Official Report 389KB pdf
Would it be appropriate for me to make a suggestion, convener? If the committee gave Rob Gibson a date or deadline of after the October recess to see whether he can attract and recruit enough cross-party members for his two groups, we could reconsider matters at a meeting in November.
That is clear.
Before I invite Rob Gibson to respond to that suggestion, I want to get a sense from committee members of whether they agree with it. I get that sense from the nodding heads.
I will say a couple of things. First, I make a tiny wee reference of personal interest. My second cousin Jim Stevenson was the editor of the Scots dictionary for a while, although he has been dead for 20 years.
Agenda item 5 is oral evidence from Rob Gibson MSP on the activities of the cross-party group on Russia and the cross-party group on the Scots language. I welcome Rob Gibson to our meeting; thank you very much for coming.
That is a big task.
In that case, we will try to do that. Our intention is to hold an early meeting in August, if that is at all possible, in order to start that process. Thank you very much for that agreement.
Good morning.
That is helpful. What are your intentions in relation to the other group?
If I recall correctly, he edited the entries for L to P, or something like that, over a long period.
I have a technical point to put into the mix of your consideration. It might well be necessary to have additional members in any group that meets, because otherwise the meeting is unlikely to be in conformance with the rules. I invite you to make that part of your consideration, Mr Gibson.
We will go straight to questions, after which you will have the opportunity to raise anything that we should know that has not emerged. Fiona McLeod will kick off.
Well, the cross-party group on the Scots language—
Mr Gibson, are you saying that you think that we should disband the group on the Scots language? It cannot be suspended—it must be either disbanded or functioning.
I am saying that the practical circumstances at present make it difficult to meet the rules. A lot of people who were campaigning for many things are seeing them being achieved. Therefore, we might say that their job is done, but it is not entirely done—far from it, because Scots does not have the status in our country that it could have. However, the practical issue is that, because of the rules, we cannot suspend the group during this period—we have to end it. We have not ended it because we wanted to keep a watching brief. I have done that as convener of the group and in my role as an MSP in asking ministers questions on particular aspects of development.
The two things overlap; the rules are in conflict with the situation. I agree with Cameron Buchanan that, under the rules, the group should be disbanded or ended. If we were to follow the rules strictly, that is what we would do. Until now, we have not done that, but if we are instructed to find cross-party support or disband the group, we will do that.
Good morning, Rob, and thank you for coming. We have a few concerns about the cross-party group on Russia and the cross-party group on the Scots language. The cross-party group on Russia has only four members, yet it has to have five MSPs to be established. The CPG on the Scots language has five members, but they are all from one party. How has that situation arisen and how do you plan to address it?
I am sorry; I cut across Fiona McLeod.
Thank you very much for the invite.
First, I will deal with the longest standing of the two groups, which has existed since early in the Parliament’s life: the cross-party group on the Scots language. At an earlier stage, it had active members from various parties—Cathy Peattie was a long-standing vice-convener of the group—who gave it breadth. Since 2007, the nominal support of enough members to allow the cross-party group to continue has been extremely nominal. Indeed, it has become less and less of a cross-party group in terms of attendance, as the only people who have attended are members of the Scottish National Party and the Green Party. That has made the reality of the group at variance with the rules—the original founding principles. I can go into the reasons why the reality has reached that stage later.
The cross-party group on Russia was founded in the previous session, when it existed briefly, and I resurrected it. You could say that the secretaries and conveners of cross-party groups should take a closer look at the rules under which they are supposed to run, and I could say “Mea culpa” in terms of the cross-party group on Russia not meeting the rules about members. We had members from three parties, but we did not have enough members. When that was forcibly drawn to our attention by the committee earlier this year, the international situation meant that it was—to put it mildly—not the best climate in which to recruit MSPs to the group.
There is potential to ask other members to join, perhaps on a nominal basis, but we have not done that for the reason that the group has not met in the past six months.
We had a suggestion, to which we have all signed up, that we extend the period in which you can consider the matter to the end of the October recess. However, if you as convener of the group come to an earlier conclusion that it will not be possible to proceed, it would be helpful if you wrote to the clerks to notify them formally of that. I am thinking of the Scots language group, on which your comments are substantially less encouraging as to a successful outcome.
On the group on Russia, speaking for myself, I think that, in times of difficulty with a country such as Russia, which is a very important country in the world, the need for such links is perhaps enhanced. I would personally encourage as much work as possible to regularise the position, particularly as I have heard an indication of substantial community engagement across Scotland in Russia’s national day.
In my constituency responsibilities, I am working with Russian interests to see a statue to Michael Barclay de Tolly, who was the field marshal who defeated Napoleon when he invaded Russia, and who came from Banff in my constituency, erected later this year in the grounds of the University of Aberdeen, so I speak with a personal interest in the matter.
As members have no further comments, I thank Mr Gibson for his attendance and his helpful remarks.
I meant for both groups.
Do you think that you will be successful in recruiting a fifth member?
I beg your pardon. In that case, let us be clear about what Rob Gibson’s response is.
Thank you.
It is entirely possible. We have good engagement with the Russian community in this country on issues related to Russia, and it is certainly possible that we could attempt to recruit a fifth member. I have not attempted to do so recently in order to allow the international situation to play out. However, we accepted an invitation to attend the Russian national day last week, which was organised by the consulate general, and there were 200 people there from many different strands of Scottish life. There is no reason to think that we cannot ask MSPs to reflect that and to maintain the discussions that the cross-party group can have, which have been fruitful in the past.
We now move into private session.
10:44 Meeting continued in private until 10:59.
On the cross-party group on the Scots language, at the end of 2012 there was a discussion about the aims and future work of such a group. In the period leading up to 2007, many issues had to be campaigned on. In general terms, there are still many more, which are laid out in a statement of principles that was drawn up in the group in 2003. However, since the accession of the minority SNP Government and then the majority SNP Government, some of the key campaigning issues have been addressed. For example, the Scots Language Centre, which is mainly online, and the Scots language dictionaries have been directly funded by the Government, whereas before they were at the mercy of the Scottish Arts Council. Doubts about whether they fitted into an arts portfolio were laid aside by that, and those important things are now directly funded.
The census in 2011 asked for the first time a question about use of the Scots language. We campaigned for that for many years; indeed, I was a member of the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee that dealt with the orders in Parliament to create the questions in the census, along with other items. At that time, there was hostility from some members of the committee to having a question asked about Scots, but it was passed by the majority, and that took place successfully. It established a precedent to establish the role of Scots in our country’s life. It should also be said that the ministerial working group on the Scots language has set out a number of aims, which are starting to be achieved.
The work of a cross-party group in the Parliament is therefore truncated by the fact that the Government is responding to many of the issues that were campaigned for over the years but were not achieved until after 2007. The original ideas of the cross-party group have become less relevant. Because people have taken a view that there are things that the Government is applying, the campaigning zeal of the cross-party group is less important, and a role for any future campaigning is unclear. The group received more support from members of the governing party in particular, and less from the Opposition parties, which did not give it priority in the way that the governing party did. The cross-party nature of the group has therefore ended.
We have attempted—with outside help—to service such a group, but we have not yet asked people again whether they are prepared to support it. That is partly because we are not clear exactly what should be done, but we are also clear that there has been little support from the other parties to make the group a cross-party group.
Previous
Legislative Procedures