Chamber and committees

I thank the cabinet secretary for her comments, and I think that there is some common ground here on the lack of frequency of reporting with regard to the status—or state—of the language, as far as the level is concerned. I sense that we are moving towards a commitment to doing something about reporting in terms of the areas of linguistic significance, and on that basis, and if there is a commitment to having further discussions ahead of stage 3 on how we ensure that this is in the bill, I am happy not to press amendment 47.

Amendment 47, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 9—Gaelic language plans

Amendments 48 to 50 moved—[Ross Greer]—and agreed to.

That is fair; that could be one way to do it. What I have proposed in amendment 67 and what we are considering pushing for inclusion in the bill—we are waiting for the reaction to the proposal—is to be very specific about the broader context in which Gaelic exists. At the moment we are looking at what, in the main, feels to me like an education bill, but we must specifically recognise and address the fact that the key factors that will underpin the survival of the language are not purely educational. There are broader issues. A strategy must take account of those and the Government should present it now.

I take the constructive criticism that there could be duplication between a strategy and the reporting mechanisms that I propose, and that there might be a case for finding a crossover between the two. The point is to try to see the issue in all its complexity and in the round, while setting out the key data that is associated with it.

The recent work from the Government—the short-life working group—was welcome and it set out some of those themes, but I am afraid that, already, it feels to me as though that work is gathering dust on a shelf in St Andrew’s house. We need opportunities both in the Parliament and in communities to hold the Government to account for the analysis that it has produced; it is positive that the work identified issues that pertain to the issues of economic survival. There is a recent track record of some good work, but we need the opportunities to make sure that we can hold the Government to account on it.

I move amendment 47.

On the first point, regarding census-level activity, I do not think that the amendment necessarily stipulates that that would be required in exactly that way. There are different methodologies by which the numbers could—more usefully, to be frank—be gauged. The Deputy First Minister will be aware of the rather novel way—as we might put it—in which the Scottish Government conducted the most recent census. I think that it is fair to say that it was slightly sub-optimal in comparison with the approach in the rest of the United Kingdom.

Using modelling options based on authoritative data sampling would provide different ways of gathering the information, rather than using the household approach, which the Scottish Government, in essence, abandoned—erroneously—in the previous census. There are options by which the information could be gathered, so I do not really hold to the point that the Deputy First Minister makes. Any reflections from her in that regard would therefore be useful.

More broadly, on the Deputy First Minister’s point relating to amendment 67 and how we would see those broader concerns reported on, I take her comments on board. However, when would she see the Parliament having an opportunity to hold her to account on the related actions that are set out in the bill? Yes, the requirement for data gathering is set out in amendment 55, but when would we see that and how regularly, and when would we be able to ensure that there was scrutiny in order to see whether the actions had been successful?

It has been a very useful discussion, and I agree with much of what members have said.

There is a core question about the urgency of the situation. I take some comfort in agreeing with what the Deputy First Minister said about setting the wrong targets and policy being driven in the wrong direction. Frankly, that happens far too often in Scotland. Some of her comments in describing the process seemed to be a very long-winded version of what we are trying to achieve. A big part of this is about urgency and ensuring that the bill’s intention—the survival of the language—is set out clearly.

However, I take on board and fully agree with the Deputy First Minister’s points about the complexity that sits below the numbers. In fact, that sits at the heart of my analysis of the census and the broader literature around the issue. It is one thing to have young people in the central belt of Scotland leaving Gaelic-medium education with some skills in the language then never speaking Gaelic again, but it is an entirely different thing to have people living in a Gaelic community using Gaelic daily as part of their culture and of how they live their lives. I understand that there could be a tension between the two, with the Government and its agencies driving towards the wrong outcome.

I hope that, rather than leaving some of the detail for the strategy, the Government will, ahead of stage 3, come round to the idea that the bill should include a real signal of intent, and I hope that other colleagues will agree with that. It might not be appropriate to set the direct targets that we are describing, but we should give a sense of impetus and urgency.

Scottish Labour has concerns about the scope of the bill, which we set out at stage 1. The key questions as to the survival of the Gaelic language relate to a functioning economy in communities in the areas in which Gaelic is already spoken. We know that the decline in the number of Gaelic speakers in those areas is precipitous. Experts have given the committee grave warnings about the future of the language without significant intervention. Good jobs, affordable housing and reliable transport links are all essential if we are to have a thriving economy in Gaelic-speaking areas. I believe that the bill is a missed opportunity for the kind of transformational change that Gaelic-speaking communities need. Some of my later amendments will give more detail on what that transformational change would be.

Turning to the detail of my amendments, I welcome the collegiate approach that the Deputy First Minister has taken thus far on the bill. I believe that there is cross-party consensus about the importance of the Gaelic language and the need to preserve it for future generations, which is very welcome.

However, I am concerned that, without measurable targets and outcomes, the legislation risks becoming symbolic. We cannot afford for there to be a cosy consensus in Holyrood that, in reality, does little to reverse the current trend of decline in the number of Gaelic speakers in traditional Gaelic-speaking areas. There is little point in the Government or the Parliament boasting about processes or inputs: it is outcomes that matter to people across the country.

My amendments in group 6 would insert a duty on Scottish ministers to specify targets in order to, in essence, define a core intent for the bill and a strategy for dealing with the precipitous collapse in the number of Gaelic speakers in Scotland. It is not really just about respect, as we have already heard, but about survival and the opportunity to thrive.

The targets that we have set out include the number of

“Gaelic speakers, broken down by geographical area ... candidates entered for Gaelic medium national qualifications”

and the number of

“candidates entered for national qualifications in Gaelic.”

I am under no illusion whatsoever that those targets would be silver bullets or that they would provide a solution, but I believe that they would strengthen the legislation so that the Parliament and the public could get a sense of what the legislation would achieve, and so that the Government could be held to account on whether it is allowing the Gaelic language to survive and thrive in Scotland.

I move amendment 8.

Would you agree that the census, which is held once a decade, is insufficient for our needs, in particular given the rapidity of the decline in the numbers? In essence, we could wait until the next census and find that Gaelic had effectively died in Scotland.

A big part of the amendments is acknowledgement that we cannot wait for that analysis, and that we need to do things more regularly in order to have a current understanding of the situation, because the situation is so dire that we have to address it. There is a clear issue around the timeframe and the urgency of doing something about the situation. Would the Deputy First Minister recognise that in her comments?

That was another useful discussion. I am happy to support Ross Greer’s amendments 79 and 80, and I welcome the cabinet secretary’s support. Given her indications on amendment 32, I am happy to withdraw it and have a broader conversation with her as to how we might progress the proposal.

I press amendment 26.

Amendment 26 agreed to.

Amendment 27 moved—[Michael Marra]—and agreed to.

Amendments 28 and 29 moved—[Kate Forbes]—and agreed to.

Amendments 30 and 31 moved—[Michael Marra]—and agreed to.

Amendment 79 moved—[Ross Greer]—and agreed to.

Section 6, as amended, agreed to.

After section 6

Amendment 32 not moved.

Section 7—Functions of relevant public authorities

My amendment 47 would require ministers to prepare a biennial report on the number of Gaelic speakers in Scotland. That ties in with some of the discussion that we had on the previous group of amendments, and with my earlier comments regarding amendments to insert into the bill provisions on measurable outcomes on Gaelic.

I recognise that there is no single measure by which the health status of the Gaelic language can be judged, but surely the most critical measure is the number of speakers in Scotland. As we have already explored this morning, the census is not an adequate means of measuring the number of Gaelic speakers in Scotland. The Deputy First Minister and other members of the committee have recognised and set that out.

Given the warnings that the committee has heard from authoritative experts about the decline in the number of Gaelic speakers and the risks to the future of the language in the next five to 10 years, it is not acceptable for Government or the Parliament to wait a decade for another census. To put it bluntly, by the time of the next census, it might well be too late. Gaelic communities need concrete actions to be taken now, and there must be a means for the Parliament to judge in a timely manner whether the actions that are being taken by Government are having the desired effect.

Many members of the Gaelic community have expressed to me that, as this will be the first bill on Gaelic since 2004, the Parliament has had a long time for in-depth consideration of the health of the language in their communities in the round. They cannot wait that long again, or even half that time. We need to make sure that we hold the Government to account on that on a regular basis. More particularly, we have to assess whether its actions are working, so that we can support the Government in getting new means by which to save Gaelic in Scotland.

I am yet to decide whether to move amendment 67, but with it I wanted to set out, as I mentioned earlier, that Scottish Labour is seriously concerned about the limited scope of the bill. It is clear that the bill was originally conceived as an education bill, and I fear that it may in the end represent a missed opportunity to revitalise the Gaelic language in communities where it is traditionally spoken. I am looking for recognition from the Deputy First Minister that the bill does not represent the full extent of the Government’s ambition for Gaelic and that we have to move well beyond it. I am looking for assurances that the Government will, at the earliest opportunity, seek to take more concrete actions to address the key economic questions of housing, jobs and infrastructure in Gaelic communities.

The Deputy First Minister would recognise that part of the significant reason why that does not happen is just a factor of the numbers. We have a very small Gaelic community as a component part of our overall population and, in many parts of the country, Gaelic is not spoken widely—in some areas, it is not spoken at all. The political reality of that is that there is a small group—of which you are one, as somebody who represents a Gaelic-speaking community. In essence, the weight of the concerns of other parts of the country cannot be allowed to drown out this vital issue. The Parliament will tend towards reflecting that. That is why legislation is an opportunity to put in place moments in the parliamentary calendar when reports might be lodged, where we can have a rhythm of scrutiny that does not lend itself to a moment of panic in 10 years’ time, when the census comes out and shows us a further precipitous decline. It is about the legislation and the purpose of trying to give the Parliament that moment—particularly for what is, by its very nature, a minority issue.

I certainly accept that that is an option. I have some reluctance in relation to where the targets are set. As, I think, the Deputy First Minister set out, Parliament might have a view on setting what the targets should be through a secondary measure or otherwise, and there would be broader consultation on them. However, I understand the complexity. Given the comments from across the room, there seems to be a willingness for development before stage 3.