The second item is consideration of the financial memorandum to the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill. The bill was introduced on 27 September 2004 by the Minister for Education and Young People, Peter Peacock. We agreed that we would apply level 2 scrutiny to the bill, which means seeking written evidence and then taking oral evidence from Executive officials. I welcome officials from the Executive: David Brew, head of cultural policy division; and Douglas Ansdell, bill team leader, and Steven Macgregor, bill team member, from the Gaelic unit.
If I may, convener, I will just introduce my colleagues, and then hand over to Douglas Ansdell, who is the head of our bill team, to make a few comments about the preparation of the financial memorandum.
Let me make a couple of points, following which I will be happy to respond to members' questions.
The committee might want to note that the responses that we have received from different organisations have now been put into the questionnaire format that we have agreed to adopt as standard. That approach has helped to focus the content of the initial evidence that we have received.
The financial memorandum focuses on the costs of core service delivery functions. As far as specialist services are concerned, the range and diversity of public bodies and authorities in Scotland means that we would have to take into account everything from the preparation of forms for the registration of births, marriages and deaths to the provision of health services throughout the country. For that reason, we left the definition of specialist services as a matter for negotiation between Bòrd na Gàidhlig and the public body that the board approaches to draw up a Gaelic language plan. We fully expect the definition to be a matter for negotiation between the board and the public body concerned.
I am still not clear about the circumstances under which it would be reasonable for a public body to say, "We do not believe that a Gaelic development officer is justified," or for Bòrd na Gàidhlig to say that an officer was justified. You said that the process is one of negotiation. I am looking for some clarity about how that would work.
The issue is not one of Bòrd na Gàidhlig forcing public authorities in all circumstances to do things that they are unwilling to do. The purpose behind the provision of the language development fund is to give a local authority—or public authority, although the responses that we received came in particular from local authorities—an element of incentive in proceeding with the development of a plan.
But where in the bill does it say that? I heard what Douglas Ansdell said about individual choice. Obviously, an individual can make a request in the Borders, Orkney or wherever, depending on where they live. What is the basis for your suggestion that a public authority may take the decision to go for relatively minimal provision, as there are sufficiently few Gaelic speakers in its area? Under what circumstances will public authorities be required to take the more significant approach?
The bill is—
The bill is an enabling bill. I am trying to get at what it says about who has the authority to decide that certain kinds of provision are not economic or appropriate and in what circumstances and on what basis they may do so.
The bill refers to the fact that one of the criteria in shaping and adopting a Gaelic language plan should be the number of Gaelic speakers in the area of operation of the public authority. We would expect that factor to be taken into account in developing a plan and by Bòrd na Gàidhlig in its dealings with a public authority.
Before I move on to ask about the submissions, what sums are available at the moment? Leaving broadcasting out of it, you referred to Bòrd na Gàidhlig having £350,000 plus £1.4 million for the Gaelic language development fund. That adds up to £1.75 million. You then talked about £2.3 million being available in grant in aid. Is that a separate sum of money?
That is the money that the Gaelic board has at the moment. It covers the funding of Gaelic organisations, running costs and the assisting of Gaelic development.
So we are talking about the board having getting on for £4 million at its disposal.
Indeed.
In addition to that, £3.7 million is available to 21 local authorities.
Yes.
Right—and that is all outside the area of broadcasting.
Yes.
The point that comes through in many of the submissions is that it is difficult for local authorities to work out whether there will be enough money because they do not know what is expected. Places such as Orkney and Shetland where there is absolutely no Gaelic tradition are saying that if they are forced to go down the road of developing a plan, it will cost far more than £10,000. Highland Council's submission claims that the associated costs in the financial memorandum are nothing like enough because it will have to get into such issues as road signage, and Highland Council is an area that would be considered to be traditionally Gaelic speaking.
Certainly. Highland Council already has considerable spend on Gaelic, as you know. It is already moving forward with a programme of road signs and it has a significant Gaelic education programme. The Executive already supports the delivery of Gaelic education in Highland Council area through education money. We would not expect funding for the bill to support Highland Council's current activities; the money will be to support new developments that the council might consider to extend Gaelic language activity in its area.
The other side of the coin is that Comhairle nan Eilean Siar probably has much more ambitious plans than those that have been laid out.
Indeed it would. Western Isles Council issued its policy on and plan for Gaelic two weeks ago, in advance of implementation of the bill and of Bòrd na Gàidhlig requesting Gaelic language plans. In some areas, from health services to education, the council has made a fairly robust commitment to Gaelic by offering virtually bilingual services to people who request them. That is a judgment that the council has made, with a full awareness of present resources.
There is an issue about the marginal costs associated with the provision of Gaelic-language services and products. We are not looking at a doubling of local authority expenditure simply because something is produced or delivered in Gaelic as well as in English. If there is a special programme of replacing every road sign, substantial additional costs will be involved; however, if one provides bilingual road signage as part of the normal function of providing road signage, the additional costs will be minimal.
But fast tracking the training of young people to teach Gaelic in schools—in other words, providing the teachers, who simply are not there at the moment—would lead to considerable extra costs, would it not?
The issue of how much additional cost is involved in getting the language back to a position in which it can survive and prosper needs to be addressed. There is no right answer to questions about the speed at which additional resources should or should not be supplied.
In the submissions, we have heard from authority areas that have a Gaelic tradition, areas that want provision to be better than it has been in the past and areas, such as Edinburgh and Glasgow, where a greater demand is emerging because of the demography of the Gaelic community. There is a dilemma because of the unpredictability. Given what I would euphemistically call the enthusiasm for the bill—given the range of analyses and aspirations in the submissions—could pressure be brought to bear on Bòrd na Gàidhlig to go into areas that perhaps do not have a history or tradition of Gaelic to try to force the debate, so increasing the cost implications, rather than focus on areas such as Edinburgh, Glasgow, the Western Isles and the Highland region, where there is a strong tradition that needs to be supported and strengthened? Many of the submissions from local authorities mention uncertainty about the cost implications. For example, £10,000 seems a low estimate for a language plan for an area such as Glasgow.
On the £10,000, you are probably aware that in the previous session of Parliament, the member's bill on Gaelic made a similar estimate and the conclusion was that £3,000 would be sufficient for the development of a Gaelic language plan by a public body. Views are mixed on that. In some of the responses, we have seen a hint of scepticism and a feeling that £10,000 is not enough, but other submissions seem to indicate that people are quite content with that figure.
What dialogue are you having with the board about how it will manage that? I used the euphemism because there are a variety of views about how we should sustain and develop the language, some of which could be fairly extreme in their content and analysis. How do we achieve a sense of proportion about how we should develop the language? How is that shaped in Bòrd na Gàidhlig's relationship with the Executive to ensure that reasonable sense prevails in the debate about moving to the further stages?
We are in discussion with the board, and the board is in discussion with public bodies. The board has found a degree of willingness and enthusiasm to move forward with Gaelic language plans. At the outset—in the initial years—the public bodies and local authorities with which the board will work will be the public bodies that have indicated some support for Gaelic language plans. There is always the possibility of situations arising that we would not welcome or support; however, the bill provides for an appeal mechanism and for the last word to rest with ministers should any difficulties arise.
The more we talk about this, the more concerned I am getting. The provision is that a Gaelic language plan can be requested in any local authority area. Stirling Council's written submission states:
The content of the plan is dependent on what the public authority is or is not willing to deliver as part of that plan. There is no formal specified content. It is not stated formally that a plan must contain X, Y and Z, must involve the appointment of a Gaelic development officer, and must do X, must do Y and must do Z. The board is in a position to request a plan from a public authority. It is for the public authority to decide what is reasonable in the circumstances.
But a small authority such as Stirling, which is not in the identified Gaelic area of Scotland, says that to produce a plan it would require to appoint a Gaelic development officer to deal with the extensive consultation process and stakeholder involvement, and to examine how the plan might be incorporated into the mainstream of its services. All that would, inevitably, cost significantly more than £10,000.
That depends on the extent of the consultation exercise that it is thought is required. Other local authorities believe that the process of drawing up a plan—depending on its extent—could be relatively simple and straightforward, and would not require the appointment of a new member of staff. Delivery of the plan is a completely separate issue, which is why the range of costs that is set out in the financial memorandum is large. The process of producing the plan would not necessarily involve huge development—as opposed to delivery—costs.
But Douglas Ansdell said that you were not going to go for a template-based approach. If you do not go for such an approach, I would have thought that you would almost certainly be moving towards a more expensive methodology because taking account of what different service providers and the Gaelic community had to say would be complex. That is what Stirling is saying. It is saying that the exercise would be hard.
Yes; I noted Stirling's comments. Stirling's view is that a member of staff would be required to draw up a plan, but other bodies or local authorities could take the view that an additional member of staff would not be required to do that. Although we are uncertain of the details of the guidance that will be prepared, and although I mentioned that the Welsh have gone for a template approach, clear guidance will be prepared by the Gaelic board to aid local authorities and give guidance on the core functions that should be considered in drawing up a Gaelic language plan.
I do not envy you this dilemma. In a sense, I had this discussion in my ministerial role, although responsibility lay with the Minister for Education and Young People. There are agonies in working out the potential opportunities and pitfalls. Our worry, which has been strengthened by the submissions from local authorities, is about unpredictability. A minimalist view of what a Gaelic plan is might get through some of the broad framework that Bòrd na Gàidhlig can develop.
We prepared the financial memorandum and discussed its detail with Bòrd na Gàidhlig. When we considered what core functions might be included on the staffing side of a Gaelic language plan, we of course agreed to include Gaelic language officers and their possible training. When we considered costs for those officers, we used as models public bodies and local authorities that currently have Gaelic language officers. In most cases, there are one or two people who have the role of Gaelic language officer and have a range of functions in education, development or community issues. The financial memorandum on this point reflects our discussions with the board.
I am sorry to go back to the Welsh template, but I want to explore why you decided to go for flexibility as opposed to the template approach. Did you regard the two approaches as mutually exclusive?
On reflection, I imagine that they are not mutually exclusive. However, the bill suits the diversity of Scotland. Some areas of the country are not very far away from bilingualism in the delivery of services, but other areas, in considering a Gaelic language plan, might be considering minimal measures. For those reasons, we wanted to put the question to the board for clear guidance.
A template for the minimalist options—or even for the more complex options—might make sense. There could even be a programme of cross-pollination in which practice in the Western Isles could be shared. Has any thought been given to that?
You are right to point out that a template could be used flexibly in a range of situations.
We do not want to end up with the arrangements for the delivery of Gaelic language services in the Western Isles being replicated in the rest of Scotland. If we have tended not to follow a template approach, that has reflected the very concerns that committee members are expressing about a one-size-fits-all approach. We do not believe that we should be standardising Gaelic language planning across Scotland.
But that sounds a little bit like the tower of Babel approach. I will take the silence that greeted that comment as a hit.
Yes.
The submission from Scottish Natural Heritage states that SNH has appointed a Gaelic officer who has a remit to promote its work in the Gaelic media and to help in the development of Gaelic publications. Does the Executive have an estimate of how many non-departmental public bodies have followed that path by appointing Gaelic officers? If the bill is passed, what implications will that have for other organisations that chose to make such appointments or were asked to do so by Bòrd na Gàidhlig?
As one can imagine, there is a diversity of practice out there. Some people are named specifically as Gaelic officers, whereas others have Gaelic as part of their responsibilities. In a few councils, the Gaelic officer has a specific education role that is focused principally on the development of Gaelic education. Also, quite a few bodies have Gaelic plans or Gaelic policies, such as education policies, without having a dedicated Gaelic officer who can follow through those plans or policies. Such roles are developing, as we have seen over the past few years. I expect that the bill will add significant momentum to the production of Gaelic policies and Gaelic plans and the work of Gaelic officers.
I think that Wendy Alexander has a question.
I will wait and make my contribution at the end.
If there are no other questions, I thank the witnesses for attending this morning.
I am happy to raise this issue in public, although no members of the public are present. The bill is such a dog's breakfast that before we move to the next item of business there is a case for our taking a view as a committee on how we can acquit our financial stewardship responsibilities.
I could not agree more with what Wendy Alexander is saying. However, we must not lose the central vision, which is that we want to do something to save the Gaelic language and culture. We must not be seen to be kicking the issue into the long grass because of the financial implications. We should do what Wendy suggests, but only if the reason is that we want to make the bill better and to ensure that it works.
I am not familiar with the history of all of the reports that have been produced on this matter. However, the bill has financial implications, so it is a policy issue, and it occurred to me that if we are serious about saving and revitalising the Gaelic language, we should concentrate expenditure on the Western Isles, the Highlands and Islands, Argyll and Bute and perhaps Glasgow and Edinburgh, rather than rolling out bureaucracy over the whole country.
Ted Brocklebank's point is critical. In the language that we use, we must make it clear that we have examined the bill in terms of its financial rectitude but that we are not questioning the principle of trying to expand the Gaelic language. I am sure that people have differing views about the emphasis that we should give that point, but I think that it would be a mistake not to stress it. As Wendy Alexander says, we have to emphasise the rigour with which we arrived at our views and our analysis of the cost implications.
I was probably leading the questioning in this regard, but I support the arguments in favour of doing something solid for the Gaelic language. It seems to me that the issues are about appropriateness and the ways in which a local authority can make an appropriate response in particular circumstances and whether, by going down the classic rights-driven route, we are creating the possibility of inappropriate responses that are not in the interests of the language or the things that the language can deliver in terms of economic development and so on.
I will double-check and get back to the committee on this, but I understand that the Education Committee will take evidence from the minister in early December. Our timetable is predicated on our being able to get our report to the Education Committee in time for that evidence-taking session. As usual with financial memorandums, we are working to a fairly tight timescale.
But we do have a wee bit of time.
I pretty much echo Ted Brocklebank's comments about making the bill better. Alasdair Morgan's point that it should be focused and targeted must be acted on and be seen to be acted on.
It all depends on cultural advantage. The Executive has to realise that we cannot allow the Gaelic language to disappear; indeed, we have to try to encourage its development. However, someone has to put a timescale on and make a valuation of the cost of implementing the bill. After all, the sky is the limit. We could roll the provisions out across the whole country, but in many cases that would be a waste of money and simply the devalue the process. That said, where such provision needs financial backing, it must be stringently funded. It should be possible for the Executive to target its financial input on areas where it will have the most benefit. Anyone else who wants to come aboard could then apply to be included.
I want to draw the strands of the discussion together and find out whether we can come up with something that makes sense. Members have a general concern that the financial assessments in this regard might not be very close to the mark. The issue is not simply whether the financial projections in the FM are accurate or realistic, as there are degrees of uncertainty about the bill's operation. We heard this morning that the guidance has not yet been produced, which means that we cannot even consider that.
I wonder whether we could ask someone from a Gaelic-speaking background who is also economically literate to examine this matter so that we are not accused of choosing either a Gael or someone who is opposed to the whole concept. It might be impossible to find such a person, but I was thinking of people such as Tony MacKay in Inverness who understand the Gaidhealtachd and know what we are talking about.
I think that we can be sensitive on that issue.
If that is the view of the committee, I will support it. However, I am not convinced that if the committee is concerned about runaway costs, it should make a recommendation that we are not convinced about the structures of templates and other things, which are for another committee of the Parliament to decide. We have the option to say that the anticipated cost is in the financial memorandum and that, as with the budget documents with regard to Gaelic in education, there is a fund from which those areas can draw down, which is administered by the Gaelic board, so there will be no runaway costs. There is a sum that can be voted on by Parliament. That is a clear indication, and it is up to the Parliament to set a budget for it. There cannot be runaway costs. The committee should state simply, "There you are. There is the budget for Gaelic." That could be a recommendation from this committee.
My concern about that is that the rights that are conferred in the bill will make demands on local authorities above and beyond the money that will be voted on, which will come through Bòrd na Gàidhlig. The concern of local authorities and others who have responded to us is that there are costs in the bill for which they are not going to be properly reimbursed and which have not been properly calculated. We owe it to them to try to ensure that all such issues are identified. However, as you say, it is a matter for Parliament whether it agrees to the bill. All that we are trying to do is facilitate the process by which it comes up with a better set of arrangements.
Previous
Budget Process 2005-06