We now come to amendment 19, which is grouped with amendments 20, 21 and 34.

I will deal with all the amendments in this group. Amendments 19 and 20 were lodged in the name of the Minister for Children and Education.

Following discussion at stage 2, I undertook to lodge amendments relating to equal opportunities and Gaelic. The Executive is whole-heartedly committed to promoting equal opportunities in all spheres of activity. Following representations and discussion at stage 2, we have lodged a new amendment to require authorities to say what they will do to promote equal opportunities in schools.

It is important that equal opportunities are promoted in school education. The new provision in amendment 20 will ensure that authorities are transparent about what they are doing to promote equal opportunities in schools. The provision ensures that authorities, as managers of schools, report on action at the strategic authority level. We think that the new provision improves the bill and clearly signals the Executive's commitment to mainstreaming equality in all that it does.

I would like to thank the Equal Opportunities Committee of the Parliament, and in particular Malcolm Chisholm, for having raised the matter with me. I sympathise very much with the intentions behind amendment 21, which was lodged by Malcolm Chisholm. However, throughout the bill, we have been reluctant to place specific legal duties on head teachers, who are employees of councils.

There are also technical problems with amendment 21, as it refers to the head teacher providing education when legally it is the education authority that provides education. Schools fit within the duties on authorities, and I firmly expect that the equal opportunities requirements that we place on authorities will cascade down to the school level.

It will give me particular pleasure to move amendment 20, which is on the provision for Gaelic-medium education. Our proposals for section 5 of the bill—and our use of other provisions in the bill to create national priorities in education—represent the biggest boost to the proper recognition of Gaelic that will ever have been achieved.

We are lifting Gaelic-medium education from a position of no official status to one in which it is proposed to become one of Scotland's top priorities in educational activity. In addition, the new provision in amendment 20 requires authorities to provide an account of what they will do to provide Gaelic-medium education and, if they do not currently offer it, the circumstances in which they would provide it in the future. Where Gaelic-medium education is already provided, or if it is to be provided by an authority at some point in the future, amendment 20 also requires authorities to say how they propose to develop that provision from that point.

By referring to Gaelic-medium education in statute, we are sending a clear message that Gaelic is an important part of our education system, which in turn has a major contribution to make to the survival of Gaelic. However, the amendment is not prescriptive; it is not about imposing Gaelic-medium education where there is no demand for it. We are requiring authorities to be accountable to local people for what they are doing in relation to Gaelic-medium education.

I now come to amendment 34, which was lodged by Mike Russell. As the Executive has made clear by lodging amendments 19 and 20, we are committed to supporting Gaelic-medium education. The commitment of the whole Parliament to Gaelic has been made clear in previous debates. I know that Mike Russell's amendment, which has the support of John Farquhar Munro, was lodged with the best of intentions. However, I have to point out that there are a number of technical and practical problems with it, including a large number of drafting problems.

The amendment refers to "reasonable demand" for Gaelic education, but it does not successfully define what constitutes reasonable demand, nor does it define a mechanism or a responsibility for determining reasonable demand. That would mean that matters were quickly dragged into the courts for them to determine. I do not believe anyone would regard that as satisfactory.

Amendment 34 seeks to place duties on "education authorities", in the plural, yet authorities, in the plural, are not a recognised legal entity. It is therefore not possible to place a duty on them. It is not clear from the drafting whether it is intended for local authorities collectively or for a single authority to determine reasonable demand. The drafting implies that, where there is reasonable demand—if we assume that the earlier difficulties can be overcome in one authority—all education authorities would have to provide education in Gaelic. There is no proviso that such education is limited to those who ask for it. We do not want to impose Gaelic on those who do not wish it.

The amendment requires councils to provide resources and so on

"to a standard comparable to those available for education in English."

That could be interpreted as requiring schools in the Highlands that had higher levels of spending on Gaelic to reduce that spending. Executive grants specifically for Gaelic are justified on the basis that there is a higher cost to authorities providing Gaelic-medium education than to those providing only English-medium education. If expenditure on Gaelic-medium education is to be brought into line with English-medium education, as the amendment implies, the policy rationale for specific grants goes. Moreover, as the amendment applies to the bill outwith the sections on the improvement framework, ministers would not be able to issue guidance on Gaelic-medium education to which councils would have to have regard.

I could go on to raise other problems with the drafting. I fully accept that none of them was intended, but they are real problems none the less. We should not enact such a flawed amendment. It would, at best, leave Gaelic in its current state; at worst, it could lead to the disadvantages that I have described, although I accept that that is not the intention of those who lodged it. The Executive amendment would bring about positive benefits without any of the flaws inherent in Mike Russell's well-intentioned amendment. I invite members to support amendments 19 and 20 and to reject amendments 21 and 34.

I move amendment 19.

I call Malcolm Chisholm to speak to amendment 21.

The Equal Opportunities Committee did a great deal of work on the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Bill and heard a lot of evidence on it. In our report to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, we expressed concern about the fact that the bill contained nothing specific about encouraging equal opportunities, in particular the observance of the equal opportunities requirements. I therefore welcome the Executive amendment to section 5 that has been put forward today. It entirely meets the wishes that we expressed throughout our work on the bill, particularly what we said at the committee meeting two weeks ago.

Some of us wanted to put the icing on the cake with the amendment to section 6. I accept that, as the Deputy Minister for Children and Education said, there are problems in placing legal duties on individual employees. Given that the substance of our demands has been met, I am minded not to press the amendment to a vote, as long as assurances are given that the local authorities will ensure that all schools are signed up to encourage equal opportunities and to the observance of the requirements.

I call Michael Russell to speak to amendment 34.

Tha mi glè thaingeal gu Comunn na Gàidhlig, Comann nam Pàrant Nàiseanta agus gu Iain Fearchar Rothach.

Following is the translation:

I am very grateful to Comunn na Gàidhlig, Comann nam Pàrant Nàiseanta and to John Farquhar Munro.

The member continued in English.

Amendment 34 seeks to provide for the first time a statutory right to Gaelic-medium education. Nobody should be in any doubt about the parlous state of Gaelic. We debate the amendment in the context of next year's census, which may see the number of Gaelic speakers drop below 50,000. That would be a decline of 20,000 in 10 years. In the previous 10 years, from 1981 to 1991, the number dropped by 13,000. There are half the number of Gaelic speakers today that there were 40 years ago. More worrying still is the detail of those figures. It is estimated that, in the crucial three to 15 age group, there are now fewer than 7,500 children who speak Gaelic. More than half of Gaelic speakers are 45 or older. It is little wonder that a distinguished European academic was quoted in The Scotsman last week as saying:

"Gaelic could die out by the end of the century if more children are not encouraged to learn the language".

He went on to say that

"the only way for a threatened language to survive is to have at least 100,000 speakers and receive full support from the nation state."

Amendment 34 seeks to start the process of providing that full support from the nation state. There is no doubt that what is crucially required is a legal right to education in the language. That right exists in Wales, where the number of Welsh speakers is increasing. That right does not exist in Scotland, where the number of Gaelic speakers is plummeting. The Executive amendment does not provide that legal duty.

I stress that I am asking members to support the Executive amendment and to support this amendment as well. We have heard a lot of criticism from the minister about the drafting—civil servants are adept at picking holes in other people's amendments. However, this is not about bureaucracy or what the minister called "drafting problems". It is about survival for the language; it is very much about human rights.

Amendment 34 is not open-ended, although that criticism has been made. Currently, about £10 million is spent by the Executive and local authorities on Gaelic education. This amendment might double that sum over three or four years. Even if it did that, we would be spending only 0.6 per cent of the Scottish education budget on Gaelic education—somewhat less than is being spent to save the corncrake in the western isles. The amendment is a step towards building a right to Gaelic-medium education, although it is only a step. Regrettably, the Executive amendment is not a step, but a gesture.

The Executive amendment falls foul of something that the Deputy Minister for Highlands and Islands and Gaelic announced in this chamber on 2 March—the fact that the UK Government has signed the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. Article 7 of the charter insists on

"the need for resolute action to promote regional or minority languages in order to safeguard them".

It also insists on

"the provision of appropriate forms and means for the teaching and study of regional or minority languages at all appropriate stages".

It goes on to stipulate:

"In determining their policy with regard to regional or minority languages, the Parties"— meaning the UK and, under devolution, this Parliament—

"shall take into consideration the needs and wishes expressed by the groups which use such languages."

That charter is a binding international obligation, and the Executive amendment does not meet it. The Executive amendment does not represent resolute action, it does not safeguard Gaelic at this critical time and it does not provide appropriate forms for the teaching of Gaelic at all stages. Most crucial, it flies in the face of the express wish of Gaelic organisations and parents in this matter. The amendment lodged in my name and the name of John Farquhar Munro is backed by Comunn na Gàidhlig and a range of organisations.

Presiding Officer, you are indicating that I should finish. Before I do so, I would like to quote from an article published in the West Highland Free Press in July 1998. One of the paper's regular columnists wrote:

"Why are we still in the situation in Gaelic-speaking areas . . . where parents who want their children taught through the medium of Gaelic must prove that there is enough demand for it?

This forces Gaels to their knees to beg for something so basic as education in their own language, in their very own communities."

He went on to say:

"I think that the Gaelic world and, especially, the groups that represent us are far too reasonable. They think it a big deal if they send 'reasonable' demands to the Scottish Office . . . And in spite of these 'reasonable recommendations', the numbers of Gaelic-speakers, especially young Gaelic-speakers, is declining. If you look at the situation from another point of view, reasonable recommendations are actually killing Gaelic."

That young journalist is covering this debate today. He is John Morrison, who is now BBC Scotland's chief political correspondent. He is no wild voice of unreason, as the Deputy Minister for Highlands and Islands and Gaelic knows. His views, and his plea, are echoed by the entire Gaelic community.

John Morrison finished his piece by asking the question, "Will Gaelic survive?" I hope so, but today every member of this chamber can take part in helping Gaelic to survive by voting for amendment 34. That is the right thing to do. If the amendment is not approved, the language will continue to decline.

I remind members that, under Sir David's revised timetable, we must conclude this section of the debate at 15.55, when I will put the question. I ask members to keep contributions short. Mr Gallie, do you wish to speak? [Laughter.] We are having continuing problems with the screen. I call Jamie McGrigor.

As a member of the party with the best history of support for Gaelic, I reaffirm the Conservatives' support for Gaelic language and culture, now and in the future. Although we entirely support the sentiments that are expressed in amendment 34, we have considerable difficulty with some of the points that it contains. We wish that we had been consulted at an earlier stage on something so important that required our support.

We are particularly worried by the wording in subsection (3) of the proposed new section, which states:

"Where education in Gaelic is provided under subsection (1) or (2) above, the education authority shall provide adequate resources, support and advisory services in Gaelic to a standard comparable to those available for education in English."

Because more is spent per capita on Gaelic-medium education, that provision might allow a local authority to reduce the amount spent on Gaelic, which would be worse for Gaelic provision rather than better. That would be self-defeating and disastrous.

Furthermore, there is a risk that the wording in subsection (5)—on ascertaining what "reasonable demand" is—would take it for granted that a reasonable demand must exist, which might leave an authority under pressure to take finance from English-medium education. Already many small primary schools are under threat of closure, and the bias in the amendment might worsen that situation.

We are well aware of the advantages of children being bilingual, thanks to Gaelic-medium education. We want to promote Gaelic education and culture further. What has happened to the development of the Gaelic school at Tollcross, here in the capital? Where is the dedicated Gaelic television channel? Both those things were promoted in Alasdair Morrison's speech on 2 March but, as far as I know, nothing has happened.

Whatever happens today, this party has always been, and will always be, genuinely committed to helping Gaelic. We will consider the possibility of introducing a member's bill with cross-party support to achieve that end in the future.

I am delighted to have the opportunity to participate in this debate, particularly because I wish to support whole-heartedly Mr Russell's amendment on Gaelic education.

The original draft of the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Bill did not include a section on Gaelic or Gaelic-medium education, which I suggest, as I did at the time, was an affront to the Gaelic community. I am pleased to accept that that error has now been addressed, although I do not accept that the form of words that the Executive has produced does anything to strengthen the current position of Gaelic-medium education. It requires local authorities to state the ways or circumstances in which they will provide Gaelic-medium education, but there is no requirement for them to do anything other than produce a written report.

As members would expect, I consider the amendment by Mr Russell and me to be moderate and reasonable and think that it goes a long way to meeting the wishes and aspirations of Gaelic groups, organisations and parents, who have fought over many years to retain their language and culture and for the explicit right for children to be educated through the medium of Gaelic. By voting against, or abstaining on, amendment 34, members will be indicating their disregard for the human rights of a sizeable section of the electorate, who I am sure would expect their Scottish Parliament to support a very basic human right.

Much of the Parliament's time over the past year has focused on the scourge that is all forms of discrimination, most recently in our lengthy debates on section 28, when we were anxious to protect from discrimination a section of our community and, in particular, our children. Why are we not prepared to convey that worthy principle into the Gaelic community, whose parents and children are entitled to the same protection as any other section of our society is? By voting against amendment 34, members will be indicating their willingness to discriminate against that group.

Like many members, I was delighted when we agreed to appoint a minister for the Highlands and Islands, who also had the honour of being responsible for Gaelic. I was encouraged by the appointment and by the statements that the minister made at various Gaelic events throughout the Highlands.

Could you close, please.

The minister told the people at those meetings that they had the ear of the Government and that he looked forward to hearing from them; that Edinburgh would be different from Westminster; that the voice of the community would be listened to; and that the views and the ideas must come from the people.

What has happened? I am not aware that those laudable views have been promoted today. I am sure that people in the Highlands and Islands expected more from their minister, particularly because he was nurtured and had a career in Gaelic before he entered politics.

Could you close, please.

On behalf of those people, I express disappointment at the lack of effective action. I am disappointed to learn—

You have 10 seconds.

I am about to finish. I am disappointed to learn that our Conservative friends are likely to abstain. They should reflect on their position, particularly given that we all acknowledge the generous financial support that was given by the Conservative Government.

You are out of time, Mr Munro. The knife has fallen.

Amendment 19 agreed to.

Amendment 20 moved—[Peter Peacock]—and agreed to.