13A?

Miles Briggs made the point that the experience of many parents is that they have to campaign for GME, but by the time they have achieved their aim, their children are no longer in school. Amendment 65 refers specifically to “parents of pupils” who are in school. I wonder whether we could change that to include the parents of pre-school children, who would be more likely to achieve the aim in time for their own children to benefit.

My third question starts with a plea for assistance from the Deputy First Minister to help me to pronounce the name of Comann nam Pàrant, the Gaelic education parents association.

The Law Society of Scotland had some questions about this. Is Comann nam Pàrant established in statute? If it is, I think that it is fine that it is referred to specifically in the proposed new section. If it is not, is it advisable to include in law a specific organisation that is itself not established in law? It could change form, name, status and so on at some point without an act of Parliament, which would then, if the amended bill is passed, require an act of Parliament to be changed.

That was the final question that I wanted to ask. Otherwise it has all been well covered.

My question is on that point, because a lot of the larger substantive issues that I was going to ask about have been well covered already.

It is not about the relative worth or otherwise of the policy, because I understand that that is not for the witnesses to comment on, but about the transparency and presentational issues around things such as the hospitality relief. As you point out, Graeme, a huge number of the businesses that would be eligible for that already receive substantive relief through SBBS, and many of them receive 100 per cent relief. Is there a presentational and transparency challenge here, given that reliefs are layered on top of each other and there is a fragmented NDR relief landscape?