Official Report 221KB pdf
Good morning and welcome to this meeting of the Education Committee. I remind everyone that mobile phones and pagers should be switched off so that we do not have funny noises during the proceedings. The only item on the agenda this morning is consideration of our draft stage 1 report on the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill, in relation to which the committee heard evidence and went on visits before Christmas.
The report, for a first draft, is very good indeed, particularly on this area. We will hear your draft phraseology later, convener, but I think that where the report needs to be strengthened and clarified in relation to what you have just said is paragraph 26. Paragraph 19 makes a good point about the official status of the language. The Minister for Education and Young People made the point that the language has de facto official status which, to some extent, the wording of the bill reflects. However, people are not really talking about it having official status. I thought that the phrase "equal validity" sounded about right, given what we are trying to achieve.
I agree with the comments about the report as a whole, because the emphasis is right and it covers the areas of particular concern to the committee. Given that it is in draft form, it is very good. I agree with Alex Neil and the convener that we should make up front the positive statement that we want to move things forward from where they have been historically. I do not have with me the Official Report of the minister's comments. I questioned him about equal status, which is about the right to use Gaelic everywhere, which is what people want to see, and the practical problems of having that as a legal definition. I also questioned him about equal validity. The use of Gaelic will be determined by the national and local plans. I asked him whether Gaelic will be of equal validity when it is used. I would be interested to hear your proposed wording, but there is a route into allowing us to make a firm statement to move the bill on from where it is, in cognisance of some of the evidence that we have heard about the practical difficulties.
There may also be a timescale on these things. Whereas a particular provision may be appropriate now, the matter might have to be revisited in future. I suggest that the issue is not one for our consideration today but one for later in the process.
The draft report that the clerks have prepared is excellent. If I may, I will make two general points on it. My first point is that if support for Gaelic is a continuing process—which we all accept that it will be—once the bòrd is set up, a strong case could be put for an in-depth review of aspirations. Given that they may differ area by area, such information could be useful in focusing attention on where provision is most needed.
I take it that the convener is looking for comments on the general context of the report and on key issues. Later in the report, the debate that was held on whether the bill would preserve a fragile language is reflected along with the subject of the development and promotion of Gaelic. Perhaps we should reflect the committee's views on those subjects earlier in the report, possibly in the introduction. I understand that our view is that we see the bill as being part of both those things. The point about the preservation of the language would be better made if it were done earlier in the report as part of the introduction.
Fiona Hyslop is absolutely right. It is highly doubtful whether preservation of the language is ultimately sustainable at current levels of support.
I have a comment on page 2, paragraph 8. That is where we could mention, in neutral language, the possibility of a further in-depth review of aspirations.
I am sure that no one would disagree with that suggestion.
I have a couple of points on page 2. Paragraph 6 refers to the numbers of people who speak Gaelic. Although Dumfries and Galloway has a fairly low proportion of Gaelic speakers—0.67 per cent—it is not the area with the lowest proportion of Gaelic speakers. East Ayrshire, Midlothian and North Lanarkshire have even lower numbers of speakers.
The figures should accurately reflect the situation. One might assume that Shetland also has a low figure.
No. I think that Shetland is slightly higher, at 0.9 per cent.
We will correct the statement about Dumfries and Galloway.
Paragraph 7 talks about
Is it possible to get the statistics on the numbers of people who are undertaking Gaelic lessons? From my knowledge of my own area, I know that there is a substantial demand right across Scotland for learning the language. The statistics on language learning might give us an idea of the potential for expansion.
We can endeavour to get them from Clì Gàidhlig, the learners' group. It might have some statistics on the numbers involved.
That might give us some indicative figures for the potential in certain areas and help to flesh out some of the arguments that we are having.
On that point, the potential is also limited by supply. There could be a lot of people who would like to learn Gaelic but are unable to do so because it is not available.
Fiona, might your point about potential go in somewhere round about page 2?
I think so. At about paragraph 8, we start to ask what the previous context has been and what the future context should be and to express our view. I am happy to work with the clerks to come up with something.
That would be helpful.
I think that it was the minister.
Was it? It might have been.
I take your point that this is not the stage for amendments, but our discussion on status referred to "official status", "equal status" and "equal validity"—I think that there was a fourth term, but I cannot remember what it was offhand.
It was "secure status".
Yes, we should include that. If you agree, convener, it might be useful to add one sentence saying that, of the options about which we have heard, equal validity came closest to what we believe that people are trying to achieve. That would not commit us to the exact wording for the bill, but it would give the Executive a steer as to what the committee is thinking.
Because secure status has been mentioned, we need to have a discussion about the meaning of that phrase. It could otherwise come back in the form of suggested amendments and it would be helpful to have a better understanding of it.
The minister is undoubtedly under advice from his legal officials about what can be done on equal validity, and they tend to be terrified of the possible implications of certain phraseology. One understands that to a degree, but we can go a bit further, although I am not sure that I want to pin myself down to particular phrases.
Perhaps the committee needs to be clear about what it is trying to achieve. I do not think that anyone is suggesting equal status in the sense that, every time that something is produced in English, we have to have a Gaelic version of it. That is probably what "equal status" means in law, whereas, as a layman, I would interpret "equal validity" to mean that both versions of something that is produced in English and Gaelic are equally valid in law but there is no obligation to produce a Gaelic version every time that something is produced in English.
I am not averse to the direction in which you are going. Perhaps we should consider the phraseology by taking on board your phrase and pondering over it until we finalise the report at our next meeting.
I presume that the advice that the minister has received is that "equal status" and "equal validity" mean the same thing and would have the same legal consequences.
I do not think that they necessarily would do. Equal status would confer absolute rights, whereas equal validity relates to when the language is used. The bill is about determining when it is appropriate and reasonable for the language to be used, given the current or potential usage in the country.
We might need to define the terms more precisely.
The draft report is accurate but, because the issue was a key part of our evidence-taking meetings, we should perhaps expand on it. The report does not quote the Bòrd na Gàidhlig submission, which I think helpfully ran through what the bòrd understands by "secure status", "equal status" and other terms. Perhaps some beefing up of the references would help members who read the report before the stage 1 debate in the chamber.
That is helpful. I was trying to get at that when I said that the Welsh Language Board produced quite a good account of the different options and its approach to them.
I think that the Bòrd na Gàidhlig did that.
Both bodies provided useful evidence. We should perhaps consider what they said. The setting out of definitions would help people to understand the situation.
If the bill were to contain a particular term, such as "equal validity", it would be possible to amend it to include in the schedule a definition of the term, unless a legal definition already exists.
We might be able to get some advice from our legal advisers, although their knowledge of the subject might be limited. We can inquire behind the scenes whether they might contribute anything.
Elaine Murray made a good point, which might offer a response to the legal advice that the Executive has received. We are the legislators. If we decide to use a term such as "equal validity" we should define it in the legislation, so that there can be no dubiety about its legal meaning.
Oddly enough, comments that are made during the progress of a bill through the Parliament can have legal effect when there is ambiguity. One way of clarifying the situation might be for ministers to state that the term is intended to confer not rights but status and so on. That is just a thought.
We must come up with the phraseology for doing that effectively without tying the Executive up in unusual and unanticipated knots.
I suggest that we include the convener's suggested wording, which would helpfully pave the way to the additional sentences that will steer us towards something like equal validity.
If there are no further comments about page 5, we move on to page 6 and the long section on education.
I am not sure whether I should raise this point in relation to page 6. I thought that the section was exceptionally well drafted. I think that we all agree that there is a need for resources for more Gaelic-medium teachers, but I am not sure that we have put enough emphasis on the drop-out between primary and secondary education. Towards the end of the section on education, where we make recommendations, we need to say a bit more about the need to tackle the problem.
I agree. I have been working on the phraseology of a sentence that could usefully be inserted at the end of paragraph 31, which ends the section on education. We should say something like, "While recognising the workforce supply issues, the committee recommends that stringent efforts be made to provide Gaelic-medium education at secondary level, particularly in areas where there are reasonable numbers of children being educated in the Gaelic medium at primary level." We need to include a specific comment on the problem, because the whole thing falls down around our ears if it cannot be tackled. The detail of the issue is workforce supply and so on, but the concentrated resources of the Executive, Highland Council, the Western Isles Council and so on are needed to make things happen.
Paragraph 30 makes the point saliently, but we may be able to add a bit to that, just to point out how important the issue is. The point was made by the minister as well as by the bòrd representatives that a lot of the good work that is being done in early-years and primary education is being undone because, by the time that a student has left secondary education, Gaelic has become a secondary language to them. That defeats the purpose.
That is absolutely right.
Like much of the rest of the report, this section is extremely well written. Reference is made in paragraph 28—which is especially important for the south of Scotland and other areas where very little Gaelic is spoken—to the fact that the crux of a Gaelic language plan will be the provision of education as a second language or to adult learners. I feel that that point could be made more prominently, as it is rather lost in the middle of paragraph 28. It relates back to the points that Adam Ingram made earlier about potential. If we are looking for the potential to develop the language in certain areas, we should perhaps highlight the importance of learning Gaelic as a second language for children and adults in some parts of the country.
There are two issues involved in that. The first is the learning of Gaelic as a second language in the Gaelic-speaking areas; the second is the learning of Gaelic as a second language in other areas. The learning of Gaelic as a second language in Gaelic-speaking areas is dealt with in the cultural context bit, but the learning of Gaelic as a second language in other areas could be built on in this section.
I would have thought that the Gaelic language plans that might emerge in places such as Dumfries and Galloway and East Ayrshire would be about the provision of Gaelic education for people who want to learn about the language and culture.
Yes, I think that that is right.
The bill unintentionally confuses the two issues of Gaelic-medium education and the teaching of Gaelic as a second language. We must ensure that we separate those two issues in our report. Amendments may be lodged at a later stage that will help to clarify the positive support that exists for both of those. We should also reflect that distinction in the paragraphs in which we talk about the numbers of teachers. Two figures were given to us: 26 and 40. In the context of the supply of Gaelic teachers, those are the key figures.
They relate to the number of secondary school teachers.
Yes. We were also given good evidence when we visited Portree that, even in secondary schools in which Gaelic-medium education is provided, it is not comprehensive and available for all subjects. It is very selective and people cannot predict which subjects they will be able to take Gaelic-medium courses in. That impacts on pupils' education and their choices; it is not just an issue of teacher supply and demand.
That was echoed in the evidence that we received from the Welsh Language Board witnesses, who talked about the diversity of supply in Welsh schools. Many more options are available there; some of them are in Welsh and some are in English. It is much more mixed than an outsider might imagine. Gaelic-medium education at the secondary level is a bit more complicated than it is at the primary level.
Yes. It would be useful to talk about that in the report. We should check which is the authoritative number of teachers and the report should reflect the concerns that we have about Gaelic-medium education at the secondary level.
That is right. The point is that we need to have the option of Gaelic-medium education in a wider number of subject areas, especially in secondary schools.
Especially in areas such as the Highlands and Islands. If the provision is fragile in certain aspects even in Skye, that reflects the extent to which we must place emphasis on the issue.
The point was echoed in what we heard about the Nicholson Institute in Stornoway, where there is not as much Gaelic-medium education as one might have imagined.
On the issue of supply, I was struck by the evidence that we have heard latterly from Sabhal Mòr Ostaig about—
Which paragraph is that in?
The one about the supply of Gaelic-medium teachers. We heard about the step change that would be needed to address that. The evidence that we have received on that in the past few days from the Gaelic college will be helpful, if we agree with it. It states that, under the current circumstances, the supply is not going to meet the demand. A substantial change is needed. Although steps have been taken by the University of Aberdeen and others to help, through the provision of part-time courses and so on, we really need to take a more integrated approach. Sabhal Mòr Ostaig makes some positive suggestions. The committee will need to decide whether it agrees with those suggestions. We might put something in the report and, at a subsequent meeting, decide whether we agree with the steps that Sabhal Mòr Ostaig recommends. It is an illustration of the substantial step change that will be needed.
Another way of dealing with the issue without making a legislative change to the bill—which is not what Sabhal Mòr Ostaig proposes—would be to refer to the college's suggestions as a way forward. We could include a paragraph outlining some of those suggestions.
I previously suggested that we might want to include in the bill something about the need for the Executive to produce a Gaelic-medium education teacher supply strategy. That has been done in previous bills on policy issues. It is for the committee to decide whether we want to lodge a legislative amendment. However, the context of the policy change needs to be emphasised strongly.
In paragraph 36, the report states:
Given the power of the bòrd to produce a national Gaelic language plan, surely such issues should be part of the national plan.
I think that that is what the Gaelic college is suggesting. Its recent letter to us says that Bòrd na Gàidhlig should be charged with advising ministers on how to put together a co-ordinated strategy. I presume that, under the national plan, the local authorities, the minister and others will have to work together to address the teacher supply problem.
That is right. The difficulty is that, although the bill is not an education bill, the duties of the bòrd, albeit with the amendment that was made to the draft bill, straddle the education field. The education authorities have some duties and the bòrd has others. The question is where the expertise lies. I know that we say that there should be teaching expertise on the bòrd—that is right. However, there is an issue to be got at about the relationship, for the Gaelic language plan process, between the bòrd and education, teacher supply and all that sort of stuff in the more mainstream situation.
I think that this section of the report is well drafted, although it needs slight changes. It might be useful to reorder the way in which we address each of the issues. The report tends to jump about from the shortage of teachers in primary schools to the problem of secondary schools, and so on. In the section on Gaelic education, it might be useful to start off with a paragraph stating that, although the bill is a Gaelic language bill rather than an education bill, if we do not get the education strategy right, the objectives of the bill will not be achieved. The report can say that a number of issues came up during the committee's evidence taking and can then deal with them in this order: the pre-school education issue, which is currently dealt with at the tail-end of the education section rather than at the beginning, quoting and expanding on what the Welsh Language Board is doing on pre-school education; the issue of primary school education, which is primarily a shortage of teachers; the issue of secondary schools, which we have just discussed; and—as was mentioned in some of the evidence, although it was not given a lot of emphasis—the problem of higher and further education, to which we need to refer.
Yes, that is helpful. That is a logical layout.
I was struck by the strong evidence from Highland Council that reference needs to be made to the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000. We currently have one-way traffic. The bill is about the powers of the bòrd, but there will be a legal way in which we can connect the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000 with the bill. I know that the minister said that the Executive would be doing that in guidance, but we have to decide whether that would make the link strong enough or whether we should put something in statute. I am strongly of the view that we should put something in statute.
As Alex Neil said, the situation is helped by the fact that the same minister has responsibility for both areas. Our concern is the technicalities of drawing them together.
But the ministerial remit might not be the same in the future; indeed, it was different in the past. The bill has to stand the test of time.
I have a brief point on paragraph 36. In Scotland there seems to be a lack of enthusiasm for cash incentives, but there may well be a case for adding a sentence to paragraph 36 to the effect that good and persuasive presentation could be usefully advanced by local authorities. For example, Gaelic-medium classes might be smaller in size, with more individual attention to pupils. The importance of presentational aspects could be played up.
We also received evidence on the difficulty with promotion rights and sustaining schools. A more stable position for the provision of Gaelic in certain schools and some security on promotion rights would be helpful and would underpin movement in that direction.
The issue is about career opportunities.
Yes.
We need to touch on the supply, recruitment and training of teachers, then their retention and promotion.
There is also the issue of the back-up resources that are available to teachers. The lack of such resources puts off teachers and others from going into Gaelic-medium education, because of the amount of preparatory work that they have to do. There is a disparity between the resources that are available to English-medium education and Gaelic-medium education. Although we address that issue in the report, we should emphasise it if we are to address the supply problem.
Gaelic-medium resources are dealt with in paragraph 42 and thereabouts. Such resources fit naturally into the framework that Alex Neil mentioned.
Presentationally, it would be useful in this section to have paragraphs in bold, so that we have pre-school, primary and the other issues that Fiona Hyslop raised, ending up with paragraphs on resources and technology.
I was going to make that comment in relation to a later section. Breaking the sections into smaller bits might be helpful.
Paragraph 44 mentions using high tech to advance opportunities where they do not currently exist. Sabhal Mòr Ostaig said that that aspect was very important and I feel that there is scope to add one or two more sentences to the end of that paragraph.
In addition, the report rightly points out that technology is a useful tool, not a panacea. The increased use of high tech in remote learning and so on might remove some of the pressure caused by the shortage of teachers, particularly in remoter areas. It might be worth making the point that greater use of such technology would overcome at least some of those problems.
I am less enthusiastic about that suggestion, because it seems to go against our point that, although there could be videoconferencing, there needs to be a teacher at the other end. We do not want children simply to sit in front of a screen without being able to interact.
I was thinking more about a teacher with three or four pupils who might be able to reach 12 pupils through such technology.
Perhaps we should stress that point.
Technology can assist in other ways. For example, the Executive used to have a website on the built environment that was aimed at primary schools and contained resources that teachers could download or send away for and then use in the classroom. If teachers are finding it difficult to get good-quality Gaelic-medium resources, it might be possible to produce and disseminate some reasonable-quality resources that they can download.
The resource issue could be upgraded in the report. Paragraph 42 states:
At the Gaelic college, we heard about a major on-going project involving new technology. Perhaps we should say in the report: "We acknowledge that work is currently being carried out, but blah blah blah."
Did we hear any evidence about that project, or did we just pick it up in conversation?
I do not think that there is anything about it in the Official Report.
There is another aspect to the resource issue. Obviously, it has implications for teachers. For a start, they will have to do extra work to prepare materials and the whole matter will have an impact on recruitment and retention. However, the more important issue relates to young children's perception of the status and educational value of the language. Because they have to use second-class materials, they have the impression that the language is a paste-over job. This all brings us back to cultural context and the issue of value and validity. One strong memory of the visits was the teachers' concern about giving youngsters the impression that their language was worth only a paste-over job in their school books. Obviously, that is not the case, but that message is being sent out.
We could make a link in that respect with Learning and Teaching Scotland and the Scottish Qualifications Authority, which are mentioned in paragraph 39. It is important for such bodies to help with the production of proper resources. For example, Learning and Teaching Scotland provides not only resources but advice and Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education will be aware of the resources that are available in schools.
Centres of excellence may emerge, with the critical mass in the Gaelic college, the new all-through Glasgow school and places such as that, where a lot of resources are produced. We are aware that, unlike with other languages, there is no hinterland where lots of things are published. Anything that is published generally has to be produced in Scotland; if it is not produced in Scotland, it is not produced at all.
Agencies and non-departmental public bodies such as Learning and Teaching Scotland, the SQA and HMIE must also have Gaelic plans.
That is a good point, which we should incorporate into the report.
We have not mentioned anywhere in our report the contribution that Gaelic-medium education is making towards achieving the national priorities for education. We received evidence to the effect that Gaelic-medium education is producing very good results in terms of pupil attainment. We have also received evidence that Gaelic-medium education is a good gateway to learning other modern languages. I would like that to be reflected in the report, particularly in the context of trying to encourage more people to go into teaching. We should emphasise that Gaelic-medium education is at the cutting edge of educational improvement in Scotland.
I seem to recall that the evidence was a bit more mixed than that on the attainment front. Did we not get evidence from somewhere that there were problems in keeping up with other aspects of the curriculum if too much emphasis was given to Gaelic? Was that not an issue? I cannot remember where that evidence came from, but I have a feeling that the issue was mentioned. However, the point about the language facility is an important one and it should be reflected in the report.
I am pretty sure that the statistics indicate that attainment levels are higher on average in Gaelic-medium education. That may be related to pupil-teacher ratios, but it is still a point worth making.
Okay.
We should have a section in the report entitled "The right to Gaelic-medium education", as that was a substantial part of the written and oral evidence and is a matter of concern. Obviously, the bill has moved some way towards a recognition of that aspect because, initially, there was no mention of education at all.
Surely, in practical terms, that right could not be delivered in anything like the near future in a large number of local authorities in Scotland.
That is my concern. It would be useful if we were to acknowledge that the local plans that will be agreed with Bòrd na Gàidhlig will reflect the access to Gaelic-medium education that is available in other local authorities. The Welsh route would be useful in that regard and would ensure that the plans were reasonable from the point of view of the local authority. However, we would require the local authority to state what the right to Gaelic-medium education was in that area. The wording that the Welsh use in that regard is particularly helpful, in that it places the right to Welsh-language education into the educational context, which is correct.
Is that not a policy matter for Bòrd na Gàidhlig to develop over time? The issue is linked to resources; there are no two ways about it. I do not follow why it would be in any way helpful to put anything of that sort in recommendations at this stage.
If we do not, we are saying no to movement towards the right to Gaelic-medium education and we are saying that we do not think that such a right is appropriate.
No, that is not what we are saying. We are saying that the production of proposals is a matter for Bòrd na Gàidhlig in light of what is practicable and reasonable, taking into account the differing situations in various local authorities. One would not exclude the possibility of there being further legislation, if that is the direction in which the issue moved.
Under the current legislation, this is a critical point. I agree with Highland Council that it would be incorrect from an educational point of view to leave the question of education provision to Bòrd na Gàidhlig. You are right in saying that, currently, such proposals will be a matter for Bòrd na Gàidhlig, but I think that local plans of councils and the national plans of the Scottish Executive should build a bridge between the responsibilities that local authorities and the Scottish Executive will have in relation to the provision of and right to Gaelic education.
We need to make a clear distinction between the right to Gaelic-medium education and the right to be taught Gaelic, which are entirely separate issues. As I understand it, the Welsh have established a right not to Welsh-medium education but to be taught Welsh. Perhaps we should say that we aspire to reach within a reasonable period of time a position in which Gaelic-medium education is available throughout Scotland for those who wish it. I am not saying that, for example, the East Ayrshire education authority would have to make that provision within East Ayrshire; it might buy it in from North Ayrshire, Glasgow or wherever.
East Ayrshire has a Gaelic-medium school.
Yes, it does. There is one in Kilmarnock. What I am saying is that we should state that, as an aspiration, we would like to be in a position in which Gaelic-medium education is available throughout Scotland for those who want it. However, I would have thought that being taught Gaelic as a language should be as much of a right as the right to be taught English as a language.
We have to be careful about not creating a statutory right that we are then unable to deliver. People would then be able to take a local authority or whatever body to court because it had not fulfilled its statutory obligations. I am concerned because the resources are not there to ensure that everyone can be given the right.
That is where the Welsh wording is useful.
I do not know about that, because I interpreted the right to education in Welsh as meaning education using the Welsh language rather than education to learn Welsh. I am not sure that I interpret that in the same way as Alex Neil does.
Perhaps for the purposes of our report we need to make the distinction between Gaelic-medium education and being taught the Gaelic language.
Yes, it is quite obvious that the two are different. However, we have perhaps jumped the question of whether it is our job, or the job of Bòrd na Gàidhlig, to make detailed comments on that. After all, we are employing the bòrd to develop the language plans.
Can we not say that the national plan and the plans of local authorities will include information on how parents will access Gaelic-medium education in their areas? That may mean that some authorities will lay on transport to allow people to go to other areas.
I do not think that there is any controversy at that level but, as Elaine Murray has said, we have to consider the ability to create meaningful rights if resources are in question—as they certainly are at the moment.
Paragraph 48 says:
My recollection is that the answers were more complicated; they considered sustainability. For example, if a family with four children was the only family interested in having Gaelic-medium education, the question arose over whether the interest could be sustained. Was that not part of the evidence?
I think so, but it would help if our report contained a few more sentences on the issue of reasonable demand. The answers that we received were less than whole-heartedly emphatic. More explanation would help.
I will try to summarise where we are. Fiona Hyslop spoke about expecting the Gaelic language plans to contain an indication of where we were going with Gaelic-medium education and Gaelic learner provision. That was a reasonable and obvious point and I do not think that there was any great disagreement on it. However, the question of rights—whether phrased as by the Welsh Language Board or in some other way—is still a big issue. I do not sense agreement round the table that we should go as far as to offer a right at this stage.
I can see the problem with the word "right". However, perhaps we should go further—just as we did on the issue of status—and try to set an aspiration. Perhaps we should say that, within the foreseeable future, within a generation, or whenever, access to Gaelic-medium education should be guaranteed to every child in Scotland. That is not to say that it should be available in their own school—we are not saying that. However, it would be legitimate to have some kind of aspiration in the recommendations.
That is reasonable. The question is what the driver is. In that regard, there is a distinction to be made. Is the driver an individual's right to sue in the courts to vindicate their position or is it administrative provision that is made by ministers? Personally, I would be happy with the direction in which Alex Neil is going on that.
That ties in with your point about the need for good will. If Gaelic-medium provision is stimulated by the ability to take somebody to court in an adversarial fashion, we will not get the good will towards the language that we are trying to encourage. It is a question of aspiration. Ministers should aspire to make improvements.
I am sympathetic towards the idea of providing a statutory right to Gaelic-medium education, but the reality is that giving every child such a right might involve saying to a family that lived in Ayr that it had to go to Inverness. Although in theory children would have a statutory right, in reality they would not. If we talked about providing guaranteed access to Gaelic-medium education within a reasonable area within a generation, for example, at least we would be setting some parameters on what the minimum acceptable levels of provision would be.
We could work up some phraseology on the basis of the position that we have arrived at on that. We will leave the matter for the time being. A lot of work remains to be done, but we have had a useful discussion.
Although we did not take evidence from Sir Iain Noble, I can tell members that he is devising an awards scheme for the use of Gaelic in playgrounds in the Highlands and Islands. Such initiatives are the best way of trying to turn round the situation.
It might be helpful if we could reflect the information that we got from Portree Primary School on the percentage of parents of children in primary 1 getting Gaelic-medium education who spoke Gaelic and the percentage of parents who did not. The number of such children whose parents did not speak Gaelic was quite striking.
That might need to go in paragraph 52, which refers to the support that is required for parents who do not speak Gaelic.
The percentage of Gaelic speakers must vary across the Highlands and Islands according to the extent to which people have come into an area to set up home. The numbers of such people will be lower in more static communities.
In the cultural context, the language is partly a sustainability issue in such rural areas. It is an important issue, given that we want to encourage the dispersal of jobs and so on.
That is one of the aspects that I was referring to when I said that the report should include something on culture and tourism towards the end of this section. Cultural stuff such as Runrig is important, as is cultural tourism. We took evidence on a number of such issues—Frank McAveety asked a few questions about that.
We heard some strong evidence on the economic case. I am trying to remember who gave that evidence; we might want to ask the clerks to check.
There was some good evidence from Skye, in particular, about the development of Sabhal Mòr Ostaig and how related activity has created jobs and so on.
It is the symbiosis between the language and the economy that surrounds it that is creating that engine for development.
If we are going to say something about the contribution of Scotland's cultural heritage we must be clear that the comment does not relate to the whole of Scotland. Otherwise, we will start to hear the arguments from Dumfries and Galloway and so on that Gaelic is not part of the culture there.
That highlights one of the difficulties with how we have taken evidence and compiled the report, which is that different situations exist in the Gaidhealtachd, or Gaelic-speaking areas, and the bulk of Scotland. A lot of what we are talking about refers particularly to Highland Council, Western Isles Council and perhaps, to a degree, Argyll and Bute Council.
Perhaps we should add a section on lifelong learning, which relates both to the fact that the language of the playground is English and to the fact that when the kids go home the parents are speaking English. Although we did not take much evidence on that, we should refer to lifelong learning facilities in a paragraph under the cultural context. It is clear that night classes and the like should be encouraged so that parents and others can undertake to learn Gaelic. Anecdotally, I find that a lot of the interest in learning Gaelic comes from people in their 30s, 40s, 50s and beyond, and that should be encouraged.
If there are no other points on the cultural context, which is covered in paragraphs 50 to 55, we move on to the section on other organisations, on pages 12 to 14.
In the light of the legal advice, I suggest that the section on other organisations probably needs to be rejigged. To summarise the legal advice, the way to do that perhaps involves the categorisation of agencies into agencies that are entirely devoted to devolved issues, which are not a problem; agencies that are devolved but have reserved responsibilities; agencies that are entirely reserved; agencies that are cross-border; and, in a separate category, the Food Standards Agency Scotland. The first and last categories are easy to deal with, because devolved agencies and bodies are already covered by the bill, and the FSA can be dealt with by a simple amendment. We should report that we encourage the Executive to lodge an appropriate amendment to ensure that the FSA—which is a particularly important agency—is covered by the bill. The other three categories of organisation—wholly reserved, partially reserved and cross-border—are more of an issue. As I suggested in the private session before the meeting, we should invite the Executive to explore along with UK colleagues the possibility of producing, as appropriate, an order in council, while emphasising the point that was made earlier that the bodies in Scotland will in any case probably be prepared to prepare Gaelic language plans in co-operation with the bòrd and without compulsion. That should be the first line of attack. We would use any new powers under an order in council only in extreme cases, but it is worth saying that the Executive should pursue that.
That can be dealt with as part of the rewriting exercise. I am sure that your point will be taken on board.
I agree with Alex Neil that it would be helpful to summarise the legal advice that we have received in order to clarify some of the issues.
So we would include options that we might wish to consider.
Yes. We could invite the Executive to examine them.
If we forget the legalities of the matter, I see no reason in principle why the Scottish Parliament should not regulate, for devolved purposes, UK bodies that exist within its jurisdiction. However, I am conscious that such measures might have resource implications. The question is whether it is appropriate for the Scottish Parliament to impose on UK bodies measures that have resource implications. A number of issues would have to be teased out. Elaine Murray's suggestion of encapsulating for the moment the range of possibilities would probably be an acceptable way for the committee to proceed. I am interested in members' views on the matter.
I emphasise the convener's point that the Welsh language is different in that UK legislation was involved and therefore all UK public bodies were covered. Certain UK public bodies or agencies in Scotland have proved in the past to be resistant to responding to the Gaelic community, such as the Royal Mail and other bodies of which we have been given examples. There is a strong case for something like the order in council that we heard about earlier, through which UK public bodies could be covered by the bill, with agreement from Westminster and Whitehall. Through that process, we could, I hope, deal with some of the issues about resource implications that the convener flagged up. We should get the ball rolling on that front.
Somebody made the valid point that, primarily, the bill will impose on bodies an obligation to create a Gaelic language plan and that that can come out in the wash at a later point.
We must emphasise the context that the bill is about plans. There is too much expectation that the bill will mean that everything, as of day one, will have to be translated into Gaelic. The committee has a duty and responsibility to ensure that people understand that the bill is about development plans for Gaelic rather than translation plans, as some people think. That might also help to address some of the issues. Just as we expect the Scottish Executive to implement Gaelic development for devolved bodies, which we are pleased that it wants to do, so we expect the Westminster Government to support the use and development of Gaelic in its organisations. We need to give that steer.
That is valid.
Another issue is prioritisation. I was surprised at how few agencies the Welsh Language Board deals with each year. It has an order for the organisations that it expects to produce language plans. If the bòrd's experience reflects the Welsh board's experience, some Westminster organisations will be much further down the line.
We should expect Westminster to be sympathetic. It is paradoxical that Westminster began the process of reviving the language, whereas legislation from the earlier Scottish Parliament—not ours—appears to show that it was doing its best to kill off the language.
If we impose a legal requirement on Bòrd na Gàidhlig to be proactive in approaching UK bodies in the public, private or voluntary sector, we must recognise that that could have financial implications for the bòrd, which would have to be reflected in the financial memorandum. We would create an additional workload if the bòrd was expected to contact more than just the 10 or so organisations a year that are expected to produce plans. We must recognise that placing extra duties on the bòrd would increase its workload.
The report could say, "would encourage".
The wording must change a little.
Something could be put in the bill.
The comment concerns Bòrd na Gàidhlig's powers and duties and what we expect of its targets.
I echo the convener's point that the bòrd should form a responsive and persuasive relationship with relevant bodies, especially on practicalities.
Would Michael Howard make it a manifesto commitment to support that?
Thus sustaining logically your earlier support for research.
I have one point for the clerks. The section of the report from paragraph 59 onwards relates to encouraging voluntary bodies, and I think that we should keep references to those issues. We have tended exclusively to discuss reserved bodies and so on, but I think that we should retain in the report something about encouraging voluntary organisations.
That is right. I also suggest that the reference to the courts, from paragraph 62 onwards, is slightly different and might need to be put under a separate heading.
With regard to the courts, there was a certain amount of evidence about the rules of court dealing with the matter already. I think that a little more background ought to be put in, because a lot has happened over the years that should be within the knowledge of the committee.
Did we get total clarity about that in the evidence that we heard? I was not sure that we did.
Did we not ask the clerks to write separately to the court authorities to find out the background?
I think that witnesses wanted the opportunities to be extended from the present position, but a certain amount of evidence was given about instances, particularly in the north-west Highlands and in the Western Isles, where cases had been heard in Gaelic.
I do not quite like paragraph 62. I do not think that it should be there. What should be there is a factual explanation of what currently happens and, as Lord James Douglas-Hamilton has said, of developments in the past.
I think that that comment from Comann nam Pàrant was light-hearted, but I am not sure that that comes across in writing.
The witness was referring to the law-abiding nature of the Gaelic community.
Yes, but I think that it was a light-hearted remark.
It is not appropriate in the report.
There is another aspect to the issue. If Gaelic is your first language—or indeed if any other language is your first language—expressing concepts and giving evidence to the best of your ability is best done in that language.
We had good evidence of why that is important, from a justice point of view, when we were at Sabhal Mòr Ostaig.
We move on to the Gaelic bòrd itself, which is dealt with on pages 14 and 15 of the draft report.
Paragraph 71 mentions strong educational expertise. There was evidence that there is a need for a percentage of Gaelic speakers at certain levels of ability, and there should be some recognition of that need for linguistic expertise as well as strong educational expertise.
I agree with that. As the report is presented at the moment, it jumps out at you all of a sudden. That part of the report needs to be rejigged. The first few paragraphs deal primarily with the Welsh experience. I can see why we would want to refer to the Welsh experience, but the report gives the impression, for example, that the Welsh Language Board has been integrated into the Welsh Executive because of its success. In fact, the driver for that reorganisation of Government in Wales was the feeling that all the quangos should be brought into Executive departments. It actually had nothing to do with progress in the Welsh language. The Welsh Development Agency and the Wales Tourist Board are also being brought into the Executive, and that move is being driven by issues other than specific Welsh language issues.
I agree with Alex Neil about the bòrd's structure. The Welsh experience is relevant in the context of whether the structure of their board is suitable for us. Therefore, that part of the draft report should be restructured. Paragraph 65, in particular, should go, particularly the stuff about the bòrd's hypothetical
We have been dealing with the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill in the Enterprise and Culture Committee. One of the points that we made about the new merged funding council was that there should be appointees from outside Scotland to bring in international expertise.
That is right. We know from opinion polls that there is 80 per cent support for more Gaelic, but that support would be quickly eroded if an insensitive approach were taken in non-Gaelic areas. It is important that that is recognised as we progress, and introducing a broader language expertise might be a way of doing that.
We would not build that into the bill; we will just point it out to the minister who will be responsible for the appointment of bòrd members.
I agree with many of the points that have been made about the Welsh Language Board. I did not like paragraph 64 terribly much because our task is not ironic. Like Alex Neil, I think that there is a case for getting rid of some non-departmental public bodies and I am sure that the Executive will look at that in the context of efficient government. The Gaelic bòrd is an example of a body that should be independent at this stage. We do not want to give any impression that it is in an inferior position.
So, in short, we want to stress the bòrd's independence.
The bòrd's independence is important. We do not need to be too prescriptive about its composition. It is important that native Gaelic speakers and people with linguistic and educational expertise are represented, but we do not want to indicate that that is all that matters because other qualities that people might bring are equally important.
Are we okay to move on to discuss paragraph 71? I have strong disagreements and concerns about that paragraph that were reflected in some of the evidence from witnesses. The middle of paragraph 71 talks about the need for
The central point is still on the need for strong educational expertise among members of the bòrd. I think that we agree on that.
That is fine.
It is about the reason that is given for that.
Yes, and I think that the reason that is given is the wrong reason, which reflects people's confusion about the matter. Highland Council is absolutely right: we are talking about education, and there is a right to quality education, whether in the medium of Gaelic, English or whatever. It is not the bòrd's responsibility to ensure that; that should be a statutory function executed under the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000. Whether the guidance connection in the bill is strong enough is open to debate—I think the connection should be stronger. Even if we simply take the bill as it stands, I do not think that we can provide the right rationale.
It is the other way round: because of the importance of the vision of Gaelic-medium education as something to support and sustain the language, it is important to have strong educational expertise among members of the bòrd.
It would be difficult to define who would be entitled to vote.
It seems that there is not much support for such a suggestion. I am not sure whether we need to say that we do not particularly support that suggestion, or whether we could just leave it out.
We could say that it was raised as an issue but, as Elaine Murray said, the question is who would be eligible to vote.
That problem would probably be insuperable in a practical sense. Is there anything else under that section of the report, on Bòrd na Gàidhlig?
No.
The next section of the report, comprising paragraphs 73 to 84, is on language plans.
On paragraph 84, I think that parliamentary approval for the national language plan is important. I am very glad to see that included.
The Scottish Executive has already given an undertaking on that. That is fine.
We should say that, then.
Yes—in fact, we do. I am not sure that I quite followed the recommendation that follows, however.
Would the plan be the subject of a statutory instrument?
Yes.
Yes.
I suggest that, if the plan is genuinely to be subject to parliamentary approval, it should not be a negative instrument that is used, but a positive statutory instrument.
It should be done by affirmative resolution.
Yes.
I raised the matter at the Subordinate Legislation Committee and asked that committee to request that the Executive use the affirmative resolution procedure. We got confirmation of that.
The point is that the affirmative resolution procedure should be used. We can reflect that appropriately, taking the advice of our resident subordinate legislation expert.
Yes, but it is in the wrong place. We need to include that up front. Among our concerns, that is an important theme.
It is. Do you mean "up front" in a section or "up front" up front?
Up front at the start.
I think that, in practical terms, we have already agreed that.
I am not certain whether this is the right time to mention this, but I think that we have missed an opportunity here. We have not recognised the Gaelic college as a centre of educational excellence. I do not know where that would best fit in, but I think that there should be some mention of the fact that the college has rapidly expanded in recent years and that it is providing an extremely good service, which is well recognised not just in Scotland but in Wales, Ireland and North America. Some recognition of its excellence somewhere in our report would be helpful.
That could go in the section on education, perhaps in the resource bit. That general area would be as good a place as any.
That could certainly be part of the narrative. Some of the funding that supported the aims of the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Bill was not mentioned in the financial memorandum to that bill. There is an expectation that the funding would be evident.
There is an advantage to that approach. We expect the bill to be backed by appropriate resources over time to make its aims a reality.
In paragraph 87, which is left hanging high and dry, as it were, there should be a round-off sentence recommending that the Executive revise the financial memorandum to take account of the points raised above, or something to that effect. That would cover the point that you have just made about the need to reflect properly the costs of implementing the bill, which is the purpose of the financial memorandum.
Did not that point arise in relation to the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Bill, when we discussed whether that was the proper thing to do?
The Executive came back on it.
Did it amend the financial memorandum?
It came back with correspondence that clarified the way in which the financial implications—
We should make a point about revising the financial memorandum, or whatever the phraseology is. When we pass the bill we should know how much its implementation will cost.
It might be helpful for the Executive to make a statement as to the resources currently going into the area and how much it anticipates going into the area in future.
There is a presentational point about paragraphs 85 and 86. At every other point where the committee has made a recommendation, the text is bold. I suggest that we put in bold the phrase in paragraph 85:
We also had evidence from organisations and public bodies to the effect that they thought the cost would be far more than £10,000. We should reflect that evidence. In the wording that we have just discussed we are asking the Executive to respond to issues and concerns about the financial memorandum. We should also ask it to make a statement about what the costs will be to public bodies in implementing the plans. We should reflect that important evidence. We had the likes of Highland Council saying, "We do not think that the plans themselves will be the expense," whereas we heard a different view from other bodies where things were still in development. We should accurately reflect the concerns that witnesses raised and invite the minister to respond to them.
Stirling Council in particular, I think, said that it would need a Gaelic officer to implement a language plan but, to be honest, that point is debateable. If we are to reflect that evidence, we should also reflect Highland Council's evidence, which indicated that the financial memorandum provided a reasonable assessment of the cost.
We should reflect both views.
I apologise to the sound engineer that I have no card, but I forgot to keep it when I took off my coat.
We also heard evidence that it was likely that language plan templates could be developed for perhaps three different sorts of authorities.
Exactly. Different templates will be given to small, medium and large authorities.
Once those three templates have been produced, it should be possible to use them in all the other authorities. In that way, the production costs could be significantly lower.
Our report should include those points, which will help to emphasise the fact that the bill is about language plans.
Okay. We can reflect those comments.
I agree.
Paragraph 90 contains the important point that there will be real problems if we do not get the education policy right. We should be positive about the bill in its own context, but the emphasis in the paragraph is absolutely correct. We need some consensus on how to present that point. Perhaps instead of saying that our primary concern lies not with the bill itself but with education policy, we could emphasise that most of the evidence was supportive of the bill, which we view as a positive step, but it would be remiss of us not to mention our serious concerns about the implications of education policy for the language's sustainability and future development.
That is true, but Scottish Executive ministers and officials have made quite strong statements of their commitment to the direction in which the bill is travelling. In that context, given the qualifying notes that we have added as we have gone through the draft report, I think that we should end our report on a confident note.
I suggest that we insert a sentence to the effect that the committee believes that there should be a continuing commitment to ensuring that the purposes of the bill are realised in the years to come. The bòrd might have problems in particular areas, but such problems should melt into insignificance provided that the matters that we have highlighted are focused on.
That is very good. We should take that line.
I am concerned not so much about policy implications but about resource implications. My concerns relate to whether resources will be made available. Given that the Executive has indicated its willingness to legislate, the issue is not one of a lack of desire on the part of the policy makers to have the appropriate legislation, but whether the Executive puts its money where its mouth is.
Potentially, the question is one of policy and resources. Obviously, resources are absolutely key. If that was the strong theme that emerged in our evidence taking, it would be wrong if we did not reflect it in our conclusions. We need to get the pitch right.
That is right. I commend the broad line of the changes that have been made. Although we have got a good bit of it right, the clerks and I will have another shot at it, if we may. We will come back to the committee on it.
It is important that the comment is made in context. We should make a factual reference to the charter up front in the report.
That is my point.
During our pre-meeting, I asked for further legal advice from the Parliament's lawyers about the context of the charter in relation to other bodies, particularly Westminster bodies. It might be helpful if we were to wait until we hear what the lawyers have to say on the subject.
We should also note in our introduction that the United Kingdom has signed up to the charter.
That should be said right at the beginning, when we set the context of the report. We have had correspondence from Comunn na Gàidhlig and the Gaelic college on the subject of how we could usefully include a reference to the charter in amendments that are made to the bill. We might want to reflect on that point before next week's meeting.
That takes us to the end of the draft report. Do members have anything further to suggest that might have been missed out of our discussion?
No.
That indicates the thorough nature of our review of the draft report. In that event, we will return to our consideration of the draft report next week. Mark Roberts has all the work of trying to make sense of our discussion and comments today and of producing a revised draft report. We wish him well in that regard.
No.
At the beginning of the meeting, I omitted to welcome everybody and to wish you all a happy new year. I hope that everyone had a good break.
Meeting closed at 11:57.