Chamber and committees

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

Do you recognise that the independence of that form of analysis is very important? I cite the landmark publication of “The Gaelic Crisis in the Vernacular Community”, which proved controversial in policy circles. Some of the well founded and deeply researched issues in that publication showed the depth of the decline. Although it might be a point of debate, independent research that holds the policy community and the Government to account for their actions is vitally important. In that regard, directly commissioned work from the Government might have its limitations.

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.

We are at that point in the meeting when I will just ask questions about things that we have already covered—probably things that I did not understand. We will go back to a few of them.

The convener touched on the in-year position this year. In its initial response to the budget, the Institute for Fiscal Studies said that the Scottish budget for 2025-26

“excludes £1.3 billion of funding that Budget documentation implies that the Scottish Government still has to allocate to services this year.”

It went on to say that,

“despite previously suggesting it had already accounted for the top-up to its funding announced in the UK Budget in its financial planning for the current financial year, the Scottish Government is, in effect, planning to carry forward £400 million for use in future years.”

Can you set out your understanding of the in-year situation and what we might see in terms of carry-forwards?

The £30 million that you mentioned is 0.05 per cent of the overall budget. It is not really a plan for reform. You have previously set out the issues with reform, but you have also set out the headwinds and direction of travel on the social security budget as a share of the overall budget and the relationship to the block grant allocations. Does the budget not just reinforce some of the problems that you identified rather than address them?

So your message to the Government would be that you want to see a process for that now, rather than wait until we get those numbers.

How much of what is being carried forward will be available in future years?