Education, Culture and Sport Committee, 11 Mar 2003

Meeting date: Tuesday, March 11, 2003

Official Report 125KB pdf

---

Work Programme

Item 4 is an update on the work programme. Do members wish to raise anything before I discuss Gaelic?

Grampian Television has been raised on several occasions during the committee's work in the first session. If I recall correctly, it was raised at the committee's second meeting. This week, we hear that there will be redundancies at Grampian Television. There is concern that trade unions have not been recognised and there are issues about broadcasting in Scotland. I wonder whether we could consider the matter very soon, before dissolution.

My response to that will probably depend on the conclusion of our discussion about Gaelic. It is my honest view that, if we proceed to stage 2 of the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill, there will be very little scope within the programme to do anything further, as the time scale will not allow it.

Could we have a rapid rundown of what we have left to do and when we must do it by? That might help to shape the discussion.

We have two meetings, on 17 March and 25 March. The meeting that is scheduled for 17 March will be held at Loch Lomond. We will have to discuss the outstanding reports and inquiries, of which there are three. We will have to deal with the Executive's response on the rural schools closures. If we proceed with the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill, we will take evidence, which will be followed by stage 2 amendments. I suggest that the meetings are already pretty full.

Although I have an interest in the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill, I am sympathetic to what Cathy Peattie has said. The situation at Grampian Television is serious. The assurance that, once it is in its new premises, it will not reduce the number of jobs for the duration of its present licence represents a small gleam of light, but that is a small consolation if one recalls that, 10 years ago, Grampian Television employed 380 people and when it moves to its new premises, it will employ 78 people. The reduction in 10 years is most extraordinary. I am also sympathetic to any discussion on Gaelic, but we will have to see what we can manage. Cathy Peattie and I will want to raise the situation involving Scottish Television and Grampian Television directly with those organisations and through the Broadcasting, Entertainment, Cinematograph and Theatre Union, which has already been in touch with the two of us.

On the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill, members have received two letters, one of which is a lengthy epistle from Mr Michael Russell.

There should be a third, which is my response to the Presiding Officer.

Flipping heck, this is becoming worse than the Hampden inquiry. It is all about who wrote to whom and when. The second letter is the Presiding Officer's response. Do we have a third letter?

I asked my office to give the third letter, which is my response to the Presiding Officer, to Susan Duffy at lunch time, but in the interest of economy of paper, I will explain what was in it when we come to it.

We have the letter from Mike Russell and the letter from the Presiding Officer. I will take us through them. I am slightly reluctant about taking up Mike Russell's suggestion that we should deal with amendments on 17 March, as I want to tie up a number of other issues on that day. In addition, if we want to take evidence, that will take us a substantial amount of time. For that reason, I suggest that we should not deal with amendments on 17 March.

Perhaps I could say a word or two in introduction. I am conscious of the fact that there could be an unreasonable burden. I copied the material to each member of the committee as soon as I drafted the letter to the Presiding Officer, and I made the point that dealing with the bill would require a lot of good will. The suggested timetable is only a suggested timetable; it is no more than a template on which we could start to build an argument about where to go.

Considering that the one amendment that I suggest could be dealt with on 17 March is absolutely non-controversial, and that it is agreed by the Executive, me and everyone on the committee, it would not create any difficulty if it were taken singly at another session. However, I am conscious that there are two other sets of amendments, one of which is almost as simple. However, the issue of how to do it is complex. That will be informed by evidence, although progress was made in the stage 1 debate in understanding how the bill might be expanded. I know that the Parliamentary Bureau is discussing the issue this afternoon, but I put it on record that I will do everything that I possibly can to get the bill through.

Given that the committee supported the general principles of the bill—we are clear about that—everybody would like it to be passed, but the last bit of Mike Russell's explanation troubles me most. I have no doubt that while there will be widespread acclaim from the Gaelic community for extending the bill's provisions to the whole of Scotland—it is the right thing to do legislatively—but there is a hearts-and-minds operation to be carried out with some of the people from whom we are likely to take evidence on 17 March. There will also need to be a much more robust discussion to spell out how we deliver the bill, so that it becomes real where it is appropriate to deliver it throughout Scotland. It is that bit that makes me slightly nervous.

I am not suggesting that we should take forever over the bill, but neither am I comfortable with rushing at it, when it is so important that we get it right. In some senses, the discussion is not just for us. The bureau is discussing the bill today. I would like clarification on who will take the decision, because I am conscious that, in some respects, the matter is one for standing orders, which are not a matter for the committee, and that, in other respects, we are talking about principles—not just our work load, but getting the legislation right and examining what we have left to do. I would appreciate guidance on who decides what, when and where.

As I understand it from the Presiding Officer's letter, we cannot start stage 2 until 18 March at the earliest, because of the dates, unless Parliament agrees to suspend standing orders at a meeting of the Parliament on Wednesday or Thursday. I must deal with things as they are at the moment and not with what might happen in future, which means that we are not in a position to discuss amendments until 18 March.

As I understand it, it will be for the Parliamentary Bureau to timetable the discussion in Parliament. It will be for this committee to take evidence and to discuss amendments. As convener, I will not treat this bill any differently from any other bill that we have had at committee. I know that Michael Russell would not expect me to do that. We will scrutinise the bill properly and proceed with amendments on that basis. I have timetabled amendments for 25 March. As the standing orders stand, that would not allow the bill to pass stage 3, because there would not be enough sitting days between us completing stage 2 and Parliament having stage 3. We would require a motion and a vote in Parliament to allow that to happen.

On top of that, a financial resolution requires to be laid by the Executive prior to stage 2 commencing. There are issues around that. We have raised concerns about the financial memorandum and its effectiveness. I do not know whether Mike Russell has discussed that with the Executive.

I am happy to give an update.

That would be helpful. We are obviously tied by the procedures of the Parliament. I have amendments timetabled for 25 March, with evidence on 17 March, assuming that everything goes ahead. My only concern with the Presiding Officer's letter is the subordinate legislation issue. We would meet after the Subordinate Legislation Committee had met on the morning of 25 March, so that would be an issue if there were to be subordinate legislation. I am not sure how the amendments will be drafted—whether they create powers is obviously a matter for the draftspeople. Currently, there are no such powers, but we would have to see whether they would be required.

It would be useful if Mike Russell could update us on the financial stuff.

You are absolutely correct in what you say. The reality of the situation is that the Parliamentary Bureau must refer the bill to us—I presume that it will do that—but we cannot start stage 2 without a financial resolution. I was in discussion with the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport last week. I am open to discussion with him and his officials, as is the non-Executive bills unit, but so far, that discussion has not taken place. I have made it clear, both in the letter that the committee has seen, which went to the minister, and in the subsequent letter in response to David Steel's letter, that I am still open to that.

Of course, it is possible to amend the financial memorandum as the bill progresses and is amended, and it is possible to lodge a financial resolution to allow stage 2 to start—that is not uncommon. That is what I am asking the Executive to do, and it will be able to say at the bureau meeting this afternoon whether it will do that. If it decides to lodge a financial resolution, we can follow the timetable that you have suggested, which would allow us to take stage 2 on 25 March. The Executive would then be required to agree to a suspension of standing orders to allow the bill to go on to stage 3 on 26 or 27 March. At the moment, I do not anticipate that there will be subordinate legislation provisions that the Subordinate Legislation Committee will have to consider but, if there are, I would ask the Subordinate Legislation Committee to make the appropriate arrangements so that the timetable could be met.

These are unusual circumstances. The lateness of the bill is not entirely of my own making—there were technical reasons, which relate to the non-Executive bills unit. However, given the good will that the Parliament showed the bill last week, it is technically possible, with the suspension of a single standing order, for stage 3 to take place in the final week and for the bill to be passed.

I concur with what Jackie Baillie said. The real difficulty lies in the final area of consideration and does not relate to the ombudsman or even to the simple technical matter of making the bill apply to the whole of Scotland. The question is how the bill applies. The precedent that is being considered most closely at the moment is the reporting that takes place on Gaelic's place within the national priorities in education. Some authorities do not have to report and some do, and some report minimal activities. Considerable work is being done on that, and I have already discussed the matter briefly with the minister.

That might provide us with a way forward and a template for inserting a preamble to the schedule to the bill to remove the obligation to prepare a Gaelic language plan on those places that do not need to do so. I referred to that briefly in summing up last week, when responding to a point from George Lyon that the Deputy First Minister also made. Tavish Scott made a point to me privately about the position of Orkney and Shetland, and those are two local authority areas that would obviously not have to prepare a plan. A lot of thinking and work must go into those areas, and I have said that the best way to achieve that would be for the minister and his department to work closely with me and others to see whether we can formulate amendments in an agreed fashion so that they can be presented to the committee for scrutiny.

I am a bit confused by what you have just said. Did you say that Orkney and Shetland would not be asked to produce plans?

There would be an obligation on all authorities in Scotland, but Orkney and Shetland would not produce a formal plan of the complexity and length that would be required for other areas. I thought that that was the main point that was made in the debate on Thursday. Orkney and Shetland have no history of using the Gaelic language.

They would still be required to draw up a plan, would they not? My understanding of where we were at stage 1 was that we were looking to have all authorities producing plans and considering how those plans could be used in the development of Gaelic.

The point that I am making is that Orkney's plan or Shetland's would be very different from the plans for the Western Isles or the Highlands.

Obviously, yes—as would the plan for the Borders.

Essentially, we are talking about a minimal plan—nothing of the complexity of the plans for the Highlands or the Western Isles. The Borders plan might be somewhere between the two. There is a precedent for that in the national priorities on the use of Gaelic. We need to dig into the detail of that and find out about it.

The committee was concerned that the financial memorandum does not cover the costs of implementation. Are the financial discussions continuing?

Yes. I have asked the minister to let me have access to his officials, so that they can discuss the matter with me, and he has agreed to that. They have not yet indicated that they have any new thoughts on the matter, but they are thinking about it. I hope that they will have those new thoughts quickly. The non-Executive bills unit is also willing to enter into discussions to revise the financial memorandum in the light of that. It is difficult to make estimates in this area; even Executive bills have run into such difficulties in the past. The costs that would be involved for Orkney and Shetland would be of a quite different order from those involved for Highland or the Western Isles.

I am open to such discussion. As I explained in my evidence to the committee, nothing in the financial memorandum is designed to pull the wool over people's eyes. The difficulty lay in estimating the costs, so the default position was to estimate the costs of producing a plan. The costs of implementing the plans will be variable, but I would put up no barrier to our arriving at suitable estimates—quite the reverse, in fact.

We anticipated some of these problems when we agreed to the principles of the bill. Like others, I feel that it is important that amendments are made so that the provisions can be applied countrywide. Members will recall my concern that we might end up with documents that mean little and to which people pay only lip service.

I am concerned that we might water down the important elements of the bill and that we might not take all the necessary evidence. I support the idea of having plans in local authority areas, but I would hate them to be the sort of plans that I have seen in some areas in the past, where people write something that is ultimately lost. The danger is that, unless we have the—

The purpose of the bill is not simply to put in place Gaelic language plans; it is also to enshrine in law the basis of equality between English and Gaelic, and to give a means to express that. Gaelic language plans could be arrived at in any sort of way; the purpose of the bill is to enshrine in law what I would call the sacred principle, and then to give some initial articulation to that. The committee and I have been struck—as has everybody, I think—by the strong belief among the Gaelic community that the provisions of the bill would be something of tremendous symbolic as well as practical use, particularly so because this is happening in the first Scottish Parliament in 300 years.

One is inevitably juggling all sorts of requirements. I am rational about the bill, yet I am also quite passionate about seeing whether it is possible for us to carry out this task in what is a brief period of time, while balancing out all the requirements. Indeed, it is a balancing act.

I am concerned that, because of the importance of the matter and because we want to get where we want to go, we might rush some important pieces of—

I think that the Gaelic community would be grateful for our taking a step, rather than rushing. The bill represents a step forward. I have always referred to it as a modest measure and a step forward, and that is what it would be were it implemented.

Matters are now in the hands of the Parliamentary Bureau. Unless the bureau refers the bill back to the committee, there is nothing else that we can do.

Absolutely.

With that in mind, I suggest that we go ahead with taking evidence on 17 March. Until the bureau refers the bill back to us, we cannot discuss possible amendments.

Every bit of progress is welcome. If we reach the stage of taking evidence, that will be welcome, too. The area is important. The committee will understand that I and many others—I spoke to a number of people over the weekend—are keen to make as much progress as we can.

As is the committee.

I understand that, and I am grateful. The commentary on the debate about the bill has been that the Education, Culture and Sport Committee has moved the issue a giant step forward in its serious and positive deliberations during the five evidence-taking sessions that have taken place. I cannot quote him by name, but a senior figure in the Gaidhealtachd, with whom I spoke over the weekend, was of the opinion that the committee has made a bigger contribution to the future of the language than any parliamentary committee has done at any other time, here or elsewhere.

We will take evidence on Monday 17 March, and we will see where it leads us. We await the outcome of the Parliamentary Bureau's deliberations. Are members happy with that?

Members indicated agreement.

Meeting continued in private until 15:01.