Chamber and committees

There was indeed discussion at stage 1 about whether the term “Scots” includes the different dialects of the Scots language that are used in the different parts of Scotland. As Emma Harper said, her amendments seek to provide reassurance to all who speak the language. The amendments in this group are therefore welcome, and I think that they offer that reassurance. They make it clear that the bill’s provision on Scots includes the different dialects, and we are content to support them.

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.

Bòrd na Gàidhlig’s reporting on Scottish ministers’ progress and public authority compliance is essential. Ross Greer is right to highlight it as an important issue, in which I hope Parliament continues to take an interest. However, we want to try to avoid a situation in which Bòrd na Gàidhlig spends the whole year producing the next report, which would be a distraction. It is a small and nimble organisation, and I would like as much of its time and effort as possible to be deployed in promoting Gaelic and supporting communities rather than producing reports.

The annual timeframe that the amendments propose would be demanding for the task that Ross Greer highlighted. It would be a lot to do in a relatively short time, which would reduce the quality of the information collected and hamper any follow-up activity that was required. Our preference would be to allow the bòrd discretion to set its own reporting timescales. An annual timescale is an overly onerous duty and potentially counterproductive, which is why we reluctantly cannot support Ross Greer’s amendments.

I would be very open to that. Perhaps my answers are slightly less fluent, because I really care that members are keen to push the Government further on achieving the aims in relation to Gaelic.

However, I think that the three targets in amendment 8 are not very reflective of where the conversation on Gaelic language policy is just now. At the moment, the big debate is about the fact that, although we have seen an increase overall in Gaelic speakers, we are seeing a decline in the traditional Gaelic-speaking areas, and the targets do not go to the heart of that, nor do they go to the heart of the breadth of where a Gaelic speaker can use their language. A person might speak the language or have some skill in it, which would meet target (a) in amendment 8, but it might be the case that they cannot actually use the language anywhere.

We know that, when it comes to policy development in any sphere of Government or public sector work, the moment that targets are set down in primary legislation all activity becomes consumed with achieving them. If they are the wrong targets, that would mean that, over the next 10 years, we would be engaged in meeting targets that are wrong, and I reckon that we would be back here in a few years’ time saying, “Well, as the 2024 census results revealed, the figures are going up, so the Government can celebrate, theoretically, having met the legislative requirements.” However, you could rightly say to me—if I am still a minister at that point—that that does not mean anything, because in the Western Isles, the north of Skye, Tiree, Islay and such places, there has been a dramatic reduction in the number of speakers. That is why I am nervous about putting the wrong targets in the bill; it would focus all the scrutiny on whether we had met them, instead of our having a more flexible approach in strategy.

I suggest that Parliament should hold ministers to account for being required to meet, report on and gather evidence on targets. However, we have to be very careful that we do not put the wrong targets in the bill.

Absolutely. The phrase “community buy-in” is critical. My aim in working with Pam Duncan-Glancy would be to ensure that we gave effect to the principle of community buy-in without tying our hands to community councils. I know that, in some communities, there are really strong community trusts and other community representatives, who might be more reflective if a community council is inactive at the time.

I, too, am extremely sympathetic to and supportive of the principle. If we dealt with some of the drafting issues, we could come back at stage 3 with a really strong amendment in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy, if that is of interest—with, I hope, Ross Greer’s support.

I move amendment 3.

I am grateful to Ross Greer for his extensive work in lodging amendments. In relation to amendment 77, Bòrd na Gàidhlig has submitted successive national Gaelic language plans to Scottish ministers under the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005 since it came into force. Those plans have been successfully developed and approved through current provision.

The member will be aware that the bill provides that ministers will now have the role of issuing a number of documents that used to originate with Bòrd na Gàidhlig. That includes the statutory guidance on Gaelic language plans, the statutory guidance on Gaelic education and the new Gaelic strategy. That reinforces the importance that Scottish ministers place on those documents and the leadership role that should sit with Scottish ministers for the Gaelic language.

Amendment 77 relates to something quite different, which is the bòrd’s own internal corporate plan. The approval of a corporate plan for any non-departmental public body is a normal part of the internal processes and discussions between central Government and NDPBs, so it does not require parliamentary input. The amendment would add a stage that would sit quite strangely with the iterative process that exists between non-departmental public bodies and the Scottish Government.

I therefore do not support amendment 77. I ask the member not to press it, because it would have implications for how NDPBs do their iterative process of producing internal documents, which does not currently require parliamentary input.

The amendments provide clear stand-alone powers under which the Scottish ministers can provide financial assistance to any person for the purposes of promoting, facilitating and supporting the use of Gaelic and Scots. Financial assistance can include grants and loans. A range of interventions can support minority languages that require financial assistance. Although support for the sector tends to use powers that are primarily provided for education or culture, for example, these fresh powers will ensure that the Scottish ministers can turn to bespoke powers to use for language planning purposes across a range of sectors, and they will ensure that the necessary powers are in place to support the language for a strong future.

The amendments respond to comments that were made by the committee and stakeholders about the extent of interventions that would be available to Government and other public bodies when supporting the language in a particular local area. One comment was about economic interventions to support businesses, enterprises, initiatives or entrepreneurs who are working in an area that is suffering from depopulation and that could benefit from support.

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.

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.

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.