Chamber and committees

I have nothing in particular to report, but I refer people to my entry in the register of members’ interests.

I, too, congratulate both the convener and the new deputy convener.

Patrick Harvie, in particular, covered some of the constitutional issues. We are obviously going to have to look at a referendum bill. On the point that he made about intergovernmental relations, I have served on—or endured being on—a joint ministerial committee, and I think that the committee, regardless of our differing perspectives on the constitution, has to own up to the fact that the joint ministerial committees are not an effective mechanism for conversation between our Governments. We should start to look at what the alternatives might be and see whether we can come to a consensus about that.

We will obviously look at the Brexit legacy and the implications for the devolution settlement, including questions in the wake of Brexit on things such as UK spending in what might in the past have been considered to be devolved areas, and trade deals.

Donald Cameron made the good point that we need to be careful that we do not tread too far into the work of other committees, but a number of things in our remit and in the legacy papers will probably involve our having to find a modus vivendi with other committees. It is difficult to see how we could talk about culture without talking about its place in schools or about Brexit without talking about agriculture. There is a bit of work to be done before we get started on how we can establish good relations with other committees in order to ensure that we can do that work.

International development is another area that I have been involved in. We will scrutinise what the Scottish Government does on that, but it must be seen both in the context of Covid and in the wider context—I am sorry to be political so early on—of a UK Government that seems to be withdrawing from some of its commitments in the area. That has implications for the setting of Scotland’s relatively modest but important international development work. There is also a specific job of work to be done in not just celebrating but looking at our particular relationship with Malawi.

Tha tòrr math air a bhith a’ tachairt ann an saoghal na Gàidhlig bhon àm ’s gun deach Achd na Gàidhlig (Alba) 2005 a stèidheachadh leis a’ Phàrlamaid seo. Tha BBC Alba againn; tha foghlam tro mheadhan na Gàidhlig air fàs; tha poileasaidhean Gàidhlig aig iomadach buidheann phoblach a-nis, agus tha àite na Gàidhlig ann an saoghal a’ chultair agus nan ealan nas làidire. Tha Bòrd na Gàidhlig agus buidhnean eile ag obair dhan chànan agus—a’ chuid as motha den tìde—tha aonta ann thairis air na pàrtaidhean gu bheil a’ Ghàidhlig feumail agus cudromach do dh’Alba. Tha buidheann thar-phàrtaidh na Gàidhlig againn a’ toirt misneachd a thaobh an aonta seo.

Ged a bhios mi-rùn an aghaidh na Gàidhlig a’ nochdadh anns na meadhanan bho àm gu àm, tha na cunntasan-beachd a’ sealltainn gu bheil taic nas làidire ann an Alba dhan Ghàidhlig an-diugh ’s a bh’ ann fichead bliadhna air ais. Tha e math gum bi sinn uile, mar Phàrlamaid, a’ comharrachadh nan rudan matha seo. Aig an aon àm, tha e a cheart cho cudromach gum bi sinn ag aithneachadh nan trioblaidean cuideachd.

Tha taic den iomadach seòrsa cuideachail dha-rìreabh dhan Ghàidhlig; ach cha dèan taic a’ chùis na h-aonar. Feumaidh daoine a bhith a’ bruidhinn na Gàidhlig cuideachd, agus tha sin a’ ciallachadh àiteachan agus suidheachaidhean far a bheil e comasach a leithid a dhèanamh. Aig an aon àm ’s gu bheil ùidh anns a’ Ghàidhlig a’ fàs, tha crìonadh cleachdaidh na Gàidhlig anns na sgìrean eileanach a’ fàs nas miosa, tha mi gu math duilich a ràdh. Bha sin follaiseach bhon aithris aig Soillse, a bha a’ toirt sùil air an t-suidheachadh anns na h-Eileanan an Iar, an t-Eilean Sgiathanaich agus Tiriodh. Leis an fhìrinn innse—bha na rudan sin follaiseach do mhuinntir nan sgìrean sin co-dhiù.

Cha bhi mi a’ dol a-rithist gu mionaideach tro na rudan anns an aithris mu dheidhinn staid na Gàidhlig am measg dhaoine òga anns na h-eileanan, no na beachdan a bha a’ nochdadh anns na còmhraidhean coimhearsnachd a bha mise a’ cumail às a dhèidh. Bha iad uile a’ dearbhadh an fheum a th’ air poileasaidhean Gàidhlig a tha nas freagarraiche airson nan coimhearsnachdan traidiseanta, agus ag aideachadh an diofair a th’ ann, mar eisimpleir, eadar poileasaidh airson sgoil agus poileasaidh airson eilean. Tha mi toilichte gu bheil Bòrd na Gàidhlig ag aithneachadh nan rudan sin cuideachd, leis an oifigear a th’ aca a-nis a tha ag obair gu sònraichte airson coimhearsnachdan eileanach.

Tha e gu math cudromach aig a’ phuing seo gun cuir mi cuideam air an dòigh ’s gu bheil daoine a’ cleachdadh na Gàidhlig air feadh na h-Alba. ’S ann le Alba gu lèir a tha a’ Ghàidhlig – mar a tha ainmean-àite air cha mhòr a h-uile sgìre a’ dearbhadh. Cha do dh’ionnsaich mise mo chuid Ghàidhlig anns na h-eileanan, ach ann an Glaschu. Tha coimhearsnachdan Gàidhlig beòthail anns na bailtean mòra, agus tha a h-uile coimhearsnachd Gàidhlig cudromach dhan chànan. Feumaidh sinn uile aithneachadh cuideachd, ge-tà, gum biodh e doirbh a ràdh gum biodh cànan sam bi ann an staid fhallain mur a biodh àiteachan ann far am biodh an cànan sin air a chleachdadh air an t-sràid no anns a’ bhùth. Sin far a bheil an cunnart èiginneach ann, anns na h-eileanan.

Tha cothrom againn a-nis, leis a’ phlana nàiseanta ùr againn, rudeigin a dhèanamh - a dhèanamh cinnteach nach eil brosnachadh na Gàidhlig dìreach mu dheidhinn cia mheud neach aig a bheil a’ Ghàidhlig, ach cia mheud a tha ga cleachdadh. Feumaidh sinn a bhith soilleir. Chan urrainn do Bhòrd na Gàidhlig, no na sgoiltean Gàidhlig, Gàidhlig a shàbhaladh nan aonar, ge b’ e cho math ’s a tha an obair a tha iad uile a’ dèanamh. Chan bhiodh e faidhear no reusanta an dleasdanas sin a chur orra.

Bidh daoine gu tric a’ bruidhinn mu chosgais nan seirbheisean tro mheadhan na Gàidhlig. Tha e inntinneach nach bi duine sam bith a’ faighneachd mu dheidhinn cosgais nan seirbheisean poblach tro mheadhan na Beurla - no a’ tuigsinn gur e sin a’ chuid as motha de na seirbheisean a h-ann, eadhan anns na h-eileanan fhèin. Tha mi a’ ciallachadh seirbheisean aig an roinn phoblaich, seirbheisean slàinte nam measg. Tha fhios agam dè bhiodh pàipear-naidheachd no dhà ag ràdh mu mo dheidhinn-se nam bithinn a’ dèanamh a-mach an-diugh gur e an rud as cudromaiche a th’ ann airson seirbheisean slàinte an-dràsta fhèin staid na Gàidhlig. Ach innsidh mi, anns an dol seachad, gun d’ fhuair mise an jag Covid agamsa tro mheadhan na Gàidhlig, agus bha e a’ còrdadh riumsa glan!

’S e rudeigin eile a tha mi a’ ciallachadh. Tha cuimhne agamsa, greiseag air ais, a’ bruidhinn ri cuideigin a bha na bhall air bòrd-slàinte, àiteigin ann an ceann a tuath na h-Alba. Thuirt e seo riumsa, anns a’ chànain eile:

“Dìreach air sgàth ’s gu bheil plana Gàidhlig againn mar bhòrd-slàinte, chan eil sin a’ ciallachadh idir idir gu bheil am bòrd na phàirt ann an dòigh sam bith de na h-oidhirpean a tha daoine a’ dèanamh gus a’ Ghàidhlig a chumail beò.”

Tha cothrom againn le bile ùr mu chànanan na h-Alba beachdan mar sin a chur ceart, a’ dèanamh soilleir gu bheil àite aig a h-uile buidheann phoblach anns an oidhirp sin, gu sònraichte anns na sgìrean far a bheil a’ Ghàidhlig làidir fhathast. Sin Ghàidhlig a mhainstreamadh, mar a chanas iad. Ma tha am facal sin a’ ciallachadh rud sam bidh, tha e a’ ciallachadh gum bi sinn a’ smaoineachadh mar Phàrlamaid mu dheidhinn na buaidh a th’ aig na poileasaidhean uile againn air staid na Gàidhlig—chan ann dìreach poileasaidhean mu chultar no foghlam, ach poileasaidhean air taigheadas, dreuchdan, agus an eaconamaidh sgìreil—agus gum bi sin a’ smaoineachadh, mar eisimpleir, mu dheidhinn na buaidh a th’ aig na poileasaidhean sin air a‘ Ghàidhlig nuair a tha sin a’ dèanamh measaidhean buaidh airson nan eilean.

Tha cothrom againn anns a’ bhile ùr a bhith a’ togail air an obair bho 2005, agus cuideachd rudeigin a dhèanamh airson Albais no Beurla-Ghallda – an cànan màithreil agamsa. Chan eil a’ Ghàidhlig agus Albais air taobhan eadar dhealaichte bho chèile anns an t-strì aca. Tha làn thìde ann gun robh sin a’ cur às dhan aineolas mu dheidhinn Albais, ge b’ e a bheil na beachdan sin a nochdadh ann an foghlam, sna meadhanan no àite sam bith eile.

A’ tighinn gu co-dhùnadh mar a tha mi, tha mi an dòchas gum bi a h-uile Ball Pàrlamaid, agus gu sònraichte na buill ùra, a’ gabhail mòmaid a bhith ag ionnsachadh beagan bho na h-oifigearan Gàidhlig anns a’ Phàrlamaid mun Ghàidhlig. Nach gabh sibh an cothrom rudeigin ionnsachadh mu dheidhinn rudeigin cho àlainn ’s cho inntinneach agus cho cugallach ’s a chuala sibh—no nach cuala sibh fhathast ’s dòcha—a-riamh nur beatha.

Following is the simultaneous interpretation:

Much good has happened in the world of Gaelic since Parliament passed the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005. We have BBC Alba, Gaelic medium education has grown, many public bodies have Gaelic language plans, and the place of Gaelic in culture and the arts is much stronger. Bòrd na Gàidhlig and other organisations work for the language. Most of the time, there is a consensus across the parties that Gaelic is important and useful to Scotland, and the cross-party group on Gaelic seeks to promote that consensus.

Although prejudice against Gaelic still rears its head from time to time in the media, opinion polls show that support for Gaelic is considerably stronger across Scotland now than it was 20 years ago. It is good for us to have an opportunity from time to time to celebrate those positive things, but it is just as important that we also recognise the problems.

Support of every type is hugely important to Gaelic but, on its own, support for or knowledge of the language is not enough. People need to use Gaelic, so we must have places and situations where doing so is possible. At the very time when interest in Gaelic is growing, I am sad to say that the use of the language in island communities has been declining further. That was obvious from the report that Soillse produced on the situation in the Western Isles, Skye and Tiree, although the decline was already clear to the people who live in those places.

I will not reiterate the details in the report about the state of Gaelic among young people or the opinions that emerged in the community conversations that I held afterwards. They all demonstrated the need for Gaelic policies that are more tailored to the needs of vernacular communities and which acknowledge the difference, for example, between planning for the language needs of a school and planning for those of an island. I am pleased to say that Bòrd na Gàidhlig recognises those issues and now has an officer with specific responsibility for island communities.

At this point, it is important that I stress the way that Gaelic is used across Scotland. Gaelic belongs to Scotland nationally, as place names in almost every area of the country bear witness. I learned my Gaelic not in the islands but in Glasgow. There are vibrant Gaelic communities in major cities, and every Gaelic community is vital to the future of the language. However, we must recognise that it would be difficult to say that any language was in a healthy state if there was no place in which it could be heard on the street or in a shop. That is the urgent danger that threatens the islands.

With our new national Gaelic plan, we have an opportunity to make sure that the promotion of Gaelic is not just a question of how many people have Gaelic but of how many people use it. Bòrd na Gàidhlig and Gaelic schools cannot save Gaelic on their own; it would be unfair and unreasonable to shoulder them with such a responsibility.

People often discuss the cost of providing services in the medium of Gaelic but, interestingly, nobody ever seems to ask about the cost of providing public services through the medium of English, or to understand that, even in the islands, that is how the great majority of public sector services, such as health services, are delivered. I am well aware of what one or two newspapers would say about me if I were to suggest today that the most important thing for health services at this point might be the state of Gaelic, but I was very pleased to get my Covid jag through the medium of Gaelic, which I enjoyed immensely.

However, I recall that, a while ago, I was speaking to someone who was a member of a health board somewhere in the north of Scotland, and he said to me:

“Just because we have a Gaelic language plan as a health board, that does not at all mean that the board wishes to be associated in any way at all with the efforts that are being made in some quarters to keep the Gaelic language alive.”

With a new bill on Scotland’s languages, we have an opportunity to put right anyone who still says things like that and to make clear that every public body has its part to play in such efforts, particularly in areas where Gaelic is still strong. That is to say, we need to mainstream Gaelic. If that word is to mean anything, it must mean that we as a Parliament think about the impact of all policies on the state of Gaelic—not just policies that deal with culture or education but policies on housing, jobs and the local economy—and that we consider, for example, the impact of policies on Gaelic when we are compiling impact assessments for the islands.

We have an opportunity with a new bill to build on the work of 2005 and to do something for Scots, which is my mother tongue. We should recognise that Scots and Gaelic pose no threat to each other but are faced by a common challenge. It is high time that we challenged displays of ignorance about the Scots language, whether they appear in the media, education or anywhere else.

In conclusion, I hope that every MSP, and especially the new ones, will take a moment to speak to the Parliament’s Gaelic officers. Please take the opportunity to learn something about Gaelic, which is as beautiful and interesting a thing as you have ever heard, or are perhaps yet to hear, in your life.

I have no particular interests to declare, but I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests.

As Liam McArthur mentioned, in our papers, there are obvious topics such as the 26th United Nations climate change conference of the parties—COP26—and the replacements for the common agricultural policy, trade deals and so on. It is interesting that the committee has on it three members who live on islands. I apologise if we try to take over from time to time, but I echo what Liam said about the fact that many of the issues that affect islands, and perhaps other parts of the country, are ultimately about depopulation. Therefore, there will be crossover between issues, and possibly some negotiation will have to be done with other committees about exactly where our remit lies.

If we are talking about rural or island economies, an issue that is impossible to avoid is housing. I realise that we are not the housing committee, but it is an example of an area that we cannot avoid straying into, because we will not have an economy in some parts of the country if we do not have anywhere for people to live.

We need to clarify whether we will have opportunities to take a more holistic or cross-cutting look at some of the economic issues that affect islands and other areas that are affected by depopulation, but which might stray into other committees’ remits and, as such, involve inviting them to negotiate remits.

To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to improve support for victims of crime. (S6O-00044)

Victims’ rights should, of course, be at the centre of our justice system, and the introduction of a victims commissioner provides Scotland with a real opportunity to lead the way globally on that. Does the cabinet secretary think that the Scottish victims commissioner could emulate the success of the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland?

Can Finlay Carson clarify what he means by others striking fear into the hearts of Scottish farmers when it is Scottish farmers who are expressing fears through the NFUS?

I thank Jim Fairlie for bringing a debate to Parliament about this important subject so early on in his time as an MSP.

Crofters in the agriculturally least-favoured parts of Scotland, such as my island constituency, are very aware of the words of the former UK Tory Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Andrea Leadsom, who said:

“It would make so much more sense if those with the big fields do the sheep and those with the hill farms do the butterflies.”

The UK Government seems to be convinced that ad hoc trade deals with individual countries are an adequate answer to that and an adequate replacement for the European single market, which, as Mr Fairlie rightly pointed out, is a vast free trade area from which the UK chose to remove itself.

I hate to be unoriginal, but Mr Fairlie’s example is the best one of all: the European Union and the European single market, which I just mentioned, were supported by us and inexplicably rejected by Stephen Kerr’s party.

In those circumstances, we want to pursue good trading relationships with other countries, but it is significant that some of the countries that we are talking about pursuing those trade deals with would enjoy tariff-free access when many of the countries with which we were most closely associated in the past would enjoy no such relationship in the future.

Crofters and farmers are entitled to ask what that means for them. What safeguards—if any—will the deals include for domestic agriculture? Concerns have been expressed about the country’s market being swamped by cheap food imports.

On another point, why has the proposed trade and agriculture commission for examining such deals not yet been set up—as I understand it? Are we really saying that countries in Europe that have broadly similar standards on animal welfare, the use of hormones and environmental impacts—not to mention a minimum wage for farm workers, although I am not sure whether the Conservatives are entirely signed up to that—should pay tariffs? Why should those countries pay tariffs while countries that may be unconstrained by any of those factors have tariff-free access to our supermarkets?

The point that I think that the Conservatives have missed in this debate is how agriculture in Scotland could compete in the long term on price in a situation of that kind without severely changing or compromising standards. We might begin with Australia, but what do we do if such a deal is then reached with major food producers such as Brazil, whose environmental and other standards are so unlike our own as to raise even bigger concerns? [Interruption.]

If I may, I will make some progress. We have heard in the debate from the Conservatives that somehow others are planting fears in the minds of farmers. The NFUS put it this way:

“As it stands, this trade deal will cause serious issues to the future of Scottish farming and set a precedent for other trade deals, which would further undermine the sector.”

However, if the Conservatives think that that is bad, they might wish to look at what the Scottish Crofting Federation said:

“We have a very high quality product that simply cannot compete in a market flooded with lower-price meat. That the UK government is even giving consideration to a completely unacceptable deal is despicable.”

I will finish with those words from the Scottish Crofting Federation, given that it has grasped the situation much more clearly and expressed it more eloquently than—I regret to say—our Conservative colleagues have this evening.