Chamber and committees

Do you feel that things are okay as they are, with SEPA apparently taking a lead, or do you believe that the role should be given to local authorities? Do local authorities have the most important part of the consenting process?

Are you saying that we have more to gain through the system that we have in place rather than trying to streamline further, because we would lose elements if we did that?

Okay. Rachel, would you agree with that?

This group of amendments deals with minor and technical aspects of the proposed legislation.

The first four amendments are technical adjustments to the bill’s wording. My amendments, which were proposed by the Law Society of Scotland, seek to change certain phrases such as “is to” and “are then to” to “must”, to make the bill clearer and make it easier for members of the public to understand its requirements and intentions. They would remove ambiguity and strengthen the bill.

On amendment 54, section 12, on interpretation of the legislation, sets out definitions covering central aspects of the bill, such as the word “advertise” and the phrases “first owner” and “police officer”. The intention of the section is to define the meaning of those terms, but amendment 54 seeks to remove it entirely.

My amendments in this group seek to ensure that the bill is implemented as intended and to remove ambiguity of language and clear up interpretation. I ask members to support my amendments at this time.

I move amendment 64.

I query why a requirement for an email address should be included in the bill. Not everyone has an email address, and I wonder whether the member would consider removing that at stage 3 in case it prohibits anyone from fulfilling the terms of the bill.

I am a bit concerned about the instrument. I wonder whether an island communities impact assessment has been carried out. There is a move to get micro abattoirs on to our islands, although they may not be there yet. I wonder whether the costs that are associated with the instrument would make that a more distant hope.

Both the Griggs review and the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee inquiry recommended that Marine Scotland should act as the overarching body with regard to consenting. Is that being considered? If so, would it be beneficial?

The Screen Machine, which is parked outside in Holyrood park, brings cinema to communities that would otherwise have no access to it, but, sadly, its future is under threat. Screen Scotland has provided funding to extend the current machine’s lease for two years, which is welcome, but it will take 12 to 18 months to build a new state-of-the-art machine, so the clock is ticking. A fundraising campaign has been launched to raise £100,000 from the public out of the £1.7 million that is required in total for the new machine. The campaign has support from Dame Judi Dench, Alan Cumming and Tide Lines. Without urgent intervention, our rural communities will lose their access to cinema, so what steps is the Scottish Government taking to ensure that that does not happen?

Language is a means of communication and a vehicle to socialise, work and live, but fewer and fewer people are using Gaelic to do that, which is a real concern. Until now, try as we might, we have failed to turn that tide; therefore we have to do something different. Sadly, the bill does not deliver any change, and it certainly does not deliver the change that Gaelic communities need.

We need to fight the situation on two fronts. First, we need to protect the Gaelic-speaking communities—communities that use Gaelic daily. Those communities are in perpetual decline and are largely ignored by Government policy. People who speak Gaelic are not Gaelic language activists any more than those of us who speak English are English language activists. They communicate in Gaelic, but that is it. They do not question why. It is simply how they communicate—yet, without them, Gaelic dies.

The census has been hailed as being encouraging and improved numbers of people who have Gaelic skills. I would tick the box as a learner, yet I am not delivering this speech in Gaelic. I could not. We need to measure the number of fluent speakers and to gauge success by increasing that number. If we count having Gaelic skills as a success, we totally miss the point and fool ourselves into believing that past interventions have been successful. They have not: indeed, the increase in people having Gaelic skills could be down to Duolingo alone.

We are losing Gaelic-speaking communities because of the economy, demographics and societal issues. The communities where Gaelic is spoken are under threat. There is a lack of jobs, homes and services—the things that we need to make it possible to live there. We can add to that the ferries that do not run. Such things all impact on Gaelic. People are forced from their communities, and Gaelic-speaking communities become diluted or fail altogether to survive.

People move to communities where Gaelic is no longer used as a means of communication, so their linguistic skills weaken and their language is not passed on to future generations. The issues that cause depopulation are the same issues that undermine Gaelic. Neither can be addressed by bringing in new people; rather we need to tackle the societal problems that force people out. We need opportunities that will allow young people to stay. They need homes, jobs and a future.

The upsurge in the number of second homes and holiday homes also plays its part. It is an act of omission rather than an act of commission.

The research in “The Gaelic Crisis in the Vernacular Community” shows the decline, but it also offers solutions including Gaelic development and sociolinguistic planning—urras na Gàidhlig. The Government must first act to create the conditions that help those communities to survive and act against the threats.

Secondly, we need to provide education, but we have often offered education as the only solution, rather than as part of the solution. At the weekend, I read with interest Rhoda Meek’s piece in The National, where she highlights how some of the actions that have been taken to preserve Gaelic have actually had the opposite effect. She says:

“Gaelic speakers should be able to see things in their own language without always allowing for people who are learning or without always seeing the English next to it.”

She explains that all Gaelic TV has subtitles burned into it and there is no ability to switch them on and off. She goes on to make the point that

“the teaching and learning of Gaelic should not always come at the expense of the existing speakers. And too often, it does.”

I agree with her.

Will I get some time back, Deputy Presiding Officer?