Seòmar agus comataidhean

I think that Michael Marra and I have approached this part of the bill from the same place, which is our concern for the reality that Gaelic is on the edge, as a living language. My amendment 14 recognises the fact that, in the bill, ministers need to set out arrangements for monitoring progress towards objectives. My amendment adds that ministers need to define

“how such progress will be measured”.

That reflects the evidence that we took at stage 1 and the committee’s stage 1 report, in recognition that there is broad agreement about what we are trying to achieve and that it will probably not be difficult to get agreement on the high-level objectives for the strategy.

However, there is a gulf between the high-level objectives and the current reality. We need to be very clear, not just about what we are trying to do, but about whether or not it is working. We need to set out a very clear action plan, but we also need to know regularly whether we are making progress towards achieving it. There is a question about what we are measuring and what specifically we are trying to achieve in measurable terms. I have lodged amendment 14 to reflect the evidence that we took at stage 1. As I said, it comes from a very similar place to amendments 8, 13, 15, 37 and 41, which are in Michael Marra’s name.

I appreciate the cabinet secretary’s comments and I understand the Government’s position. At this stage, I am happy not to press amendment 76 and not to move amendment 96, but I would welcome further engagement with the cabinet secretary, if she is agreeable to that, ahead of stage 3 because I am conscious that, particularly with regard to Scots, the principle of equal respect is not particularly present throughout the bill. My amendments 16, 35 and 50 relate primarily to Gaelic, so, if we all agree on the principle of equal respect, there is perhaps more work that we can do ahead of stage 3 to ensure that that principle is also represented in the bill for Scots.

Amendment 76, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 1 agreed to.

Section 2—Functions of Bòrd na Gàidhlig

On the basis of the cabinet secretary’s remarks, I am happy not to press amendment 61. I understand the legal point about Education Scotland’s status as an executive agency, which means that responsibility rests with ministers, but there is a governance point that the committee has encountered on lots of occasions in relation to Education Scotland, in that duties on ministers simply have not cascaded down effectively.

I understand the legal issue around drafting, so I am happy not to press amendment 61 and for us to work on the matter ahead of stage 3. We will need to take into account that duties that are placed on ministers are, quite frankly, often not fulfilled by the executive agencies that are accountable to ministers, so perhaps we need to tighten that up in this specific regard. Of course, there is a wider governance issue that is not for this committee to consider right now.

Amendments 38 to 40 and 44 to 46 require annual reporting with appropriate flexibility. For example, amendments 38 and 44 use the phrase

“as soon as reasonably practicable after each financial year”.

That is to reflect the urgency of the situation that we have already discussed. In the last set of census figures, beneath the Duolingo figure that boosted overall Gaelic language skills, the decline in Gaelic as a living, spoken or community language was obvious.

My intention with the amendments in the group is not to be overly prescriptive—they are not amendments about everything that should be included in the contents of the reports—but to clarify that there is a need for regular reporting for accountability and for us to be confident that progress is being made.

They are simple enough amendments. We have previously debated striking a balance between not placing too onerous a duty on bodies and the need for us to be regularly appraised of the situation. My hope is that we will be able to find agreement on that.

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.

I am grateful for the debate on this group, and I am grateful to Emma Roddick for lodging amendment 34 and to Jackie Dunbar for explaining the rationale behind it.

For the sake of simplicity in relation to whether members should support amendment 34 or amendment 33, I am happy not to press amendment 33. However, I intend to move amendments 54 and 68, which the cabinet secretary supports.

Amendment 33, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 34 moved—[Jackie Dunbar]—and agreed to.

Amendments 35 and 80 moved—[Ross Greer]—and agreed to.

Section 7, as amended, agreed to.

Section 8—Reporting on Gaelic language strategy, standards and duties

Amendment 36 moved and agreed to.

Amendment 37 moved—[Michael Marra].

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.