Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

In the conversations that I have had—albeit, they have been largely informal—no one has raised concerns with me. As it happened, the institutions that I engaged with the most turned out to be those that had Gaelic language plans, and it was perhaps more of a struggle to engage with institutions that did not have plans in place. I will be the first to admit that I have not spoken to every institution in that regard, but no concerns were raised with me about the amendment, which I lodged relatively early in the process. Certainly, no objections have been raised with me by Colleges Scotland or Universities Scotland, which I raised the matter with previously.

On amendment 68, past experience is much of the reason why we are here discussing this bill, and it is relevant to the discussions that have just taken place between Michael Marra and the cabinet secretary about the urgency of the matter. Past experience tells us that there will probably often be reluctance to fulfil the duties and that they will not be prioritised in the way that we would wish to see. Amendment 68 simply gives ministers stronger enforcement powers in that regard. They are largely replicated from the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, so they are not unprecedented. To a significant extent, the powers are copied and pasted from a set of enforcement powers that ministers already have.

Although is to be hoped that we do not get to the point of needing to use such powers, as I said, past experience indicates that their use is not unlikely. I want ministers to be able to take effective action if any public body is failing in the duties that Parliament has placed upon it. Even putting aside the content and purpose of this specific bill, I would want ministers to be able to rectify that situation. That is the rationale behind amendment 68.

I move amendment 33.

These amendments all relate to the duties of the relevant public authorities. I start with amendment 33. The current language in section 7 is that a relevant public authority

“must have regard to the desirability of—

(a) promoting, facilitating and supporting the use of the Gaelic language,

(b) developing and encouraging Gaelic culture.”

I think that “desirability” is too weak, frankly. The alternative wording that I propose is still caveated. It is:

“appropriate in the circumstances and reasonably practicable”.

That is a more objective test than “desirability”. Desirable, to me, feels too subjective, because surely we are deciding that this is all broadly desirable, so the duties that we put in the bill should be about something that is a bit more objective and whether it is appropriate in the relevant public authority’s circumstances. We are the ones to decide on desirability here. The phrasing in the bill is a bit too weak for me, and with amendment 33, I propose replacing it with something more objective.

Amendment 54 is more substantive. It is about expanding to cover colleges, universities, ScotRail, the Caledonian sleeper and Scottish Water the obligations on public bodies that have existed since 2005 under the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005.

At the moment, there is ambiguity about whether colleges and universities are already covered by those obligations. If they are covered, the system is not working, because only a couple have effective Gaelic language plans, so it would be useful to clarify that.

The public companies—ScotRail, the Caley sleeper and particularly Scottish Water—are, in effect, public bodies for the purposes that we are talking about, so they should have the same obligations as other public bodies. That is the rationale for expanding the number of bodies that are covered by the provision in amendment 54.

I understand the Scottish Government’s perspective and the need to strike a balance, particularly for a relatively small public body. However, given the reason why we are debating the matter and the urgency of the situation, is there any scope for compromise at stage 3 to allow a reasonable level of discretion for the bòrd but perhaps set a minimum timescale—not necessarily a year, but perhaps no less than every two or three years? Would the Government be amenable to an amendment that would at least set a minimum standard?

I move amendment 38.

On the basis of those comments from the cabinet secretary, I am happy to withdraw amendment 38 and to not move the other amendments in the group. We will look to reach some form of agreement ahead of stage 3.

Amendment 38, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 39 to 41 not moved.

Amendment 42 moved—[Ross Greer]—and agreed to.

Amendments 43 to 46 not moved.

Section 8, as amended, agreed to.

On the face of it, amendment 55 sounds positive to me. More research and more data collection are, of course, valuable. My question is about the necessity for the amendment. Is there currently a barrier to ministers’ being able to commission such research and collect such data, or is amendment 55 simply a clarifying amendment, in that nothing currently says that you cannot do that, but the amendment makes it absolutely clear that you can?

It always feels awkward to come in before the member who has lodged amendments. The Deputy First Minister says that she agrees with the principle of amendments 4 and 5. I welcome them because there might be a situation in which a local authority has done all the community engagement right and has community buy-in, but the Government then decides to modify the scheme, which puts that community buy-in at risk. Does the Government agree that, in principle, if the scheme is modified by Government, there should be direct community engagement before the decision is made?

Amendment 66 would place a duty on ministers to conduct a review of the status of Sabhal Mòr Ostaig in order to consider in particular whether it should be designated as a higher education institution and have the power to award degrees. Ministers would be required to publish a report on the review and to lay that before Parliament. The most important element of amendment 66 is that the review is required to take place within a year from the proposed new section coming into force. That acknowledges the wider discussions that we have been having about the urgency of the situation.

There is a consensus across the Parliament on the importance of Sabhal Mòr Ostaig as an institution operating through the medium of Gaelic. It is the national centre for Gaelic language, education and culture, and it plays a significant role for Gaelic nationally and internationally. It is right and proper that, as part of our consideration of the bill, we should be reviewing its status. It is my position and the position of my party that Sabhal Mòr Ostaig should have degree-awarding power.

I do not want to bounce the college into that before it is ready—to put it bluntly—and a review process would allow us to consider all the issues and potential barriers to it having that power and that status, which would ensure that it has time to put together an adequate business case and that it receives the support that it requires. That should be the aspiration, in any case.

That is the motivation behind amendment 66. I recognise that Willie Rennie is very much coming at the issue from a similar position, but I will let him speak to his own amendment.

I move amendment 66.

I appreciate not just the cabinet secretary’s remarks on amendment 77 but the constructive way in which we have engaged on amendments to this point. She is right to point out that the amendment does not relate to the Gaelic language strategy, because responsibility for that is moving to ministers. It is about the corporate plan of an NDPB. In that sense, the rationale behind the amendment has nothing to do with the Gaelic language—it is about my and my party’s view about the transparency of public bodies in Scotland.

The cabinet secretary is right to point out the iterative process that exists for the production of corporate plans by NDPBs. As I pointed out in my opening remarks, the provision in amendment 77 would come into place only at the end of that process. The iterative process is about drafting a corporate plan. It is an important point of transparency and public confidence that, if that process has taken place as normal but, at the end of it, an NDPB has produced a corporate plan that ministers believe is so deficient that they reject it, ministers should have to give a rationale for that.

I am being somewhat opportunistic in proposing such a provision in the bill, because the bill relates to a particular NDPB but, as a point of transparency in the public sector, I will press amendment 77.

Good morning, all.

Amendments 76 and 96 are about the definition of “official status” in the bill. The giving of “official status” to Gaelic and Scots is a significant part of the bill and one of the key motivators behind it, but the Law Society of Scotland posed the question of what “official status” means. At the moment, we do not have a definition of “official status”. Amendments 76 and 96 are the Law Society’s proposals for how we should define that term. They define it as meaning that those languages—Gaelic in the case of amendment 76, and Scots in the case of amendment 96—command equal respect to that of English.

Amendments 16, 35 and 50 in the group further thread the principle of equal respect through the bill in relation to Gaelic. The term “equal respect” is already used in part 1 of the bill. Section 2(2)(c) usefully sets out the principle of equal respect, which I think should be seen as the touchstone for Gaelic policy across the board. Section 2(2)(c) relates to the responsibilities of Bòrd na Gàidhlig in supporting other public authorities. It says:

“the Bòrd must seek to give effect, so far as is both appropriate in the circumstances and reasonably practicable, to the principle that the Gaelic and English languages should be accorded equal respect.”

I am simply taking language that is already used in section 2 of the bill and putting it elsewhere. Amendment 16 seeks to insert reference to the principle of equal respect in the section on preparation of the Gaelic language strategy. Amendment 35 seeks to do that in relation to the production of guidance by ministers, and amendment 50 seeks to do the same in relation to the preparation of Gaelic language plans. The amendments in this group simply take language that is already used in one section of the bill and thread it throughout the bill. I think that the principle of equal respect should underlie everything else that we do in relation to the bill.

I move amendment 76.