Plenary, 02 Feb 2005

Meeting date: Wednesday, February 2, 2005

Official Report 473KB pdf

---

Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Òrdugh, òrdugh. Is e an ath rud air a' chlàr-ghnothaich an-diugh, deasbad air gluasad àireamh S2M-1812 ann an ainm Peadar Peacock, gun tèid aonta a chur ri bun-phrionnsabalan Bile na Gàidhlig (Alba).

The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-1812, in the name of Peter Peacock, that the general principles of the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill be agreed to.

It is my privilege to open this historic debate. It is the first time in recent history that a Government-sponsored bill that seeks to strengthen Gaelic and not to do it down has been brought before a Parliament. I shall say more about that in a second. It is also a pleasure to open the debate on a bill that has received such wide support from the committee, the Parliament, across all parties and outside Parliament.

As I hinted, Parliaments have not always been so generous towards Gaelic or so positive and supportive. Indeed a Scottish education act of 1616 ruled that Gaelic should be "abolishit and removit" from Scotland. Gaelic has suffered prejudice for many years. Within living memory, children were belted for speaking Gaelic and families were encouraged to discourage the use of Gaelic. It was associated with failure and decline. The English language was seen as a route to success and people were told that Gaelic would hold them back in some way. The clearances and the decline of the Highlands contributed to and accelerated the decline of the language as Gaels were spread throughout every corner of the world. That is why Gaelic is still widely spoken in parts of New Zealand and Canada, for example.

Thankfully those days of prejudice are largely gone. The renaissance of the Highlands in recent years has been partly built on the Gaelic renaissance. There is now pride in the language where it was once lacking. People are now encouraged to speak the language where they were once discouraged. They are now taught through the medium of Gaelic where they were once punished for speaking it in schools. The language is expressed through music and art in new ways throughout the Highlands and Islands and other parts of Scotland. People now celebrate their language and culture and are rightly proud of it.

Gaelic is a precious part of our national life. It is not just a language; it is the gateway to an entire culture, to a set of beliefs and values, to a distinct history, to music and song, to dance and literature, and to the oral traditions of storytelling. It is a rich and precious resource for Scotland. As Sorley Maclean said,

"if Gaelic dies, Scotland will lose something of inexpressible worth, and the Gaels will lose almost everything".

We in the Parliament have a duty to ensure that we do all that we can to ensure that Gaelic does not just survive, but that it thrives into the future.

We must do that because, despite all the recent positives, the number of native Gaelic speakers is still in decline. Older speakers are dying faster than young people are adopting the language. We still have to reach a balance in that situation, let alone get to the point at which the number of new speakers overtakes the number of those native speakers who are dying out. I am confident that that will happen in due course.

However, the language must be used more and more in everyday life in Scotland and this bill is part of the process of securing a future in which that will happen. It gives clear recognition to the language. It establishes in law a body charged with bringing about its recovery and development. It requires a national plan to help achieve the outcomes that we want for Gaelic. It requires all those in the public sector in Scotland to play their part in bringing about that revival and the wider use of Gaelic. It also gives further legislative recognition to the key part that education will play in the future success of the language.

I thank the Education Committee for its thorough consideration of the bill during recent weeks and I am pleased that it has endorsed the general principles of the bill. The Executive and the committee share the same objectives for Gaelic. There should be no doubt that Gaelic already has official recognition in Scotland. The Executive recognises that explicitly and in several ways, and the committee's report recognises it. It is also captured in the long title of the bill. The bill is an eloquent expression of the status of the language in Scotland.

The bill will establish Bòrd na Gàidhlig in statute and the bòrd will have the clearly defined functions of promoting, and facilitating the promotion of, the Gaelic language; developing a national Gaelic language plan; advising ministers and others on matters relating to the Gaelic language; providing advice to public bodies on the development of Gaelic language plans; and developing guidance on Gaelic education.

The bòrd becomes the Executive's vehicle for delivering our aspirations for Gaelic. A key task for the bòrd will be the creation of a statutory national Gaelic language plan, which will provide an agreed, considered and strategic approach to Gaelic development. I expect the plan to create the conditions in which the number of Gaelic speakers in Scotland can grow in the years ahead.

The bill creates a framework for the development of Gaelic language plans by other public bodies, creating conditions for the wider use of the language in public life. It creates a strategic role for Bòrd na Gàidhlig in the development of Gaelic education policy. I am in no doubt that the future of Gaelic is inextricably linked to that of education through the medium of Gaelic and the teaching of Gaelic as a second language—and we are encouraging more people to learn and speak the language.

I would like to probe the minister's thinking on this matter. It occurs to me that some of the areas where Gaelic is spoken are also some of the most economically fragile areas. The minister mentions other public bodies. Would they include the enterprise network, not just in relation to the language, but with regard to its role in underpinning local economies and trying to keep young people in places such as north-west Sutherland and Alasdair Morrison's constituency?

The local enterprise network would absolutely be included, and not just in a formal way. It would be for Bòrd na Gàidhlig to decide when to approach the enterprise network to help Gaelic language plans to be met. One of the great things that we have seen in the Highlands and Islands in recent years has been the fact that part of the economic revival of places such as Skye—which is now in its fifth decade of continuous economic growth—has been built around, and is closely linked to, the revival of the language.

The bill will introduce a role for Bòrd na Gàidhlig that will complement activity undertaken by the Executive, by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education and by local authorities, who will remain the main providers of Gaelic education. I expect the development and expansion of Gaelic education to be delivered in partnership between those bodies. The Executive has a responsibility in helping to drive that agenda forward. We are doing that, but it is right that the bòrd has a strategic advisory role with respect to how we perform in that regard.

There are people in some parts of Scotland who worry that they will have Gaelic forced upon them. I do not want to coerce people to speak Gaelic; I want to win converts to the cause of Gaelic and to create the conditions for that to happen. One of the key features of the bill is its flexibility. The situation of the language is clearly varied across Scotland. The bill will enable Bòrd na Gàidhlig and other public bodies to respond to local circumstances and to target development in a sensible and cost-effective manner throughout Scotland, but in different ways in different parts of Scotland. The bill sends out the message that Gaelic is a language of all Scotland, while enabling its development to be sensitive to local circumstances.

I recognise that there are many parts of Scotland where there is potential for the development of Gaelic. That potential ought to be a consideration in language planning. The Education Committee highlighted that in its stage 1 report, and at stage 2 I will look to respond positively to its suggestions on that subject.

The Education Committee expressed sympathy for capturing the idea that the Gaelic language has "equal validity" with the English language and for capturing that spirit in the framework of the bill. As I said in my evidence to the committee, Gaelic should not suffer from any lack of esteem or respect, either at an individual level or at a corporate level, in any aspect of our life. I am sympathetic to the committee's view. However, the words "equal validity" might at some point have to be given legal meaning by the courts. The consequences of that on a Scotland-wide basis are potentially far-reaching. I continue to wrestle with how to resolve that issue, and I still hope to be able to bring forward a suggestion that will capture the sense that the committee had—which I share—that the Parliament wishes the language to be treated with equal respect to English in those respects that the committee and others have highlighted.

I share the view of the Education Committee that there are Gaelic education issues that need to be addressed in conjunction with the language planning framework created under the bill. New laws alone cannot save Gaelic. Last week, I met individuals in the Gaelic education sector to discuss the future development of Gaelic education and in particular the difficulties of teacher recruitment and training. I can confirm to Parliament that I have established an action group to tackle the Gaelic teacher shortage, which is the most pressing issue currently facing the development of the language. Membership of the action group will include key representatives from local authorities, HMIE, Bòrd na Gàidhlig, the Executive and universities. I have asked Matt MacIver of the General Teaching Council for Scotland—a well-known Gael and activist—to chair that group, which will report to me in May.

As far as achieving potential and having more Gaelic-medium teachers are concerned, I welcome the minister's statement that he will set up an action group. Can he tell me in one sentence how we can increase the confidence of people so that they take up a career in Gaelic teaching, when at the moment far more teachers speak Gaelic than have been recruited to teach through the language?

I do not have time to set out all the measures that we are taking, but Rob Gibson has put his finger on one of the key points. There needs to be confidence that we are serious about Gaelic. A few years ago, people who were choosing a career in teaching were not confident that we were serious about Gaelic development, but I hope that they are now. One of the great successes of Scottish education has been Gaelic-medium education. We are now committed to having a Gaelic-medium secondary school in Glasgow and a virtual Gaelic-medium secondary school in Scotland. I hope that, taken together with all the other things that we are doing, that will give people who can speak Gaelic, but are currently teaching through the medium of English the confidence to opt for Gaelic-medium teaching.

The work that Matt MacIver and his colleagues will do will be a key plank in the work that I want done through Bòrd na Gàidhlig, in consultation with the Executive and education service providers, to develop a national strategy for Gaelic education as part of the national Gaelic planning exercise.

I agree with both the Finance Committee and the Education Committee that we need procedures to ensure that the resource implications of the bill can be managed effectively. I am happy to agree with the Finance Committee's recommendation that the bòrd should set out, through its corporate planning processes, which public authorities it intends to approach to develop language plans and what the general scope of those plans should be. I am also happy to agree to the recommendation that we present an outline of the guidance that ministers are able to issue under the bill to guide the work of the bòrd. I hope to provide that outline to the committee before stage 2.

The Education Committee notes the anomalous position of UK bodies and that encompassing those bodies within the scope of the bill would require an amendment to the Scotland Act 1998. Discussions have been proceeding with the Scotland Office and other UK departments on the role that they can play in securing the status of Gaelic. Recently, my officials held a seminar in London with representatives from across Whitehall to set out what we are seeking. I am pleased to say that the departments reacted positively in those discussions. In line with the Education Committee's recommendation, we have the agreement of Whitehall departments to work in a spirit of co-operation where there is merit in their doing so and following an approach from the bòrd.

I welcome the minister's comments about securing co-operation from Whitehall. Am I right in saying that an amendment to the Scotland Act 1998 is not required to transfer powers over reserved functions relating to the bòrd, if that is found to be necessary? I understand that only an order in council under schedule 5 of the act is needed.

That is the advice that the Education Committee has received and I have no reason to question it at the moment. I will clarify the issue with Alex Neil in due course. The important point is that we have sought the voluntary co-operation of departments across Whitehall and are winning it. I am sure that we can be confident that, if Bòrd na Gàidhlig approaches those departments, they will act in a spirit of co-operation to help to achieve the intentions of the bill.

Given the look on your face, Presiding Officer, I suspect that I am out of time. In the short time that was available to me, I have been unable to cover all the points that the Education Committee made in its report. No doubt members will raise other issues in the debate; I will try to address as many of those as possible when I sum up. I continue to listen to the good ideas that have been suggested and to respond positively to those ideas when I can, to maintain the consensus that exists on the bill and on the future for Gaelic. It is with great pleasure that I commend the motion to the chamber.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill.

Many people ask me whether I can speak Gaelic. I must admit that I struggle with English from time to time, without adding Gaelic to that. However, like many people in Scotland I am conscious of the importance of Gaelic in our heritage and culture. Today is an historic day for the Scottish Parliament, because this is a bill that many of us would not have expected to see if there had not been a Scottish Parliament. Had there been a Scottish Parliament many more years ago, Gaelic might have made far greater progress and we might not have reached the current position, in which the language is under real threat.

Gaelic is a minority language—only about 1.8 per cent of the population speak it—but it is not confined to the Highlands and Islands. Forty-eight per cent of Gaelic speakers are in the Highlands and Islands, but 52 per cent are in other parts of Scotland. We should not regard Gaelic as an issue that is confined to the north of a Mason-Dixon line above Inverness; it affects many parts of Scotland. In places such as Kilmarnock and Glasgow, as well as in other parts of Scotland, there is a growth in the demand for Gaelic education among every age of the population, which is to be welcomed.

I welcome the minister giving the Education Committee's recommendations a fair wind, with respect to the status issue as well as co-operation on reserved matters, of which I will say more later.

I will make two points on key aspects of status. First, as the minister said in evidence to the Education Committee, Gaelic already is, de facto, an official language in the sense that many official publications are now issued by public agencies and Government in the Gaelic language and they have exactly the same status as any document issued in English. However, we would like the official status of Gaelic to be built in to the bill.

It is all very well for Mr Neil to say that Gaelic is an official language. Latin was the official language of the Roman Catholic Church until well into our lifetimes, but that did not alter the fact that that language was dead. Given what the member just said about percentages and who speaks Gaelic north or south of Inverness, does he not at least concede that the existence, survival and prosperity of Gaelic-speaking communities are part and parcel of—in fact, vital to—the real survival of a real language?

Absolutely. That brings me to my next point, which is that even building recognition of Gaelic as an official language into the bill is not nearly enough. We need to go further. I think that Bòrd na Gàidhlig's evidence provided the solution with reference to giving the language equal validity of status. I think that there is consensus on that in the Gaelic community and in wider Scotland. We want to give the Gaelic language equal status with English and make it a live language. However, we do not want to force every agency to publish in Gaelic every document that they publish in English. Nobody is arguing for that. We think that a solution around equal validity is the right way to proceed.

Jamie Stone made the important point that although the bill is very important for the regeneration of not just the Gaelic language, but the Gaelic communities, of itself the bill will not achieve that; it must be part and parcel of a much broader strategy for the regeneration of the language. For example, broadcasting is not mentioned in the bill, because broadcasting is essentially a reserved matter—although Gaelic broadcasting is devolved. However, unless we have more investment in Gaelic broadcasting and more Gaelic broadcasting to spread the use of and to regenerate the language, we will not achieve our objectives. Therefore, an area for future action by the minister, which is not included in the bill, is to pursue Whitehall and Westminster for a dedicated channel for Gaelic. With today's digital technology, that should be neither too costly nor too burdensome a responsibility.

I thank Mr Neil for taking an intervention. Does he agree that, while a dedicated Gaelic channel is certainly something to which we might aspire, it should not act against Gaelic being transmitted on other channels as well? Does he agree that the last thing that we want is for Gaelic to be ghettoised on a single channel?

Absolutely. It is always a pleasure to agree with Mr Brocklebank. To be fair to the BBC, its coverage of Gaelic on its main radio channels and its television channels has done enormous good for the Gaelic language in recent years. A channel such as QVC, which is a ghettoised shopping channel, does not stop people shopping in the normal channels—unfortunately. Gaelic comes into that category, in terms of spreading the use of the language and regenerating it.

With regard to reserved bodies, the approach recommended by the committee, after some discussion, is that we should primarily go for co-operation. I think that that was the advice of the Welsh Language Board as well. Only if we do not get that co-operation from bodies carrying out reserved functions should we then seek a change in the law. I am happy—pending independence—to accept that position.

Did Alex Neil hear the Welsh Language Board's evidence that, in all its years of existence, it had not had to bring into play ministerial powers or other enforcement mechanisms, but that it had always managed by co-operation?

Absolutely, but we also have to bear it in mind that the Welsh Language Act 1993 was passed by Westminster before devolution and therefore automatically applies to reserved bodies; it has a different status because of when it was introduced.

We also heard that there are four or five categories of official body that the legislation may apply to. There are devolved agencies, to which the bill applies. There are cross-border agencies with devolved and reserved responsibilities, and the bill applies to the devolved responsibilities but not the reserved ones, as a matter of statute. There are reserved bodies with reserved and devolved functions. Finally, in a category of its own, there is the Food Standards Agency, which is a department in its own right, and the committee has recommended—well within the competence of the bill—that the Executive introduce an amendment at stage 2 to ensure that the Food Standards Agency, which is an important agency in terms of what the bill is trying to achieve, should be covered by the bill. I see the minister nodding approval. I take that as an indication that that recommendation is accepted in full.

Unfortunately, Presiding Officer, I have run over time. There is much more, as you can imagine, that I would want to say about the bill. I finish by paying tribute to my former colleague, Mike Russell, who introduced the first Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill to this Parliament—an example that I followed last year to try to keep the issue alive. I am delighted that the Executive has lifted the torch and is prepared to strengthen the bill. I hope that we will get unanimity and that we can take forward the Gaelic language and secure it for the heritage of future generations as well as for the memory of past generations of the Gaelic community and Gaelic speakers.

I welcome the minister's constructive approach and his commitment to considering the question of equal validity and to having a national strategy. I also welcome the fact that Alex Neil, although he is not a member of the Education Committee, studiously attended all our meetings on the subject of Gaelic. Like him, I support the regeneration of the language and welcome this opportunity to express my support for the principles of the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill as presented to the Parliament.

As is now widely acknowledged, the Gaelic language and its culture have been subject to persecution in the past. We are all aware of that great Scottish Classic, "On the Other Side of Sorrow: nature and people in the Scottish Highlands", and of the wonderful work of Sabhal Mòr Ostaig, to whose development I once had the honour to contribute £1 million as a minister. The bill promises to go some way towards reversing that past trend and restoring the status of the language. The Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill will rightly build on the provisions of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, which stipulates that education authorities have a duty to secure

"adequate and efficient provision of school education",

including the teaching of Gaelic in Gaelic-speaking areas. It is important that we make clear our attitude of good will towards Gaelic-speaking communities throughout Scotland.

The bill provides for the creation of Bòrd na Gàidhlig as a statutory body with the task of preparing a national language plan. A co-ordinated and strategic policy will send out clear signals that the Gaelic language and its culture are to be afforded equal standing, both in principle and in practice. An authoritative Gaelic language dictionary will, I believe, consolidate that aim. I hope that in the minister's wind-up speech he sees fit to give a positive assurance on that point.

If the Gaelic language is to flourish, Gaelic-medium education must be developed where there is demand for it. The Executive will have to meet several challenges if it is to achieve its aims in that regard. There are currently insufficient numbers of Gaelic-medium teachers. Young people are sometimes deterred from working in Gaelic-medium education due to a lack of Gaelic teaching materials, the lack of choice of school and the lack of long-term job security and career development opportunities.

The use of high technology could very usefully be further investigated and enhanced in Gaelic-medium education. Not only could distance-learning packages be developed to enable older learners to have access to language resources, but an online learning network could enable Gaelic-medium teachers to pool teaching materials. Technology, including videoconferencing, should be made available to provide and expand opportunities and to enlarge the possibilities for those whose aspirations relate to Gaelic provision.

I will highlight one caveat with regard to Bòrd na Gàidhlig's role of preparing language plans for public bodies. The estimated cost to a local authority of developing a Gaelic language plan is in the region of £10,000. Perhaps the bòrd might consider allowing scope for collaboration between several public bodies in developing Gaelic provision. However, there remains the potential problem that United Kingdom bodies are under the jurisdiction of the UK Parliament. It is essential that the bòrd obtains and retains the good will of those organisations so that appropriate Gaelic provision can be made. If problems arise, the Education Committee, together with the Executive, will be in a position to consider and recommend the best ways forward.

I believe that, as support for Gaelic will be a continuing process, a strong case could be made for an in-depth review of aspirations once the bòrd has been established. Given that such aspirations may differ from area to area, such information could be useful in focusing attention on where provision is most needed. The notion of geographical relevance should not be overlooked.

We are presented with a golden opportunity to develop the linguistic and cultural diversity of Scotland, to which we all owe so much. Research has indicated that there are many advantages to having two well developed languages—there are many more, but I refer to the two, well developed indigenous languages. Those advantages include increased sensitivity to communication and more rapid cognitive development. However, the Education Committee has highlighted that significant policy and resource issues remain, in particular as regards Gaelic education and the cost of implementing Gaelic language plans. We urge the ministers to review and address those issues to ensure that the aspirations of the Gaels and the Gaelic communities are met throughout Scotland.

I thank the minister very much for his constructive and friendly speech this afternoon.

I begin by congratulating the Presiding Officer on his burgeoning Gaelic skills. He must anticipate that a Gaelic plan will apply to the Presiding Officer personally in future.

I had the opportunity to speak at the national Mòd and, as the convener of the Education Committee, at the Gaelic college in Skye. I equipped myself with one or two Gaelic sentences, which I read carefully from a phonetic text. I was congratulated on the great pronunciation that came from my Geordie intonations.

I believe that the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill, which we are considering today at stage one, will be seen in future years as a seminal point in the chequered history of Gaelic: the point at which the decline of the language stopped and its revival gathered pace.

As the Minister for Education and Young People said, Gaelic was once the language of most of Scotland but by the 16th century it had become concentrated in the west and north-west and for a long time was seen as the language of the wild and lawless highlanders. In more recent years, Gaelic was challenged more insidiously by educational discouragement in schools.

There is no doubt that things have changed. Eighty per cent of Scots are sympathetic to the encouragement of Gaelic and there are a number of centres of excellence, such as the Gaelic college—Sabhal Mòr Ostaig—in Skye, the recently announced all-through Gaelic school in Glasgow and the national resource centre.

The drive towards all that has been led by very committed Gaelic campaigners—some of whom were my contemporaries, friends and flatmates at the University of Aberdeen—and by a new generation of entrants to Gaelic-medium teaching, whom I met during the committee's visit to Portree and at the Gaelic schools in Glasgow and elsewhere. So far there are too few such people, but they are very committed and able and they are the future.

The Education Committee produced a thorough and sympathetic report on the bill. We tried to capture a number of important themes, which are required to underpin the language-planning approach to the bill. It is important that the committee was unanimous in its recommendations and I thank the many organisations and individuals in the Gaelic world who, in the course of our consideration, gave us their views and added to our understanding of the issues.

Perhaps the most important issue is the milieu—cultural, social and family—in which the language operates. If Gaelic is the language of the home and the playground and Gaelic-speaking communities have confidence in their economic future and their ability to offer satisfying employment, social and cultural opportunities so that Gaelic is normalised, in particular across the homeland Gaelic areas, the language is likely to have a much more satisfactory future. Gaelic is best learned from the family and older generations.

As members have said, the availability of Gaelic-medium education is central to that normalisation. However, the committee heard that if Gaelic-medium education is restricted to primary level, skills will be lost later. Gaelic-medium education that does not support Gaelic-speaking and non-Gaelic-speaking parents, for example through parental Gaelic-learning facilities and pre-school facilities, will be deficient. Gaelic-medium education that does not offer career security and promotional opportunities for teachers will not attract enough new blood.

The Education Committee of course recommends that Parliament agree to the general principles of the bill. However, we also made a number of recommendations, which I hope will guide ministers at stage 2. Indeed, I am very pleased by the response that Peter Peacock has given on a number of the important issues that we raised.

The first issue on which I will dwell a little is perhaps symbolic but nevertheless important: the status of the Gaelic language. The committee agreed that Gaelic is already an official language of Scotland—the Welsh did the same thing in relation to the Welsh language. However, we thought that English and Gaelic should be treated as equally valid when and where they are used, because that is right and because a clear statement in the bill would give status and prestige to the language. Given the official discouragement of Gaelic in earlier days, that is an important consideration. Allied to that is our recommendation that Bòrd na Gàidhlig should report to ministers on progress in respect of the UK's commitments under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. I am glad to say in passing that the Scottish Parliament's Gaelic arrangements were approved in the most recent report of the committee of experts on regional or minority languages in Europe.

Secondly, a number of people pressed on us the importance of giving legal rights in relation to the use of Gaelic, and Gaelic-medium education in particular, which could be vindicated by individuals in court. The committee, following the views of the bòrd and the Welsh Language Board in particular, concluded that the preferable way forward would be through the language-planning process that will be driven by the bòrd. Other considerations apart, the level of Gaelic teacher resources is such that legal rights of that kind could not effectively be delivered at this stage.

Thirdly, a central issue is the supply of teachers and resources for Gaelic education, which must be the job of ministers, because only they can supply the ministerial leadership of the various agencies that will tackle problems of recruitment and retention of Gaelic-medium teachers. I welcome the minister's announcement that an action group has been established.

Fourthly, we have touched on the position of UK bodies and I will not add to what has been said. The minister's comments were gratifying in that regard and were exactly of a kind that the committee hoped to hear.

Fifthly, we must consider the bill's objective, which is not just to preserve Gaelic as though the language were an endangered species such as the African elephant—although the preservation of the language is important. The objective is to support the development of Gaelic, so that the language can prosper and grow as an official language of Scotland.

The committee's report makes a number of observations about the composition and status of the bòrd and about the use of Gaelic in the courts, on which I will not dwell.

Gaelic should be treated in a generous and sympathetic manner. The language is an important strand in Scotland's diverse cultural and community life and it should have—I am sure that it will have—a considerable future. The bill is the building block to enable that to happen. I am glad to be present at this seminal debate in the Scottish Parliament to support the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill at stage 1.

We move to the open debate. I intend to allocate about five minutes to speakers whose speeches are in English and a bit more to those whose speeches are in Gaelic.

Tapadh leibh, Presiding Officer.

I am sorry that I am not able to make more of my contribution to the debate in what was at one time the language of the majority of people in Scotland. Gaelic was brought to Scotland more than 1,500 years ago. It gradually displaced the other languages until, around the 12th or 13th centuries, it was spoken by the majority of people across Scotland. Unfortunately, as we have heard, the language then began to decline. It was supplanted from the south by Scots and English and suffered as a result of official persecution.

Places in many parts of Scotland, including Dumfries, still have Gaelic names. Indeed, I understand that the name Dumfries derives from the Gaelic for the castle in the wood, although my daughter once misread the name as the fort of the corpse, which puts a rather different perspective on the town. Gaelic plays an important part in Scotland's linguistic and cultural heritage. I believe that it is relevant to all Scotland and not only to the areas in which it is still spoken.

I warmly welcome the general approach that the Executive has taken in the bill. The preservation and future growth of the Gaelic language and culture are the responsibility of all public agencies in Scotland. I am delighted to hear today that Whitehall has agreed to co-operate with Bòrd na Gàidhlig in the spirit of the legislation.

Of course, a number of areas need further discussion. Reference has been made to the status of the language. I was interested to read the minister's response of 17 December 2004 to my written question in which he said:

"There is no legislation that recognises English as an official language of Scotland."—[Official Report, Written Answers, 17 December 2004; S2W-12769.]

Obviously, not being an official language in law has not held English back, which probably reinforces the point that was made earlier that Gaelic needs more than just legislation to give it further life.

In my contribution, I want to concentrate on the fact that I represent a part of Scotland in which two thirds of one percent of the population has a knowledge of Gaelic. Many of us who do not speak Gaelic have an affection for—and, indeed, an historic link with—the language. The part of my own varied and mongrel heritage that gave me my surname originates from Elgin and Perthshire. I presume that those Murrays were Gaelic speakers.

As a result of the Highland clearances, many Gaelic speakers ended up in the central belt and the south of Scotland. Although many of their descendents lost the language, many feel, like me, that the Gaelic language and culture is part of their culture and heritage today.

There is some anxiety in Dumfries and Galloway about what a Gaelic plan might be about. People wonder whether it will be relevant to most of the people in the region and whether resources will be diverted from Scots, for example. I believe that the Gaelic plan for Dumfries and Galloway will not be the same as the Gaelic plan for the Western Isles. We will not see Gaelic signposts on all the roads in Dumfries and Galloway—that would be a bit like seeing English-language signposts all over the south of Spain.

A Gaelic plan for Dumfries and Galloway could include Gaelic classes for people like me who would like to learn the language but find it difficult to get classes. When the council is purchasing new material for its libraries, it could think about purchasing some resources in Gaelic. The council's education service could consider how to respond positively to parents who desire Gaelic-medium education for their children—such provision might not necessarily be made in the region. In the council's recruitment of language teachers, consideration could be given to the recruitment of teachers who can offer Gaelic as a second language at either primary or secondary level.

The everyday language of the majority of my constituents is Scots and an interesting parallel can be drawn between Gaelic and Scots. Nowadays, people speak Scots with confidence and pride. Scots is no longer considered a degraded form of English but a language in its own right. Young Scots feel that it is cool to speak in Scots and I understand that the same thing is happening with Gaelic. That said, the state that the language is in means that we need to accelerate the pace at which that happens.

Evidence from my area showed that Burns did not speak Gaelic. That may be so, but I believe that the spirit behind the bill is very much the same spirit that inspired Burns and his violinist partner to go round the Highlands of Scotland seeking out bits of music and poetry. Burns knew that changes in Scottish society meant that much of Scotland's traditional musical culture was at risk of being lost. He made a positive determination to collect it and relaunch it with new words and so on. The bill will do the same sort of thing. Were he alive today, Burns would approve of it, even if he was not a Gaelic speaker.

With the bill, we are trying to preserve and encourage part of our cultural heritage that would otherwise, without action, be lost. More than that, we are attempting to breathe new life and vigour into what is Scotland's ancient national language.

As a member of the Education Committee, I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to today's debate. The bill is one of those pieces of legislation in relation to which all of us who participated in the evidence sessions felt the hand of history on our shoulders and a sense that time was running out in which to turn round a process that has the Gaelic language teetering on the edge of extinction.

History tells us, as other speakers have pointed out, that the origins of Scotland as a nation were Celtic in nature and culture. Gaelic was the language of court and country. The evidence of that time is still with us today in the names of places, mountains and rivers wherever we go in Scotland, as Elaine Murray pointed out. However, we know that Gaelic gradually drew back from lowland Scotland during the middle ages, creating the distinction between Highlands and lowlands, and from then till now has faced varying degrees of hostility from the powers that be. In the 18th and 19th centuries, from a lowland perspective, Gaelic was reckoned to be one of the roots of what were regarded as Highland superstition and barbarity, from which political disloyalty was generated, and it had to be crushed.

Of course, in more modern times, other economic and social forces have come into play, driving down the number of Gaelic speakers to devastating effect, with fewer than 2 per cent of Scots having some knowledge of the language. The total dominance of English in popular culture is clearly threatening to overwhelm Gaelic. On the Education Committee's visit to Skye last year, I was struck by the scale of the task in hand when we were informed by the youngsters in the Gaelic-medium schools that we visited that English, not Gaelic, was the language of the playground.

The question is whether the bill will help to give the Gaelic language a fighting chance to turn round its fortunes. From the evidence provided to the committee, three main issues emerged: first, equal status for the language; secondly, rights to Gaelic-medium education; and thirdly, the treatment of Gaelic by UK public bodies. The bill clearly does not directly address the status of the Gaelic language in Scotland. However, I hope that the minister is still considering—he indicated today that he is—strengthening the wording in the bill to boost the aspiration that Gaelic speakers will be able to use Gaelic in just the same way and for just the same range of activities as one uses English, and certainly in accessing public services. I recognise that equality of treatment depends on the level of demand for services and the supply of staff with the requisite language skills, and that, even in Gaelic heartland areas, such service provision will be difficult to deliver. Nevertheless, I am sure that the minister recognises the symbolic importance of equality of status, not least in sending a signal that the cause of Gaelic will not be hobbled by hiding behind practical difficulties and that Gaelic can count on generous support from this Parliament and Executive from now on.

The spread of Gaelic-medium education is clearly the key to the survival of the language. Others have spoken about the demand for a right to Gaelic-medium education, subject, perhaps, to reasonable demand. Such a right would act as a spur to public bodies, and parents would be empowered, but again we run into practical problems of teacher shortage. We need to create an infrastructure to deliver such a right. I welcome the minister's announcement about the task force.

The language-planning approach of the bill allows for a strategic and co-ordinated approach while ensuring that decisions with regard to Gaelic-medium education are no longer solely subject to local conditions. The bill's provisions in that respect are a significant step forward. I trust that the confidence of the minister and Bòrd na Gàidhlig in that approach will bear fruit.

Finally, I hear what the minister said about seeking the co-operation of UK public bodies that carry out reserved functions in Scotland. I hope that any agreements will have the effect of changing the practices of organisations such as the Royal Mail and the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, which have in the past rejected the use of Gaelic because they were not legally obliged to use it. As Alex Neil said, that situation contrasts markedly with the situation in relation to Welsh.

I welcome the bill; it is not perfect, but it is a good start and I look forward to the next stages of its progress through Parliament.

Scottish folk fans will recognise this Gaelic fragment from an old Scots song called "Jeanie's Black Ee":

"Bha mi nam chadal, ach dhùisg thu mi."

I was asleep, but you wakened me. From the first time that I heard it, I understood vaguely that it had been a Gaelic song, but that all that was left of it was a fragment of Gaelic at the end of each verse. I suppose that it is a kind of metaphor for the Gaelic language in Scotland.

"Bha mi nam chadal, ach dhùisg thu mi."

I was asleep, but you wakened me. The phrase took on an altogether different meaning when I first met and filmed the supreme Gaelic poet Sorley Maclean some 30 years ago at his home in Braes on Skye. As a young television reporter, I listened with astonishment as he spelled out how arguably the greatest poet in Europe at the time had had his knuckles rapped by teachers at school because he was talking in his native language. Worse, if any of Sorley's schoolmates wanted to go to the toilet, they had to ask in the master language, rather than in their native Gaelic, so the poor souls were often reduced to the humiliation of wetting their pants. That happened fewer than 100 years ago in Scotland.

As we have heard, fewer than 60,000 people still speak Gaelic in Scotland. My personal waking all those years ago resulted in one tangible outcome, as well as a lifelong interest in the Gaelic language and culture. At the time, I ran the current affairs department of the ITV company that covered the bulk of the Gaidhealtachd. I decided to launch what was, I think, the first weekly Gaelic TV news programme in Scotland, which was called "Seachd Làithean"—or seven days—and which went on to become a nightly Gaelic TV news programme.

Honourable mention must also be made of the £8 million investment in Gaelic broadcasting that was introduced by a Conservative Scottish Office under Malcolm Rifkind, in the knowledge that there were damn few votes for Tories in the Gaidhealtachd. Others did far more. A young merchant banker from Edinburgh called Iain Noble, who had visited the Faroes and Iceland and witnessed how other beleaguered languages had survived, taught himself Gaelic and initiated a series of linguistic, social and economic measures on the Sleat peninsula on Skye. To me, that has been by far and away the most successful initiative in countering the decline of the language and culture. Sir Iain Noble has argued consistently that when a community has pride in its language and culture, confidence and economic renewal follow. That happened in the Faroes and it is happening in Iceland. Sir Iain's achievements in Sleat and in funding the Gaelic college, Sabhal Mòr Ostaig, surely prove the point, especially when elsewhere we see the inexorable retreat of the language back to the redoubts of Lewis, Harris and the Uists.

I welcome the broad thrust of the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill and the opportunity that it presents to develop a comprehensive national strategy for the delivery of Gaelic education. However, I have problems with the attempts to spread scarce resources in developing Gaelic throughout Scotland. Orkney and Shetland have absolutely no interest in Gaelic, nor do large parts of Aberdeenshire, Fife and the Lothians. Why attract the odium of those areas by attempting to impose on them a culture that has not involved them for centuries, if ever, especially given that resources could be targeted more usefully at former Gaelic-speaking areas such as Argyllshire and the inner isles?

Does the member accept that places such as New Pitsligo and Cyaak have Gaelic names and that Oldwhat is in fact a corruption of alt fad, which is Gaelic? Does the member accept that Aberdeenshire is as interested in Gaelic as anywhere else is?

I accept those points; indeed, I probably interviewed the last Gaelic speaker in Aberdeenshire, about 40 years ago. I am well aware of Gaelic in Aberdeenshire, but the fact is that Gaelic is in such a parlous state that it needs intensive care and a massive transfusion of resources to the heartlands.

If Gaelic is to survive it will not be by preserving it in aspic, as it were, or as a result of being taught as some sort of academic phenomenon, with its survival dependent on the whim of council education chiefs somewhere in the central belt. I totally respect the position of the Executive, through Bòrd na Gàidhlig, to facilitate rather than to coerce people to learn Gaelic. That is absolutely right for 90 per cent of Scotland.

I could not disagree more fundamentally with the member. Does that mean, for example, that the Gaelic-medium education that is taking place in Kilmarnock should be abolished and that, under the Tories, its funding would be withdrawn?

Absolutely not.

That is what the member is saying.

I am perfectly happy, where there is an interest and where people wish it, for Gaelic-medium education to be there. What I am talking about is scarce strategic funds. There is a powerful school of thought that, when a language is dying, compulsion can become necessary. In 1990, Welsh speaking became compulsory for all pupils up to the age of 14. In 1999, it became compulsory for all pupils up to the age of 16. Similar arrangements exist in Ireland. We should learn from the experience of Wales, Ireland and Catalunya. Until 1971, Welsh speakers in Wales were in decline. Only 20 per cent of the population could speak the language. Since then, following the immersion strategy, nearly 24 per cent of the population speaks the language—an 80,000 increase in Welsh speakers over the past 30 years. The figures in Ireland are even more remarkable. In 1926, only 500,000 spoke Irish Gaelic. By 2001, the number of speakers had trebled to 1.6 million.

I am not suggesting that immersion education in Gaelic is either feasible or desirable throughout Scotland. Apart from anything else, as we have heard we simply do not have the teachers. However, since we are at stage 1 of the bill, what I am suggesting is perhaps a more radical approach. I am suggesting that it is feasible, specifically in Skye, Lewis, Harris and the Uists, to teach Gaelic as the first language. If Gaelic is to revive, its decline must first be stopped. If and when the language is saved in the heartlands, we could cautiously spread it out from a position of stability and confidence to council areas that are sympathetic. That seems to me a more realistic way of using scarce resources and securing the long-term future of the language and the culture than the well-meaning but arguably overly-broad brush-stroke approach represented by the bill.

Tapadh leibh, Oifigeir-riaghlaidh. Tha sinn air iomadach ceum a ghabhail às leth na Gàidhlig bho chaidh a' Phàrlamaid seo a stèidheachadh o chionn còrr agus còig bliadhna gu leth air ais. Bhon chiad latha a dh'fhosgail a dorsan mìle shuas an rathaid, tha a' Ghàidhlig air inbhe fhaighinn agus tha àite aice, agus bha fiù 's àite aice cuideachd aig cuirm-fosglaidh an togalaich fhèin—cuirm a bha mìorbhaileach. Bha e ceart gun robh a' Ghàidhlig ann an teis-meadhan an latha eachdraidheil sin.

Tha cead againn dèanamh mar a tha mi fhìn a' dèanamh an-dràsta le bhith a' cleachdadh na Gàidhlig ann an deasbadan. Faodar cuideachd a cleachdadh ann an comataidhean na Pàrlamaid. Agus ma tha duine a-muigh ag iarraidh athchuinge a chur dhan Phàrlamaid, faodar a cleachdadh an sin cuideachd.

Riuthasan a bhios ag ràdh nach eil a' Phàrlamaid no am pàrtaidh dom buin mi taiceil, chanainn nam beireadh iad sùil air na chaidh a dhèanamh agus a chosnadh air an 30 bliadhna a dh'fhalbh, cha seasadh a' chasaid sin ro fhada.

Tha mi a' làn-chreidsinn gu bheil cuimhne mhath aig a' mhinistear dè bha e a' dèanamh o chionn ma dh'fhaoidte còrr is 20 bliadhna. Bha esan am measg àireamh de chomhairlichean Albannach a bha a' toirt taic do dh'iomairtean sgoiltean Gàidhlig a chur air chois. Thachair sin anns an roinn aige fhèin—Roinn na Gaidhealtachd—agus tha 60 bun-sgoil Ghàidhlig againn anns an dùthaich an-diugh. Sin agaibh toradh na spàirne mòire a chaidh a dhèanamh le pàrantan agus le luchd-strì.

An-diugh, tha sinn a' toirt nan oidhirpean sin gu ìre eile. Tha sinn a' toiseachadh air astar air taobh a-staigh na Pàrlamaid a chrìochnaicheas le achd Ghàidhlig—a' chiad tè de seòrsa a-riamh, mar a thuirt am ministear.

Ach às aonais na thachair anns na bliadhnaichean nuair nach robh e fasanta a bhith a' cur taic rithe, no às aonais na taice a gheibh an cànan anns na bliadhnaichean a tha ri thighinn, cha bhiodh adhbhar sam bith ann a bhith a' cur bile Gàidhlig tron Phàrlamaid, oir leatha fhèin chan eil bile no achd gu bun no bàrr sam bith.

Tha grunn nithean air atharrachadh bho chaidh a' chiad dreach den bhile fhoillseachadh anns an Òban aig a' Mhòd Nàiseanta Rìoghail o chionn bliadhna gu leth air ais. Tha mi toilichte gu bheil am ministear air èisteachd ris na tagraidhean a thàinig a-staigh thuige, gu h-àraid na beachdan a thaobh foghlaim tro mheadhan a' chànain.

Tha an aithisg a chuir Comataidh Foghlaim na Pàrlamaid ri chèile air leth feumail. Tha buill na comataidh rim moladh airson mar a chuairtich agus mar a thionail iad fiosrachadh. A thaobh nan co-dhùnaidhean aca, tha mi a' cur m' uile neart air cùlaibh nam briathran aca ann am paragraf 39 agus paragraf 40, a tha ag ràdh gu bheil feum mhòr ann airson ro-innleachd airson foghlam bho fo-ìre sgoile tron bhun-sgoil suas tron àrd-sgoil agus gu ìre an oilthigh. Sin an ath cheum.

Ach cha mhòr gu bheil sinn pìos math sìos an rathad sin leis an eisimpleir aig Comhairle Baile Ghlaschu. An ath bhliadhna, dìreach 20 bliadhna bhon a dh'fhosgail a' chomhairle a' chiad bun-sgoil Ghàidhlig ann an Alba, fosglaidh i sgoil Ghàidhlig a bhios a' frithealadh naoidhean aois a trì gu deugairean aois 18. Sin seirbheis choileanta agus seirbheis mhìorbhaileach.

Bu toil leam taing mhòr a thoirt do fhear-gairm na comhairle, Tearlach Gòrdan, agus cathraiche an fhoghlaim, Steven Purcell, airson an dòigh anns an do dh'obraich iad leis a' mhinistear airson a bhith a' toirt an sgoil gu buil. Seo a' chiad tè de a seòrsa ach tha feum mhòr air barrachd.

We have taken many a step on behalf of Gaelic since the Parliament was established five and a half years ago. From the first day the Parliament opened its doors a mile up the road, Gaelic has been given status and a place. There was also a place for it at the wonderful opening ceremony here. It is right that Gaelic was in the very middle of that historic day.

We have an opportunity to do as I am doing now, which is to use Gaelic in debate and in Parliament's committees. If anyone out there wants to send a petition in Gaelic, they can do so. I tell those who say that the Labour party is not supportive of Gaelic to have a look at what has been done and what has been earned over the past 30 years. Their argument would not last long. I fully believe that the minister well remembers what he was doing 20 years ago. Perhaps he was among a number of Scottish councillors who were striving to put Gaelic on its feet. That has happened in the Highland region, and now we have more than 60 schools in the region as a result of a huge campaign by parents and their supporters. Today, the Parliament is bringing those efforts to another level: a Gaelic act. Without what happened in the years when it was not fashionable to support Gaelic and without the support that the language will get in years to come, there would be no reason to put the bill through the Parliament. On its own, a bill—or an act—means nothing.

Many things have changed since the first draft of the bill was published in Oban at the national Mòd. I am pleased that the minister has listened to the submissions that have been made, especially those regarding education.

The Education Committee has put together a useful report, for which it has to be praised. We support paragraphs 39 and 40 in the report, which state that there should be a strategy for education from pre-school through primary and secondary education and on to university. That is the next step and we are a good bit down the road with it, following the example of Glasgow City Council. Next year, 20 years will have passed since the first Gaelic school was opened in Glasgow. Glasgow City Council will have a school that caters for children from pre-school age right through to 18 years of age. That is a wonderful service—a great service achieved. Great thanks go to the convener of the council, Charles Gordon, and the chair of its education committee, Steve Purcell, for bringing that service to fruition. The school is the first of its kind and there is a need for many more.

I welcome the prospect of an extension of Gaelic education. The school is in my constituency and I put on record the fact that I welcome the opportunity to expand Gaelic-medium education to secondary education and perhaps provide a real focus in the west of Scotland for the promotion of Gaelic culture.

Tha mi taingeil airson dà adhbhar gun tàinig Pauline NicNèill air a casan: thug e cothrom dhomh uisge fuar òl agus tha mi a' cur ris a' bheachd a nochd i. Tha fios agam gun robh i mar bhall ionadail an lùib nan còmhraidhean sin, a' toirt taic do Steve Purcell, do Theàrlach Gòrdan agus dhan mhinistear, Peadar Peacock.

An dèidh dhomh a bhith a' moladh Comhairle Baile Ghlaschu, cha bu toil leam sgaradh sam bith a dhèanamh eadar Comhairle Baile Ghlaschu agus Comhairle Baile Dhùn Èideann, ach an latha a nì Dùn Èideann an deicheamh pàirt de na tha Glaschu air a dhèanamh, seasaidh mise air Sràid a' Phrionnsa ga ghairm. Tha mi ag ràdh an-diugh, nuair a nì iad e, nì mi sin gun teagamh.

Tha mi air leth toilichte gu bheil sinn an seo an diugh, ach tuigidh mi cuideachd gum feuch sinn piseach a thoirt air a' bhile mar a tha i a' dol tro gach ìre den Phàrlamaid, oir tha iomadach adhbhar againn taic a thoirt don Ghàidhlig. Dìreach ann an crìochnachadh, bu toil leam dìreach a ràdh gu bheil a' Ghàidhlig na neamhnaid luachmhor ann an cridhe agus ann an anam na h-Alba. Chan eil i air a cuingealachadh le crìochan teann agus chan eil i air a cròdhadh ann an cùiltean cumhang. Tha a' Ghàidhlig, mar a tha fios aig a h-uile duine, tha i nàiseanta, tha i Eòrpach, agus eadar-nàiseanta. Agus tha i cuideachd bunaiteach do dh'Alba. Chan eil i idir air an oir no air chul-fraoin.

Tha mise, mar bhall a tha a' riochdachadh sgìre Ghaidhealach agus sgìre Ghàidhlig, toilichte dha-rìribh mo thaic a thoirt do Bhile na Gàidhlig (Alba).

I thank Pauline McNeill for giving me the chance to have a drink of water. I support the opinion that she has expressed. She was involved in talks with Steve Purcell, Charles Gordon and Peter Peacock.

Having praised Glasgow, I do not want to draw a difference between it and Edinburgh. However, the day that the City of Edinburgh Council does a tenth of what Glasgow City Council has done, I will stand in Princes Street and tell everyone about it from my soapbox.

Although I am happy to be speaking in this debate today, members will understand that we need to improve the bill as it goes through each stage. Gaelic is a precious jewel in the heart and soul of Scotland. It is not constrained within strict boundaries or herded into tight corners. As everyone knows, Gaelic is national, European and international. It is also fundamental to Scotland. It is not on the periphery or the fringes. As a member who represents a Gaelic area, I am happy to support the bill.

Mòran taing, Oifigeir-riaghlaidh. Tha Pàrtaidh Uaine na h-Alba a' cur fàilte air Bile na Gàidhlig agus tha e na thoileachas mòr dhomh a bhith a' toirt ar taic ris an-diugh.

Many thanks, Presiding Officer. The Scottish Green Party welcomes the bill and it is of great joy to me to be lending it our support.

Probably the best Gaelic that I can say is what I learned when I was a school doctor for a school that had a Gaelic-medium class: "Coisich gu sàmhach anns a' trannsa," which means, "Walk quietly in the corridor."

I am happy to welcome the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill and speak in support of it on behalf of the Green party. It is something of a landmark in Scottish politics that we have a Gaelic bill, which has been long awaited. Although the first draft was widely welcomed when it was published, there was a general view that it needed strengthened and expanded. The word that a Gaelic friend used to describe it at that stage was "lapach", which means "feeble". The bill has been strengthened considerably since then and I express appreciation to the Gaelic activists who put so much work into responding to the consultation and to the Executive for taking much of what was suggested on board. I also note the comments of Gaelic organisations at last week's meeting of the cross-party group on Gaelic, which had high praise for the Education Committee and the way in which it has gone about taking evidence and preparing its stage 1 report.

Of course, there are still omissions that are of concern to Gaelic organisations. There is the vexed question of equal status, which others have talked about. Although the long title of the bill talks about

"securing the status of the Gaelic language as an official language of Scotland,"

that falls short of ensuring that Gaelic has equal status with English, which many activists would like it to have. In practice, that might not make a lot of difference, but it would be something iconic that would mean a huge amount to the Gaelic world. I therefore welcome the minister's commitment to consider how the question of equal validity can be incorporated in the bill.

I also strongly support the report's recommendation that the Scottish Executive place a duty on the Bòrd na Gàidhlig to report progress on the Executive's commitments under the European Charter for Regional or Minority languages.

Last summer, I went to Wales for the first time and stayed with a family for a night. We have talked a bit about the fact that, at Gaelic-medium schools, English can still be the language of the playground. In that regard, it was quite a revelation to stay in a household of people whose first language was Welsh, although they were bilingual. We had quite a convivial night and, as the evening went on and a few drinks were taken, English was what was lost and I found myself having to supply my hosts with words. At one point, they asked, "What's the word for one of those highwaymen on the sea?" They were talking about a pirate, of course. It was interesting to see people in the United Kingdom whose first language is a vibrant, Celtic language.

The history of languages in other parts of the Celtic world is similar to the history of Gaelic. When Breton was being suppressed in Brittany, if a child was caught speaking Breton in school, they were handed a wooden cow that they could not get rid of unless they clyped on another child who had spoken in Breton as well. Whoever ended up with the cow at the end of the day was punished.

Education was the big omission from the draft bill, so I welcome its inclusion now. The importance of Gaelic-medium education and the chance to learn Gaelic as a second language cannot be overestimated. I will be interested to see how the Executive intends to tackle the shortage of teachers and suitable teaching materials that was identified in the report. It is also important to teach parents who want to learn Gaelic in order to raise their children as Gaelic speakers. Gaelic has to become a home language as well as a school language, as others have said.

The importance of broadcasting to the language cannot be overestimated. As broadcasting is a reserved matter, the Executive's powers are limited in relation to it, but I will be interested to hear about the ways in which the ministers will engage with Westminster to support and promote the language.

The report highlights the issue of public bodies whose functions are reserved but which exercise their functions in Scotland. I was pleased to learn that the Executive intends to ensure that such bodies are signed up to the idea that Gaelic is, as the bill's long title suggests,

"an official language of Scotland".

I look forward to hearing how that plays out as time goes on.

I welcome the stage 1 report and the provisions of the bill. Gaelic is a beautiful language with a rich culture, both vernacular and literary. The responsibility for ensuring that it thrives is entirely in the hands of the Government and people of Scotland. Nobody else can do it. As Robert Brown said, we should be ambitious for Gaelic. We should be talking about far more than simply ensuring its survival. I believe that the bill will help to sustain and promote Gaelic and it therefore has my party's support.

I call Wendy Nic Alasdair, to be followed by Tricia Màrabhaig.

The minister opened the debate by recalling the shameful legislative treatment of Gaelic through history. I, too, want to focus on history, but I want to dwell on what history tells us about visionary legislation and its ability to change the course of events. We have already heard that there are only 66,000 souls in Scotland who speak, read or write Gaelic. That fragility is symbolised by the 20 per cent fall in the number of speakers in as many years. The future seems parlous and the question is whether the bill marks a turning point.

I want to recall the history of visionary legislation, particularly that which relates to the Highlands. More than 100 years ago, land reform legislation was passed that went far beyond the recommendations of the Napier commission and which, quite simply, changed the course of Highland history.

Within living memory, in 1942—in the bleak days of the second world war—Tom Johnston introduced to Westminster a bill to create the North of Scotland Hydroelectric Board. The official view was that the hydro board's priority should be to channel cheap electricity to industry, but Johnston disagreed. He had a strategic sixth sense about what really mattered, so he inserted into the bill a clause that allowed him to pursue his vision. He went on to deliver not cheap electricity to industry but subsidised connection to the most remote homes in Scotland. Arguably, without that rural electrification programme what were difficult decades in the Highlands would have been disastrous and depopulation might have become unstoppable.

In a moment, I want to come to the section of the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill that has the seeds of a strategic sixth sense about the future of Gaelic, but first I mention one more lesson from history on the power that legislation has when it is backed up by a strategic sixth sense about the big issue. Some 40 years ago, Willie Ross—another Labour Secretary of State for Scotland—looked at the economy of the Highlands and Islands and set up the Highlands and Islands Development Board. His strategic sixth sense about reviving the Highlands and Islands led him to give the new board not just an economic remit but a social remit. That pattern has not been replicated anywhere else in Britain, yet that flexibility allowed HIDB, which was later incarnated as Highlands and Islands Enterprise, to develop a strategy that led to the Highlands and Islands today being a place of immigration rather than emigration. There has been investment in Highland culture, the creation of a Highland university, and support for modern telecoms, and the progress is another success story about enabling legislation that is backed by a strategic sixth sense about priorities.

Today, nobody should doubt the potential of what we do. Bòrd na Gàidhlig is achieving legislative status and assuming responsibility for the revival of the Gaelic language. I pay tribute to Alasdair Morrison's leadership, along with that of other previous ministers, in establishing the bòrd, and I pay tribute to Peter Peacock for giving it the legislative basis to make a difference. Success will now depend on the bòrd developing the right strategic sixth sense about what really matters and what will revive Gaelic.

After hearing all the evidence, the Education Committee came to a unanimous view, which has already been outlined by Alasdair Morrison, that education is the key. I am therefore delighted that the minister has given the signal that education is the key to the future by introducing section 9 of the bill, which provides Bòrd na Gàidhlig with the power to issue guidance on the provision of Gaelic education. Time constraints preclude me from going into all aspects of the educational challenge, but the survival of the language depends on our tackling the fact that today fewer than 300 secondary pupils are taught in Gaelic. Like others, I greatly welcome both the commitment to the establishment of a secondary school in Glasgow and the minister's announcement that there will be a new committee to examine the supply of Gaelic teachers and that the Executive will take a lead role in ensuring a sufficient supply of teachers.

The bill is a start, but Bòrd na Gàidhlig will be remembered as one of the success stories, along with the hydro board and the HIDB, if it has the courage to follow its strategic sixth sense that education is the key to the future of Gaelic.

I call Tricia Marwick, to be followed by Rosemary Ní Bhroin.

The minister started by making the point that this is the first time that a bill on Gaelic has been put forward by the Government, but of course it is not the first time that a bill on Gaelic has been considered by the UK Parliament or the Scottish Parliament. Way back in 1981, Donald Stewart, the MP for the Western Isles, introduced a bill on Gaelic to the House of Commons, where it was strongly supported by folk such as Dennis Canavan.

My colleague Mike Russell introduced his bill to the Scottish Parliament in 2003 with the support of John Farquhar Munro and others. The debate gives me the opportunity to pay tribute to my friend Mike Russell, whose bill ensured that the case for retaining and encouraging Gaelic was firmly on the Parliament's agenda. It was regrettable that the Executive could not fully support that bill, but we are where we are and I welcome the Executive's bill. As Alex Neil and others have said, stage 2 amendments are needed to make the bill better. I look forward to the Executive's support for those amendments.

I will take the minister back to spring last year, when the Council of Europe published a report that criticised the UK and the Executive for their failure to comply with their obligations to Gaelic under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. The report said:

"There appears to be less emphasis on minority language policy on the part of the Scottish Executive"

than there is in Wales. The minister will recall that I lodged a series of questions on the subject, to which I received a response on 27 April 2004. The minister's attempt to explain the lack of emphasis from the Scottish Executive was:

"This statement is not surprising given the relative position of Welsh in Wales and Gaelic in Scotland. In the 2001 Census, 20.5% of the Welsh population were found to speak Welsh … The comparative figures for Gaelic in Scotland were 1.2% speaking Gaelic … Although this difference would account for the different emphasis on minority language policy in Scotland and Wales, the Scottish Executive is committed to protecting the Gaelic language in Scotland."—[Official Report, Written Answers, 27 April 2004; S2W-7285.]

I was not the only one who was concerned about the minister's apparent lack of understanding of the parlous state of Gaelic. Surely the fact that only 1.2 per cent of people in Scotland are Gaelic speakers, compared with the fact that 20.5 per cent of people in Wales are Welsh speakers, means that the Executive should place greater emphasis on Gaelic. To suggest that the smaller numbers are an excuse for less emphasis on Gaelic in Scotland than on Welsh in Wales does the whole campaign a disservice.

There are 6,000 languages in the world, of which the vast majority are under threat. It is reckoned that a language dies every fortnight. Gaelic is in a parlous state; it needs to be protected and encouraged. This national Parliament has a duty to ensure that Gaelic does not die and that all necessary steps are taken to ensure that Gaelic is a living, breathing, vibrant and essential part of Scotland.

The bill is a first step to halting the decline of the Gaelic language, but there is no point in passing the bill without a long-term commitment. That is why I welcome the Education Committee's recommendation that a duty should be placed on the bòrd to report to ministers on progress against the commitments that the UK Government made with regard to Gaelic in the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages.

I would also like an amendment to include a duty to report to the Parliament—to a committee of the Parliament, which I hope would be the Education Committee—on progress on the national plan. That would ensure that not only ministers but the Parliament could monitor progress and the encouragement that is needed for Gaelic. Unless we make those two amendments, the Parliament will have no way to monitor progress. If we do not revive and save our language and ensure that it grows, the Parliament will have failed.

I call Rosemary Byrne, to be followed by Màiri Ní Sgannlàin.

I welcome the spirit of the bill, which is to keep the language alive and recognise it as an important aspect of our culture. As a member of the Education Committee while it has considered the bill at stage 1, I have learned much. It has been interesting to engage with people outwith the Parliament and to tell them what is happening here.

I was interested in what the minister said about people being punished for using Gaelic. This morning, I spoke to a young man who is visiting the Parliament and is here to listen to the debate. I was surprised that a young man from Glasgow was interested in listening to the debate and I asked him why he was interested. He told me that his grandparents spoke the language. He also told me that, in the 1940s, in schools in Glasgow, children were belted for speaking Gaelic and that, if they were caught speaking it in the playground, they were belted again—the language was banned not just in the classroom.

We have come a long way back around, now that we are promoting Gaelic-medium education, and that is all to the good. It signifies that, across the board in Scotland, people fundamentally support the Gaelic language. In many areas where they have not had the opportunity before, people are seeking to learn Gaelic, at a nightclass or wherever, and that is one of the things that will help to build the language back up again.

The drop in the number of speakers of Gaelic has been significant. The Scottish census of 2001 found that 93,282 people had some knowledge of Gaelic and that, of those, 58,652 could speak the language. However, in 1891, 254,415 people spoke Gaelic. That shows the drop in numbers, which is why there is a need for the bill, as other speakers have said.

I will focus on several areas that I believe are key to the bill and to the future of Gaelic education provision. I welcome the minister's announcement that there will be an action group to tackle the shortage of teachers. Without teachers who can go into schools and teach Gaelic and Gaelic-medium education as well as teaching people like us who might want to go to a nightclass, we are not going to move forward. I therefore welcome that measure as key to the promotion of Gaelic.

Without the right approach on education, it will not be possible to secure Gaelic as a language in Scotland. The provision that the bill makes for Bòrd na Gàidhlig to draft guidance on Gaelic education is therefore to be welcomed. There must be a real effort to provide access to Gaelic language classes and to improve the uptake of Gaelic at higher level and beyond. Gaelic can be studied at higher still level, but it is not taken up in many schools because of the shortage of teachers and because the interest in the language and the motivation to learn it is not yet there. We must ensure that Gaelic is studied in our further and higher education establishments as well and I am pleased that the bòrd will have a role to play in that. Gaelic will not flourish unless we can do that.

Local authorities will be in a position to define "reasonable demand" for Gaelic-medium education. However, we must approach that issue with common sense and ensure that the pace is right for the individual circumstances of each local authority. In other words, we must set targets that are realistic and pay heed to each authority's starting point.

It is also important to emphasise the role of the family in securing the Gaelic language. Children who speak Gaelic at home as a first language and children who learn to speak it as a second language will be much advantaged in learning other languages, as research proves that bilingual children pick up other languages much more quickly. In Scotland, we have a poor track record on speaking other languages and the learning of Gaelic will give a boost to that. The speaking of Gaelic in the family should be encouraged and aided by the provision of the right environment for learning.

Finally, we fully endorse the current aims of Bòrd na Gàidhlig, which include increasing the number of Gaelic speakers and users; strengthening Gaelic as a family and community language; and facilitating access to the Gaelic language and culture throughout Scotland. The provisions in the bill will not only help to achieve those aims but, I hope, secure the Gaelic language in the longer term.

I call Mary Scanlon, to be followed by Kenneth Macintosh.

Thank you, Moireach. In welcoming the bill at stage 1, I note that little has been said about our links with the Irish Gaeltacht. There is much more that we can do to forge links between the Scottish Gaidhealtachd and the Irish Gaeltacht. My mother came from Donegal and my grandmother did not speak English—she spoke only Irish, or Gaelic. My mother was a native Irish speaker and her second language was English. It is to my shame that I speak only English. In my family, as in many others, the language has been lost within three generations.

I often asked my mother to give me some words in Gaelic—or Irish, as she called it—but she was reluctant to do so. She said, "You'll do better in life, lass, if you learn English and forget about the Gaelic." She would tell us that it was seen as a dirty language, and the language of tinkers and the lower classes in Donegal. It is therefore understandable that my mother was reluctant to teach me any Gaelic. However, I am very pleased that I can stand alongside my blue-blooded, aristocratic colleague, Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, the Earl of Selkirk, and that although I have descended from very working-class roots in Donegal where my mother and grandmother spoke what was known as the language of the lower classes, I can support him and the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill.

Does the member support her other colleague, Ted Brocklebank, who suggested entirely the opposite to what Lord James proposed in the committee?

I am not quite sure what that was about. We can talk about that later.

I hope that the bill reverses the process of decline by promoting the language through education. That would be very satisfactory to the 80 per cent of the people of Scotland who want the language to continue.

When Wendy Alexander says that education is the key to the future of Gaelic, I totally agree with her. However, it is not only about teaching in schools. In the Highlands, many people sing in Gaelic choirs, but they are certainly not fluent Gaelic speakers. It is about the culture of Gaelic and not just education, although that is a key to progress. Gaelic and its related culture are among Scotland's greatest treasures and both have had a profound influence on our nation's history. For example, during the past 130 years, the Inverness Gaelic Society has collected a mass of historical information celebrating Gaelic scholars and poets. That information will prove to be a rewarding study aid for future generations that are interested in the culture.

Gaelic culture is not dead and the vigour with which the bill has been pursued by the Education Committee proves its vibrant renewal and development during the past two decades. I pay tribute to my party, which did much to invest in and revive Gaelic prior to the establishment of the Scottish Parliament. Lord James has mentioned his ministerial generosity to Sabhal Mòr Ostaig and others have mentioned Iain Noble.

Directing the resources appropriately makes much sense. It is always better to put resources into the areas where they will have the greatest outcomes. That does not mean that other areas should be starved of resources, but a proper economic assessment should be made.

Rosemary Byrne mentioned the national education plan. On reading Highland Council's submission, I suddenly realised how difficult it is to be a Gaelic teacher. An English teacher can take a lesson plan off the shelf because such teaching materials are well developed. That is not the case in Gaelic teaching and many teachers have to write a full plan before they can start teaching. That does not encourage the teaching of Gaelic, even if the teachers are trained in it.

My final point is about Highland Council and what constitutes reasonable demand. Although the council has set a figure of four, I am pleased that there is some discretion under the bill for other authorities.

I now call the member with the second-best Gaelic name, Coinneach Mac an Tòisich.

Thank you Presiding Officer, and I am glad that you gave me my full Gaelic name. I am sure that I do not have to remind you—although I might have to warn Mr McLetchie and the First Minister—that Tosh, or Macintosh, comes from the Gaelic word "taoiseach", which means leader or son of the leader.

It was a year ago last month that my Uncle Lachie died. Lachie Macintosh, or Mash as everyone called him, lived all his life on a croft in Elgol on Skye. He was one of the last of the old-style or traditional crofters left in the village. He was certainly the last to have a milking cow and to eke out a living without another major source of income such as fishing or another job. It is always sad to see the passing of a way of life. Few people in Elgol now use a scythe or make a haystack, although my father tells me that he is willing to give lessons if anyone is interested. If people want to feed their animals, they now buy a roll of hay that has been trussed up by a combine harvester. However, I do not have many regrets for a way of living that was impoverished and arduous. A peat fire is a lovely thing, but cutting peat by hand is back breaking and almost unendurable if there is no wind to blow away the midges.

Old-style crofting might have been impoverished, but that cannot be said of the crofters' language, culture and traditions. When Lachie Mash died, another little bit of Gaelic died with him. He was no singer, but he knew all the songs. He was no writer, but he knew all the stories. In fact, one of the best things that he did in the last few years before he died was to record many of his ghost stories, which he told very well and convincingly. It was said of Lachie that he put the fear of God into more people than the local minister did. They were not stories that he had read but stories that he had heard in Gaelic. The Gaelic language shaped Lachie and made his character. He was the only member of his family not to proceed past primary school, but he became the lynchpin of the local community. He was a treasure trove of Gaelic lore and history and was regularly consulted on every aspect of crofting agriculture, all of which he learned about through Gaelic. In fact, he was quite dismissive of others who spoke to him with only "book knowledge", as he called it.

Lachie had a remarkable knowledge, which was acquired through Gaelic, of plants and their uses and, of course, of place names. He knew the Gaelic name for every hollow, pool and hummock in the area. When the Ordnance Survey published—with welcome commitment—a map of Elgol with all the place names in Gaelic, he took great pleasure in picking holes in it and pointing out things that were wrong. I have always thought that the love of a good argument is a Gaelic trait. No amount of legislation can replace people like Lachie, but we can stop the decline of Gaelic. Through Gaelic-medium education, we can pass on the language to the next generation and put in place the measures to grow the language once more.

The level of agreement on the bill—the common ground—that witnesses, committee colleagues, all other members and, most encouragingly of all, ministers have reached and shared today and before today has been remarkable. Of course, some people would still like to see us go further and take more radical action. I for one do not believe that the bill is the last word on the subject, but opposition to it has been noticeable by its absence. The expected hostility and supposed central-belt antipathy to Gaelic have not materialised at all. Instead, there have been only a few murmurings and perhaps a little anxiety about how necessary or relevant the language and the legislation are in areas of Scotland with little tradition of Gaelic. If the history of Gaelic is littered with prejudice, the battle is now against ignorance of, or perhaps indifference to, the importance of the language.

Perhaps it is too early to talk about the next steps. Following the passing of the bill and the introduction of Gaelic language plans, I would like there to be a greater emphasis in all our schools on the importance of Gaelic and Gaelic culture. All of us in Scotland should be proud of our Gaelic heritage, and I hope that ministers will use the opportunity that is presented by the curriculum review to promote the language.

I had a number of questions or points that I wanted to put to the minister, but he answered and addressed most of them in his opening remarks. Teacher supply, for example, is essential if we are to have successful Gaelic-medium schools, and I welcome today's announcement from the minister. A bold statement of the equality of Gaelic and English is still needed, and again I acknowledge the minister's obvious intention in that respect.

In Canada, people talk about bordering the United States as like being in bed with an elephant. Gaelic is in a similar position. It is in danger of being squashed out of existence—not deliberately, but as a result of the sheer dominance of English-language culture. The bill will shore up the Gaelic language, but we need to go further. We need to grow the language and not only prevent its decline.

I spent a lot of time in the committee discussing the detail of the bill and I hope that colleagues will forgive me for indulging in my sentimental attachment to the language. As my Uncle Lachie might have said, tha dìleab mhòr againn anns a' Ghàidhlig. Feumaidh sinn a cumail beò. We have a great Gaelic heritage. We must ensure that it lives on.

I commend the bill to the Parliament.

We now come to closing speeches. Iain Fearchar Rothach—I say that with some hesitation—will close for the Liberal Democrats.

Tha e a' toirt toileachas dhòmhsa a bhith a' cluinntinn Gàidhlig a' tighinn bhon chathair anns a' Phàrlamaid. Tha mise toilichte taic a thoirt do phrionnsabalan coitcheann Bile na Gàidhlig (Alba). Tha am bile a' toirt leasachadh na Gàidhlig ceum eile air adhart. An dèidh a bhith a' feitheamh deagh ghreis airson an reachdais seo, tha mi a' cur ìmpidh air mo cho-bhuill an taic a thoirt dha. Feumar sealltainn gu mionaideach ri cuid de bhriathran a' bhile, agus bidh mi a' moladh atharrachaidhean an ceann ùine.

Gu h-eachdraidheil, chaidh cànan na Gàidhlig a mhùchadh agus a thrèigsinn gu bunaiteach. Gus an tig fìor ath-bheothachadh air a' chànan, tha feum air inbhe a' chànain a stèidheachadh anns an lagh. Tha coimhearsnachdan Gàidhlig feumach air brosnachadh agus, mar sin, bu chòir gun daingnichear anns a' bhile ann am briathran cho làidir 's a ghabhas gum bi a' Ghàidhlig co-ionann ris a' Bheurla ann a bhith a' lìbhrigeadh sheirbheisean poblach.

Bu chòir àite a thoirt sa bhile dha luach na Gàidhlig ann an dualchas nàiseanta na h-Alba. Bu chòir ainmeachadh an t-uallach a tha oirnn uile a bhith a' dèanamh cinnteach gun tèid a' Ghàidhlig a leasachadh chan ann mar dhual-chainnt ionadail no gnothach dualchasach ach mar stòras nàiseanta a tha na phàirt gun samhail de chruth nàiseanta na dùthcha. Cuidichidh riatanasan a' bhile inbhe phoblach na Gàidhlig a thogail anns a' choimhearsnachd.

Tha e cudthromach, ge-tà, gum bi dleastanas air buidhnean leithid a phlana a chur an gnìomh an àite a bhith an urra a-mhàin ri ìre iarrtais ionadail airson nan seirbheisean sin. Ma tha sinn gu bhith ag adhartachadh suidheachadh na Gàidhlig agus ga cumail tèarainte anns an àm ri teachd, feumaidh buidhnean poblach aire a thoirt dha feumalachdan na Gàidhlig an àite ìre iarrtais air a son. Tha feum aig mion-chànan lag air taic shònraichte gus dèanamh cinnteach gum bi i fallain mar chànan coimhearsnachd beò. Mas e 's nach eil sinn ach a' feitheamh ri iarrtas bho mhion-choimhearsnachdan, chan urrainn dhuinn an t-adhartas a tha a dhìth oirnn a choileanadh.

Tha mi air leth toilichte gu bheil uallach ann airson foghlam a thoirt air adhart. Is e foghlam bith-bhrìgh cànain, agus tha fhios gun do dh'fhuiling a' Ghàidhlig mar thoradh air a bhith air a cumail a-mach à foghlam o chionn iomadh ginealach air ais. Tha sinn taingeil gun deach ceumannan a ghabhail gus am poileasaidh sin a thionndadh air ais, ach feumaidh an Riaghaltas an taic do fhoghlam a leudachadh. Feumaidh sinn làn-bhuaidh fhaicinn air seirbheis foghlaim Gàidhlig aig gach ìre, gach cuid ann am foghlam tro mheadhan na Gàidhlig agus ann an clasaichean luchd-ionnsachaidh. Bu chòir ceangal làidir a bhith eadar am bile agus Achd Inbhean ann an Sgoiltean na h-Alba etc 2000.

Tha na cumhachdan a thathas a' toirt do Bhòrd na Gàidhlig riatanach agus ceart. Tha e ceart gum bi am bòrd agus buidhnean poblach a' co-obrachadh. Bu chòir gum biodh buill a' bhùird fileanta sa Ghàidhlig—tha sin air a stèidheachadh gu math làidir—ach feumaidh am bòrd fàilte a chur air taic a gheibhear bho dhaoine aig nach eil Gàidhlig ach aig a bheil sgilean agus ùidhean sònraichte.

Anns an dealachadh, tha mi airson daingneachadh cho feumail 's a tha craoladh do obair-leasachaidh na Gàidhlig. Feumar taic a thoirt don obair ionmholta a tha a' dol air adhart ann am foghlam le làn-sheirbheisean rèidio agus telebhisean—goireasan a tha air leth feumail, gu h-àraidh don òigridh. Tha mi a' cur ìmpidh air an Riaghaltas bruidhinn ri Riaghaltas Westminster mu bhith a' stèidheachadh sianal telebhisein Gàidhlig a bheir taic don t-seirbheis phoblach Ghàidhlig anns a' bhile. Bhiodh sin na fhìor cheum adhartach do leasachadh na Gàidhlig.

I am happy to hear Gaelic coming from the seat of the Parliament and to support the general principles of the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill. The bill will take Gaelic development another step forward. We have waited a long time for it and I urge fellow members to support it. We will need to look closely at some of the wording in the bill and to lodge some amendments in due course.

Historically, the Gaelic language has suffered great suppression and neglect. Until there is an effective revival of the language, its status needs to be secured in legislation. Gaelic communities need to be encouraged, so the bill should state in the strongest possible terms that Gaelic will have equal status in the delivery of public services.

The bill should recognise the value of Gaelic to Scotland's national heritage. It should also mention the responsibility and duty that we all have to ensure that Gaelic is developed, not just as a regional dialect or as a cultural matter, but as a national resource that is a unique component of Scotland's national identity. The requirements in the bill will help to raise the public profile of Gaelic in communities, but it is important that public authorities have a responsibility to implement Gaelic language plans and do not rely solely on the extent of local demand for services. If we are to advance the position of Gaelic and to keep it secure in the long-term future, public bodies must have regard to the needs of Gaelic, rather than the extent of demand for it. A weak minority language requires special support to ensure that it is healthy and viable as a living community language. If we ask only that public bodies respond to requests that are received from a minority group, we cannot make the required progress.

I welcome the provision for the development of education. Education is the life-blood of a language, and we know that Gaelic has suffered as a consequence of the denial of education in Gaelic many generations ago. Thankfully, steps have been taken to reverse that policy, but the Executive needs to extend its support for education. We need to see maximum impact in the delivery of Gaelic education at all levels, in both Gaelic-medium education and learners classes. There should be a close link between the bill and the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000.

The powers that the bill gives to Bòrd na Gàidhlig are necessary and justifiable. It is right that there should be co-operation between the bòrd and public authorities. Bòrd members should be fluent in Gaelic, but the bòrd must also welcome support from people who do not have Gaelic but have special skills and interests.

I emphasise the importance of broadcasting to Gaelic development. We need to support the excellent efforts that are being made in education, which should be complemented by full-range television and radio services—facilities that are crucial for the younger generation, in particular. I urge the Executive to work with the Westminster Government to establish a dedicated Gaelic television channel that would support the bill's valuable public service provisions. That would be a major step forward for Gaelic development.

It gives me joy to give my support to the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill in the Parliament today.

To close for the Conservatives, I call Seumas MacGriogair, who assures me that he will speak in Gaelic.

Tapadh leibh, Oifigeir-riaghlaidh. Tha am Pàrtaidh Tòraidheach a' cur fàilte air Bile na Gàidhlig (Alba) agus tha sinn a' cur ar taic ris an-diugh. Leanaidh mi orm anns a' Bheurla a-nis.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. The Conservative party welcomes the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill and gives it our support today.

It was Michael Forsyth, during a Conservative Administration in the early 1980s, who poured £16 million into Gaelic and kick-started the engine into life, creating interest and jobs in an area that had stagnated and had been ignored for far too long. It is high time that a further injection of enthusiasm was directed towards Gaelic by the first Scottish Government for 300 years.

One has only to look at the map of Scotland to understand the importance of Gaelic. In the place names lie the roots of Highland culture and, of course, of Dalriada, the first kingdom of the Scots. Scotland should encompass its own language, which has been well used in promoting songs and poetry that are unique in their excellence and individuality. Poets of the stature of Duncan Ban McIntyre, who wrote the classic poem "In Praise of Ben Doran", and Sorley Maclean, who wrote the classic "Hallaig" about the Isle of Raasay, where he grew up, are giants in their field. The Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill is a golden opportunity to develop Scotland's linguistic and cultural diversity and to advertise the richness of Scotland's cultural history.

Gaelic music is alive and well, as can be seen at the Mòd and other festivals, such as Celtic Connections. However, not enough people are speaking Gaelic. The sad thing is that Gaelic lasted as a main spoken language for 12 centuries, from the fifth to the 17th centuries. It was the main language, certainly in Highland rural areas, until the early 17th century, when it was outlawed by the Crown—a Scottish Crown—in 1616. Ironically, it was not the English who banned the speaking of Gaelic; it was the Scottish Parliament's education acts of 1616, 1646 and 1696 that stipulated that English was to be the medium of instruction for Highlanders.

"Forgive them, for they know not what they did" must be the epitaph for that ill-thought-out dogma, which did untold damage to a proud language and culture. Less than 100 years ago, children were beaten for speaking Gaelic in the playgrounds and had their mouths washed out with soap. Therefore, it is up to this new Parliament and our Scottish schools to redress the wrongs of the past and give a beautiful language and a rich culture a chance of survival. It is important that the peripheral rural communities in which Gaelic is still spoken have the infrastructure that will allow them sustainability, because culture grows from a population that lasts for several generations. For example, many Gaelic songs stem from the Harris tweed industry. For Gaelic to survive, young people must become interested and a new generation of Gaelic speakers must be born who take pleasure in using the language.

Much depends now on Bòrd na Gàidhlig. It will be up to the bòrd to come up with initiatives that rejuvenate interest in Gaelic. Gaelic language and culture are important, rather than the bòrd itself. I believe that, in a year or two, there should be a review of what the bòrd has achieved to ensure that the £360,000 per annum that it will cost is achieving benefits for Gaelic.

We Conservatives would like to ensure that Bòrd na Gàidhlig maintains its aim

"to facilitate, not to coerce."

The bòrd should be an independent language development body rather than a tentacle of Scottish Government. If Gaelic is to survive, the bòrd must identify ways in which people would be willing to use Gaelic in their daily lives in different parts of Scotland. There is a great general wish among Scots to preserve Gaelic, but there has been very little instruction so far on how we as individuals can help to achieve that aim.

If the Gaelic language is to flourish, Gaelic-medium teachers must be available and there is a distinct shortage of them. The advantages of Gaelic-medium teaching should be promoted positively to graduates who have the postgraduate certificate of education and to existing teachers. Gaelic should be linked to history teaching. Archaeological and historical tourism are growth areas that could be linked to Gaelic. Gaelic could be very important indeed for Scottish tourism.

The bòrd will ensure that councils meet the demand for Gaelic where the need exists, but the difference between the demands of people and the needs of the language is a key point if Gaelic is to have the chance of survival. Only a small percentage of people now speak Gaelic, so it would be easy for councils to say that demand is very small. That might suit the council's budget, but it would not suit the needs of a language and culture still fighting to exist into the future. Only when the number of Gaelic speakers has once again multiplied can Gaelic be looked upon as any other language. As long as the language is in the high-dependency ward, extra care and attention and extra resources will have to be used to make it healthy and vigorous once again.

A dedicated television channel showing Gaelic programmes at peak viewing times would make a difference. Broadcasts of good Gaelic music and poetry are important, and the West Highland Free Press, the Stornoway Gazette and West Coast Advertiser and "Gairm" have done a good job.

I see the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill as an important project that must be carefully watched, because failure this time will mean that Gaelic speakers will gradually drift away and the language will become like Latin or ancient Greek. That is the situation that we are trying to avoid. I exhort the members of the bòrd to remember that the reason for their existence now is to ensure that the Gaelic language and culture exist and flourish in the future. They have a tremendous task. Wendy Alexander was correct to highlight how important the bòrd members' ideas and decisions will be. They have a huge responsibility and I am sure that they will not let us down.

Tapadh leibh, Oifigeir-riaghlaidh. Chaidh a ràdh uair is uair ann an aithisg na comataidh gum feum am bile a bhith na dhòigh air a' Ghàidhlig a shàbhaladh agus a h-àrdachadh. Tha Pàrtaidh Nàiseanta na h-Alba a' cur fàilte air a' bhile agus tha sinn a' cur ar làn thaic ris an-diugh. Ged nach dèan a dhà no a trì fhacail diofar mòr bho neach aig nach eil Gàidhlig, faodaidh am bile a bhith air a neartachadh a thaobh inbhe, còraichean agus cleachdadh airson na Gàidhlig. Leanaidh mi orm anns a' Bheurla a-nis.

It is said time and again in the committee's report that the bill needs to be a means to preserve and promote Gaelic. The Scottish National Party welcomes the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill and we give it our full support today. Although two or three words from a non-Gaelic speaker will not make a big difference, the bill can be strengthened with regard to status, rights and practice.

We must pay tribute to all those who have campaigned over the years for a Gaelic bill. For our part, the SNP has produced a Gaelic bill twice in the past 25 years. I welcome the latest bill, which—Parliament willing—will reach the statute book. We have all come a long way and we should reflect on that. Indeed, Elaine Murray and Wendy Alexander have done so. I am pleased that the minister accepts many of the committee's recommendations, and perhaps the committee will be able to take things a little further to strengthen the bill at stage 2 with Executive support.

The bill should probably be known as the Gaelic bòrd bill, because it is more about the facilitation of plans to preserve and develop Gaelic than about a comprehensive rights-based approach to the use and promotion of Gaelic. That distinction was made time and again by witnesses, who were critical of the lack of equal rights for the language, including the lack of rights to education and the lack of rights to speak Gaelic in court.

The fragility of the language and the need for immediate action to protect and develop it cannot be overstated. Should we focus on intensive care or rehabilitation into the wider community that is Scotland? The committee was unanimous that it wanted both. The committee notes that sections 3(3) and 3(5) refer to

"the extent to which the Gaelic language is used".

That wording is critical, as the committee believes that it focuses simply on preservation of the current situation, rather than emphasising the equal importance of the future development of the Gaelic language. We ask the Executive to consider amendments that would allow us to emphasise the need to take into consideration the potential for development of the language as well as the existing extent of use.

We return to the debate about official status, secure status, equal status and equal validity. The committee notes that the term "equal status" implies that Gaelic and English must be equally available. Unfortunately, but realistically, the minister is concerned that he could not deliver that in practice. In contrast, "equal validity" seems to indicate that both languages are equally valid when and where they are used. John Farquhar Munro emphasised that there needs to be equal status when the languages are used in the delivery of public services, and we must come back to that point at stage 2.

The committee recommends that the Scottish Executive should consider an amendment to place a duty on the bòrd in relation to progress on Gaelic and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. That point was made by my colleague Tricia Marwick.

The central issue of the debate must be Gaelic education. We have moved on considerably from the first draft of the bill, but we must remember that there are only 284 secondary school pupils in Gaelic-medium education. That figure represents a sevenfold drop off from the numbers in Gaelic-medium primary education. Only 60 teachers teach in Gaelic-medium education—consider their age profile and the restrictions on choice of subjects for pupils.

The committee recognises that education policy is essential in determining the success of preserving and promoting Gaelic, to the extent that it recommends, at my suggestion, that the Executive must establish and execute a national strategy for the delivery of Gaelic education. The national action plan that was announced today is a step in the right direction, but we may need to reflect on the statutory responsibility at stage 2.

The SNP supports a right to Gaelic-medium education for primary children in the first instance where there is sufficient demand. The long title confines the bill—in effect the Bòrd na Gàidhlig bill—to the operation of the bòrd, but I think that there is room in the scope of the bill to find some way of locking in, in a double lock, the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000 and the responsibilities of the bòrd.

I support Highland Council's concerns and its perspective that we must keep responsibility for Gaelic education with the Scottish Executive, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education and local authorities rather than give it to the bòrd, but the bòrd's advisory role must be strengthened.

Gaelic education must not be ghettoised; it must be mainstreamed in the operation and delivery of authorities that are responsible for education.

Does the member accept that it is one thing to have a right, but that what really matters is how that right is enforced? A right can be enforced in two ways—by legal action through the courts or by administrative action by officials, ministers and local authorities. To achieve progress, the bill takes the route of addressing the language planning process through administrative action rather than through legal action; members of the committee all signed up to that.

I acknowledge Robert Brown's point. That matter was subject to great debate in the committee, because there is an issue about where that right to education can come from. It is limited within the scope of the bill, but the duty and responsibility for councils to provide Gaelic-medium education must not and should not be ignored.

I say to Ted Brocklebank that the bill is not about force-feeding Gaelic to everybody in the country.

Will the member take an intervention?

No. I am short of time.

Rather, the bill is about having plans for local authorities to ensure that, when they are ready and able to, they provide Gaelic education not only for people who want Gaelic-medium education but importantly—this has not been mentioned in the debate so far—for those who want to learn Gaelic as a second language. Gaelic-medium education on its own will not preserve and promote the language, but the teaching of Gaelic as a second language will.

I raise concerns about some of the matters that are absent from the bill. It is ironic that although the two most important areas for the survival and development of Gaelic are education policy and broadcasting, for obvious reasons neither is central to the bill.

I recognise the minister's point about workshops with Whitehall. That sounds like an interesting concept to enable progress to be made with the UK bodies and we look forward to hearing more about those workshops.

The point in the Welsh act about third parties to which any public bodies contract out being liable to be responsible for delivery is important.

In a world that is getting increasingly smaller and in which global brands and communication dominate, our cultural differences must be celebrated, held dear and promoted. Gaelic language is both precious and special. Our duty as stewards of our country and its languages is to support and promote Gaelic and to ensure that success, however perilous it is, is realised. The bill is an important step in the right direction. The Parliament must grasp the opportunity, but the bill will not and must not be the last word on Gaelic in this Parliament.

I welcome the spirit in which the debate has taken place and the constructive speeches that have been made throughout the chamber. As I have indicated, wherever I and the Executive can accommodate proper, sensible changes to the bill we will be happy to consider them. A number of threads that have run through the debate will help us to focus attention in the coming days before we begin stage 2.

I welcome the SNP's support for the bill. Alex Neil made a very good point when he pointed out that the bill's impact will not be confined to the Highlands and Islands because the speakers of Gaelic are not confined to the Highlands and Islands. There is a large body of Gaelic speakers in Glasgow in particular and throughout many other parts of Scotland. That is why the bill was cast in the way that it was.

I will pick up on a point that Fiona Hyslop and others made and to which I alluded in my opening speech. We want to consider the potential for growing Gaelic out of the Highlands and Islands and ensuring that the language is never ghettoised. Alasdair Morrison made that point. We must ensure that we grow Gaelic incrementally throughout Scotland and we must recognise that the language has a legitimate part to play throughout the country. Elaine Murray made the point that, in her constituency, Gaelic is not regarded as a dominant feature of the community. Nonetheless, just as she described, measures can be taken that would ensure that the language could secure a foothold and be understood, encouraged and supported in constructive ways, which would be sensitive and flexible to the needs of that part of the country. Indeed, such an approach can be taken in other parts of the country.

I was rather perplexed by Ted Brocklebank's point and I note that he contradicted the other speakers from the Conservative party.

Will the minister give way?

I must finish my point.

I have corresponded with Sir Iain Noble, who is a great advocate of giving Gaelic first-language status. Such a move would be potentially disastrous for Gaelic and is exactly the kind of action that might reap the backlash that we all want to avoid.

Will the minister take an intervention?

I will, when I have finished my point.

I am desperately keen to ensure that we intensify our actions and move Gaelic forward, but that we do so by winning the hearts and minds of people and not by forcing them to speak the language.

I have no disagreement with the minister's point about winning hearts and minds. However, if first-language status was found to be right for Catalunya, Ireland and Wales, the languages of which were all in a far healthier state than is Gaelic, why would it be wrong for Gaelic, in its weakened state, to go for first-language status, particularly in the last redoubt of the language in the outer islands? The number of speakers increased in those countries, so why is that approach wrong for us?

People in different countries and societies must make their own judgments. The evidence that the Parliament took did not point in the direction that the member proposes. I make it clear that such an approach does not attract me at all.

Alex Neil's second point was about the UK Government. I was extremely encouraged by what he said. I think for the first time in the Parliament, he indicated that he favours co-operation with the UK Government—it was almost support for devolution, although he departed from that line a few moments later.

Will the minister give way?

I did not want to provoke Alex Neil into making an intervention.

The point that I am genuinely trying to make is that co-operation will work and will deliver for Gaelic at UK level in the way that I described. That is the right way to go and I am pleased that the Education Committee endorsed that approach. We will consider the point about the Food Standards Agency and we will see what we can do about it.

Alex Neil's key point was about status, which was also mentioned by Robert Brown, Adam Ingram, Elaine Murray, Eleanor Scott and Fiona Hyslop. There is a shared desire among members to ensure that the bill represents a generosity of spirit towards the language, a sympathetic approach to how the language should be treated and the need for esteem and respect for the language. I want to try to ensure that the bill further represents that spirit and we are wrestling with how we can do that. However, there is a difference between symbolism and law. Law has legal effect and we must try to strike the right balance. The legal sense of the word "validity" is causing us real challenges, but we will try to capture the spirit that I described as we go forward.

I welcome the support of Lord Seumas, if I may call him that, for the bill and I acknowledge the part that he played in supporting Sabhal Mòr Ostaig when he was Minister for Education at the Scottish Office. There is another side to the story that perhaps James Douglas-Hamilton does not know. I agreed to fund the project when I was finance convener of Highland Regional Council, in consequence of which I am sure that Scottish Office officials rushed back to Lord James to say, "You had better fund the project in case the council does; you take the credit." I am glad that between us we managed to ensure that the project was funded.

I assure members that Bòrd na Gàidhlig has agreed to support the development of a Gaelic dictionary. Lord James Douglas-Hamilton was the first member to highlight the importance to all our discussions of Gaelic-medium education and Gaelic education more widely. Robert Brown, Rosemary Byrne, Elaine Murray, Eleanor Scott, Adam Ingram, Wendy Alexander, Mary Scanlon, Ken Macintosh and John Farquhar Munro all spoke about the importance of education and I absolutely share their belief in the central significance of education if we are to ensure that the language survives. Teacher supply is a critical part of that, which is why we are taking the actions that we are taking. We should not underestimate all that is already being achieved in Gaelic education, which is one of the great success stories in Scottish education.

Some 23 years ago, as Alasdair Morrison reminded me earlier today—pre-Michael Forsyth days, I have to say—there were activists in Highland Regional Council, of which John Farquhar Munro and I were part. John Farquhar Munro, the Rev Jack MacArthur, Duncan Grant from Skye, Donald Henderson from Lochaber and Neil MacKechnie from Dingwall all pushed forward Gaelic-medium education, of which there was virtually none at the time.

Here we are today: 140 playgroups are active across Scotland with 1,200 pupils in that system, and 60 primary schools teach through the medium of Gaelic with 2,000 pupils in that system. Efforts are being made to ensure that those pupils can continue their Gaelic-medium education in the virtual Gaelic school that we are creating through the Glasgow Gaelic School. Alasdair Morrison referred to that. The significance of that development is that Glasgow is the only part of Scotland in which the critical mass is such that a Gaelic school is viable. The school will act as a resource for the whole of Scotland and the rest of secondary education. We can move things forward in that way.

The question on rights in education raises a difficult issue. Although I appreciate why people ask for rights, the fact is that they ask for different rights. Some people ask for completely unqualified rights, which I simply cannot deliver—I would not tell people otherwise—whereas others ask for qualified rights. We are using the powers that we have under the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc 2000 Act, which legislated for Gaelic education. That act set out guidance for local authorities that requires them to come back to the Executive stating the level of reasonable demand at which they will give an entitlement to Gaelic-medium education at the local level. I believe that we can move forward in establishing that right without compromising the position in legal terms on the face of the bill. We are using the connections between the bill and the 2000 act to try to do so. We will keep pushing forward on the issue.

Robert Brown made the important point—it was also made by Alasdair Morrison—that it is not enough to improve Gaelic-medium education, important though that is; we must also ensure that Gaelic is the language of the home and the family. Gaelic needs to be reflected in all the culture of our communities and to be normalised in its use. As someone who uses the language every day, Alasdair Morrison embodies the spirit of the bill. Indeed, I used to hear him speaking Gaelic every day when I shared an office with him. Gaelic is the everyday language of Alasdair's home; he speaks it with his children, who are in Gaelic-medium education. The way in which Alasdair Morrison uses Gaelic in his family life is the way in which we want more families to use the language. If they do so, it will give Gaelic a real chance of survival into the future.

A number of members mentioned the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages and asked whether the Executive could accommodate some provision for the charter in the bill. We have looked at the issue, but we are not yet convinced that that needs to be done on the face of the bill. I understand completely the point that was made, but we think that we can achieve the provision by administrative means.

I am prepared to indicate today that we will require Bòrd na Gàidhlig to report to ministers annually on its compliance with the charter. That is the way in which we intend to move forward. Once we have developed our thinking on the matter, I will be happy to give the committee more detail. I believe that that proposal meets what the committee is looking for without the inclusion in the bill of something that might, in time, become too rigid if the European charter were to move on in one of a variety of ways.

Adam Ingram made a good point—on which our awareness needs to be raised—that our efforts to improve Gaelic and to ensure that it survives and thrives need to be seen in the context of a world in which English is the dominant language. English is the dominant language not only of our communities in Scotland but of world business and all modern television. One can wake up in a hotel room almost anywhere in the world today and tune into English-language TV programmes. Increasingly, English is also the language of the internet. The forces that are acting against Gaelic are immense. That is why we need to redouble our efforts and do all that we can do to ensure that we move the matter forward.

I want to pick up on another of Ted Brocklebank's points, in case the impression goes out from the chamber today that the bill will require people in Orkney and Shetland to speak Gaelic. That is absolutely not the case. The bill is constructed in a way that means that that will not happen in the parts of the country that have no affinity with Gaelic. The traditions in Shetland, for example, are very different; we do not want in any way to force people in Shetland to speak Gaelic.

The bill includes provisions that will allow Bòrd na Gàidhlig to prioritise its work. I simply do not expect it to go to Shetland Isles Council and ask it to do something that is clearly outwith the culture in Shetland. I encourage people in the parts of Scotland where there are different traditions to pursue their own traditions. The Shetland dialect ought to be strengthened in Shetland, as is the case with dialects in Orkney, the north-east and so on. We need to pursue matters in that light.

The Presiding Officer is indicating that he wishes me to wind up. I will happily do so. Although I have not been able to cover all the points that members made, many more hours of committee time are still to come. I will continue to treat the matter constructively. I commend the bill to the Parliament.