���˿���

I am interested in hearing Dr Malik’s thoughts on that. By and large, however, my experience of Scottish businesses is that they want to do the right thing. They see themselves as critical to the local economy, but they are very interested in how they do their business and not just in what they do. Perhaps the difference is that, in Parliament or in the public sector, we have a tendency to use terms to define a lot of things that businesses, by and large, want to do themselves. An example is single-use cups. I am very conscious that a lot of coffee shops have already made decisions to try to contribute to environmental sustainability irrespective of legislative changes. Irrespective of how people define the work that they do and the duties that you outlined, businesses want to do the right thing.

No, there will not be. The point of the new deal for business was to make systemic change. That is slightly different from setting policy outcomes; it was about processes. The next stage is that those processes should work, be effective and lead to different outcomes for Government with regard to what happens and what does not happen.

I hope that extensive engagement will continue, and that there will be different and better means by which different businesses can feed in to processes. That would be my objective.

It is a good question, and I would like to hear responses from the people on either side of me. What happens next, Judith?

I hope so, yes. That is the aim; that is the ambition. There are particular flash points where that is tested with new policies and so on. With the previous budget and the programme for government, we tried to give some breathing space, with no surprises for businesses or anything that has caught them out and so on. There is something about this being a particularly tumultuous time, and giving business some space to be able to respond to those challenges is a good thing for Government to do.

I disagree fundamentally with the point about their incentivisation. I think that local authorities are incentivised to take such action. There is an extensive focus on what the Scottish Government is or is not doing to incentivise economic prosperity and growth, but a lot of levers lie with local government, and I do not think that there is always the same level of scrutiny of local government in that respect.

The visitor levy is one of the first examples of a measure in relation to which a local authority needs to consult extensively with local businesses before implementing a new economic intervention. Although it might be easy to keep coming back to the root, I invite all members to work with local government, too. Often, on planning, local taxation and local consultation, the levers lie with local government, and if we keep coming back to central Government, that undermines local government’s responsibility and duty to take action on those things.

This is a good bookend. In response to your first question, I said that the key for the new deal for business is the extent to which it filters down to other organisations. With things such as local taxation, there is a duty in law on local government to engage and consult well with local businesses. I will be quite bold and say that it is, therefore, the lazy option to keep saying to Government that the problem is with what we have or have not done on the legislation, given that there are extensive flexibilities in the legislation and there is a new responsibility on local government through which it is incentivised to engage well on these points.

Part of the answer is that when there is a new opportunity and a new responsibility on local government, local citizens should hold the relevant and appropriate level of government responsible for what it does. In this case it is local authorities. The same goes for planning and local transport decisions.

That is fine.

You were cut off at the beginning.

The amendments make very minor corrections that will ensure that references to the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 follow the style of the act into which they are being inserted. That will ensure consistency and remove any possible ambiguity.

I move amendment 59.

Amendment 59 agreed to.

Amendment 60 moved—[Kate Forbes]—and agreed to.

Section 16, as amended, agreed to.

After section 16

On amendments 33 and 34, I understand the importance of ensuring that the duties that we place on relevant public authorities strike the correct balance. Amendment 34, lodged by Emma Roddick, would achieve that. A duty to have regard to something is a commonly used formulation in law, and the removal of the reference to “desirability” in relation to having regard to Gaelic language and culture makes the duty more direct and, therefore, stronger, while still allowing the relevant public authorities flexibility and autonomy to consider what action they should take in their particular circumstances.

From our reading, the two-stage test that is set out in Ross Greer’s amendment 33 is less clear. I appreciate that that wording appears in the 2005 act, but that is in relation to the very different context of Bòrd na Gàidhlig giving advice and assistance to authorities. I am concerned that that test would be more complex for authorities to apply than the simple test of having regard to Gaelic language and culture, which Emma Roddick’s amendment 34 would achieve.

Therefore, I ask members to support amendment 34. On this occasion, I am not able to support amendment 33. [Interruption.]

Oh, sorry—I will keep going, as I need to turn to amendment 54, which relates to relevant public authorities that are to be included in the scope of the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005. I should say that our support for amendment 54 is another example of our trying to support as many amendments as possible, either now or at stage 3.

The Scottish Government’s position is that Scottish Rail Holdings and Scottish Water are already included in the scope of the 2005 act by virtue of the use of the definition, “Scottish public authority”. We feel that it is unnecessary to expressly specify them and that to do so might create doubt and even a narrowing of the definition, by suggesting that bodies must be expressly mentioned to be subject to the act.

Colleges in Scotland are already classed as part of the public sector, and they have some functions to which the duties in the 2005 act, as amended by the bill, will apply. There was an assumption that universities would be covered by the 2005 act. They have a mix of public and private functions. Their private functions are obviously not the concern of the bill, but it is undoubtedly the case that public functions are carried out in the sector that should be exercised with an appreciation of the Gaelic language. Indeed, that is happening already. Just last week, the University of Edinburgh launched its refreshed Gaelic language plan, which is a great example of how universities, through their activities in running the internal corporate aspects of their institutions and in providing for their student populations, can act positively for Gaelic.

My understanding is that that is correct. When it comes to the 2005 act, we are aware that data gathering has been a challenge and that we need to do more on that. The committee, too, flagged a criticism about the robustness of the data that we gather. That was a frequent refrain from the committee, so amendment 55 highlights our commitment on that.

I turn to the other amendments. Amendment 47, from my reading of it, would essentially create a requirement to report on the number of Gaelic speakers, at the level at which the census reports, every two years. While we would not argue with the desire to have far more frequent reporting on progress among Gaelic speakers, our sense is that, considering that it takes quite a long time to do the census, the strict schedules in amendment 47 would require a significant amount of resources and staffing. Again, the risk is that that would distract from the urgent need for action by focusing resources on reporting rather than delivery. There are also deeper questions around the methodology that would be involved in such reporting, which would have to be settled before making it a requirement on ministers. The reason why we lodged amendment 55 was to address that issue. In a way, it is less onerous and will, we hope, provide a greater depth of information.

Amendment 67 concerns a desire for more information and would require reporting on particular issues. The Gaelic language strategy and standards are the way for us to assess the issues that affect the language and its communities. There is a concern that the requirements in this amendment would, again, require a significant resource investment that would focus efforts away from the delivery of the bill’s measures. Again, we have lodged amendment 55 to try to address the issue.

I have previously stated that the challenges facing Gaelic require action across a range of issues relating to social and economic matters as much as to the themes of education, institutional planning and community development that will be the main focus of the bill. Interventions are under way that indicate the Government’s recognition of the need to provide a comprehensive approach to the language.