SP Paper 785

Contents

Volume 1 - Report

REMIT AND MEMBERSHIP

REPORT

Gaelic Translation

Volume 2 - Evidence

Remit and membership

Remit:

To consider and report on matters relating to school and pre-school education and such other matters as fall within the responsibility of the Minister for Education and Young People; and on matters relating to culture and sport and such other matters, excluding tourism, as fall within the responsibility of the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport. (As agreed by resolution of the Parliament on 13 June 2002)

Committee Clerking Team:

Clerk to the Committee

Martin Verity

Senior Assistant Clerk

Susan Duffy

Assistant Clerk

Ian Cowan

The Committee reports to the Parliament as follows-

Introduction and background

Introduction

1. The Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill is a Member's Bill and was introduced on 13 November 2002 by Michael Russell.

2. The Parliament agreed on 21 November 2002, in line with Rule 9.6.1 of Standing Orders that the Education, Culture and Sport Committee should be the lead Committee to scrutinise the Bill at Stage 1 and that the Local Government Committee should be the secondary Committee. The Bill was also referred to the Subordinate Legislation Committee under Rule 9.6.2. The Local Government Committee decided at its meeting on 10 December 2002, that due to its heavy workload and to this Committee's intention to take evidence on all aspects of the Bill, it did not intend to submit a report. The report from Subordinate Legislation Committee is included as Annex A.

Background

3. In 1984, Commun na Gàidhlig (CNAG) was set up to promote and develop the Gaelic language and culture. In 1997, CNAG submitted a report to the Scottish Office recommending various measures to secure the status of Gaelic, including giving recognition to Gaelic similar to the recognition given to Welsh by the Welsh Language Act 1993.

4. Between 1999 and 2002, the Executive commissioned two reports on Gaelic, the Macpherson Report and the Meek Report. The Meek Report (A Fresh Start for Gaelic) emerged from a Ministerial Advisory Group which was set up to take forward recommendations in the Macpherson Report. The recommendations made in the Meek Report were that a Gaelic Development Agency should be established and that a Gaelic Language Act should be brought forward to give effect to the proposal to secure the status of Gaelic as set out by CNAG.

5. Following on from these two recommendations, the Executive has now established Bòrd Gàidhlig na h-Alba, a non-departmental public body which will be responsible for the strategic overview of Gaelic development and whose duties will be to promote Gaelic, to draw up plans for the language and to co-ordinate activities in support of Gaelic.

6. Against this background, the Policy Memorandum states that "the use of the Gaelic language has been shown to be declining"¹. The Bill's stated aim is to "help halt this decline by taking the first steps towards making Gaelic a normal part of everyday life in Scotland and at the same time reminding many Scots of its existence."² The Committee notes that the 2001 Census figures show that there are 58,652 Gaelic speakers in Scotland as opposed to 69,510 in 1991.³

7. The purpose of the Bill is to place a duty on certain public bodies to prepare, publish and implement a Gaelic language plan. When these public bodies prepare such plans they are to give effect to the principle, that in exercising their functions, they will treat Gaelic and English on a basis of equality.

Evidence taken by the Committee

8. The Committee discussed the Bill at various meetings and extracts from the minutes of those meetings are attached as Annex B.

Oral evidence

9. The Committee took oral evidence at Stage 1 at its meetings on 10 December 2002, 17 December 2002, 7 January 2003, 14 January 2003 and 21 January 2003. On 10 December 2002, it took evidence from Professor Kenneth MacKinnon and Professor Donald Meek, who were both members of the Ministerial Advisory Group on Gaelic (MAGOG).

10. On 17 December 2002, the Committee took oral evidence from Commun na Gàidhlig which was represented by Donald Martin (Chief Executive) and Comhairle nan Eilean Siar which was represented by Councillor Roderick Murray (Chair of Policy and Resources Committee) and Alasdair MacLeod (Gaelic Development Officer).

11. On 7 January 2002, the Committee took oral evidence from Highland Council which was represented by Councillor Alan Beaton (Chairman, Gaelic Working Group), Councillor Andrew Anderson (Chairman, Education Culture and Sport Committee), Bruce Robertson (Director, Education Culture and Sport Services), and Morag Anna MacLeod (Gaelic Development Officer); Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (COSLA) which was represented by Councillor Helen Law (Education Spokesperson) and Councillor Eric Gotts (East Dunbartonshire Council); Dr Wilson McLeod, Senior Lecturer, Celtic and Scottish Studies, University of Edinburgh; Rob Dunbar, Senior Lecturer, School of Law, University of Glasgow; Clì, Na Gaidheil Ùra (The New Gaels) which was represented by Peadar Morgan and the Scottish Arts Council which was represented by Jim Tough (Head of Strategic Development).

12. On 14 January 2003, the Committee took evidence from Scottish Natural Heritage which was represented by John MacKay and Mary MacLean; National Museums of Scotland which was represented by Mary Bryden, Director of Public Programmes; and the Welsh Language Board which was represented by John Walter Jones (Chief Executive) and Meirion Prys Jones (Head of Language Planning).

13. On 21 January 2003 the Committee took evidence from Mike Watson, Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport and from Michael Russell.

Written evidence

14. The Committee received 43 written submissions. The oral and written evidence received is attached as Annexes C and D.

15. In addition, the Committee notes that two petitions have been presented to the Parliament on the Gaelic language: Petition PE437 from Mr John MacLeod and Petition PE540 from Ms Cathy Mary MacMillan, on behalf of Stri nan Oileanach. Both call for the future of the Gaelic language to be secured by a Gaelic Language Act. Copies of these petitions are attached as Annex E.

Overall views on the Bill

16. The majority of the oral and written evidence received, supported the view that Gaelic needs to be promoted and secured to enable it to survive and expressed support for the Bill. However, a number of concerns were raised over some of the Bill's provisions. The Committee notes that the Executive has not given its support to the Bill.

17. The Executive's submission to the Committee stated that "Our Programme for Government commitments do include `working towards secure status for Gaelic' but we are not convinced that this should be secured within the area of Gaelic language plans for public bodies."⁴

18. Mike Watson, Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport expanded on this statement in his oral evidence to the Committee, stating that "the bill is removed from current Executive priorities for the Gaelic language and culture. The Executive wants to increase the number of trainee teachers, which is the only way that gaelic language will have a future."⁵

19. The Committee agrees that it is essential to increase the number of qualified teachers to ensure Gaelic's survival and it also agrees that the Bill will not directly create teachers and indeed, does not address the question of Gaelic-medium education. However, the Committee does not believe that the Executive's approach and the provisions of the Bill are mutually exclusive.

20. The proposer of the Bill and many of the submissions received, acknowledge that the Bill should not be seen as a panacea but as a start of a necessary process. Whilst acknowledging that the Bill does not deliver everything that people feel is necessary to ensure the survival of Gaelic, Highland Council stated that the Bill "would help by giving the Gaelic language legal status...The Bill is what we are looking for, as it recognises that Gaelic is one of Scotland's languages and that it has equal status with the English language."⁶

21. The Committee believes that the provisions of the Bill will not necessarily run contrary to the work of the Executive and to the remit of Bòrd Gàidhlig na h-Alba. The Committee was pleased to receive Bòrd Gàidhlig na h-Alba's view on the Bill. The Bòrd has stated that it supports the Bill, subject to it (a) applying to the whole of Scotland, (b) providing a statutory basis for the Bòrd and (c) allowing the Bòrd, rather than the Ombudsman, to deal with Gaelic plans.⁷ The reservations expressed by the Bòrd and others will be dealt with later in this report.

22. The Committee considered the consultations which have been carried out not just by the proposer of the Bill but also by organisations such as CNAG and both the Macpherson and Meek reports. What all of this work has shown is the desire to have a Gaelic Language Bill.

23. It is recognised that this Bill does not meet all of the expectations of CNAG. As an example of this, CNAG made it clear in oral evidence that they wished to see, as one of the principles of any bill, the recognition of Gaelic as one of Scotland's languages.

24. This Bill does not make any specific statement of such recognition, but makes reference to the treatment of Gaelic on a "basis of equality" in relation to Gaelic language plans to be produced by certain public bodies. The Policy Memorandum mentions that precedent for the phrase "basis of equality" can be found in the Welsh Language Act 1993. In its written submission, the Welsh Language Board further describes this Act:

"The Act does not declare Welsh to be an official language in Wales, though when the legislation was being considered by the House of Commons, the then Minister of State at the Welsh Office said unequivocally that Welsh was an official language in Wales, and that this did not need to be stated in law, any more than it was for English."⁸

25. Given what happened in Wales, the Committee welcomes the statement made by the Minister in his oral evidence to the Committee that:

"I want there to be no doubt that I believe the Gaelic language in Scotland has official recognition and official status."⁹

26. The Minister went on to explain that it is the various actions taken which signify this recognition and status such as the establishment of Bòrd Gàidhlig na h-Alba.

27. Michael Russell put forward a differing view, arguing that to make a language secure, firstly, its status requires to be established in legislation and then that status should be linked to something tangible. He stated that:

"secure status is not an abstract. Secure status would exist because it applied to something."¹⁰

28. Therefore the Committee recognises the potential gap between the expectations of the Bill and what the Bill can actually achieve, but the Committee believes that the requirement to publish and implement Gaelic language plans, underpinned by the principle of English and Gaelic operating on a "basis of equality" is a step in the right direction. Further, the Committee believes that the Bill could dovetail into the work of the Executive and of Bòrd Gàidhlig na h-Alba.

29. However, the Committee does recognise that a number of concerns have been raised over the provisions of the Bill and believes that these must be addressed in its consideration of the general principles of the Bill.

Areas affected by the Bill

30. The Bill proposes that the requirement to prepare, publish and implement a Gaelic language plan will only apply initially to public bodies providing a service in the local government areas of Highland, the Western Isles, the part of Argyll and Bute which was formerly known as Argyll and Bute District Council, and the islands of Arran, Cumbrae and Little Cumbrae.

31. The evidence received has suggested overwhelmingly that the Bill should apply to public bodies across the whole of Scotland, otherwise a division could be created in the Gaelic community. In its written submission, An Gàidheal Ùr stated that Gaelic is:

"[ ] a key part of our national heritage, Gaelic speakers and supporters live in all areas of the country, and in fact a very large proportion of the total number of Gaelic speakers in Scotland reside outwith the Highlands and Islands areas. Legislation aimed at supporting the language must not have the effect of creating divisions within the Gaelic community."¹¹

32. Additionally, Highlands and Islands Enterprise believed that this division would be "unhelpful to language restoration and development effort...this approach takes no account of the growing percentage of Gaels who lived outside the proposed Gaelic Zone."¹²

33. Bòrd Gàidhlig na h-Alba has also stated that it supports the Bill, but subject to it applying to the whole of Scotland.

34. A question was raised over what the Bill, in its current form, could do for Gaelic speakers in areas where there would be no initial requirement to produce Gaelic language plans. Michael Russell stated that:

"First of all, it would encourage you because it would show that the Scottish Parliament - and by extension, the Scottish Executive - takes Gaelic seriously...Things that are symbolic and give hope and encouragement are not useless things, even in legislation."¹³

35. The Committee is concerned that people's expectations are such that they are looking for more from the Bill than hope and encouragement.

36. However, in oral evidence, COSLA noted the intention as laid out in the Bill's policy memorandum to implement the Bill's provisions throughout Scotland in the future and stated that:

"As Gaelic is not a native language to some parts of Scotland, such a measure would be unwelcome."¹⁴

37. The Minister further amplified these differing arguments when he stated that:

"In my discussions with the ministerial advisory group and with individual members of Bòrd na Gàidhlig, the view was that those provisions would be seen as divisive by Gaelic speakers...Another view was that if, for the sake of argument, that part was taken out and the bill was applied to the whole of Scotland, or even to a larger part of Scotland - some areas around Glasgow were suggested - that might unrealistically raise levels of demand."¹⁵

38. The Minister also stated "Personally, I want to see demand raised"¹⁶ and the Committee is keenly aware of the `chicken and egg' argument that if something is not available, then there will be no demand for it.

39. It has been argued that while placing a duty on public bodies across the whole of Scotland may be desirable, in the main, it may not be practical in terms of the ability of certain local authority areas to draft, and more importantly, implement plans. It is recognised that there are areas in Scotland where there is little or no history of a Gaelic culture and therefore, whilst it is possible to produce a Gaelic language plan, there could be a lack of Gaelic-speaking personnel to implement the plan and to give it meaning.

40. In oral evidence, Rob Dunbar suggested that rather than drawing a line on a map that account should be taken of where Gaelic speakers are located and therefore, where demand exists. He further suggested that while there should be a national responsibility to design plans, that not all groups would have, or should be expected to have, the same plans.¹⁷

41. The Welsh Language Board, in oral evidence, outlined the approach which it has taken to developing Welsh language plans. Their Chief Executive, John Walter Jones explained that the Welsh Language Act 1993 applies to the whole of Wales, but that during its parliamentary progress, concern was expressed over the ability of all public bodies to implement the requirements of the Act. The issue of implementation was passed to the Welsh Language Board. Mr Jones further explained that:

"The one thing which we made abundantly clear from the outset was that the language schemes would be developed as and when authorities were in a position to implement them - we believed that there was no point in having a language scheme on paper that sat on a shelf gathering dust....The board also made it clear that every language scheme would differ from the one before or the one after, and that every language scheme would reflect the nature of the body and where it operated."¹⁸

42. It is clear from the evidence that the duty to produce Gaelic language plans should apply to the whole of Scotland, therefore ensuring that the principle of treating Gaelic on a "basis of equality" with English is adopted Scotland-wide. However, the Committee does recognise the practical difficulties which could arise and would suggest these difficulties need to be addressed to ensure that plans are meaningful and able to be implemented.

43. The Committee has identified various options, based on the assumption that the Bill will apply to the whole of Scotland, which could assist with the practical difficulties. These options are as follows:

· The Committee recognises the need for flexibility in the content of language plans so that they are appropriate for the area where they are being introduced. Therefore, the Schedule to the Bill which sets out the minimum content of Gaelic language plans could be amended to stress that the plans should be based on local needs and on local demand. This concurs with the view expressed by the Welsh Language Board that in their experience, every language plan would and should differ from another.

· The Bill specifies that every body to which the duty currently applies must prepare a language plan within two years. This provision could be amended so that this period could be extended to say, five years. This extension could apply to all areas and bodies or only to those areas not currently specified in the Bill.

· As happened in Wales, each area or body could be given a set timescale within which to produce and implement a language plan. This timescale could be different for each area or body, based on the ability of an area or body to implement the plan, taking into account the resources it has available and the needs of the local area.

· If the option above were adopted, it would be essential that the process be overseen and that help and advice is available. The Committee suggests that Bòrd Gàidhlig na h-Alba would be in the best position to do this. Indeed, the Bòrd has stated that it wishes to deal with any language plans. The Committee would envisage the Bòrd's role as being similar to that of the Welsh Language Board. In written evidence, the Welsh Language Board commented that "the Board's central role in the Welsh process is a great strength, not only in exercising the necessary control over it, but also in ensuring that Welsh language schemes are not an end in themselves, but have a wider part to play as instruments of holistic language planning, fit for purpose according to circumstances"¹⁹

44. The Committee is firmly of the view that the duty to prepare language plans must apply to the whole of Scotland and that, in conjunction, the options outlined in paragraph 43 must be examined. As it is also clear that some local authorities have concerns over the extension of this duty and the practical issues arising from that, the Committee would suggest that further evidence on this issue would need to be taken prior to the consideration of amendments at Stage 2.

Compulsion and enforcement issues

45. The Bill not only places a duty on certain public bodies to prepare Gaelic language plans, but also provides for the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman to investigate any failures to deliver a service in Gaelic whose provision a public body has included in its language plan.

46. There has been a division in the evidence received over whether or not compulsion and enforcement should be part of the Bill. In referring to the experience in Wales, Professor Kenneth MacKinnon stated that:

"From that start, a language plan was negotiated between those organisations and a body that existed to negotiate, enable, help and provide facilities rather than to enforce, punish or insist. That shows a completely different spirit."²⁰

47. However, in his written evidence, Rob Dunbar stated that :

"Quite simply, without an element of compulsion, and without a means for scrutinising the extend to which obligations are being met and for enforcing those obligations where they are not being met, the Bill, or any legislation on Gaelic, would be of little practical value, It would be largely symbolic."²¹

48. The Committee recognises these two differing arguments. It also recognises the concerns over the raising of expectations in areas with little or no history of Gaelic and the possibility of individuals wishing to take a case against a local authority where they believe their expectations are not being met.

49. The Committee raised this issue with the Welsh Language Board whose experience of overseeing the introduction and implementation of language plans has been helpful in considering the Bill. The Welsh Language Board confirmed that their approach has been based on consensus. John Walter Jones stated that:

"We have not taken enforcement measures such as taking cases to court, as we do not believe that such measures would work. If we do not have the support of everyone concerned, we will not get anywhere. We have developed our policies on the basis of consensus and support."²²

50. This issue was also raised with Michael Russell in his oral evidence to the Committee. He recognised that the issue of enforcement was also a concern for the Executive and suggested that the enforcement provisions could be changed, but he also stated that:

"The provisions in the bill are the mildest ways in which authorities can be encouraged to produce a Gaelic language plan.....There are no sanctions in the bill. I fail to see how enforcement can be regarded as draconian if there are no sanctions. The only sanction in the bill is naming and shaming, which is not much of a sanction...Most authorities should be doing what is proposed anyway, or should be thinking of doing so - the committee has heard from a number of bodies that are doing such things. As for the rest, I endorse the approach of the Welsh Language Board: to negotiate, discuss and encourage over a period of time. Nothing in the bill stops that from happening."²³

51. The Committee appreciates the concerns raised over the issue of enforcement. The Committee also notes the Minister's statement that "The Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Act 2002 is on the statute book; it came into being last year and provides people with the ability to claim against what would be determined a service failure"²⁴ - therefore, it could be argued that there is no need for reference to the Ombudsman in the Bill.

52. The Committee recommends that the issue of enforcement and the role of the Ombudsman as currently detailed in the Bill, be re-examined.

The role of Bòrd Gàidhlig na h-Alba

53. Related to the issue of enforcement, is the role of Bòrd Gàidhlig na h-Alba. Much of the evidence received suggested that the role given to the Ombudsman should instead be given to Bòrd Gàidhlig na h-Alba. Indeed, this is also stated in the submission from Bòrd Gàidhlig na h-Alba.

54. In oral evidence, CNAG stated that they wished to see this, but they also expressed a wish for the Bill to go further:

"We thank the Executive and the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport for establishing bòrd Gàidhlig na h-Alba, but the body needs to have power and to be established under a Gaelic act, just as the Welsh Language Board was established under the Welsh Language Act 1993...[ ] it should empower bòrd Gàidhlig na h-Alba to devise and implement a national plan for Gaelic..We have to be clear that the bill will empower bòrd Gàidhlig na h-Alba so that it can fulfil its responsibilities."²⁵

55. These sentiments were also expressed in many of the written submissions received. This again raised concerns over what is expected of the Bill and what the Bill can actually achieve.

56. Bòrd Gàidhlig na h-Alba has been set up as a non-departmental public body but has not been established by statute. It is clear that much of the evidence asks for this Bill, effectively, to establish the Bòrd and its roles and responsibilities. While the Committee realises that issues of admissibility are properly determined at Stage 2, it notes that it may not be possible to achieve this desire for establishment by this Bill.

57. The Committee believes that the Bill does have deficiencies as outlined above and that the recommendations which it makes in paragraphs 44 and 52 should be examined. In addition, given the overwhelming evidence in support of formally establishing Bòrd Gàidhlig na h-Alba, the Committee recommends that the Executive investigate establishing Bòrd Gàidhlig na h-Alba in legislation and defining its roles and responsibilities. In particular, given the Committee's suggested options detailed in paragraph 43, the issue of allowing the Bòrd to oversee the implementation of Gaelic language plans should be considered.

Policy Memorandum

Consultation

58. The Committee is satisfied with the adequacy of the consultation carried out.

Equal opportunities

59. The Committee notes that the policy memorandum stated that the Bill will have no adverse impact on equal opportunities and that the Bill "seeks to promote the use of the Gaelic languages it does not address the issue of discrimination between Gaelic and non-Gaelic speakers...it does not require a body to communicate in Gaelic, it only provides for bodies to indicate in their plan how they will respond to enquiries in Gaelic."²⁶

60. The Committee received a submission from the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) Scotland. The CRE argued that as public bodies already have a duty to prepare and publish a "Race Equality Scheme" under the Race Relations Act 1976 (Statutory Duties) (Scotland) Order 2002, to show what they are doing for race equality, then placing a further duty to publish another plan would be unnecessary. The CRE further stated that:

"While the CRE supports the promotion of minority languages and culture, we are concerned that establishing a "basis of equality between the Gaelic and English languages" is a far-reaching objective, which could send out an unhelpful message in terms of race relations. The CRE feels that, in dealing with minority languages, it is potentially damaging to race relations to promote one language and its associated culture above others to the degree that this Bill proposes."²⁷

61. Michael Russell, in oral evidence, disputed this and said that the Bill does not propose to put any one language above another. He went on to outline a compact which the CRE in Wales has agreed with the Welsh Language Board which states:

"The task of both organisations is to promote equality, and we share common values. We respect each other's aims and responsibilities, and recognise they are compatible"²⁸

62. The Committee does not believe that the approach of the Bill and the aims of the CRE are incompatible and does not concur with the statement that "the Bill could actually militate against new duties on public bodies in Scotland to promote race equality".²⁹

Financial Memorandum

63. The Financial Memorandum states that the maximum cost to a public body for preparing, printing and distributing a draft language plan for consultation and then publishing a final plan would be £3,000. However, the memorandum also states that the cost of implementing a plan could not be quantified.

64. The question of how much it may cost to implement a language plan was raised in oral evidence. It was clear that people found it difficult even to estimate the cost of implementation as the costs would depend on what was contained in a organisation's plan and how much work an organisation may have already carried out in relation to Gaelic. Michael Russell summed this up by saying "It is a question of what people are willing to do and how they wish to do it."³⁰

65. In written evidence Glasgow City Council stated that:

"The Gaelic Language Plans which are required by the Bill, indicate that services exclusively for users of Gaelic language, translation services and a designated contact officer would be in addition to that already provided. This would have implications for finance for the Council and would therefore require financial support in specific grant funding from central government."³¹

66. In its written submission, Highland Council explained that they believed they were already fulfilling the main aim of the Bill in that they have produced a five year plan for the development of Gaelic education and childcare. However, they also made the point that if their existing plan is to be implemented, then additional funding would have to continue through the Specific Grant for Gaelic Education scheme.³²

67. Northern Constabulary raised concerns over the financial implications of the Bill, including the issue of recruitment and training of staff. Their concern is that to fulfil their obligations under the Bill, they would either have to recruit new gaelic-speaking staff or carry out training programmes for existing staff. Northern Constabulary acknowledge that both options carry financial implications and additionally, they are concerned that due to the number of Gaelic speakers that "the ability to recruit more people from that small resource, who are also willing and suitable for the wider needs of the role which we and other services provide, is very limited and assumes that individual Gaelic speakers regard use of Gaelic as core to their career aspirations."³³

68. The Executive has also highlighted its concerns over the financial memorandum and has stated that "without a clearer estimate of those uncertain costs for public bodies and what their response is the Executive cannot support this Bill."³⁴

69. However, when the Committee raised the issue of cost with the Welsh Language Board, they argued that issues of language should be seen as forming an integral part of an organisation's work and duties and therefore, any funding required should also be seen in the same way -

"Too often, investment in Welsh-medium or Gaelic-medium education or public services is perceived as investment in Welsh or in Gaelic. That perception is mistaken. Such investment should be seen primarily as investment in education or better service provision, rather than as something additional. Language is a part of society; it should not be seen as something that is apart from society."³⁵

70. The Committee has some sympathy with this point, but is still very concerned that there is no estimate of the cost of implementing Gaelic language plans. The Committee recognises that such costs will vary across the country and that if the Bill were amended to apply to the whole of Scotland, this would also have a further impact on costs. Additionally, as highlighted by Northern Constabulary, even in areas which already make provision for Gaelic, there are additional costs associated with implementation which need to be taken into account.

Subordinate legislation

71. Sections 1(7), 3(2)(b) and 7(2)(b) confer powers to make subordinate legislation. The report from Subordinate Legislation Committee is attached as Annex A. Section 1(7) confers powers on Scottish Ministers to amend the minimum contents of a language plan by an order made by statutory instrument subject to negative procedure. The Subordinate Legislation Committee has recommended that any exercise of this power should be subject to affirmative procedure. The Committee concurs with this recommendation.

72. Section 7(2) allows Scottish Ministers to extend the provisions of the Bill to areas not currently specified by way of commencement orders. The Subordinate Legislation Committee commented that this Committee should consider whether or not using commencement orders was the most suitable approach. The Committee believes that if the Bill is amended so that it applies immediately to the whole of Scotland, then the issue outlined by the Subordinate Legislation Committee may not arise.

Conclusions

73. The Committee welcomes the intention underlying the Bill. It recognises, as is stated in paragraph 20 that the Bill should not be seen as a panacea but as a start of a process.

74. The Committee also welcomes the creation of Bòrd Gàidhlig na h-Alba and the statement from the Minister that he believes Gaelic has official status and official recognition which is extremely helpful in promoting and securing the Gaelic language. As stated in paragraph 28, the Committee believes that this Bill could dovetail into the work of the Executive and of Bòrd Gàidhlig na h-Alba, rather than undermining it.

75. However, the Committee also recognises the concerns which have been expressed about the Bill and which need to be addressed. As stated in paragraph 43, the issue of which areas are affected by the Bill needs to be addressed. In the Committee's view, the duty to prepare language plans should apply to the whole of Scotland and the practical issues arising from this should be addressed. As stated in paragraph 44, the Committee would suggest that further evidence on this issue would need to be taken prior to the consideration of amendments at Stage 2.

76. The Committee also recommends, as stated in paragraph 52, that the issue of enforcement and the role of the Ombudsman needs to be re-examined and, as stated in paragraph 57, that Bòrd Gàidhlig na h-Alba's status, role and responsibilities be defined in legislation.

77. The Committee is also concerned over the lack of detail of the cost of implementing Gaelic language plans, albeit that it recognises the arguments of mainstreaming funding, as stated in paragraph 69.

Recommendation

78. Whilst the Committee is aware of the limitations of the Bill and provisions of the Bill which need to be re-examined, it believes, on balance, that the general principles of the Bill should be agreed to.

Footnotes

1 Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill: Policy Memorandum

2 Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill: Policy Memorandum

3 General Register Office for Scotland: Scotland's Census 2001

4 Submission from the Scottish Executive

5 Mike Watson, Col 4048, Official Report, 21 January 2003

6 Councillor Andrew Anderson, Col 3971, Official Report, 7 January 2003

7 Submission from Bòrd Gàidhlig na h-Alba

8 Submission from Welsh Language Board

9 Mike Watson, Col 4046, Official Report, 21 January

10 Michael Russell, Col 4068, Official Report, 21 January

11 Submission from An Gàidheal Ùr

12 Submission from Highlands and Islands Enterprise

13 Michael Russell, Col 4069, Official Report, 21 January 2003

14 Councillor Helen Law, Col 3978, Official Report, 7 January 2003

15 Mike Watson, Col 3422, Official Report, 21 January 2003

16 ibid

17 Rob Dunbar, Col 3994, Official Report, 7 January 2003

18 John Walter Jones, Col 4029, Official Report, 14 January 2003

19 Submission from the Welsh Language Board

20 Professor Kenneth MacKinnon, Col 3932, Official Report, 10 December 2002

21 Submission from Rob Dunbar

22 John Walter Jones, Col 4026, Official Report, 14 January 2003

23 Michael Russell, Col 4064, Official Report, 21 January 2003

24 Mike Watson, Col 4059, Official Report, 21 January 2003

25 Dòmhnall Màrtainn, Col 3951, Official Report, 17 December 2002

26 Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill: Policy Memorandum

27 Submission from Commission for Racial Equality Scotland

28 Michael Russell, Col 4065, Official Report, 21 January 2003

29 Submission from Commission for Racial Equality Scotland

30 Michael Russell, Col 4066, Official Report 21 January 2003

31 Submission from Glasgow City Council

32 Submission from Highland Council

33 Submission from Northern Constabulary

34 Submission from the Scottish Executive

35 John Walter Jones, Col 4025, Official Report, 14 January 2003