Official Report 320KB pdf
Item 4 is further consideration of the committee's stage 1 report on the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill. Following the discussion that was held at our last meeting, members have before them the second draft of the report.
I am entirely happy with the direction, but I have one issue to raise. As the convener knows, the bòrd is concerned purely with Gaelic, but the charter refers to a number of other minority languages in Scotland, including Scots. I wonder whether the proposed paragraph would be consistent with the rest of the bill, including the long title. If Bòrd na Gàidhlig were to be given statutory responsibility to report on the minority language charter, it would be given a responsibility for Gaelic plus, which may not be consistent with the rest of the bill.
The intention behind the suggestion is for the responsibility to relate only to Gaelic. We are not dealing with Scots and we have heard no evidence about Scots. Different issues may be involved, but others would come to them in due course. In the context of the bill and of the bòrd, it is clear that the responsibility would relate only to Gaelic.
Perhaps we should make that clear in the wording.
Yes, that could be done.
May I clarify the proposed wording, convener? Did you say that "a duty" should be placed on Bòrd na Gàidhlig?
That is the suggestion. I think that it results from the view that was expressed by Highland Council, which is reasonably knowledgeable on the subject. The duty would relate to the functions of the board and that, after all, is what the bill is about. Members may have different views on the subject, but that is the suggestion that we have received.
I agree with the gist of what you said. I simply wonder whether the proposed wording is too strong. Perhaps it would be better to use the expression "places a responsibility on".
It is just a duty to advise ministers of progress; no one can sue on it—it is not that kind of duty.
The proposed wording is perfectly appropriate. It reflects the advice that we received by e-mail from Margaret Macdonald, who was at our last meeting. We asked her to have a look at the issue in the context of whether we should include a reference to the charter. She says that she thinks the responsibility lies on the bòrd already, but that it would be possible to state it on the face of the bill.
Perhaps I should make some introductory remarks about the way in which we should deal with the draft report. We must finish the report and have it published by Wednesday of next week. If we cannot finalise the report today, we have a certain amount of time in which to clear any remaining bits and pieces. Members can either remit their suggestion to me or exchange e-mails on the subject. It is highly desirable for us to sort out the report today if we can. If we cannot, some time has been held in reserve.
May I add something? I am concerned about the phraseology of the title, "The State of Gaelic". Should we use such a term? Is it not both pejorative and open to interpretation?
Should we use something like "The Future of Gaelic"?
The position?
The status? The condition? I do not know, I am just asking the question.
We go into the issue of status later in the report. "State" makes it sound as if Gaelic is in a bit of a state.
"Position" means the same as "state". It would not advance things if we were to use that word.
We could look up the thesaurus. I just think that "The State of Gaelic" sounds pejorative. Some people might argue that that is not the case, but we should not use the term.
Perception is reality, Frank.
Given that the section covers a number of issues that relate to striving to develop and protect the language, why do we not call it "The Future of Gaelic"? Surely that is more aspirational?
Okay. That is a better use of language.
Much better.
Good point.
I am a man for autonomy.
We want to say that the bill is not just about preservation, but about development. Given that we state in previous paragraphs how grim the situation is and how fragile the language is, I suggest that we reword paragraph 12. In the second sentence, which starts with "This wording", I suggest that we say, "This wording is critical, as the committee believes that it focuses simply on preservation of the current situation and the committee believes that promoting the future development of the Gaelic language should have equal emphasis."
That seems all right to me.
On a minor point, in the first sentence of paragraph 12, there is a "the" missing before "Committee".
I realised that when I read it just now.
I am happy with that suggestion, which seems to attract the committee's support.
Paragraph 18, in the section entitled "Official Status", contains the phrase:
That is right.
That quotation from paragraph 18 is a quotation from the bill. We are not misquoting—it is accurate—but perhaps the phrase takes us to the nub of the issue that we are trying to wrestle with on secure status. Securing the status means securing the current status, but we are not happy with the current status.
Perhaps we could use the phraseology "securing the status in the future".
We are quoting the bill in paragraph 18, so it would not be appropriate to change that sentence. However, we should flag up the issue for when we get to the parts of the report on validity and status.
Give me credit—the long title could ultimately be amended to reflect more genuinely what we want. That may be an issue at the end of the day. I am not quite sure what you are suggesting, Fiona.
We should not change that sentence because it is a direct quote from the bill. All I am saying is that the sentence highlights the nub of our concern that the bill is more about preserving and securing the current status of Gaelic—which, as the Minister for Education and Young People said, already has official status—than about securing a stronger future for the language.
That seems to be a recommendation that the minister might want to consider the long title, with a view to reflecting that aim more adequately. Is that what you are getting at?
To be fair, the minister said that he would do that; we have quoted him later in the report.
He said that he would ponder that issue.
We should request that he does a wee bit more than ponder.
The pondering relates not only to the terminology of the bill, but to the phraseology of the long title, which is not unimportant.
Yes. That is where the quote comes from. I do not want to change paragraph 18, but it occurred to me when I read it that that is the nub of the issue.
The bill has two purposes: one is to secure the language and the other is to promote it. The point is that the language is in almost terminal decline and is not secure. Securing the language is actually quite important.
Yes, but we should not leave it at that.
Absolutely, but there are two messages, one of which is that we want to prevent further decline. We need both messages. The phrase "secure status" is terminology that has been used a lot. We are one step ahead of the game in talking about promoting the language, whereas people are worried, with every reason, because the language is not secure.
The difficulty is that the long title mentions not secure status, but
Exactly. We should flag up that issue about the long title.
Given that conversation, perhaps paragraph 22 should be changed slightly to read at the end, "and that the wording of the bill should reflect this as appropriate".
I am not sure what sentence you are referring to.
Paragraph 22 states:
That is a different point and I do not think that I agree with it. I think that the bill's wording reflects the fact that Gaelic is an official language of Scotland; arguably, it does not reflect that the bill is intended to secure the future of the language. That is the point.
We could have a debate about the long title.
Perhaps we should add the convener's final point into paragraph 22 and use the word "should".
Perhaps we need a reference to the fact that consideration might be given to the phraseology of the long title and whether it adequately reflects the desire to secure the future status and development of the language, or something of that sort. Is that all right?
That sounds good.
We could put that into paragraph 22.
Perhaps we could change that once we have had a discussion.
Okay. There is an issue there, without question.
The end of paragraph 31 says:
I may be wrong, but I think that that sentence in paragraph 31 is trying to get at the fact that it is not necessary to have Gaelic available in all situations.
That is a different issue. That is in relation to the content of the plans, which will be different from area to area. However, I just do not think that we need the phrase:
It is confusing.
I was not here for the discussion last week, I am sorry to say. However, I have read it and, despite all the subsequent discussion, my conclusion is that I am not sure that I agree with that sentence. The phrase "equal status" implies that Gaelic and English must be equally available; in contrast, the phrase "equal validity" indicates that both languages are equally valid where they are used. I am not sure, despite all the discussion, that that is the conclusion. That is one interpretation of the two phrases, but there is clearly difficulty about interpreting those phrases.
That is why I referred to the Welsh Language Board's evidence, which mentioned something like that.
I, too, have some difficulty with the wording of paragraph 31. Although it says what equal validity means in contrast to what equal status means, that was not the minister's understanding of equal validity. He had obviously been advised by his officials that equal status and equal validity were, basically, the same thing. Last week, we discussed the possibility of including in the bill a statement that both languages should be equally valid when they are used; however, that might need to be strengthened by some sort of definition in a schedule to the bill.
That is right. That is what we agreed last week.
I do not think that that is reflected in the wording of paragraph 31.
No. I also made a note that equal validity needed to be defined as when the language is used: that is what Ken Macintosh is trying to get at. If that is what we mean, we should not only say that in the report but there should be something about it in the bill.
I do not think that, at this stage, the committee wants to sign itself up to a specific phrase.
No, but a suggestion could be made.
Equal validity may or may not mean what is stated in paragraph 31, but that is not the issue; we are trying to get across the concept. We are urging the minister to recognise the committee's desire and the desire of the Gaelic community in that regard. I do not believe that it is beyond the wit of the legal officials in the Executive to reflect that concept in a form of words.
I support the concept that Ken Macintosh proposes. As a non-practising advocate, I am of the conviction that what the words "equal status" would mean in practice would be unknown until the matter was tested in the courts. It is an unknown area, and what we are seeking is supportive encouragement that is not seen as being oppressive.
That is exactly it. To be fair to the minister, he was equally supportive of that idea. However, as an Executive minister he had to take a far more cautious line because he cannot allow the Executive to make an uncosted commitment. If the phrase—accidentally or otherwise—created a commitment to deliver every public service in Gaelic wherever that was demanded, that would be asking the minister to go too far.
We will do, but for the purpose of the stage 1 report we should not be tied to specific words. We are not experts, and we would need legal guidance on the definitions anyway if it came to it.
I agree with what you say, but may I add a point? The Enterprise and Culture Committee is dealing with the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill and we had a debate with the minister and his legal advisers on fees. We were specifically advised by both the parliamentary legal advisers and the Executive's legal advisers that one cannot rely on a ministerial statement in the chamber holding any sway in court. The provision must be clearly written into the bill rather than our relying on a ministerial statement in the chamber, which, according to the advice that we received, has no legal status.
I take that point, although my understanding is that ministerial statements have legal status in situations of ambiguity.
A statement can be presented, but it is not definitive.
It might be helpful if I put on the record the reference that we are after. Section 47 of the Government of Wales Act 1998 provides that the Welsh Assembly must,
The main thing is for the idea that you mentioned to be included. I am sure that the clerks noted down that idea, but it was that the bill gives public authorities a duty rather than conferring on individuals a right to sue.
That is helpful. We will have to finalise the wording, which we will do via e-mail when we have another formulation, but we have the framework. That was a helpful discussion, if I may say so. Are there any other comments on the section about status? Members will remember that at that point we bring in the reference to the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages.
Paragraph 36 says that we interpret the reference to Gaelic education in section 9 of the bill to mean not only Gaelic-medium education but the teaching of Gaelic as a second language. Should we add that we ask the Executive to reflect on any amendments that would clarify that?
It is part of the bill, so I think that that would be reasonable.
Are there any amendments to clarify?
We have not got to that stage, but the matter is confusing enough for us to say something about it in our report and if there is a simple way to clarify it in the bill we should ask the minister to reflect on that.
The balance of that paragraph is not quite right. I wondered whether the committee would accept, "The committee also recognises the vital importance of Gaelic-medium education in securing the future of the language, but interprets the reference to Gaelic education in section 9 of the bill as relating to the teaching of Gaelic as a second language, both to adults and children and young people, as well as to Gaelic-medium education." At the moment, the paragraph downplays Gaelic. Is that agreed?
Are there any points about pages 9, 10 or 11?
My point probably fits in around paragraph 50. I do not think that we have included a reference to the problems that part-time students face and the implications that that has for the supply of teachers. In some universities, it is more difficult and expensive for students to study part time. On Skye, there is the grow-your-own policy, which seeks to identify people in the community who could go away to study. I noticed that reference to that seemed to be missing.
Are you talking about the difficulty that teachers experienced in going to Skye for a period to study at the Gaelic college?
No, I am talking about the problems that people from the Highlands and Islands experience when they go to do the part-time course at the University of Aberdeen, for example. The people concerned are often older students, such as mothers with families. That is a problem not just with Gaelic courses; there are more general concerns about funding for part-time students.
Do we need to go into that level of detail in our report? Although I do not deny the validity of your point, it sounds as if it would be fiddly to fit it in.
I am not saying that it is a major issue, but it is one of the practical barriers to encouraging more people to go into teaching.
Do you have a phraseology that you would like to suggest?
Not off hand.
We could put in a sentence on that. The clerks will do that.
In line 2 of paragraph 50, the word "in" is missing. It should be inserted after "a step change".
Okay.
Should that go before or after paragraph 49?
There is a question about where it would be most convenient to put it.
As it is a fairly strong statement, I think that it deserves a paragraph on its own.
It is a recommendation. Perhaps it would fit in earlier on in the report.
We want to ensure that it is not contradicted by paragraph 49, which begins
You are right: it should go after paragraph 49.
In effect, we are saying that the Executive has that strategic duty.
Absolutely.
Instead of saying that it is local authorities' responsibility to provide incentives, could we say that that is their key role? That would work better, given that we will have just made a strong statement about the Executive's role in the development of Gaelic-medium education.
We are putting that statement after paragraph 49, rather than before it.
Okay; we will leave paragraph 49 as it is.
Paragraph 52 does not really make sense. The first sentence should read: "The Committee whole-heartedly supports this view and believes that pupils receiving Gaelic-medium education should receive a quality standard of education that happens to be in the medium of Gaelic." I do not think that we need the Hawaiian example. We are reinforcing the evidence that Sabhal Mòr Ostaig gave us. Our point is about quality standards. We go on to support Highland Council's arguments and to say that there needs to be a connection with the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000.
You are suggesting that we should knock out the bit about Hawaiian speakers. I agree that it does not add anything.
I do not like the statement that
Some reference is made to the difficulties that the emphasis on Gaelic can cause for other parts of the curriculum.
That comes later on in the report. We should take out the Hawaiian example and just stop paragraph 52 after the first sentence.
I do not like the phrase:
The issue is that those pupils should receive a quality standard of education. The emphasis is probably right when you say it, but it does not read well on the page.
When we were at Portree Primary School, we heard evidence that much more support was needed for Gaelic-medium teachers, but we were told that only certain subjects were taught in the medium of Gaelic.
That comes later on in the report.
That implies that everything should be in the medium of Gaelic, and that is certainly not what is happening at present. It is quite a big leap.
Should not we say something like "receiving education in the medium of Gaelic wherever possible"? I do not think that we can say that education should always be in the medium of Gaelic, because there are resource issues.
Yes.
That would be better.
The issue is about standards, and the standard is an educational standard, not a Gaelic standard.
Your suggested phrase was something about receiving a quality standard of education.
Yes. The issue is that, regardless of whether somebody is being taught in English or in Gaelic, every child deserves to receive a quality standard of education. That is important because it is a reference that ties into the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000.
Let us not lose that reference. That is the way to put it: regardless of whether education is in Gaelic or in English, it ought to be of high quality. However, there is still the other point about education in the medium of Gaelic across the curriculum wherever possible in Gaelic-medium schools.
I think that that is right, but it probably fits in later on in the report, because we mention the evidence that we received in Skye about the limited range of the curriculum.
Is that manageable?
Yes. Do you want to delete the sentence that starts with "Furthermore"?
I would delete it.
It does not add anything. The phraseology that Fiona Hyslop suggested earlier begins to give us the picture.
We could put it the other way round. We could say that there is no evidence to suggest that there has been any lack of quality. In fact, if anything, the anecdotal evidence is that Gaelic-medium education is of a very high quality.
Except on the issue of materials. There was evidence that, although the achievements of Gaelic-medium pupils were no less good, they were struggling with fewer resources. That is referred to later in the report.
That is the important point. The materials and content are as much the responsibility of the local authority, under the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000, as they will be the responsibility of the bòrd. I do not think that the bòrd should necessarily act as an inspectorate of education for materials.
I support the view that that sentence should perhaps just go. I do not think that it adds anything to the report. There is a case for saying that, because of the rarity of Gaelic-medium teachers as a resource, those that we have are of very high quality and have considerable commitment.
I do not think that we need to go into that. By putting a reference to that in the report, we are trying to ensure that there is an educational standard and to make the point that there is education legislation that needs to be upheld.
I think that members agree that we should redo the phraseology to reflect our view that, whether it is in Gaelic or in English, there should be high-quality education. We are talking about the standard of education and we shall knock out the second sentence in that paragraph and move the reference to having Gaelic across the curriculum in Gaelic-medium schools to a later part of the report.
In paragraph 54—
Can anyone explain paragraph 54 to me?
Well, the provision already exists. That is why we need to change paragraph 54, which reflects the reference to the guidance on Gaelic in the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000 that is already in the bill. We need to move the reference to the quality of education five lines down, to where we mention what we think the Executive should consider presenting as an amendment to the bill. We need to say something along the lines of "to strengthen the role and responsibilities in the provision of Gaelic in the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000". That leaves it open to suggestions that might come from the minister or from members of the committee in future. We are reflecting the fact that responsibility for standards in education ultimately lies at the door of local authorities, as directed by the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000 and as inspected by HMIE.
I am not sure that I have got to the nub of the problem. When the matter was discussed previously, I thought that there was a more substantial point. The position is that the Standards in Scotland's School etc Act 2000 will be amended by the bill so that there will be a requirement for education authorities to have regard to the guidance from the bòrd. That seems to link the bòrd to the framework of the 2000 act, which refers to progressive education across the board, improving standards and getting the context right. I am not sure what we can say to strengthen that by further amendment.
I do not understand the change that is being suggested. The draft report states that the bòrd has to refer to the Standards in Scotland's School etc Act 2000, but it is being suggested that there should be an amendment to say that the 2000 act should apply to the bòrd.
That is what Highland Council suggests. It has suggested some amendments to us, and that is what it thinks should happen. There should be a reciprocal arrangement, whereas currently the traffic is one way.
Is that definitely the case? I am not sure that it is.
Yes, it is.
Could we go back a stage and recommend that the minister might care to look more closely at the relationship between the 2000 act and the bill to ensure that they interface adequately? Would that be all right? We should think about the matter further.
Paragraph 56 refers to the national resource centre. My understanding is that a lot of the development of material is done by individual teachers in, for example, the Glasgow Gaelic School and schools in Skye and elsewhere and by the Gaelic college. Should that be reflected in the text?
The Gaelic college could be recognised as a centre of educational excellence that has developed enormously. That would help.
I think that that is done by the existing phraseology.
On paragraph 61, I think that we should stop the first sentence after "Gaelic medium education". I do not think that what is said after that is accurate. The sentence up to that point states:
You are right. That phrase confuses matters.
If we make that change, we could state in paragraph 62 that some submissions said that such a right should be similar to the Welsh situation, but then state
Okay. We will move on to page 14.
Is "deliverability", in paragraph 64, a word? I suggest that the third line should instead state that the committee
That is certainly more elegant.
We should try to be more explicit about what we are saying where we currently use the phrase "the language learning process" at the end of paragraph 64. I suggest that the second sentence should read: "However, the committee believes that the establishment of such a right should be a commitment and aim"—rather than an aspiration—"of the national plans and all local plans from education authorities." That is what we mean. All local authorities should have a Gaelic language plan eventually, but they might not all have such a plan in phase 1, as Bòrd na Gàidhlig has said that it will require 10 public bodies each year to produce a Gaelic language plan.
I am not quite sure whether that is what we mean. I like a good bit of the phraseology that you use—I have made similar written comments—but I think that your suggestion takes over the function of the Bòrd na Gàidhlig, whose job it is to say whether, to what extent and at what point one moves forward through the process.
I am not saying that we should take over that function; I am suggesting that we should say that the establishment of such a right should be a commitment and aim of the national and local plans.
Are we saying that there should be a statutory right to Gaelic-medium education across the country in every local authority in the land? Maybe we will say that, but I am not entirely convinced that that is quite what we are saying at this point.
I think that I made a suggestion about this matter last week. The word "right" is the one that gets us into difficulty because it suggests something statutory and, as I think Ken Macintosh suggested, relates to the ability to sue and so on. However, I think that we agreed last week that, as an aspiration, we should try to ensure that everyone in Scotland has access to Gaelic-medium education. That means that, for example, East Ayrshire could provide that facility for East Ayrshire, North Ayrshire and South Ayrshire and that North Lanarkshire might provide it for South Lanarkshire. However, if you build in the word, "right", it sounds as if people could go to court and sue North Ayrshire Council because it is not providing Gaelic-medium education in every school in North Ayrshire. I do not think that any of us are suggesting that that would be a realistic proposition in our lifetime.
Do members of the committee accept that as the aspiration? I think that Alex Neil put it in a helpful way.
I have no difficulty with what Alex Neil is saying, apart from the fact that the section in the report that we are discussing is headed "Statutory right to Gaelic medium education". A lot of people are hung up on the issue of there being a right to Gaelic-medium education and we have to say, one way or another, where we stand on that issue. While I agree with Alex Neil that we are going down the route of developing greater access and that we believe that people should have a right to access a school that provides Gaelic-medium education—not necessarily in their local neighbourhood—and that local authorities, working together, have a duty to provide some sort of reasonable access, it is important to state that we are not endorsing the creation of an absolute right, which is what some people are pushing for.
That is essentially what Alex Neil was saying.
Secondly, we need a phraseology along the following lines: "The committee believes that a right of access to Gaelic-medium education throughout Scotland should be an aspiration for the future as the language planning process moves forward."
Fine, but could we say that the language planning process should be reflected in the national plan and all local plans from education authorities?
There is a point at which we might begin to instruct the Bòrd na Gàidhlig instead of laying out the high-level strategy. I do not know whether your suggestion adds too much to the paragraph.
Well, perhaps it does. It is not unreasonable for the Parliament to say to the bòrd that it expects the national plan and all local plans to reflect that aspiration. We are not prescribing when, where and the extent to which the aspiration must be met; instead, we are simply giving the direction that we expect all plans to reflect the aspiration.
Your wording is very good and is not too prescriptive.
Perhaps the last two lines of paragraph 64, which say:
My only concern is the phrase "depending on", which is why I wanted to end the paragraph with "as the language planning process moves forward". Some progress is being made on the matter and we should show our commitment to that instead of leaving the sort of ifs-and-buts tone of the current phrase.
Why do we not follow your suggestion about the language planning process with the clause "and therefore we would expect it to be reflected in national plans"? At least that points to a tangible end result. Anyone who is not involved in the language planning process might wonder what it means to them. We need to make it clear that we expect the local plans to have—
The point about the language planning process seems almost superfluous, because the issue centres on the national and local plans.
Exactly.
I do not see your point.
If we refer to all local authorities, we are making it clear that we expect all local authorities to reflect the aspiration in their plans. However, that does not necessarily mean that every local authority will make a commitment to do so from day one. We know that. I just think that we need to be a bit more explicit.
I do not think that I agree with you. My suggestion hits the fulcrum of the committee's views; I accept that it does not entirely reflect your view, but perhaps it reflects other members' views a little more accurately. I believe that what I have proposed hits the sense of the meeting, if I can use that Quaker expression in such a way. Obviously, I am happy to consider any amendments, but I feel that my approach is reasonable.
If members have no other comments on page 14, we move on to page 15.
I cannot remember the figures, but I recall being struck by the situation in primary 1 at Portree Primary School. Not all the children in Gaelic-medium education have Gaelic-speaking parents; support is needed not just for parents who are native Gaelic speakers but for parents who are learning the language.
I think that we have specifically made that point in paragraph 71.
Yes, but I want to make it clear that we are talking about both.
I am sorry—could you repeat that?
We want to support non-Gaelic-speaking parents whose children are learning Gaelic. However, the question is whether Gaelic-speaking parents should also receive support. They seem to have been left out.
You are right. Intergenerational transmission somewhat implies that over a number of years Gaelic has been discouraged in popular culture in some Western Isles Council and Highland Council areas. People regard it as a sign of failure if someone speaks Gaelic instead of being linguistically competent in English.
Perhaps you should try to capture that intergenerational transmission idea, which we can then link to the point about parents in paragraph 71.
Yes, I think that we can do something there.
I am not quite sure whether the phraseology is the best, but I would say that children in GME in many parts of Scotland—Glasgow and Edinburgh, for example—are unlikely to have Gaelic-speaking parents. We need to be quite strong on the point about support for non-Gaelic-speaking parents, who are probably the majority in most areas of Scotland.
I am conscious of the fact that we have sometimes not made the distinction between Gaelic-speaking areas, where a significant number of people speak Gaelic, and other areas, where it is an unusual minority occupation, as it were. We need to draw that out a little bit in this context.
Could we avoid the phrase "intergenerational transmission"? It sounds like an illness. I do not want to sound like Roy Jenkins trying to draft a report here but, in language terms, it—
I know. I take your point.
We should be reasonably subtle.
We want the concept to be clear.
Make it simple.
I thought that that phrase was widely used in Shettleston. [Laughter.]
Many languages are used in Shettleston.
It does not necessarily mean exactly what it sounds like it means, does it?
It is not for broadcast.
Let us turn to page 16.
I thought that we were missing an opportunity to go a bit further than we have done on page 16.
On the economic value of Gaelic?
I was thinking more about the Scottish Executive's role. Although broadcasting is a reserved matter, the budget for Gaelic broadcasting is devolved.
Yes. That is a good point.
Control over Gaelic broadcasting effectively lies in Scotland. We cannot legislate in non-devolved areas, but we could certainly ask the Scottish Executive to clarify its role in Gaelic broadcasting and Bòrd na Gàidhlig's role in advising the Executive in that respect. We are missing an opportunity if we simply say that
That is a valid point. We have always accepted that education and broadcasting were the two legs on which the development of the language mostly stood.
I agree with Ken Macintosh. There are two fundamental issues here. First, we should ask more strongly about the progress that has been made to find appropriate funding to meet the development needs of Gaelic broadcasting. In blunt terms, there is not a lot of money, and it falls into different categories of Executive spend. Some areas of Executive expenditure find things disproportionately difficult in comparison with others.
So this is about transmission and the review of the BBC charter.
There is a real opportunity here, which might allow ministers to respond collectively and in a more appropriate way than might have been the case in the past.
When I was minister with responsibility for education, I was always told not only that Gaelic had an economic value, but that its encouragement was of great benefit to the Gaelic community. Encouragement increased the self-confidence of people whose first language was Gaelic, for example when they applied for jobs. If Gaelic was encouraged, people who had the language were much more able to get the jobs that were suited to their aptitudes, abilities and inclinations. The overall benefit of that to the Gaelic community is worth recognising.
That is a good point, although we did not hear a lot of evidence on that area. I have slight concerns that we have not fully reflected the possibilities of that bit of the bill, but I do not think that we have an awfully strong evidence base on which to say much more. However, I take the point on board.
I thought that Ken Macintosh's wording was good. Was he not trying to—
What wording?
I suggested asking the Scottish Executive to clarify its role and Bòrd na Gàidhlig's role in Gaelic broadcasting.
We are mixing up two issues. Rightly or wrongly, I noted that we wanted to take on board Ken Macintosh's and Frank McAveety's comments—I reflect the lack of dissentients and of boos during that discussion. James Douglas-Hamilton's comment deals with a separate issue that falls under the heading "Economic value of Gaelic". The point about self-confidence was also valid and the committee agreed with it.
We will revise the phrasing reasonably substantially to cover what members have said. Mark Roberts will be burning the midnight oil after the committee's efforts today.
The next heading is "Other Organisations". Pages 16 and 17 deal with UK bodies.
The accuracy of some of what is on page 17 needs to be tightened. What is said is based on what Margo Macdonald—we should emphasise that that is the legal adviser and not the MSP—told us.
So the information is much more accurate.
The adviser's name is Margaret, not Margo.
We need to be sure that the report is accurate. I will point out two or three places in which more accuracy is needed. Paragraph 79 says:
I thought that that was mentioned somewhere, but I cannot see it.
You may remember that five categories of body were described. The bill clearly applies to the wholly devolved body with purely devolved functions. It also applies to the devolved functions but not to the reserved functions of cross-border bodies with reserved and devolved functions and of reserved bodies with a mixture of reserved and devolved functions. The Food Standards Agency Scotland is in a category of its own. That can be dealt with fine, because it just requires an amendment to the bill, according to the legal advice.
The missing core relates to bodies with reserved and devolved functions. It is probably right to say that we can do things with devolved functions, but not with the rest. Is that all right?
It is fair to say, as the bottom of page 17 does, that we can cover the reserved functions of cross-border agencies or reserved bodies in Scotland if we obtain an order in council.
I, too, have noted that. I will make a suggestion about paragraphs 83 and 84. Paragraph 83 states:
I think that there should be another sentence in there. We should say, "This is based on the assumption that there would be co-operation from the relevant reserved bodies." We have to get two-way co-operation. I am sure that the bòrd will co-operate with cross-border agencies and reserved bodies. The issue is whether all the reserved bodies and cross-border agencies will co-operate with the bòrd. Although we cannot build it into the bill, we should express in our report a hope that the bodies will co-operate with the bòrd.
The way the paragraph reads just now suggests that the order in council would always be used as a last resort as a legal sanction. The Westminster Government and the reserved organisations might in a spirit of co-operation want to find ways to improve their Gaelic provision as a positive step forward. We should not say anything that implies that the order in council will always be used as a legal sanction. Westminster and reserved bodies might agree to do something as a matter of course, as housekeeping. The emphasis of the report should be that seeking an order in council is a legal mechanism and is not necessarily always a legal sanction.
The phraseology that I suggested covers that, because it knocks out the reference to the order in council. I wanted to add another recommendation using the phraseology, "The committee also believes that it is anomalous that the bill, unlike its Welsh equivalent, does not apply to all public bodies operating in Scotland, both reserved and devolved. It urges the Scottish Executive to seek a formal undertaking from Westminster that bodies under its control will co-operate with the spirit of the bill." That does not get us into orders in council, which might be necessary later, but it develops the partnership aspect and gives a bit of a push to some of the people who we have heard have not done what they should have done. Would that be okay?
That is fine, but we are not talking only about bodies under the sole control of the UK Government but about bodies under shared control of the UK Government and the devolved Administration. We need to ensure that we cover both.
My phraseology covers that as it refers to "all bodies operating in Scotland, both reserved and devolved", which is a general phrase. Are members happy with that? I appreciate that we are touching on the edges of the constitutional settlement, but it is important. I was struck by the oddity that the Welsh Language Bill, which the UK Parliament passed, applied to UK bodies, whereas the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill did not, because of the division between the Scottish Parliament and UK Parliament in that context.
We could add in a sentence saying that this is the arrangement pending independence.
I thought that I had hit the fulcrum of the committee's thoughts on that.
I note with interest that Alex Neil did not include a date.
It is an aspiration.
Or an obsession.
We move further down page 18 to private and voluntary sector organisations and courts. Is that bit all right? I think that it probably is.
We got evidence of that from Sabhal Mòr Ostaig.
Yes. For what it is worth, we also got it from the body that dealt with English as an additional language when we discussed the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Bill.
On your previous amendment to the paragraph on cross-border bodies, I take it that we are leaving paragraph 84 as it is.
Yes. We will check that it runs together all right.
I did not understand paragraph 84 until Alex Neil repeated the explanation that was given to the committee last week. Currently, the paragraph stands out, because the reader wonders why the bill should encompass the Food Standards Agency Scotland. It is perhaps worth while explaining that the agency is a unique body.
In law, the Food Standards Agency Scotland is a Government department rather than an agency or quango. Apparently, it is the only body of its kind that has that status.
We might want to prefix paragraph 84 with something like "Recognising its unique standing under the constitution".
The issue that arises, perhaps, is whether the Food Standards Agency is a mule that cannot breed and produce other bodies of the same kind.
I was unsure about paragraph 90. I thought that the statement that the Minister for Education and Young People made to the committee was stronger than the evidence from the Welsh Language Board. This is not an important point, but it seems a bit strange to quote the Welsh Language Board, which has just lost its independent status and been taken back into the Welsh Assembly Government. The board's evidence is not particularly impressive, given that Wales seems to have changed its mind on the issue. The minister, on the other hand, made a strong statement to the effect that he wanted to set up Bòrd na Gàidhlig because not all future ministers might be as sympathetic to Gaelic as he is. The minister's statement was very clear.
I thought that we had agreed that the section on Bòrd na Gàidhlig should not start with the example of the Welsh Language Board for the very reasons that Ken Macintosh has outlined.
The Welsh Language Board does not provide a very strong example.
The language in the paragraph has been turned round since last week. Ken Macintosh's point is absolutely valid, but the Welsh Language Board's evidence uses some good phraseology, which is in some ways better than the minister's.
Perhaps we could incorporate both elements. We could say that we welcome Peter Peacock's comments about the need to provide an assurance that a government body will articulate the needs of the Gaelic community. We need some phraseology for that—I am afraid that none comes to mind—to strengthen the paragraph. However, I agree that there is a dichotomy between paragraph 90 as it stands and the decision, which was understandable in the Welsh context, to bring the Welsh Language Board under the control of the Welsh Executive.
When we met the chief executive of the Welsh Language Board, we got the impression—although he did not say this to us—that the decision to bring the board in house was contentious.
But the decision was still taken. Assuming that people do not act irrationally, we must assume that there was some evidence for that decision.
In this context, I think that it is valid to refer to the experience of the Welsh Language Board, at least in its developmental phase. We need some phraseology around that, but it should go further down the page, after the comment from the minister.
We should refer to the historical context. The Welsh Language Board was set up some time ago. To a great extent, we are playing catch-up, in that we are only now establishing a language board. I think that we should mention the Welsh Language Board at the start of this section on Bòrd na Gàidhlig.
Currently, the draft report does not present the issue fully, but the argument is that the Welsh Language Board is being mainstreamed now that it has developed the language base to a certain stage. Having been in existence for a number of years, the board has got the language up to the desired level. On any view, that is not the position of Gaelic.
On a presentational point, I suggest that we need headings for the different subsections of this section of the report. If we had a heading about the bòrd's independence from the Executive and another heading about the bòrd's structure and membership, the reader would find it easier to identify the issues.
That would be helpful.
Paragraph 101 states:
I think that we already make that point at the end of paragraph 101, which refers to the need for "particular educational expertise."
However, particular educational expertise is currently given just as an example rather than as a requirement.
Lord James's point is that there is a difference between saying that all members should have some knowledge and saying that some members should have expertise.
There are various ways of reflecting that. Some people said that every member of the bòrd should be a fluent Gaelic speaker—or words to that effect. We rejected that position because it might exclude people with expertise whom we would want to include. Most members of the bòrd will be fluent Gaelic speakers, but that does not mean that there cannot be one member who is not fluent but brings other skills. In addition, someone on the bòrd should specifically have expertise in education. I think that that was Lord James's point.
No, that point is covered by paragraph 99. I am quite happy with paragraph 99, which says that the bòrd should have
You are suggesting that there should be someone on the bòrd with experience of Gaelic-medium education.
We can change paragraph 99 to recommend that the bòrd should include members who have effective expertise in Gaelic-medium education.
That is probably a better way of putting it.
We could include in paragraph 99 the need for specialist expertise in the language. Paragraph 101 comes at the matter from the wrong direction. There is obviously a need for some members of the bòrd to be fluent Gaelic speakers, as Lord James says, but we want to make the point in paragraph 101 that we would also welcome people with other areas of expertise.
I suggest that we add "including Gaelic-medium education" at the end of paragraph 99.
Paragraph 101 seems to be all right per se; the question is what is missing from paragraph 99.
Rather than have paragraphs 98, 99 and 100, would it be better to have one paragraph that calls on the minister to ensure that when the bòrd is appointed its membership reflects a mixture of expertise and experience, including for example experience in education and in speaking Gaelic? We should also build in expertise in minority languages outwith Scotland and the UK, so that there can be an international perspective. I think that one of the witnesses from Bòrd na Gàidhlig was Canadian and had a background in minority languages. We talked about the European charter for minority languages. I am not suggesting that this should be a statutory requirement, but it might be useful for the bòrd to include someone who has experience of minority languages in other parts of Europe.
I agree. The phrase would be "educational expertise such as"—
Such as education and the other areas of expertise that we mentioned, but we should make it clear that the list is not exhaustive.
The words "such as" would indicate that what followed was an illustration. Shall we make that amendment?
I thought that we had already got quite close to what we wanted. Nothing is lacking in the wording that we have. We are not stipulating that the bòrd must include someone who has experience of minority languages. That would be desirable, but it is not necessary. However, we are strongly recommending that someone on the bòrd should be an expert in Gaelic and that someone on the bòrd should be an expert in education, including Gaelic-medium education. Those are two strong commitments. We are also rejecting the proposal that every member of the bòrd must speak Gaelic. We must make all three points but we must certainly make the last point, which rejects a specific recommendation that was made to us.
We should have another go at the wording, because there is a lack of coherence in how the points are coming through. Ken Macintosh's suggestion would make the points in a more focused way.
We can revise paragraphs 98 to 101.
Yes.
We know what we are trying to achieve; the question is how we present it.
I venture to suggest that the clerks have the expertise to do that.
We move on to page 21.
In paragraph 105 we say that there is a case for
That is the nub of the matter. As we said, if everything is limited by the current demand, we will not tap into the potential demand and we will simply make provision to meet existing demand rather than to develop for the future.
I think that the phraseology is all right, to be honest. I take the point about research. We had some evidence about research and watching the census figures, but I do not think that it is central to the point.
The bold section in paragraph 105 ends with the words "potential for use". Might it help if we substitute that with the phrase "potential demand"? That would leave research separate.
I disagree with that. The whole point is that we want to move away from the concept of demand, which refers to the current demand, to use, which could mean future use.
What about "future demand", then?
We are trying to say that the early tranches of Gaelic plans should cover not only those areas where there is a high level of Gaelic speech already, but some of the areas that had a Gaelic tradition in the past but which have very little in the way of Gaelic at the moment.
That is why I suggested Perth and Kinross. It is in the middle of Scotland and it has a lot of Gaelic place names. I think—I do not know, because I do not have detailed local knowledge—that there is probably a demand and a potential there.
We could use "demand and potential".
Yes.
We move on to page 22 of the draft report. Under paragraph 114, there might be an issue about whether an outline of the parameters of the guidance to Bòrd na Gàidhlig would be in the bill. I am not sure whether that is of major significance. The issue is how far we should go in the bill in specifying what the outline of the parameters of the guidance should be. Would we appreciate clarification from the minister on the extent to which the parameters would be in the bill and the extent to which they would be in subordinate legislation?
In paragraph 110, we refer to the review of the Gaelic language plans every five years. Should we not be a bit more specific in paragraph 111 and recommend that the Executive review the national plan every five years? In a sense, the bòrd will be reviewed every three years as part of the comprehensive spending review and will no doubt also be subject to quinquennial review, so to review the national plan any more often than every five years is, to be frank, unproductive. Perhaps we should make the two recommendations consistent.
I am advised that, in fact, the recommendations are consistent, because the Scottish Executive's performance review of the bòrd is five-yearly anyway.
Should we build that in, then? Some organisations in Scotland are getting reviewed to death.
The draft report says that the plan should be reviewed "at regular intervals"; do we want to say "five-yearly intervals" specifically?
We did not hear much about the time of review.
I do not think that we want to say it. How about adding "five-yearly" between "possibly" and "at the same time as"?
That gives an element of clarity.
I have a separate point. The end of paragraph 116 talks about
The councils that have developed Gaelic policies have taken advantage of the Gaelic-specific grant. Therefore, funding has already gone into the development of Gaelic.
Possibly, but we did not take a huge amount of evidence on that issue. Our report should state that the funding ought to be balanced fairly. At present, the report seems to endorse the view that the councils that have a long way to go in developing a Gaelic policy should receive more funding from the Executive than the councils that already do a lot for Gaelic.
I do not read the report as saying that, but other members may have different views.
From what I remember from last week's meeting, the point that we wanted to capture was that we received different evidence from different local authorities. We wanted to compare and contrast, but particularly to emphasise Highland Council's view—which was basically that upfront funding is needed—rather than say anything about who should get how much. Ken Macintosh is right that, in public policy, bad performance is too often rewarded with more money than good performance is. However, we do not want to discuss that issue in the report. We can compare and contrast the evidence that we took on the issue, but we should reflect that Highland Council stated that the scare stories of some organisations about the bill's cost implications might not be true.
Paragraph 118 states:
I do not want to pick on Glasgow City Council, which was the first council to develop a Gaelic-medium education secondary school and has done a huge amount for Gaelic, which required financial commitment. However, we should make it clear that we want a fair allocation of funds to local authorities. We should say, "The implication is that for public authorities there could be a need for upfront funding, but this should be distributed fairly." I am not sure whether we need to discuss the point about rewarding.
That is right, but it would be wrong of us not to reflect in the report the different evidence on the costs that we received from local authorities. We do not have to pass judgment on that, but it would be wrong not to reflect the differences.
In the paragraph in which we quote from Glasgow City Council's evidence, we state that the costs could vary.
Could we not quote Highland Council as well?
Ken Macintosh offered a solution, which was to state, "The implication of this is that there could be a need for upfront funding before the normal costs of Gaelic provision can be mainstreamed into normal operations. The distribution of additional available funds must be done on a fair basis." That captures both of the distinct points.
We should bear it in mind that none of that is recommendation. The point in paragraph 119 about saving costs by using a template in different authorities is relevant.
Well done.
I report that, unsurprisingly, the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body has approved the translation of our report into Gaelic. Oddly enough, the report on the matter to the corporate body said that the alternative option was not to translate the report into Gaelic, which seemed a bit bureaucratic.
Meeting closed at 12:30.
Previous
Proposed Early Years Inquiry