Official Report 269KB pdf
We continue to take evidence at stage 1 of the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill. We will take evidence first today from representatives of Highland Council. We have with us Councillor Allan Beaton, chairman of the council's Gaelic working group, Councillor Andrew Anderson, chairman of the council's education, culture and sport committee, Bruce Robertson, director of the council's education, culture and sport services, and Morag Anna MacLeod, the council's Gaelic development officer. I welcome you all to the committee. Would you like to make any introductory remarks before we move to questions?
Tha sinn a' toirt taing dhan chomataidh airson cuireadh a thoirt do Chomhairle na Gaidhealtachd agus airson cothrom fhaighinn air còmhradh air Bile Cànan na Gàidhlig (Alba). Tha sinn cuideachd taingeil gun do chuir Mìcheal Ruiseal am bile air adhart. A bharrachd air sin, tha sinn a' toirt taing do mhinistear na Gàidhlig, Mìcheal MacBhàtair, airson an taic a tha e air a thoirt dhuinn agus mar a chuir e air adhart bòrd Gàidhlig na h-Alba.
I thank the committee for inviting us to appear here today and for giving us the opportunity to speak in Gaelic. We are grateful to Michael Russell for introducing the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill and to Mike Watson, the minister with responsibility for Gaelic, for his support and for setting up the Gaelic board.
Thank you. We move to questions from members.
In the summer, I had the privilege of addressing Allan Beaton's committee. Today, I will focus first on one simple issue. This set of stage 1 hearings is designed to give the committee the opportunity to arrive at a view, which it takes to the Parliament, on whether the bill should be acceded to in principle. The bill can then be amended in detail at stage 2. Are you in favour of the bill proceeding in principle to stage 2, at which time consideration can be given to detailed amendments?
Absolutely, definitely.
Good. Let us look at the question of amendments. Do you have a view of the detailed amendments that should be lodged? What areas require amendment? As you know, I have made it clear that I am open to suggestions for a vast range of amendments. I would be interested to hear from Allan Beaton and Andy Anderson, with a view to the generality of the council's work and in respect of education and culture.
Do you want to kick off, Andy?
The present Highland Council administration is about to come to an end. Our Gaelic development strategy has been developed into a Gaelic development policy, which the council adopted last month. We will submit a copy of the policy document to the committee.
The bill would form part of that backing-up process.
It most certainly would. The Gaelic language must have legal status. Why on earth are we—and the Scottish Parliament—arguing about that when similar things are already happening in many other European countries, from Catalonia to the Faroes?
How can the bill help you with general council policy?
As Andy Anderson said, the bill would give us the necessary backing for many things that we are already doing. For years, Highland Council has had a Gaelic strategy document, which has now been implemented through the new education strategy. Moreover, a new overall Gaelic plan will be debated in committee in Inverness next week. It is interesting to note that Highland Council has already introduced many of the measures that the bill proposes, such as the requirement for bodies to produce plans for Gaelic. We like to pride ourselves on being a wee bit ahead of the game.
Turning briefly to Bruce Robertson and Morag Anna MacLeod, I want to ask whether council officials feel that the bill contains anything that would be unduly onerous to implement.
As both councillors have indicated, the bill would very much underpin current council policy. When the education policy was passed a couple of months ago, it received unanimous backing from members of all parties and from all parts of the Highlands.
Which is no mean achievement.
Indeed.
That might be harder to achieve here.
I want to make a link with one of the Parliament's legislative achievements—the national education priorities. Committee members will be aware that Gaelic is one of those priorities. The council was delighted that the Parliament took that step; indeed, we recommended as much in our submission at the time of the consultation. The bill will very much help us to deliver that priority, which is why we introduced our policy.
I congratulate Highland Council on its evident foresight in this area. I want first to ask about the bill's coverage. Much has been made of whether its provisions should cover the whole of Scotland or start in one specific area. On that point, I should dispel the growing myth that the committee might be divided over the bill's principles. In fact, the committee's views echo the substantial body of evidence that supports those general principles. Without pre-empting what the committee is likely to recommend, I should say that we want to tease out the detail on some issues, hence my question about coverage.
In our written response, we say that we would like a robust, Scotland-wide bill. It is as simple as that.
Is the bill a stepping stone towards achieving that end, or should it be amended to ensure that it applies Scotland-wide?
I do not care how you get there, as long as you get there. That is the important thing.
Absolutely.
That answer was candid enough.
It might be helpful if I gave the committee some current facts and figures. In gross terms, Highland Council is spending £1.65 million on this matter and has received grants worth about £650,000. Unlike some other authorities, we are spending way above the grant allocation. However, that is something that we are prepared to do.
In paragraph 9 of your written submission, you say that Highland Council believes that action should be taken
Yes. Trunk roads.
Just trunk roads?
Yes. Highland Council's policy on bilingual road signage is that, when signs need to be replaced and the local community wants bilingual signs, they will be provided.
You do that already.
Yes. However, we have had a long-running sparring session with Edinburgh about trunk roads. We still do not have permission to put bilingual signs everywhere. The A87 through Skye and the other road that goes down the west coast to Mallaig—I can never remember its number—are the only two roads to have such signs. Trunk roads are within the remit of the Scottish Executive.
In paragraph 6 of your submission, you talk about providing Gaelic education "where reasonable demand exists". You explain that in a little more detail, saying that parents are given
Yes, we could easily give you that written evidence. Essentially, such services will be provided where two things exist. First, there must be a reasonable number of youngsters who require the services—five or six initially, to get something off the ground. Secondly, the crucial factor, which should perhaps be mentioned in the bill, is the availability of teachers. The biggest obstacle to the development of Gaelic in Scotland is the lack of qualified teachers. We recently helped the minister with responsibility for Gaelic, Mike Watson, to review the number of Gaelic teachers that is required. It was previously felt that 20 trained teachers a year were required throughout Scotland. However, I conducted a survey among the other 31 local authorities and concluded that we need at least 30 teachers a year for the next few years. Those are the two factors that we take into consideration. We also consider travelling distances, although some youngsters travel up to 20 miles each way every day to attend a Gaelic-medium department.
Your submission states:
We receive a 75 per cent grant at the moment. We are quite happy with that. If we received more, we would be happier, but we are happy with the 75 per cent grant. Nevertheless, as we said, Highland Council spends a lot more on Gaelic education than it receives.
Teacher training is obviously a big issue. How would the bill change the situation?
It would help by giving the Gaelic language legal status. In the Highland region, teenagers and people in their early 20s who have come right through the system—from Gaelic nursery to Gaelic primary school to Gaelic secondary school—arrive at university to find that the language in which they have been educated all their lives does not have legal status. The bill is what we are looking for, as it recognises that Gaelic is one of Scotland's languages and that it has equal status with the English language. That recognition would mean a great deal to youngsters who are thinking of taking up a career in teaching or in any other profession in which they might use the Gaelic language.
One of the areas in which the bill needs to be strengthened is where it deals with education. In the broadest terms, Highland Council feels that the Meek report recommendations are right in all respects. They might be included in any amendments to the bill, specifically in relation to teacher training, as the situation is very fragile just now, with some teachers on temporary contracts. That would give initial teacher education establishments a clear view from the Scottish Parliament that Gaelic education is not peripheral, but one of the national education priorities. One way of getting behind that priority is to produce enough teachers each year to give youngsters equality of opportunity. That is what the issue is all about.
Is there evidence to suggest that we are turning teachers away? I get the impression that not enough teachers are coming forward who want to, or can, teach in the Gaelic medium. Are people being turned away? Is the availability of teacher training in the Highlands an issue? Do people have to move south for teacher training? Do those issues have to be resolved as well?
Yes. That is part of the process and we are trying to address the situation with the further education establishments. Parents groups in two areas want to open Gaelic schools, but we cannot do that at the moment because we cannot get Gaelic-speaking teachers.
I understand that. However, I am confused about how the bill will automatically provide teachers. Would the bill create something that could not be sustained? Does it suggest that we can do something that we cannot do? That is what I am confused about. Simply passing the bill—if we do so by the end of the parliamentary session—will not make teachers.
That is a long-term issue. To answer the first part of your question, people have been turned away because the colleges' quotas have been limited. I know of several people who have been turned away. The quotas need to be increased. The Scottish Executive's review of initial teacher education is welcome. Moreover, Highland Council is starting a groundbreaking scheme in August, whereby initial teacher education will be delivered in the Highlands, which will be very helpful. The scheme is part of a package, which must be long term.
I just wanted to clarify that issue.
The European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages was ratified in respect of Gaelic and I presume that that is impacting on the promotion and preservation of Gaelic. How does it fall short of achieving everything that Highland Council wants and why is the bill also necessary?
The bill will not provide Gaelic teachers, but it will strengthen the language and give Gaelic legal status, which will encourage more prospective teachers. Discussions are taking place, presumably with the rector of UHI Millennium Institute and representatives of other colleges, to try to spread teacher training throughout the Highlands so that people can train without having to go away from home. The legal backing of the bill would provide massive support for that initiative, but the bill on its own will not provide teachers.
Morag Anna MacLeod is the best person to answer the question about the European charter.
Highland Council was delighted that the United Kingdom Government signed up to the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. The council is holding a review to determine its position on the different stages of the European charter. Ultimately, the Gaelic language should be as important as any other indigenous or lesser-used language in Europe. If other countries in Europe are moving forward in their local parliaments, education systems and public signage systems, it is obvious that authorities in Scotland should be promoting our language for our young people. My goodness, but it is such an asset to have. We live in a global community and we should use our language and our culture to promote the things that are so good about Scotland. That is where the European charter can assist Gaelic.
Good as the charter is, does Highland Council still feel that the bill is necessary as well?
The more legislation that we have for Gaelic, the better. As the director and the chairman of education, culture and sport said, if the European charter and the bill work in tandem, they will give the language status among our young people. They will not produce Gaelic teachers, but they will give our young people the confidence to go to university and become teachers, because they will see that the language has status. That is very important.
I am interested in the work that the council has done to produce more teachers and to create more interest in the development of Gaelic. I am really impressed by your submission. How do you know whether what you are doing is working? How do you know that the parents of the children welcome what is happening? How can those parents support their children if they do not have the Gaelic? I am interested in mechanisms that may be in place to develop such support.
Recently, I attended a meeting in Ullapool with parents of children at the local Gaelic school. The discussion was wide ranging. We dealt with the letterheads on the letters that come to homes from school and the content of those letters—whether the letters should be in both Gaelic and English. We also discussed signage in the school, classes for parents, street signs and a range of other issues relating to the environment in which the children are growing up. We talked about Gaelic not only in the school, but in the community. In our new policy, we have taken up many suggestions that parents have made. We, too, are learning from the consultation process—this is not just about the council handing something down.
About two years ago there was an evaluation of Gaelic-medium education, led by Professor Richard Johnstone of Stirling University. The evaluation proved unequivocally that young people who are educated in Gaelic-medium departments across Scotland achieve above-average results—if I may be that general.
That is the group in which I am interested. Children can be at a disadvantage if their parents do not speak the language in which they are taught at school. That is especially true in Gaelic-medium education.
You are right. Through our community learning service, we have developed courses for parents.
Do you agree that in the long term the work that you are doing may help to grow more teachers and ensure that more people are available to train teachers? It strikes me that that is also a problem.
That is undoubtedly the case. Recently, a national conference for all Gaelic teachers in Scotland was held in Nairn. It was very refreshing to find that the couple of hundred teachers who attended were predominantly young—they bucked the trend. From our research, we know that many of the youngsters attending our schools aspire to teach and to secure the language.
We need more teaching places in colleges—that is essential. For years we have not been able to sell Gaelic education in places where we do not have Gaelic teachers, because we have no way of providing it. That is very sad. On quite a few occasions in the Highlands, three parents—just to make up a figure—have wanted their children to go through Gaelic teaching. In spite of the prospects of more pupils coming in in the following years, an inability to provide teachers has meant that all those people have been lost to Gaelic education.
I want to return to financial matters. Although I accept the general principle, I do not know what difference £3,000 will make. How realistic is it that only £3,000 per authority will do anything meaningful to improve Gaelic in Scotland? Some of the bill's proposals, such as the proposal for a senior member of staff to be responsible for internal and external Gaelic inquiries, might require authorities to employ someone to fulfil a specific role. Highland Council obviously has many Gaelic speakers, but other authorities, such as the authority in my area, do not have such Gaelic resources. Is £3,000 per authority a realistic figure for making the bill meaningful?
Councillor Beaton, Councillor Anderson and I are confused about where the figure of £3,000 came from.
The figure relates to the cost of making up and translating the Gaelic plan. According to what you have said, we are talking about more than just a document. We are talking about a culture and a change of attitude, which will involve access to education and information and an ability to speak in Gaelic when someone phones up their local authority or health board, for example. I imagine that that has far greater financial implications.
I do not think so. However, I am not sure that I fully understand the question.
I am trying to get my head round the bill's financial memorandum, which says that the cost of producing the Gaelic language plan would be approximately £3,000 for each authority. I accept that it might cost £3,000 to produce a document. You seem to be saying that if that document is to be meaningful, a much greater financial input into staffing and so on will be necessary. I want to know what I would be signing up to if I signed up to the bill.
I am glad that Karen Gillon asked the question that I wanted to ask. I will return to the idea of the bill as a national bill—the witnesses said that they wanted a robust national bill. Michael Russell could be said to be cutting off certain authorities by saying, "This is where it would be sensible to start." Some people are opposed in principle to that idea, as they want the bill to be national. They want people in Lanarkshire or the Borders to have the same rights as people in the Highlands. What is the witnesses' view on that?
As we said in our submission, we accept that the bill should be a Scotland-wide bill. On the issue of areas in which there might not be many Gaelic speakers, there will be no cost if there is no demand. We are not arguing that the kind of infrastructure that is in place in the areas in which people speak Gaelic should be put in place on the same scale in every local authority area. Does any other European country have such an argument? In Catalonia, do they have an argument about the areas in which people do not speak the indigenous language? I doubt that very much.
I want to come back to regionalisation with regard to certain local authorities. Most of us are fairly new to Gaelic and I have been on a pretty steep learning curve, not just with the bill but with our Gaelic broadcasting inquiry. My impression from the evidence that we took was that we need to mainstream the language and make it acceptable as part of Scotland and not just something that is spoken in the Western Isles and the Highlands and by nice people in Glasgow and Edinburgh who want to speak it. Are you saying that to achieve normalisation of the language, the bill would have to be an all-Scotland bill?
Yes.
Yes.
There are other reasons for that. Perhaps Gaelic should be a national education priority. I am sure that through your research and the evidence that you have been presented with, you will find that some of the areas of growth in Gaelic are areas in which you would not expect growth, such as Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire, as well as the two main cities. I suggest that we consider the clustering for some purposes and outcomes of not only local authorities but public services, to use the phrase that is in the bill. Through the new local government legislation we have been asked to work more closely with health boards and so on, so that is one way forward. There are a number of reasons why the bill has to be a nationwide bill.
Thank you very much for your evidence. It has been interesting and helpful for committee members to hear from you. If we have any other questions we will be back in touch in due course.
I welcome Councillor Helen Law, who is education spokesperson for Fife Council, and Councillor Eric Gotts from East Dunbartonshire Council, both of whom are representing the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.
As COSLA is the organisation representing 29 of Scotland's 32 councils, it is not possible for it to provide a view on Gaelic that represents all its members. There are areas of Scotland, such as the Western Isles and the Highlands, where Gaelic is extremely strong, but, conversely, there are areas such as Orkney and the Borders where there is little or no Gaelic language tradition and where Scots, the Doric or Lallans are greater influences. The intention to roll out the bill's provisions to all of Scotland in the future is noted from the policy memorandum. As Gaelic is not a native language to some parts of Scotland, such a measure would be unwelcome. The costs have not been assessed and therefore COSLA cannot support the bill.
While I am disappointed by your statement, I am also confused by it. You said that COSLA could not take a position on the bill. You then said that COSLA could not support the bill. Not supporting the bill is taking a position. How do you square that rather odd circle?
The fact that there are 29 local authorities in COSLA meant that we could not adopt a single position representing the view of a single authority. Some authorities support the bill, but some do not. Given such a mixture of views, we could not adopt an overall position of supporting the bill.
But there is a difference between not taking a position and not supporting the bill. It is important to explore that point because COSLA is a significant organisation, and I would not want the committee not to fully understand what you were saying. You said that the organisation could not take a position because there was no single position to be taken. You then went on to give, at some length, some reasons why COSLA could not support the bill. Therefore, the position that COSLA is taking is to not support the bill. Thus, you are taking a position, which is to not support the bill.
That is not a united position among all member councils of COSLA. There were several different positions. Therefore, the generality was to not support the bill. COSLA would always support the majority position, but it was not a unanimous position. Where councils are unanimous on a particular issue, COSLA could unanimously reflect that. There were different positions, but the overall majority position was to not support the bill.
To be fair, COSLA's position is that the majority of COSLA members do not support the bill, but there are members of COSLA who do support the bill. For example, is Highland Council a member of COSLA?
Indeed it is.
When I said that some councils support the bill, its members nodded vigorously behind you.
That is exactly right. That is the point that I was trying to make. I am sorry if it was unclear.
It is a very important point.
The point that I was trying to make was that there were different views among the 29 councils. However, the overarching view was not to support the bill.
By what majority? What was the voting on it?
I do not recall that there was a vote. We sought consultation, but I do not have figures with me.
It is quite important to know how many of the 29 members support the bill and how many do not.
I do not think that it is important at all. I am here as a representative of COSLA and am therefore giving you the COSLA view. I am merely highlighting the point that there were different opinions within COSLA. We have had this debate in the committee before, and it is not one that I am keen to pursue.
I will move on then.
Councillor Gotts, would you like to speak before Michael Russell moves on?
Just to clarify, as Helen Law said, the vast majority of the councils in COSLA do not support this bill.
What were the voting figures? You said that it was a vast majority. You must have figures on which to base that.
My understanding is that two authorities support the bill.
Only two?
Highland Council and Western Isles Council.
That is interesting. We have evidence from other councils that they support the bill. Can you provide us with the voting figures?
No, we are not prepared to do that. That is not how COSLA works.
There is a vast majority, but you will not give us the figures.
It might be worth moving on.
I find myself still dissatisfied with that explanation, but let us move on.
The cornerstone of local government is that there should be flexibility that enables local councils to deal with local needs. Where there is a local demand for Gaelic, it is right that the demand is met. Councils should not be forced to provide it where there is no demand.
Indeed, but that is not what I asked you. There has been a virtually unanimous acceptance in Scotland that the provision of secure status for Gaelic—a legal status for the language—was a commonly held aim for Gaelic. Does COSLA not support that aim in Scotland? COSLA takes a position on a range of national issues. Does it support secure legal status for the Gaelic language?
I have not consulted on that matter directly. I have given you our view of the bill.
However, the bill is about secure status. The committee has to decide whether to approve the general principle of the bill, which is about secure status for the language. If COSLA has not consulted in a ballot of its members—of which we do not know the numbers—we have a bit of a difficulty.
I am not prepared to sit here and have COSLA ridiculed in this manner. COSLA is an organisation that works by consensus and consultation. We do not vote on every issue; we seek a view from councils. I have given you our view of the bill and I conclude my remarks there.
The important point is that COSLA does not feel that the aim of the bill that we share—halting the decline of the Gaelic language—will necessarily be achieved by laying down an additional duty on local authorities. Good practice already happens in many local authorities and where progress is still to be made—there is a lot of progress to be made—we do not believe that legislation is necessarily the answer at this juncture. The answer is far more effective funding for authorities and those who wish to go down that road.
I draw your attention to the evidence of Professor Donald Meek in the first evidence-taking session. He chaired the ministerial advisory group on Gaelic and he proposed the establishment of bòrd Gàidhlig na h-Alba, which is now established with a chair. He is in favour of the bill and thinks that the bill is essential to the development of Gaelic.
If there were a change to the current proposals, they would need to be put to the member councils of COSLA. Professor Meek is entitled to his opinion and if you wish to quote him, that is okay. However, I have consulted at COSLA-level on whether there is support for the bill and I report back that there is not.
I wish to pursue the issue of timing because, irrespective of when the bill comes into force, there are matters that will impact on local authorities. Should the bill be applied Scotland-wide, or should it target only the areas as they stand in the bill?
The issue is not whether the bill should apply Scotland-wide or to three or four areas; the question is whether the bill should be enforcing or enabling. That is where we differ. We take a bottom-up approach, rather than a top-down approach. As COSLA sees it, the bill is a top-down approach. The whole point of having local authorities is to have flexibility and local accountability.
Let us follow your scenario through. Say the legislation is positioned as enabling legislation but nevertheless gives the statutory underpinning that people are so desperately looking for. What mechanism would there be for the ordinary man or woman in the street in East Dunbartonshire to ensure that the local authority adopts the key principles of the legislation? You mentioned funding. Is COSLA suggesting that the Executive should ring-fence funding for the purpose? I am trying to tease out the mechanisms that would enable the bill's provisions to become real to the ordinary person in the street.
Local authorities have to respond to local needs. At the moment in East Dunbartonshire we have Gaelic provision, and we feel that that provision meets local demand. If that local demand increases in any way, it is up to the local authority to respond. That applies to any local matter in any situation. If a local authority does not respond to local need, there are elections every four years to change that.
That is what community planning is about. It is about local authorities responding to communities of interest. It is in the interest of local authorities to do that.
I was looking for something slightly more concrete. In any community, people will say that the local authority or, indeed, the MSP does not listen to their needs. I am not having a go at local authorities, as it is a problem from which we all suffer.
We are talking about resources, which are scarce. Local authorities have to try to meet local demands and needs, which vary from area to area. If there is sufficient local demand for Gaelic, I would assume that the local authority would give it a top priority, and would have to find the resources to address it. It is difficult to say generally what a local authority would need, because it would have to respond to local demand. That is the point of our approach: any legislation should be enabling. If Gaelic is a higher priority in a particular local authority, that authority will require more financial resources than another will. That is the point that Helen Law made earlier. It is difficult to be specific.
Sure, but in the real world in which you and I operate, I am sure that you agree that people should not look for blank cheques from the Executive. You need to work within a budget and to estimate demand and what it would be practical to provide. That is the information that I seek.
The way that the papers are worded means that the financial implications are unknown and unquantified, but I believe that they would be substantial.
We have heard that COSLA does not support the bill. Is that the same as opposing the bill?
I am not certain where you are coming from. We do not support the bill. I do not know whether we can be clearer than that. We are not against Gaelic, if that is what you are looking for.
No.
We are not against Gaelic education, but such provision should be a response to local need and not enshrined as the bill suggests. The ethos of local government is local flexibility. The more that councils are tied to legislation, the less flexibility they have. We should enable councils.
As you are an experienced politician, I am surprised that you cannot differentiate between failing to support the bill and being against it. Is your failure to support the bill strong enough to constitute being against the bill?
We will not support the bill, but I make the clear distinction that we are not against Gaelic education or the expansion of Gaelic.
I accept that, however it is clear that we will not be answered in the way that Mike Russell or I might want. I will move on to a different subject.
Although I fear that I repeat myself, I say that councils want to be enabled to meet local communities' needs without being restricted or tied down. However, we seem increasingly to be going down the road of restriction—the road that Brian Monteith suggests, which surprises me.
I am suggesting nothing. I am trying to find out what COSLA thinks, and to establish whether councils fear that in areas where they think that demand is not yet sufficient or reasonable, they might face court actions that force them to meet that demand, which will require them to meet costs that cannot be met from the central Exchequer. Are Councils concerned about that?
Of course that is a concern of councils. The more that is enshrined in law, the less local flexibility there will be.
I will quote a little from the written evidence of Mr Dunbar, from whom we will hear later. He says:
That is someone's point of view; he is entitled to it. Local councils' point of view is that they want flexibility and that they do not want to be tied down by legislation that prevents local flexibility.
Do you accept that, without some form of legislation that is backed up by enforcement, the end result will be that the language will die?
The end result for local councils is that they should respond to local need. If there is local demand for provision in a language, councils should provide it. It will make no difference to have that enshrined in legislation—it will simply put another burden on councils.
What about the view that if something is not available, there will be no demand for it? We have heard from Highland Council that the availability of Gaelic in nurseries and pre-school education will, in the long term, encourage more parents to seek an extension to Gaelic education. Without such initial provision, there will never be demand. Irene McGugan is correct that if there is no real support for Gaelic, the language might die in central Scotland.
It is for those who feel strongly about Gaelic to ensure that there is demand in particular areas, which would then be met. Councils should not try to meet demand that clearly does not exist.
Another important point, which I mentioned earlier, is that the view seems to be that creating a duty on local authorities to provide Gaelic will be a panacea. The committee heard from Highland Council earlier and has had submissions from other authorities. In part, that evidence says that financial resources are the key to unlocking some of the problems for Gaelic. Placing a duty on councils is not the answer. Some authorities do a considerable amount of work, but they are held back for various reasons, such as financial issues or shortages of Gaelic-medium teachers. Those obstacles will not be removed by the imposition of legislation.
There will always be a shortage of Gaelic-medium teachers if there is no Gaelic education.
I want to clarify COSLA's position. Does COSLA believe that it is proper for central Government to bestow duties on local government? In a number of areas in which local Government operates it is readily accepted that the local authority is the appropriate vehicle to provide certain services—although we might argue about that on some issues, such as education—and that it has a duty to do so. Are you saying that there should, as a matter of principle, be no duty on local authorities to produce a Gaelic language plan, even though authorities' plans may differ?
Undoubtedly, it is important that local government and national government work together. At present, there are a number of obligations on local authorities, which they meet. I am concerned about attempts to put more legal obligations on councils and to introduce more ring fencing of moneys, which removes local authorities' flexibility to meet local demand.
Do you accept Highland Council's evidence about the benefits that would arise if Gaelic were to have secure status? That status would affect not only the way in which people regard the language, but also the numbers of people taking up teaching and so on. A couple of weeks ago, we heard evidence that the National Lottery does not fund Gaelic playgroups because Gaelic is not an official language. Do you understand that it is important that Gaelic is recognised as an official language in Scotland, even if that recognition is symbolic to a degree? I understand some of your worries about the knock-on effects, but do you understand the principle?
I understand the principle and I thought that Highland Council made a good presentation.
Do you accept the principle?
I understand it.
I want to make a brief point and to ask one question. With the greatest respect, the evidence that you have given is the most depressing evidence that I have heard from COSLA in the four years during which I have been a member of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee. I do not think that it does the organisation credit to be so negative about the future of the Gaelic language.
In East Dunbartonshire there is a primary school that has a Gaelic-medium nursery class and a bilingual Gaelic unit.
You are talking about provision; you did the same in response to Jackie Baillie's question. I understand what provision is, but what is "sufficient demand" for Gaelic and how would it be expressed?
I do not understand Michael Russell. The member is asking about demand from clients and people in the community.
Citizens.
Exactly. Is the member asking about numbers?
I asked you to define "sufficient demand".
At the end of the day, we must make a value judgment, which must be based on representations from people in communities—perhaps from school boards or parents organisations.
There is such a thing as unexpressed need. If we were to take the approach that you have outlined, Gaelic might die but we would never hear about it.
I do not think that that would happen in East Dunbartonshire.
Perhaps it has already happened.
We have made some provision for Gaelic already.
I thank Eric Gotts and Helen Law for their evidence.
We will now take evidence from Dr Wilson McLeod and Dr Rob Dunbar. Gentlemen, you are very welcome. I invite you to make some introductory remarks.
An toiseach feumaidh mi mearachd bheag a cheartachadh: chan e dotair a tha annam, ach dìreach maighistir. Chan eil ceum dotaireachd agam—fhathast co-dhiù. Chan eil mi nam dhotair idir a dh'aindeoin cho bochd is a tha an dòigh-sgrìobhaidh agam.
I begin by correcting a small mistake. I am not yet a Dr—I am just a Mr, despite my poor handwriting.
Tha mi taingeil airson a' chuiridh a thug a' chomataidh a bhith an seo còmhla ribh an-diugh. Thug mise seachad beagan fianais sgrìobhte cuideachd.
I am pleased to be here today, and grateful for the invitation. I, too, made a written submission.
I shall be brief. We have been somewhat knocked aside by the negativity of COSLA, and it will take time to get back into our stride.
Do not be so dramatic.
I think that my remark was fair. The Gaelic phrase, "mì-rùn mòr nan Gall", springs to mind.
Which means what?
It means "the great hatred of the southerner".
Mar a sgrìobh mi anns an fhianais sgrìobhte, tha ceistean agam a thaobh dè cho farsaing is a bu chòir na h-uallaichean a bhith ach tha mi taiceil ann am prionnsabal agus tha mi a' cur fàilte air a' bhile.
I have some questions about how general the bill is but, in principle, I am supportive of it and I welcome it.
Tha mise ag aontachadh gu tur leis an sin. Tha e air leth cudthromach gum bi reachdas airson na Gàidhlig anns a' chiad Phàrlamaid. Mar sin, tha am prionnsabal ionmholta.
I agree fully with Rob Dunbar that there should be statutory support for Gaelic.
I am grateful for that because it takes us a step forward.
Tha mi gu math mothachail air na duilgheadasan a bhiodh aig cuid a chomhairlean agus buidhnean poblach eile—feumar cuimhneachadh nach eil sinn a' bruidhinn dìreach air comhairlean ionadail ach air buidhnean poblach eile, mar Riaghaltas na h-Alba agus Pàrlamaid na h-Alba. Tha cnap-starraidhean ann gu cinnteach agus is e an àireamh de luchd-bruidhinn na Gàidhlig aon dhe na cnapan-starraidhean as motha. Càit a bheil iad mas e is gum bi seirbheisean ann air feadh na dùthcha? Tha feum againn air daoine aig a bheil na sgilean cànanach agus tha iad gu math gann.
I am very aware of the problems that some councils and, indeed, other public bodies might have. We must remember that we are talking not only about local authorities, but about the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive. There are impediments, one of the greatest of which is the number of Gaelic speakers. After all, we will need Gaelic speakers if we are to have a Gaelic service throughout the country.
Tha mi ag aontachadh ris na thuirt Rob Dunbar ach bu mhath leam dìreach taobh pragtaigeach a' ghnothaich a mhìneachadh. Bha sinn a' bruidhinn mu dheidhinn cosgaisean. Tha sealladh ann gu bheil cùisean tro mheadhan na Beurla saor agus an-asgaidh agus gu bheil e cosgail rudan a dhèanamh tro mheadhan na Gàidhlig. Is e an duilgheadas gu bheil tòrr dhaoine anns an dùthaich seo nach eil a' smaoineachadh mun Ghàidhlig idir—muinntir ChOSLA, is dòcha.
I agree with Rob Dunbar. However, I want to provide a little more detail about practicalities. For example, costs were mentioned earlier; it is as if provision in English were cheap or even free and everything in Gaelic were really expensive. The fact is that some people in Scotland do not think about Gaelic at all—such as COSLA.
My headphones are giving feedback, so I was unable fully to understand your answer.
Is e sin deagh cheist agus tha mi duilich nach robh mi na bu shoilleire na bu thràithe.
That is a good question. I apologise for the fact that my earlier response was not clear enough.
Of course it is. I would like to pick up on two points. I do not think that the question of resources relates only to the creation of the plan—what is important is the implementation of the plan. People have told us time and again that there is a question of status and that there is an issue about the money required to make the plans a reality on the ground. I entirely accept that there will be variations across Scotland as to need, so your point is well made.
Tha mi a' smaointinn gu bheil e comasach agus tha deagh eisimpleir againn goirid ri làimh, anns a' Chuimrigh. Is ann mar sin a tha Achd na Cuimris 1993 ag obrachadh. Tha an rud a tha a' nochdadh ann am molaidhean Chomunn na Gàidhlig agus anns a' bhile seo stèidhichte gu ìre mhòir air na tha a' tachairt gu soirbheachail anns a' Chuimrigh an-dràsta fhèin. Tha na Cuimrich a' leantainn an aon seòrsa phoileasaidhean a tha sinne a' moladh agus a tha a' nochdadh anns a' bhile. Tha na poileasaidhean sin a' dèanamh feum anns a' Chuimrigh. Mar sin, tha mi a' smaointinn gu bheil e comasach sin a dhèanamh.
I think that that is possible—good examples of it exist. That is exactly how the Welsh Language Act 1993 works in Wales. What appears in the recommendations of Comunn na Gàidhlig and in the bill is already happening in Wales. The Welsh follow the same policies that we are recommending and that is helping.
I am interested in Mr Dunbar's views on language plans and how they should vary to reflect different needs. I will play devil's advocate for a moment. We heard from COSLA that its current membership does not include Glasgow City Council, yet you said that a good number of Gaelic speakers live in the Glasgow area. If a Gaelic language plan was to be introduced, one of the issues that might be thrown up would be the possibility—although I have no knowledge of the exact figures—that there are more people in Glasgow who speak languages other than English such as Urdu, Hindi or Cantonese than speak Gaelic. Some people might say that Glasgow City Council is opening up a Pandora's box of language issues, but should a council such as Glasgow City Council seek to expand a Gaelic language plan or should it have an overall language plan?
Chan eil sin a' cur dragh ormsa. Nuair a smaoinicheas tu air na seirbheisean a tha a dhìth air Gaidheil bhaile Ghlaschu, tha e follaiseach gu bheil an t-uabhas bhodaich agus chaillich aig a bheil a' Ghàidhlig. Nuair a tha iad anns an ospadal, bhiodh iad na bu thoilichte le cùram anns a' chànan aca fhèin, tha mi cinnteach. Bidh daoine aig a bheil Urdu agus Punjabi anns an aon shuidheachadh. Nam biodh comas aig seirbheisean sòisealta agus slàinte bhaile Ghlaschu seirbheisean a thoirt seachad dha na daoine sin tron chànan aca fhèin, cha b' e ach aon dè na comharraidhean de chomann a tha sìobhalta.
That situation does not worry me. When one thinks about the services that the Gaels of Glasgow need, one thinks of the many old women and men who have Gaelic and who, when they are in hospital, would be much happier if they were looked after by staff who could speak to them in their own language. I am sure that there are people who have Urdu and Punjabi who are in the same situation. If Glasgow City Council's social services and health services were able to provide services in people's own languages, that would be a hallmark of a civilised society.
I would like to deal with the issue of language plans and of their being drawn up by local authorities. We have heard of COSLA's reluctance in that respect. People sometimes decide not to do something because they do not understand what needs to be done or because they are concerned that it is not relevant.
Tha concept cudthromach ann an leasachadh cànain, is e sin "active offer". Tha sin a' ciallachadh gu bheilear a' brosnachadh an iarrtais. Tha sinn a' faicinn gu bheil oifigearan leasachaidh Gàidhlig aig tòrr de na comhairlean Albannach, mar Chomhairle na Gaidhealtachd—tha Morag Anna NicLeòid air bruidhinn ris a' chomataidh mar-thà. Tha sin gu math cumanta agus bhiodh e glè mhath nam biodh a leithid air feadh Alba, gus iarrtas airson Gàidhlig a bhrosnachadh.
An important concept in language development is the active offer, which is designed to encourage demand. Many councils in Scotland have Gaelic development officers. For example, Morag Anna MacLeod, who spoke earlier, is a Gaelic development officer for the Highland Council. Such posts are common, and it would be great if there were more of them throughout Scotland.
Will the bill change how people work? Will it make a difference?
Tha mi a' smaointinn gum b' urrainn. Mar a thuirt mi roimhe, dh'fheumadh buidhnean poblach a bha fo uallach planaichean a chur ri chèile smaointinn air a' Ghàidhlig. Dh'fheumadh iad a dhol dhan choimhearsnachd agus tomhas a dhèanamh air dè iarrtas a tha ann airson sheirbheisean Gàidhlig. Dh'fheumadh iad smaointinn, is dòcha airson a' chiad uair, air dè na seirbheisean a b' urrainn dhaibh a thairgse dhan t-sluagh agus air dè na sgilean cànain a tha aig na buidhnean poblach.
I think that it could. As I said, public bodies would have to be responsible for designing plans for Gaelic and would have to consider what they could do for Gaelic. They would have go into their communities to measure demand for Gaelic services and, perhaps for the first time, they would have to think about the services that they could offer.
The way that you speak about flexibility is encouraging and important. I think that it was Cathy Peattie who said that laws were rigid and not so flexible.
Tha mi a' smaointinn gu bheil na faclan "freagarrach don t-suidheachadh" agus "reusanta sa ghnìomhachadh" a' feuchainn ri bhith a' ruigsinn a' chinn-uidhe a chuir thu fhèin sìos. Is e an duilgheadas a tha agam leis na faclan anabarrach reusanta sin, an gabh iad mìneachadh ann an dòigh a tha reusanta? Is e sin a' cheist.
The words used in the submission, which attempts to answer your query, are "appropriate in the circumstances". My problem is that, although the words are reasonable, can they be interpreted in a reasonable way?
When I read your submission, it seemed at one point that you were saying that implementation should happen where it is "appropriate in the circumstances" and would be "reasonably practicable". However, at first, it seemed as if you wanted implementation to be inappropriate and impracticable. I understand that that is not the case. This is interesting territory.
Bu thoigh leam sin fhaicinn, leis an fhìrinn innse, agus gabhaidh sin dèanamh.
I would like to see that. It can be done.
Can it be done in time?
Is e sin a' cheist. Tha mi a' leughadh nam pàipearan agus tha bile ann dhuibh a h-uile latha, tha mi a' tuigsinn. Tha mi cinnteach gum bi mi fhèin agus daoine eile ann an deagh rùn agus deònach comhairle agus stiùireadh a thoirt dhuibh agus barrachd obair a dhèanamh. Chan eil beachd agam dè cho fada a bheireadh e. Tha mi a' smaointinn gun gabhadh sin dèanamh. Tha na faclan sin cumanta gu leòr. Mar eisimpleir, tha iad ann an Achd na Cuimris 1993 agus ann an achdan eile. Tha dòighean ann mìneachadh a thoirt dha na nithean sin.
That is the question. I understand that the process takes a long time and I am sure that those of us with good will would be happy to give the committee more guidance and direction. I am not sure how long that would take, but I am sure that it could be done. The words are common. They are in the Welsh Language Act 1993, for example, and there are ways of giving more information about such issues.
I will take a slightly different approach, because interpreting "reasonableness", or that kind of language, is not necessarily helpful. As soon as we start to list specific circumstances in the bill, we exclude, by definition, the circumstances of which we have not thought. The way to approach the issue is through guidance, rather than through primary legislation.
Is e sin a tha mi ag ràdh. Tha mi a' smaointinn gum faodamaid barrachd mìneachadh a chur dhan bhile. Tha sin a' tachairt ann an iomadach àite. Tha deagh eisimpleir againn ann an Achd na Cuimris 1993. Tha na faclan sin car farsaing ach tha iad a' toirt seachad obair shònraichte do Bhòrd na Cuimris ann a bhith ag obair le comhairlean ionadail le bhith a' dealbhadh nam planaichean. Chan eil iad a' fàgail nam planaichean aig na comhairlean agus na buidhnean poblach fhèin. Tha iad a' cur smachd air obair nan comhairlean agus na buidhnean poblach tro Bhòrd na Cuimris.
That is what I am saying. The bill could provide more information. That happens in many bills. There are good examples in the Welsh Language Act 1993. Although the words that I referred to are general, they perform a job for the Welsh Language Board in its work with the councils on their plans. The plans are not simply left to the councils and the public bodies. Local authorities check their work through the board and there are other ways of doing that. That is sensible and wise.
I will be very brief. Members should read the Welsh Language Act 1993. Rob Dunbar and Wilson McLeod know that the words in question have been taken from that act. The fact that those words are used in another piece of legislation means there is a precedent for them and that they have been in operation for many years. Although I have said that I would welcome all sorts of amendments, I would be most resistant to an amendment that specified reasonableness, because—as Jackie Baillie said—something will always be forgotten.
I thank the witnesses for their evidence, which was helpful and interesting.
Tapadh leibh an toiseach airson a' chothruim bruidhinn ribh às leth na buidhne Clì. Mar an dara ballrachd as motha ann an saoghal na Gàidhlig, tha cothrom againn bruidhinn bho stèidh na coimhearsnachd againn—is e sin coimhearsnachd an luchd-ionnsachaidh agus nam fileantach a tha air Gàidhlig ionnsachadh.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on behalf of Clì, which has the second largest membership of the Gaelic groups. It strives on behalf of the Gaelic community, especially the learners, but also the fluent speakers.
Thank you. I explain to witnesses that there is sometimes a slight delay at the end of their speeches as we listen to the end of the translation; do not feel that we are ignoring you.
I was waiting for other members to ask questions first, but if not, I will continue.
Tha sin ceart.
That is right.
Okay. You have indicated that detailed amendment is needed in terms of implementation. I should stress that I do not want to defend that clause greatly, but the clause says that implementation will be staged. The act will cover all of Scotland, but implementation will be staged—it might be possible for the bill to provide for a more rigid implementation to be rolled out over time and to drop the options.
Tha sinn mothachail air, seach gur e bile buill a tha ann, nach urrainn dhan bhile a bhith a' gabhail a-staigh a h-uile nì a bu mhath leinne agus leis na buidhnean eile. Tha a' bhuidheann againn a' cumail taic ris na h-amasan air fad anns a' bhile ach tha e cudthromach gun tèid a chur a-staigh airson na dùthcha air fad bhon chiad dol-a-mach.
We are aware that, although we are speaking on behalf of our members, the bill cannot accommodate every member. Our organisation supports the aims of the bill, but it is important that the bill should represent the whole of Scotland initially.
In terms of the development of Gaelic, the bill is very much a first step rather than, by any means, the last word.
Is dòcha an rud as cudthromaiche airson inbhich—an dà chuid mar dhaoine a bhios ag ionnsachadh agus mar phàrantan a tha a' taghadh na Gàidhlig airson an cuid chloinne timcheall air Alba—gu bheil iad a' faireachdainn gu bheil a' Ghàidhlig mar phàirt dhen choimhearsnachd aca fhèin, dhen sgìre aca fhèin agus nach e rud cèin a tha iad ag ionnsachadh. Tha seo eadar-dhealaichte do dhaoine a tha a' fuireach ann am Barabhas no ann am Barraigh seach do dhaoine anns a' mhòr-chuid de dh'Alba, anns a mhòr-chuid den Ghaidhealtachd agus fiù 's ann am pàirtean de na h-Eileanan. Tha e cudthromach gu bheil a' Ghàidhlig air a h-acaireachadh anns an sgìre aca fhèin agus gu bheil seilbh aca fhèin air a' chànan.
Maybe the most important thing for adults, including learners of the language and parents who choose Gaelic for their children, is that they must feel that Gaelic is an important part of their community and area and that it is not a foreign language that they are learning. That is important for people living in Barvas, in Barra and throughout Scotland. Even in parts of the islands, Gaelic has to be seen as an anchor within the community so that people have access to their language.
We heard earlier from COSLA, which is reluctant to support the bill, and local authorities clearly need to sign up to taking it forward. What do you think needs to be done to convince them or to help them to understand the implications of the bill?
Tha mi a' smaointinn gur e ceist do chuideigin eile a tha sin, seach nach eil sinne ag obair aig an ìre sin. Chanainn gu bheil oifigich anns a h-uile comhairle gu math taiceil, ach tha cuid de dh'oifigich nach eil cho taiceil no cho tuigseach air a' chùis. Theagamh gur e sin an duilgheadas as motha a tha againn le cuid de na comhairlean agus buidhnean poblach, gu bheil e an urra ris na daoine fa leth. Dh'fhaodadh iad a bhith taiceil, no a bhith an aghaidh na Gàidhlig, no a bhith aineolach ma deidhinn. Mar a chuala sinn a-rithist an-diugh, dh'fhaodadh iad a bhith a' cleachdadh roinn agus riaghail—mar a tha mi a' toirt air "divide and rule"—le bhith a' cantainn "Seo sgìre airson Scots agus chan e sgìre Gàidhlig a tha ann."
I suspect that that is a question for somebody else, as we do not work at that level. I would say that there are officials in every council who are quite supportive, but there are also officials who are not so supportive or who do not understand our cause. Part of the difficulty that we have with councils is that it is up to individuals; some may be supportive of Gaelic, some may be very much against it and some may be ignorant. As we heard, we have seen divide-and-rule in practice today. Some people say that this is an area for Scots, not for Gaelic but it can also work the other way.
Rather than divide-and-rule, we have seen this afternoon that there are those who are enlightened and those who are not so enlightened. Sometimes, there can be a plan, but it is not carried out. If a plan is put in place, how do we ensure that councils will carry it out? I fear that although we might have a good idea, and a commitment on paper to promoting Gaelic in schools and in education, the reality could end up being something different. I want to tease out those areas and see how they can be changed.
Mar a tha mi a' tuigsinn a' bhile, is e na h-ombudsmen a bhiodh a' dèanamh cinnteach gum biodh plana ga chur an gnìomh. Mar a tha sinn air a chantainn anns an fhianais againn, tha sinn a' cumail taic ri sin, co-dhiù gus am bi siostam no structar eile ann. Theagamh gur ann tro bhòrd Gàidhlig na h-Alba a bhiodh sin.
As I understand the bill, the ombudsman would be responsible for the final word on implementing such a plan. As our submission states, we fully support that, at least until a new system is in place, perhaps through bòrd Gàidhlig na h-Alba.
If the bill is passed, we want to ensure that there is real benefit to the promotion of Gaelic.
Ma tha planaichean ann, tha cothrom aig daoine sin a chur fo shròn an oifigich a tha a' cur bacadh orra. Tha mi a' gabhail ris nach dòcha gum bi an t-iarrtas cho mòr ri sin anns a' chiad dol a-mach, ach tha e cudthromach gu bheil daoine a' tuigsinn gu bheil an cothrom aca agus gu bheil fios aca gu bheil an cothrom ann.
If plans exist, we have an opportunity. The plans can be put under the noses of the council officers. If the councils are promising to implement such a plan, it is important that people know that the opportunity is there.
There are no further questions. I thank Peadar Morgan very much for his time and his evidence.
I welcome Jim Tough and Gavin Wallace from the Scottish Arts Council, where Jim Tough is head of strategic development.
We thank the committee for inviting the Scottish Arts Council to comment on the Gaelic language bill. The Gaelic arts are very much in the council's thoughts as it prepares a Gaelic arts policy in consultation with the sector.
I welcome that contribution from an organisation that, over the years, has given much help to bodies such as the Gaelic Arts Agency and has in recent months been partly financially responsible for "An Leabhar Mòr". The Scottish Arts Council has shown itself to be a strong friend of Gaelic.
I could articulate a clearer answer to that question once the Scottish Arts Council forms its opinion. The views that the committee has heard so far are those of myself and Graham Berry, the council's director, but, as presented, the council would welcome the bill. In fact, to answer the second part of your question, the council would welcome the bill's national context. As a national body, for the council to implement the bill properly, consistently and coherently throughout the country, a long-term national approach is essential.
That is an interesting response. The Scottish Arts Council is the first body not based in the Highlands and Islands to give evidence to the committee.
That is right. We have a history of contact with the sector, and it is articulate and clear about its aspirations. Our learning curve has been similar to that of the committee. We appreciate the political, social and economic value of the Gaelic arts community's work, and our view is born of experience.
Are you encouraging the committee to see this as an all-Scotland issue, rather than one affecting the Highlands and Islands?
Yes.
If the bill were successful, it would have interesting implications for the work of the SAC.
Details will appear in our submission about next week's consultation exercise with many Gaelic arts organisations and other key bodies, including local authorities. The devil will be in the detail. We shall consider what it means for the SAC to have a Gaelic arts policy. We need to consider how to provide cost-effectiveness in the translation of publications, and an appropriate level of equality in rights of opportunity for individuals, who may be Gaelic speakers or Gaelic artists.
An increase in money for traditional arts and Gaelic arts is a good idea.
Jim Tough talked of the challenging funding environment—we have heard about that many times in committee. In the context of supporting the bill and the positive work being done, does he think that in the case of someone challenging the council by saying that it was not doing enough—it may have made certain judgments on cost-effectiveness and the distribution of money—there should be financial sanctions available as part of an enforcement regime?
What form would they take?
In this case, financial sanctions against the Scottish Arts Council.
I thought that that happened already.
Given that not everybody is as positive as the SAC, do you suggest that the outlined route—ombudsman, judicial review—be available to ordinary members of the public? Are there any other appropriate mechanisms to ensure compliance with legislation?
I do not feel qualified to comment on whether legislative routes would be the most effective.
There are no other questions. That was short and sweet.
Could we be reminded of who is giving evidence on each occasion?
On 14 January, it will be Scottish Natural Heritage, National Museums of Scotland and the Welsh Language Board. On 21 January, it will be the minister and you, Michael.
That will be an opportunity.
We will have fun that day.
It will be a ticket-only event.
Will the clerks prepare questions for us to ask Mike Russell?
Questions that I would not get to see.
I will come up with something all of my own.
Previous
Scottish Parliament Education, Culture and Sport Committee Tuesday 7 January 2003 (Afternoon)Next
Petition