Chamber and committees

Pam Duncan-Glancy is absolutely right to highlight that point. Our comments are not necessarily at odds with it. We believe that that requirement probably needs to be a bit more targeted. For example, some subject areas have the highest impact on fluency, and there should be greater focus on those subjects.

There are some concerns that a blanket duty is quite difficult to fulfil, as not all qualifications are available in Gaelic. Our position is probably not far removed from where the member wants to get to. I guess that the question is whether we should accept the amendments at this stage, then adapt the provisions at stage 3, or simply work on the drafting for stage 3, because we are happy to support the member in that regard.

I will make a couple of points. As I said in a previous debate, I would envisage that, in areas of linguistic significance in particular, an intensive monitoring exercise would be required. If we simply take the top level of figures, which is the overall number, that can tell us different stories. By and large, however, it is currently telling us that there is a rise in the number of speakers. We around this table know that that does not tell the full story, because the general national rise in people with Gaelic-speaking skills may mask what is happening in traditional communities, and we believe that those traditional communities would be the foremost contenders to be areas of linguistic significance.

I would envisage there being a requirement on public bodies, with the support of Bòrd na Gàidhlig, to evaluate the number of speakers, set out targets and monitor the success of those targets, which would inevitably require consideration of the number of speakers.

Their primary responsibility would be to increase the number of speakers and increase the depth of that understanding and that fluency in those local areas and, if we have not done so already, to look at a requirement to report in those areas. That is intensively local.

On parliamentary scrutiny, I dare not criticise the Parliament, but if there is a criticism of Government here, there is also perhaps a criticism of the Parliament for not taking sufficient interest in some of these issues—which this committee has done a lot to repair, to its credit. The way that this committee has taken evidence is commendable.

However, personally—if a Government minister dare say this—I would like to see the Parliament taking more of an interest, more regularly, in scrutinising the progress and the success of Gaelic language policies. I would like to see the Parliament asking ministers to report on that or to give further information—basically, for ministers to be scrutinised and held to account for what is or is not happening. There is nothing to stop that from happening right now.

Amendments 51 and 52, which would provide a mechanism for ensuring that Bòrd na Gàidhlig recommendations are carried out with the support of Scottish ministers, respond to the wishes of Gaelic interests for Scottish public authorities to implement the commitments in their Gaelic language plans. I am happy to support those amendments.

Amendment 53 will remove from section 9 a direction-making power that Scottish ministers were proposing to take but which the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee had asked to be reconsidered. The Scottish Government agrees that the objectives of that power could be achieved by other means—particularly the power to set standards, which authorities will have to follow, and the power to give guidance. I therefore propose to remove that power from the bill.

Amendments 3, 6 and 7 respond to legitimate concerns that the committee raised. I think that Ruth Maguire, one of the committee’s former members, asked me about the matter that they address when I gave evidence at stage 1.

The aim of areas of linguistic significance is to give improved recognition to Gaelic in certain areas and to give communities a greater say in the development of a Gaelic-language policy that applies to them. That recognises the importance of, and the renewed focus on, communities.

Amendment 3 requires that, if the authority for an area that has 20 per cent of the population with Gaelic-language skills decides not to designate that area, it must make public the decision and its reasons for not proceeding.

Amendments 6 and 7 increase the level of community input into the process, which was a specific ask from the committee. They enable communities to commence the process of designating an area of linguistic significance by making that demand known to Bòrd na Gàidhlig, which must then request that the local authority must consider making a designation.

One criticism that has been made is that, often, Gaelic-language policy is very top down. Amendments 6 and 7 are about ensuring that people at grass-roots level—the community level—are able to make their views known and initiate a process that would give their area the status of an area of linguistic significance. Those amendments also give Bòrd na Gàidhlig a key role in the process and enable and encourage it to be active at a community level and act in line with community representation. That is to ensure that a third party can manage the process, and Bòrd na Gàidhlig is well placed to do that.

In principle, I am very supportive of amendments 4 and 5, in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy. I would be interested in progressing work with her in advance of stage 3. The provisions in the bill already allow consultation with community councils when those councils wish to engage. There is a broad consultation provision that refers to

“such other persons as the authority considers it appropriate”

to consult. Where there is an active and engaged community council, it would want to respond to any consultation for its area. However, it is possible—we all know this from doing work in our areas—that a community council might be inactive or fail to respond. It could therefore become quite difficult for the local authority to be sure that it had complied with the duty created by amendment 5 if a community council was not currently operational. There are also some small technical issues with the drafting.

I consider it important to give effect to the principle that Pam Duncan-Glancy is seeking to implement through the bill. I would be happy to support her amendments 4 and 5, but I ask her to work with me before stage 3 to ensure that the drafting of the provisions reflects those challenges and reflects more generally the diverse situation in communities where there is no operational community council.

I recognise that, which is why we have lodged amendments ourselves to measure progress.

With regard to amendments 8, 13 and 15, we are arguing that the opportunity to set targets is better provided for in the strategy, which can be updated faster, at pace: we would not need to wait for parliamentary cycles. The strategy will be consulted on with stakeholders within and outwith Parliament to make sure that the targets are right.

I am trying, in my comments, to be supportive of the notion behind Michael Marra’s amendments, because I think that he is right—it is just that I do not support the way in which he is currently trying to go about it.

In amendment 8, target (a), for example, specifies

“Gaelic speakers, broken down by geographical area”.

At present, we would use the term “people with Gaelic language skills” rather than “Gaelic speakers”. The bigger issue is that although we have seen in the census an increase in the number of people with Gaelic language skills, that might not tell us the whole story. We might want to know, for example, whether they have learned through Duolingo or are actually using the language in their daily lives.

My point is that I am not sure that they are the right targets to be measuring on, and I do not think that they should be in the bill, because what we need is a far more flexible response to the challenges that we face.

I apologise that the financial resolution came—to use the member’s term—later in the day. There has been a lot of movement with amendments, and we wanted to ensure that the position was as accurate as possible. The financial position must reflect the amendments. The reason for having a revised financial memorandum will be to reflect how we intend to amend the bill.

One tension with the bill is that members and external stakeholders have—rightly—been asking and pressing for the bill to mean more. I think that the word that was used is that the bill needs to be “strengthened” in order for areas of linguistic significance to really mean something. In many cases, that points to making a number of community interventions, which we can probably do independently of the bill. However, because of the criticism—which is quite right—and the calls to strengthen the bill by setting out what activities and interventions are required, we have sought to strengthen the bill. Therefore, in the bill, we will be able to point to things that we can actively do without waiting for the standards or the strategy.

There is already a range of grant-making powers that are designed for culture, education and heritage, but what was perhaps missing was economic activity. At the end of the day, jobs and businesses are the cornerstone of any community. This enables us to highlight and point to specific interventions that could be made and which could probably have been made already, but we are strengthening the bill to make a series of more active interventions in areas of linguistic significance, if that makes sense.

That is a compelling argument for why I believe that this reporting should be done on an intensely localised basis. It is key to monitor progress within local communities. Even if you were to take a single island, the island of Skye, and look at the figures across that island, that would not tell you much about the health of the communities where the population is highly dense, in the north of the island.

Where we might want to move further is on how to report regularly to the Parliament on progress in the areas of linguistic significance, according to the plans that will have been established in those intensely populated local areas and on whether they are proving to be successful or not. That is where I whole-heartedly agree with the member and where I think that doing it purely on a national basis does not meet the aims and the ambitions.

Michael Marra’s amendment 67 requires us to look at the extent to which certain issues have been addressed by the bill’s provisions and at what other issues exist in relation to Gaelic communities and the use of the Gaelic language. Those are very laudable aims, but they are most relevant when applied to traditional Gaelic-speaking communities, so I think that that reporting should be done with regard to those areas. At the moment, the position would be that, if an area were designated as an area of linguistic significance, with a plan in place, that plan should then be monitored after consultation with local stakeholders.

On amendment 47, I take Michael Marra’s point that it does not have to be census methodology, but if there is a requirement to publish a report on the number of Gaelic language speakers in Scotland every two years, we may actually see very little fluctuation in those figures. We may see, for example, that more children are learning Gaelic, but the process is very resource intensive for getting quite a high-level view. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, there might be merit in looking at how we include more parliamentary scrutiny in the reporting, without going down the route of national high-level census figures every two years.

On amendment 67, which is about reporting on the specific issues that the bill seeks to address, that sort of thing is done at an intensely local level. If the Gaelic community plan for a particular locality says, “The three priorities here are X, Y and Z,” the question is how the Parliament scrutinises whether any of those plans are successful. There could be an amendment to that effect as part of the areas of linguistic significance requirements.

It is much nicer to be able to talk supportively about a number of amendments—not all of them, but most of them—in this group.

My amendment 29 sets out further detail about the functions that might be covered by standards in areas of linguistic significance. Again, that is in direct response to the committee, which said that an area of linguistic significance is only as important as the changes that it creates for communities.

Those areas will be designated in recognition of the demographic strength of Gaelic in them and/or the level of Gaelic activity. It is recognised that those qualities intersect with many other aspects of community and economic development in those areas, as the short-life working group on economic and social opportunities for Gaelic highlighted.

It is correct, therefore, that the Scottish Languages Bill should provide further detail for public authorities on the sorts of provisions that might be made in standards within an area of linguistic significance.

Amendment 29 also ensures that language planning and development are tied in with other objectives, such as community planning and economic development. I am so often struck by the fact that the aims and aspirations of Gaelic speakers in some traditional communities are very much intertwined with the desires and aspirations of those who do not have Gaelic language. Issues around infrastructure and transport are obvious examples. That is consistent with other measures in the bill, as well as other Scottish Government strategies.

Amendment 28 provides further clarity on the nature of provision that could be included in the standards. Amendments 26 and 27 convert the power to make standards into a duty. I am of the view that it was always the intention to exercise that power. We are content to support those amendments because of the urgency of the situation, as Michael Marra has set out.

Amendments 30 and 31 require an additional procedural step of laying regulations in draft form for consultation. I am a big fan of consulting on things, so I am happy to support those amendments.

Amendment 32 is where we perhaps have a slightly different view. I take on board Michael Marra’s point about the perilous state of the language and the urgency of the required response. The amendment imposes a strict time limit of one year from royal assent for the first laying of regulations. We feel that that could be too restrictive. We want to be able to develop the standards and requirements properly, in consultation with stakeholders, as required by the existing provisions in the bill, which would be enhanced by Michael Marra’s amendments 30 and 31. Meeting the time limit in amendment 32 could hit a number of challenges, not all of which are within the Government’s control. For example, it is quite likely that, on this occasion, the time limit would run into the end of the current five-year parliamentary session, which would risk making the ability to meet the time limit challenging or impossible. The spirit of amendment 32 is well understood, but we feel that keeping to the time limit will not always be possible and that, therefore, it is too restrictive.

Absolutely—we will give that some consideration.

I wind up by saying that everything that Miles Briggs said is true—he is absolutely right to describe how difficult the process is. I frequently receive correspondence from parents who are—to use the technical term—pulling their hair out in trying to engage with it.

He is absolutely right on the need to simplify the process. If we can ensure that the amendments answer some of the unanswered questions that I identified in my opening remarks, I think that we will have a very compelling package, in combining his amendments with the ones that I have lodged.

Amendment 63 agreed to.

Amendment 64 moved—[Kate Forbes]—and agreed to.

Section 20, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 21 and 22 agreed to.

After section 22

Amendment 84 not moved.

Amendment 65 moved—[Kate Forbes]—and agreed to.

Section 23—Extension of assessments to early learning and childcare

Amendments 85 to 94 not moved.

Sections 23 to 25 agreed to.

After section 25

Yes, we could definitely look at that. I am conscious that we are in December 2024. Purdah will probably be February 2026. The bill is at stage 2 and we have to get it to stage 3. We then need royal assent. In the spirit of realism, once we get royal assent, which normally takes a couple of weeks—sometimes a month—after stage 3, we are then into quite a tight year. Even if it were 18 months, you are looking at early in the next parliamentary session.

Perhaps the requirement is for us to demonstrate progress in the interim, short of laying the regulations. We could do something around a year from the legislation coming into force. Is that what you mean? We could definitely explore that. Rather than coming up with compromises here, I commit to coming up with a compromise prior to stage 3 that makes sense.

Amendments 79 and 80 require Scottish ministers to publish the results of consultations on Gaelic language standards and guidance. Not only am I hugely supportive of consultation, I am even more supportive of publishing the results of that consultation, so I am happy to support those amendments.