Hansard

Education has been central to the debate on the bill as it has progressed through Parliament. I have made clear on a number of occasions my firm belief that Gaelic education is critical to the future prospects of the language. The Education Committee's stage 1 report clearly demonstrates that it is of the same opinion. As I have demonstrated on a number of occasions, where action needs to be taken on Gaelic education matters, I am prepared to take it. Shortly before the bill was introduced to Parliament, I issued guidance to education authorities on Gaelic-medium education, which requires education authorities to set out what constitutes "reasonable demand" for Gaelic education in their area and how they will respond to reasonable demand where it exists.

In May 2004, I announced financial assistance of £2.75 million to Glasgow City Council to assist its development of the first-ever, all-through Gaelic-medium school in Scotland. I also established a working group under the chairmanship of Bruce Robertson, Highland Council's director of education, to progress the development of a virtual Gaelic-medium secondary curriculum. I have established a short-life action group on Gaelic teacher recruitment to make recommendations to me before the summer of this year. I fully intend to remain active on all those fronts—and wider fronts—and for the Executive to continue to provide a lead in the on-going development of Gaelic education.

The bill as introduced to the Parliament contained provisions for Bòrd na Gàidhlig to issue guidance, which must be approved by ministers, on matters relating to Gaelic education. That provides Bòrd na Gàidhlig, as expert ministerial advisers on Gaelic education matters, with a clear, strategic education advisory role. At stage 2, I amended that provision to require the bòrd to issue a draft of its guidance for public consultation prior to its being submitted to ministers for approval, to ensure that all necessary interests could be put into the guidance. Those initiatives will ensure that the critical areas of Gaelic education that need to be addressed will be.

I have lodged two further amendments that will further enhance the development of Gaelic education. Amendment 40 will create linkages between any Gaelic language plan that an education authority produces under the bill and the discharge of its Gaelic-medium education duties under the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000. Amendment 11 will make explicit in the bill the fact that Bòrd na Gàidhlig, in developing a national Gaelic language plan, must—I stress that—include a strategy for the development of Gaelic education.

I am of the view that an education strategy should be placed in the national plan, which is a centrepiece of the bill. That strategy will allow the various strands of development activity that I have listed today to be pulled together and will provide an agreed national approach for the future development of Gaelic education in tandem with other aspects of Gaelic development that will be contained in the national plan.

It is my firmly held view that the education strategy that Bòrd na Gàidhlig is to develop within the national plan must be the product of discussion among the bòrd, the Executive, local authorities and other education interests, such as Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education. Only as a result of such partnership working will a strategy for the future development of Gaelic education be agreed, be fully mainstreamed and, ultimately, receive ministerial approval.

One of the clear benefits of having the national strategy for Gaelic education as a clear component of the bòrd's national plan is that, as a result of an amendment that I lodged at stage 2, all public bodies that develop Gaelic language plans under the bill must do so having regard to the national plan. That makes provision for individual language plans to be developed with a view to contributing to the implementation of the national language plan and, for bodies that are education authorities or have education responsibilities, to the implementation of the national Gaelic education strategy, which will be part of the national plan.

That is a neat and complete way of meeting the requests for a national education strategy. First, it ensures that such a strategy will exist. Secondly, it places that strategy firmly within the context of wider Gaelic development. Thirdly, it binds any body with an education function to ensure that its plan contributes to the national education strategy—that provision catches the Executive itself in its Gaelic language plan. Fourthly, it ensures that, as part of the national plan, the Gaelic education strategy will have to obtain ministerial approval, which ties ministers directly into the national education strategy and will ensure that they are satisfied with it.

That addresses all the points on which Highland Council in particular has been lobbying and which lie behind Fiona Hyslop's amendment 1 and John Farquhar Munro's amendment 47, which supports amendment 1. However, amendment 11 is stronger than Highland Council's suggestions, because it will ensure that the national education strategy fits within the national language plan while fulfilling everything else that Highland Council sought. In the light of that, I ask Fiona Hyslop not to move amendment 1 in the knowledge that what she seeks to achieve will be achieved far more powerfully. If she did that, John Farquhar Munro's amendment 47 would not be necessary.

One of the bill's key features is flexibility. I stated clearly during the stage 1 debate that the bill is not about imposing the Gaelic language plan on anyone where there is patently no demand for it. On Gaelic education in particular, I want resources to be targeted and deployed where they can have most impact. That means doing so where there is reasonable and sustainable demand for provision.

It was agreed at stage 2 that, while the bòrd should monitor and report on the implementation of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages in Scotland, the charter should not take the place of the bòrd's national Gaelic language plan as the key document for implementing the intentions of the bill. The same arguments apply to John Farquhar Munro's amendment 4.

If implemented, amendment 4 could have the effect of requiring all local authorities to provide pre-school, primary and secondary education through the medium of Gaelic. That is the force of the charter obligations. I have spoken to John Farquhar Munro and am aware that he did not intend his amendment to have that effect but seeks reassurance about the importance of the charter beyond the important reporting arrangements that were agreed at stage 2. I give him that reassurance. When issuing ministerial guidance to Bòrd na Gàidhlig on the exercise of its functions, I will require it to include in its guidance on language plans advice to education authorities on how they can act within the spirit of article 8 of the charter—which is what John Farquhar Munro is concerned about—while remaining consistent with the directions that are set out in the bòrd's national plan. In the light of what I have said, I ask John Farquhar Munro not to move amendment 4.

Fiona Hyslop's amendment 48 partly duplicates my amendment 40, which will require an education authority to discharge its Gaelic-medium education duties having regard to any Gaelic language plan that it has in place. I consider such provision to be entirely sensible, which is why at stage 2 I agreed to lodge such an amendment. However, there is a danger that the other part of Fiona Hyslop's amendment, which would delete the ability for an education authority to set out the circumstances in which it will deliver Gaelic-medium education, goes too far. Deleting that provision could have the result of requiring all education authorities, regardless of demand in their area, to make Gaelic-medium education available. Given what I have said about the need for flexible implementation of the bill and given the scarcity of resources, particularly teachers, I do not believe that it would be helpful to remove the provision that enables education authorities to set out the circumstances in which they will make Gaelic-medium education available.

As Dr Elaine Murray pointed out at stage 2, there are situations in which education authorities should be able to access provision from a neighbouring education authority rather than having to make provision themselves. With the development of a virtual curriculum and the new all-through school in Glasgow, such flexibility should be retained. I ask Fiona Hyslop not to move amendment 48, in the knowledge that provision is in place to ensure that Gaelic education provision will be made where there is demand for it and the potential for growth.

Both my amendments in this group relate to education. Amendment 11 stresses the need for an education strategy as part of the bòrd's national plan and amendment 40 establishes a link between the Standards in Scotland's Schools Act 2000, reporting requirements and any language plan that an education authority has in place.

I resist amendments 1, 4, 47 and 48, which would introduce an unwelcome measure of duplication and would significantly reduce the flexibility that has characterised the bill and the debate on it.

I move amendment 11.