Education, Culture and Sport Committee, 26 Nov 2002

Meeting date: Tuesday, November 26, 2002

Official Report 194KB pdf

---

Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill

Pertinently, item 4 on the agenda concerns the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill, in the name of Mr Michael Russell and Mr John Farquhar Munro.

On a point of order, convener. Is it appropriate for me to remain and discuss the bill as a member of the committee, as I am also the proposer of the bill? If it is not appropriate, I am happy to withdraw. I might even be prepared to sit in silence in the corner, but I think that I would rather withdraw, because being silent is harder.

The thought of you sitting in silence in the corner fills the committee with such glee that, if I was devious, I would suggest that that should happen at every meeting. However, there is no requirement for you to withdraw. The advice from the clerks is that, as a member of the committee, you are entitled to remain to discuss the matter, so I ask you to do that. However, I hope that you will not try to use your position on the committee to sway members before we discuss the bill.

I hope that that was a joke.

It was a joke.

Even my silver-tongued eloquence could not sway you had you decided otherwise, given your well-known stubborn nature.

I hope that you are not suggesting that the convener is stubborn, Mr Russell.

We have a paper in front of us. With the clerks, I have tried to draw together a way forward on the bill that I hope will help us to take it through the initial parliamentary process, as well as allow us to conduct stage 2 of the Protection of Children (Scotland) Bill and stage 1 of the children's commissioner bill. I hope that the paper is helpful. It sets out a timetable. I hope that members accept that it is a way in which to proceed.

If we accept the paper, I hope that we will seek written evidence as a matter of urgency, and that we will timetable the two oral evidence sessions. The paper lists a number of possible witnesses. I suggest that we timetable witnesses for 10 December and 17 December, and have further evidence sessions in the first weeks of the new year, because we should do the bill justice and discuss the issues in full, and that would be better done over that time scale. If members agree, that is the way in which I ask the committee to proceed.

I am very happy with the paper and am grateful that it has been presented today.

I want to raise two issues. First, it seems appropriate to invite a reporter from the Local Government Committee, which was a secondary committee, to join this committee, if the Local Government Committee is agreeable to that. My second point is a query. On 10 December, Douglas Ansdell, the head of the Scottish Executive Gaelic unit, will appear before the committee. Members will recall the evidence that we received from the director of Historic Scotland. Given that the head of the Gaelic unit is relevant to this bill only in so far as the minister is relevant, and that advice to ministers may become part of the questioning, is it entirely appropriate for him to appear before the committee on that date? Should he be brought in once the evidence has been taken and perhaps appear alongside the minister?

The situation that arose when we took evidence from Historic Scotland was, quite frankly, farcical. Until there is a review of current civil service practice, Michael Russell is right that we will not get any answers from the civil servant in question about advice to ministers. Unless the questions are on more general policy areas, for example, about advice given to ministers on the bill, I do not think that it would be worth while. If the questions are on more general policy matters, it may be worth while. It is really about guidance. If the head of the Gaelic unit appeared before the committee on the same day as the minister, and perhaps before him—

If Comunn na Gàidhlig, Comhairle nan Eilean Siar and Highland Council, which has been a leader in this field, gave evidence to the committee on the same day, we would get the perspective of Commun na Gàidhlig. In addition—and perhaps more important at this stage—we would get a local authority perspective from bilingual authorities and from people who will be affected by the bill. Certainly, Comhairle nan Eilean Siar is a bilingual authority and Highland Council has worked very hard in those areas. They are, after all, the focus of the bill.

I suggest that we take evidence from Commun na Gàidhlig, and local authorities, sooner rather than later because that would be helpful. We are on a tight timescale. I do not know how busy we will be on 10 December and 17 December with amendments to the Protection of Children (Scotland) Bill. I would be hesitant to invite people down from the Western Isles to appear before the committee, only for them not to be called until 6 pm if we have a series of amendments to consider.

It will not make any difference if they cannot get a plane back until the next day.

Exactly. For the committee to do justice to the issue, it will not help to hear evidence rushed at the end of the meeting after a whole series of amendments. Much will depend on the number of amendments to the Protection of Children (Scotland) Bill, especially on 10 December. I suggest that we hear more detailed evidence from folk who must travel a distance either on 17 December or in the first week back after the recess.

It might be easier to hear Donald Meek and Dr Kenneth Mackinnon then, because their views are comparatively well known. The local authorities and Comunn na Gàidhlig could then appear on 17 December.

For clarification, are you talking about all local authorities affected, which includes Argyll and Bute? There might be a difference between authorities that are very aware of what may be required and authorities that perhaps have been slow—

North Ayrshire Council is also included, because of Arran.

It is important to get that agreed.

I accept that point.