Procedures Committee, 20 Jun 2000

Meeting date: Tuesday, June 20, 2000

Official Report 191KB pdf

---

Languages

The sixth item on the agenda concerns the resource implications of extending the use of non-English languages for parliamentary business. We have a fairly substantial report on the matter. Lesley Beddie is present, so if we have any questions, we can ask her to come to the table and deal with them. The essence of the report is that we invite the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body to discuss the issues that arise and to take appropriate action.

This report is very welcome, convener. It moves the matter along in the right direction after our early discussions and I am particularly pleased about what it says on lodging amendments in another language. The example of the Gaelic amendment is useful, and will be even more useful when the Parliament actually passes a Gaelic amendment.

I have a small issue to raise about announcements in the bulletin. The first paragraph on the second page of annexe C of the report says:

"The expectation is that this provision will be used infrequently. There are considerable resource implications for the Parliament".

That is somewhat grudging. I would be happier if the sentence was phrased, "The expectation is that this provision will be used appropriately as there are considerable resource implications for the Parliament." Expecting the provision to be used infrequently suggests to people, "Do you really want to do that?" We should be saying to people that, if they want to use the provision, we are happy to let them do so, but there are resource implications. It is simply a matter of changing "infrequently" to "appropriately" and eliding the sentences.

That is a minor manuscript amendment. I think that there is little difficulty with that. What is it in Gaelic, Michael?

We could ask Norman Campbell over there. He is better at a quick translation than I am.

I thought that you were doing classes.

Yes, but he is much better than I am.

We do not want you to pass this off to him. We want your response.

I would be abused if I got it wrong. Norman Campbell is the expert.

We will not involve him. The committee would like to see you thoroughly abused more often, but that is another matter. Are there any questions arising from the report?

The significant part of the report is on the first page, where the words "resource implications" appear in italics. The paper raises several serious resource implications. For example, allowing parliamentary questions in a language other than English would have serious resource implications, about which I would be concerned.

We discussed the option of sending the paper to the SPCB. Are we sending it to the SPCB without endorsing it? We need to send it to the SPCB and we need to iron out the resource implications. I would be concerned if we told the SPCB that this is what we wanted and that we hoped that it would furnish us with it.

On annexe C, I am not convinced that announcements in the business bulletin are the best way in which to proceed on an issue such as this. The business bulletin seems to get bigger and bigger every day, which in itself raises resource implications. We have electronic mail facilities, so why can this information not be circulated by e-mail?

Janis Hughes's point about whether the paper goes to the SPCB with the committee's explicit support is a fair one. Some months ago, the fact that we referred a matter to the bureau was translated in the subsequent debates and in the papers as a bid from the Procedures Committee to promote signage throughout the parliamentary complex.

Some of the points that have been raised are the logical follow-through from recommendations, approvals and decisions that we made previously, but others are new initiatives. They all have resources implications. We do not control the budget or have an overview of the correct use of scarce resources, but the corporate body does. In that spirit, we would like the corporate body to look at these issues and to consider whether and where there are achievable ways—at a reasonable cost—in which we can advance the interests of those who are keen to promote the languages in question. We have to respect the corporate body's control over resources. We are not telling the corporate body what to do; we are asking it to consider these issues.

We are asking it to do so in the context of the paper, which, in paragraph 4, says:

"This Parliament is committed to the principle of equal opportunities throughout its work. The proper husbanding of resources is important also."

In the spirit of both of those sentences, the matter should be passed to the corporate body.

In answer to Janis Hughes's point about the publication in the bulletin, a procedural issue such as this has to be published in the bulletin because there have to be opportunities to refer to it, if people are not following the guidance. The business bulletin is part of the official documentation of the Parliament. It can be accessed by non-members through the website, which is equally important.

Many people outside the Parliament use the bulletin. Not all of them can get the information quickly by e-mail or on the internet.

There is also the option for members not to take hard copies of the bulletin, but just to read it on the website.

We will put that out as a recommendation from Iain Smith, but not from the rest of us—I am sure that it will be popular.