Procedures Committee, 19 Dec 2000

Meeting date: Tuesday, December 19, 2000

Official Report 203KB pdf

---

Gaelic

We have received petition PE251 from the comann ceilteach of the University of Edinburgh. I will not attempt to pronounce its full name, especially not the word in the middle.

It is significant that in writing to us, the comann ceilteach left us the responsibility of translating its name and indeed its address. That, perhaps, is an argument as good as any for insisting that someone who contributes documentation in Gaelic ought to consider translating the documentation for those of us who do not speak the language. The way that the comann ceilteach has presented its submission militates somewhat against its own argument.

The position, ladies and gentlemen, is that work is being done within the Parliament on language issues. That work is not in our remit and is driven by resources and a range of other considerations, which are beyond our remit. I propose that we note the petition in the interim and that when that work is progressed to the point where it falls within our remit, we can consider what changes to standing orders might be necessary. Anything other than that would be premature.

What attitude would the Parliament—or any of its committees—take to a letter that had been written by someone from Siam, for example? Say the letter was from a Government official. What would we do if it came in their language? Would we send it back and say "Please send an English translation," or would we do the courteous thing and have it translated?

I find the terms that the convener has used offensive, to be quite frank. I do not disagree with his recommendation, but I find it offensive to say that someone who wants to communicate in their own language should provide an official translation. We would not expect that of anyone else, so we should not expect that from our own people. That makes me uncomfortable.

In the circumstances that Gil Paterson has outlined, how the Executive dealt with that letter would be a matter for the Executive, not for the Parliament.

We decided that people may submit documentation in the Scots language, but we expect an accompanying translation. The point about any document that comes to us—be it a letter, a motion, a petition, a question—is that the words have a certain meaning. It is important that the people who deal with the document are aware of that meaning. The only way for that to be established beyond any doubt is for those who submit the document to make the meaning clear in their own language and also in the language of the people who will receive it. We have a Gaelic officer to act as our strain, or sieve, through which approaches in Gaelic might come. Presumably, the Gaelic officer can mediate on the precise meaning of words.

Ultimately, the decisions of Parliament are taken in English, which is the language that is natural to something like 99 per cent of the population of this country. English is spoken by the vast majority in Scotland. There is no significant population in Scotland which speaks Gaelic and does not also speak English. For sheer, practical commonsense reasons, we must conduct our business in English.

We have tried hard to demonstrate a respect for Gaelic and for Scots. We want to continue to do that, but there are obligations on everybody in the process. Just as we are obliged to cope with Gaelic, people who wish to address us in Gaelic ought to be prepared to cope with English. It is a matter of mutual respect and tolerance.

I agree with mutual respect—that is how I live my life—but it is a two-way street. I do not disagree with the recommendation, but if we intend to take the language seriously, we must give it a fair wind. We have a Gaelic officer—that is a great step forward. However, let us not only pay lip service to the language; let us say that it is a living language. In the past, it was literally beaten out of people with a stick. Whether we use a stick or some other way of preventing people from speaking and nurturing Gaelic, it is an endangered species. If it were a bird, we would be spending money to save it.

I hope that the work that has been done in the Parliament and elsewhere ensures that the language thrives and that we will not need to discuss matters such as this in future, because when an individual or an organisation submits a petition, we will automatically give it the respect that it deserves.

I would differentiate between parts 1 and 2 of the petition. I have no difficulty with the idea that we should respect Gaelic on the website to a reasonable degree—it will be up to other people to bring us a report on that. However, it is reasonable for the petitioners to provide the petition in a language that I understand.

I agree that parts 1 and 2 are significantly different. Gil Paterson wondered whether, if someone in Siam wrote to the Parliament in their own language, we would ask for a translation. That is bizarre—of course we would. If you wrote to the Parliament in Siam, Gil, in your own language, you would not expect it automatically to translate your letter. Every effort is being made to assist native Gaelic and Scots speakers, but the first language of the Parliament is English. It has been demonstrated in the chamber that few MSPs speak Gaelic.

I wonder why.

It is acceptable for members to submit motions and so on in Gaelic, but they should provide an English translation. There is nothing wrong with that. We can consider part 2 in due course, in the report that is being commissioned. However, I disagree with part 1. The action that has been suggested is correct.

Until 18 months ago, I wrote almost weekly to departments and companies in China, but never in Chinese—no one expected me to.

I am sure that our Government is equipped to deal with letters from Thailand, without redirecting them to Siam.

I have a practical point. If petitioners submit their petitions in Gaelic, it is helpful if they provide a translation—the working document for most members would be the English version. The petition might concern a technical matter—for example, on crofting or peat—and if our translator does not get it right, the petitioners will have a grumble, in that we will not address their point. If petitioners provide their own translation, they will have dealt correctly with any technicalities. It is in their own interests that we ask them to supply an English translation.

I would guess that the amount of Gaelic paperwork that comes in will be relatively slight. I would have thought that, as a matter of operational practice, our Gaelic officer would want to speak to the petitioner about any ambiguity or dubiety in the meaning of the petition and that an agreed piece of wording would come before the Parliament. We can work satisfactorily around that, in the interests of all, so that everyone can express their point of view in the language of their choice—the Parliament should be receptive to that.

We agree that the work should continue and that if standing order changes are necessary as a result, they will be introduced and discussed in the normal way.