Education Culture and Sport Committee

1. The Subordinate Legislation Committee considered the delegated powers provisions in the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill at its meetings on 28^th January and 4^th February 2003. The Committee submits this report to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, as the lead committee for the Bill, under Rule 9.6.2 of Standing Orders.

Committee remit

2. Under the terms of its remit, the Committee considers and reports on proposed powers to make subordinate legislation in particular Bills or other proposed legislation and on whether any proposed delegated powers in particular Bills or other legislation should be expressed as a power to make subordinate legislation.

3. The term "subordinate legislation" carries the same definition in the Standing Orders as in the Interpretation Act 1978. Section 21(1) of that Act defines subordinate legislation as meaning "Orders in Council, orders, rules, regulations, schemes, warrants, bye-laws and other instruments made or to be made under any Act". "Act" for this purpose includes an Act of the Scottish Parliament. The Committee therefore considers not only powers to make statutory instruments as such contained in a Bill but also all other proposed provisions conferring delegated powers of a legislative nature.

Introduction

4. This is a Member's Bill introduced by Michael Russell MSP who is the member in charge of the Bill.

5. The Bill places a requirement on certain public bodies to publish, maintain and implement Gaelic Language Plans to give effect to the principle that in the exercise of the functions of those bodies the Gaelic and English languages should be treated on a basis of equality.

6. The Bill places a requirement on public bodies to publish a Gaelic Language Plan and contains provisions relating to the preparation and content of the Plan and for the bodies to whom the Bill is to apply.

Delegated powers

7. The Bill confers a total of three delegated powers on the Scottish Ministers. All of the powers are new powers and no existing powers are being amended or repealed. The delegated powers under the Bill are exercisable by statutory instrument.

8. Michael Russell has prepared a Memorandum for the assistance of the Committee that sets out more fully the policy background to the Bill and the reasons for proposing the various delegated powers.

9. Having considered these powers with the assistance of the member's memorandum, the Committee approves section 3 without further comment.

Individual delegated powers

10. The Committee asked the member in charge of the Bill for clarification of several points. Mr Russell wrote with his comments in reply.

Section 1 Gaelic Language plans

Background

11. Section 1 of the Bill obliges public bodies to prepare Gaelic language plans. The minimum contents that must be included in a plan are listed in the Schedule to the Bill. Subsection (7) of section 1 confers powers on the Scottish Ministers to amend the list by order made by statutory instrument subject to negative procedure.

12. The Committee had no objection in principle to the power but mentioned that it would normally recommend affirmative procedure for the exercise of a power to amend primary legislation where the power is not simply to make provision for procedural, incidental or consequential matters. The Committee therefore asked Mr Russell for his views on the point.

Response

13. In his reply, reproduced at the Appendix to this report, Mr Russell stated that he considers that any provision under the power would be administrative in character and would not prevent a body from including in the plan whatever it felt was appropriate. The Schedule does not circumscribe the contents but merely sets out the minimum contents. He therefore considered that negative procedure was appropriate but would be prepared to amend the procedure if the Committee so wished.

Report 1

14. The Committee accepts that, if the Schedule were removed, this would not have any effect on the duty of a body to prepare a plan under the Bill. However, there would then be no minimum requirements for such a plan. It is not, therefore, entirely clear to the Committee that the order-making power is purely administrative.

15. The fact that the minimum contents of a plan are set out in a Schedule suggests that these are considered to be sufficiently important to be debated by the Parliament. This appears to indicate affirmative procedure in the usual way.

16. In all the circumstances, the Committee considered that the content of any order would be likely to have sufficient importance to justify affirmative approval by the Parliament. The Committee therefore approves the delegation of power but recommends that any exercise of it should be subject to affirmative procedure.

Section 7 Short title and commencement

Background

17. After considering this provision carefully, it seemed to the Committee that there must be some doubt whether the subject matter is appropriate to a commencement order, which will not be subject to any Parliamentary procedure.

18. On one view, it could be argued that the Parliament would have accepted the principle that the requirements of the Bill should extend to the whole of Scotland. Therefore, it may be commenced in stages. The Committee recalled that the Land Registration (Scotland) Act 1979 provided for a system of land registration throughout Scotland but, for logistical reasons, had to come into force in different areas at different times to take account of the capacity and resources of the Registers. It is not clear, however, that the same rationale applies in the case of the present Bill.

19. As drafted, the Bill seems to imply that its principal purpose is to impose the requirements in a particular area of Scotland specified in the Bill but also providing Ministers with the option to extend the requirements to other areas.

20. It seems likely that such action might be controversial for many reasons. Whilst the Committee considered the matter suited to subordinate legislation, there appeared, on the other hand, to be a case that such subordinate legislation ought to be subject at least to negative procedure with perhaps a requirement for prior consultation with affected parties.

21. To assist it in its deliberations, the Committee therefore asked Mr Russell for further comment on the drafting of the provision and for further information on the policy background.

Response

22. In reply, Mr Russell drew attention to precedents for staged implementation elsewhere in the statute book and observed that it would be incorrect for a commencement order to be subject to procedure. In addition, he explains why he has chosen to apply the provisions in the Bill initially only in one area of Scotland.

Report 2

23. The matter of the areas of Scotland to which the Bill should extend is one of policy for the lead committee. In his letter, Mr Russell acknowledges that there are differing views on this point and states that he is willing to consider alternative suggestions to the proposed implementation plan.

24. This would, however, take the Committee into the policy of the Bill. The Committee's concern is to determine whether, in this instance, the correct balance has been struck between primary and subordinate legislation. If subordinate legislation is appropriate, the Committee then considers whether commencement order is the correct form of instrument for such legislation.

25. The Committee is aware of the statutes cited by the member in charge in support of the Bill's approach but that legislation appears to be different in nature from the present Bill. The Committee agrees entirely that it is not appropriate for a commencement order to be subject to any procedure. It was for this reason that it questioned whether the subject matter was appropriate to such an order rather than, for example, to a substantive, subordinate legislation-making power that would be subject to Parliamentary scrutiny or to provision in the Bill itself.

26. In the Committee's view, therefore, whilst the use of commencement order procedure in the way proposed is not unprecedented or necessarily unacceptable, the lead committee may wish to consider whether it is the most suitable approach in the context of the present Bill.

27. There are no further delegated powers in the Bill of concern to the Committee.

Appendix 1

MEMORANDUM TO THE SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION COMMITTEE BY THE MEMBER IN CHARGE OF THE BILL, MICHAEL RUSSELL MSP

GAELIC LANGUAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL: PROVISIONS CONFERRING POWER TO MAKE SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION

Purpose

1 This memorandum has been prepared by Michael Russell MSP, the Member in charge of the Bill. It has been provided to assist the Subordinate Legislation Committee with their consideration, in accordance with Rule 9.6.2 of the Parliament's Standing Orders, of provisions in the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill conferring powers to make subordinate legislation. It describes the purpose of each such provision, explains why the matter is to be left to subordinate legislation and the reasons for seeking the proposed powers.

Policy Context

2 The Bill places a requirement on certain public bodies to publish, maintain and implement Gaelic Language Plans to give effect to the principle that in the exercise of the functions of those bodies the Gaelic and English languages should be treated on a basis of equality.

Content of the Bill

3 The Bill:

· places a requirement on public bodies to publish a Gaelic Language Plan within two years of the Bill receiving Royal Assent;
· provides that the public body must consult interested persons before preparing the plan;
· sets out the duration of the plan as five years, during which the public body must implement the measures set out in the plan;
· provides for the review and amendment of the plan during the fourth year and for administrative changes to be made without a review being undertaken;
· provides that the Bill applies to public bodies that are liable to investigation by the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (other than cross border public authorities and family health service providers);
· provides that initial commencement of the Bill is to be in the local government areas of Highland, Western Isles, that part of Argyll and Bute which is the area of the former Argyll and Bute District Council and the islands of Arran, Great Cumbrae and Little Cumbrae;

Delegated Powers

4 The Bill confers a total of three delegated powers on the Scottish Ministers. All of the powers are new powers and no existing powers are being amended or repealed. The powers are explained in detail in the following paragraphs. The delegated powers under the Bill are exercisable by statutory instrument.

Section 1: Gaelic language plans

Section 1(7) Amendment to schedule

Power conferred on: The Scottish Ministers

Power exercised by: Order made by statutory instrument

Parliamentary procedure: Negative resolution of the Scottish Parliament

5 Section 1 of the Bill sets out the requirements for a Gaelic Language Plan (the Plan). In particular, at section 1(2)(b) it provides that the Plan must include the matters mentioned in the schedule. The schedule contains the minimum details that each plan must contain, for example that it should contain details of how the public body will respond to inquires it receives in Gaelic, details of translation services it will provide and the contact details of a senior officer designated as the Gaelic contact.

6 Accordingly, section 1(7) allows the Scottish Ministers to make orders that amend the schedule by removing, amending or adding to the provisions. The power afforded by this section enables the Scottish Ministers to alter the minimum details that each plan must contain. This allows the Scottish Ministers to add further minimum measures that must be contained in the plan or remove any measures that perhaps have become inappropriate.

7 The Member considers that the amendment of the contents of the schedule is an appropriate matter for subordinate legislation. It is felt that negative resolution procedure is appropriate, as this power does not enable the Scottish Ministers to substantially affect the impact of the Bill's provisions.

Section 3: Public bodies

Section 3(2)(b) Public Bodies to whom the Bill applies

Power conferred on: The Scottish Ministers

Power exercised by: Order made by statutory instrument

Parliamentary procedure: Affirmative resolution of the Scottish Parliament

8 Section 3(1)(a) provides that the Bill applies to those public bodies who are listed authorities under section 3(1) of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Act 2002. The exception to this being cross border public authorities and those referred to in paragraph 5 of schedule to the 2002 Act, namely family health service providers i.e. general practitioners, dentists and pharmacists.

9 Section 3(2) sets out the procedure when additional authorities or persons are added to those already contained in schedule 2 to the 2002 Act. Section 3(2)(b) gives power to the Scottish Ministers, by order, to make provisions to say that an authority or person added to the schedule to the 2002 Act is not a public body to whom this Bill should apply.

10 The Member considers that the power to exempt new public authorities is an appropriate matter for subordinate legislation. Due to the significant impact that this may have on a new public body and the potential impact on the public, section 5(3) provides that a statutory instrument containing an order under this section cannot be made unless a draft of the order has been approved by a resolution of the Parliament.

Section 7: Short title and commencement

Section 7(2)(b) commencement for other areas

Power conferred on: The Scottish Ministers

Power exercised by: Order

Parliamentary procedure: None

11 The Bill applies to the whole of Scotland. However section 7(2)(a) provides that for the relevant area, the Bill will come into force the day after the date of Royal Assent. The relevant area is defined in section 6(1) and is described in paragraph 3 of this memorandum. The member's policy is that in the first instance the Bill should apply to those bodies providing a service or a function in areas of Scotland where there are already strong links with Gaelic either historically or culturally. This reflects the majority of responses to consultation.

12 The order making power in section 7(2)(b) gives powers to the Scottish Ministers to commence the provisions of the Bill in other areas in Scotland. This could be to other defined areas of Scotland or to the remainder of Scotland.

13 The Member considers that the commencement of the provisions of the Bill in other areas of Scotland or indeed to the whole of Scotland is an appropriate matter for delegated powers. The commencement order is purely administrative, the policy and substantive provisions of the Bill are covered elsewhere. Making an order in this way reflects current practice in relation to commencement provisions.

Michael Russell MSP

Member in Charge of the Bill

October 2002

ANNEX B - EXTRACTS FROM MINUTES

EDUCATION, CULTURE AND SPORT COMMITTEE

EXTRACT FROM MINUTES

30th Meeting, 2002 (Session 1)

Tuesday 26 November 2002

Present:

Jackie Baillie
Karen Gillon (Convener)

Ian Jenkins
Irene McGugan

Mr Brian Monteith
Cathy Peattie (Deputy Convener)

Michael Russell

The meeting opened at 2.03 pm.

Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill: The Committee agreed its approach and timetable for consideration of Stage 1 of the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill.

The meeting closed at 3.28 pm.

EDUCATION, CULTURE AND SPORT COMMITTEE

EXTRACT FROM MINUTES

32nd Meeting, 2002 (Session 1)

Tuesday 10 December 2002

Present:

Karen Gillon
Ian Jenkins

Marilyn Livingstone (Committee substitute)
Irene McGugan

Mr Brian Monteith
Cathy Peattie (Deputy Convener)

Michael Russell

The meeting opened at 2.00 pm.

Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill: The Committee took evidence on the general principles of the Bill at Stage 1 from-

Professor Kenneth MacKinnon, Ministerial Advisory Group on Gaelic

Professor Donald Meek, Ministerial Advisory Group on Gaelic.

The meeting closed at 3.06 pm.

EDUCATION, CULTURE AND SPORT COMMITTEE

EXTRACT FROM MINUTES

33rd Meeting, 2002 (Session 1)

Tuesday 17 December 2002

Present:

Jackie Baillie
Karen Gillon (Convener)

Ian Jenkins
Irene McGugan

Mr Brian Monteith
Michael Russell

Apologies: Cathy Peattie (Deputy Convener)

The meeting opened at 2.07 pm.

Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill: The Committee took evidence on the general principles of the Bill at Stage 1 from-

Donald Martin, Community Development, Commun na Gàidhlig

Councillor Roderick Murray, Chair of Policy and Resources Committee, Comhairle nan Eilean Siar

Alasdair MacLeod, Gaelic Development Officer, Comhairle nan Eilean Siar

The meeting closed at 2.55 pm.

EDUCATION, CULTURE AND SPORT COMMITTEE

EXTRACT FROM MINUTES

1st Meeting, 2003 (Session 1)

Tuesday 7 January 2003

Present:

Jackie Baillie
Karen Gillon (Convener)

Ian Jenkins
Irene McGugan

Mr Brian Monteith
Cathy Peattie (Deputy Convener)

Michael Russell

The meeting opened at 2.03 pm.

Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill: The Committee took evidence on the general principles of the Bill at Stage 1 from-

C'llr Allan Beaton, Chairman, Gaelic Working Group, Highland Council

C'llr Andrew Anderson, Chairman, Education, Culture and Sport Committee, Highland Council

Bruce Robertson, Director, Education, Culture and Sport Service, Highland Council

Morag Anna MacLeod, Gaelic Development Officer, Highland Council

C'llr Helen Law (Fife Council), Education Spokesperson, COSLA

C'llr Eric Gotts (East Dunbartonshire Council), COSLA

Dr Wilson McLeod, Senior Lecturer, Celtic and Scottish Studies, University of Edinburgh

Rob Dunbar, Senior Lecturer, School of Law, University of Glasgow

Peadar Morgan, Clì, Na Gaidheil Ùra (The New Gaels)

Jim Tough, Head of Strategic Development, Scottish Arts Council

The meeting closed at 4.23 pm.

EDUCATION, CULTURE AND SPORT COMMITTEE

EXTRACT FROM MINUTES

2nd Meeting, 2003 (Session 1)

Tuesday 14 January 2003

Present:

Jackie Baillie
Karen Gillon (Convener)

Ian Jenkins
Irene McGugan

Mr Brian Monteith
Cathy Peattie (Deputy Convener)

Michael Russell

The meeting opened at 2.07 pm.

Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill: The Committee took evidence on the general principles of the Bill at Stage 1 from-

John Mackay, Scottish Natural Heritage

Mary Maclean, Scottish Natural Heritage

Mary Bryden, Director of Public Programmes, National Museums of Scotland

John Walter Jones, Chief Executive, Welsh Language Board

Meirion Prys Jones, Head of Language Planning, Welsh Language Board

The meeting closed at 3.28 pm.

EDUCATION, CULTURE AND SPORT COMMITTEE

EXTRACT FROM MINUTES

3rd Meeting, 2003 (Session 1)

Tuesday 21 January 2003

Present:

Jackie Baillie
Karen Gillon (Convener)

Ian Jenkins
Irene McGugan

Mr Brian Monteith
Cathy Peattie (Deputy Convener)

Michael Russell

Also present: Fiona Hyslop, Stewart Stevenson

The meeting opened at 2.10 pm.

Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill: The Committee took evidence on the general principles of the Bill at Stage 1 from-

Mike Watson, Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport

Michael Russell

The Committee agreed to take a draft Stage 1 report on the Bill in private at its next meeting. The Committee also agreed to take a draft report on its inquiry into the Purposes of Scottish Education in private at its next meeting.

Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill (in private): The Committee considered the key issues for its draft Stage 1 report.

The meeting closed at 4.56 pm.

EDUCATION, CULTURE AND SPORT COMMITTEE

EXTRACT FROM MINUTES

4th Meeting, 2003 (Session 1)

Tuesday 11 February 2003

Present:

Jackie Baillie
Karen Gillon (Convener)

Ian Jenkins
Irene McGugan

Mr Brian Monteith
Cathy Peattie (Deputy Convener)

Michael Russell

The meeting opened at 2.02 pm.

Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill (in private): The Committee considered a draft Stage 1 report. Various changes were agreed to. The Committee agreed that a revised report would be considered at its next meeting.

The meeting closed at 3.12 pm.

EDUCATION, CULTURE AND SPORT COMMITTEE

EXTRACT FROM MINUTES

5th Meeting, 2003 (Session 1)

Tuesday 18 February 2003

Present:

Jackie Baillie
Karen Gillon (Convener)

Ian Jenkins
Irene McGugan

Mr Brian Monteith
Cathy Peattie (Deputy Convener)

Michael Russell

Also present: Gil Paterson

The meeting opened at 3.03 pm.

Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill: The Committee considered a draft Stage 1 Report. The Report, as amended, was agreed to.

The meeting closed at 3.55 pm.

ANNEX C - ORAL EVIDENCE AND ASSOCIATED WRITTEN EVIDENCE

Tuesday 10 December 2002 (32^nd meeting 2002 (Session 1), Written Evidence

SUBMISSION FROM PROFESSOR KENNETH MACKINNON

Lack of clarity regarding the official status of the Gaelic language in Scotland has impeded Gaelic development for a long time. Westminster legislation defined the status of the Welsh language in Wales in 1967 and 1993, but there has been no corresponding legislation in Scotland. This has given the impression that the Gaelic Language has no official or legal status - and it has been used erroneously as an excuse by organizations such as the Lottery Heritage Fund to turn down applications for funding for Gaelic playgroups, and by British Telecom to refuse similar facilities for Gaelic as it provides for Welsh on the grounds `that Welsh is an official language and Gaelic is not'. These positions need to be challenged even from the position of the status quo.

Gaelic is in fact already recognized in Education Acts from 1918 onwards, Crofting and Land Court Legislation, Nationality Legislation (e.g. the 1981 Act), and Broadcasting Legislation and Royal Charters. The signature and ratification for Gaelic in Part III of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages by the U.K. Government in 2001 also means that Gaelic is thereby `officially recognized'. The recent undertaking by Nick Raynsford as the English Minister for Local Government and the Regions to include Cornish in Part II of the Charter was hailed in the media as `official recognition' (e.g. by Western Morning News 22/07/02 p. 1, and Sunday Telegraph 17/11/02 p. 3)

Earlier attempts to regularize the official status and position of Gaelic in the 1960s and 1970s (e.g. by the Gaelic Society of London) were turned down by the then Conservative administration on the grounds that: `The main purpose of the Welsh Language Act 1967 was to remove certain limitations on the use of Welsh in legal proceedings; but these limitations have no counterpart in Scottish law.' (correspondence from the then Secretary of State Gordon Campbell 10.07.70 - tabled herewith) In other words the government regarded Gaelic as having the same status in Scotland as Welsh in Wales under the 1967 Act, namely that Gaelic `already enjoys equal validity with English' (correspondence from T.D.Ewing Scottish Home and Health Department 22.05.70 - tabled herewith).

In the continued absence of legislation however, there still exists public and official confusion over what the status of Gaelic is. Clarifying legislation is therefore necessary. This need not be detailed or `mandatory linguistic requirements' which the government feared in 1970 (see T.D.Ewing letter) - and which still seem to be a voiced or implicit fear in some quarters today. The reason why we need simple clarifying legislation today is that the inception of the new Board for Gaelic in Scotland will need some legitimating principle to enable it to work with authority. Since 1984 there has been a government-assisted Comunn na Gàidhlig. It has done a lot of excellent work in language development and planning. However without any clear acceptance of the legal and equal status of Gaelic its language planning - both national and local - it has lacked any authoritative basis. From the start the new board needs to commence on a different footing. It needs a clearly worded legal measure that Gaelic is officially recognized as one of the national languages of Scotland. A Gaelic Act at this stage need say little more than this. It would however give the lie to other bodies which sought to refuse facilities for Gaelic on the pretext that Gaelic `was not an official language'. It would also enable the new board to work with the authority which CNAG lacked. Such a measure would have no financial implications for the Scottish Executive and it would not imply the imposition of any coercive measures for language policy in any part of Scotland. It would though give the new board the respect of other bodies and organizations with which it worked in producing consensual and co-operative policies to provide facilities for Gaelic, its speakers and learners.

For such reasons a zoning policy at this stage is not needed either - and might even prove counter-productive. A simple Gaelic Act and the spirit of the new Board as envisaged by the Meek Report and MAGOG would not be working to lay down mandatory or monolithic policies throughout Scotland, throughout zones or indeed throughout local authority areas. Its principles would not be about territory but about people, networks and communities. In other words it would not aim at blanket policies which would be coercive, formulaic or stereotypical - but measures providing enablement and support.

These could be provided anywhere in Scotland where there were Gaelic-linked activities, demand for facilities or communities of users. Many of these might be in areas where there were significant proportions of Gaelic speakers - but others might be in areas where Gaelic speakers were relatively few. (In 1991 only one Gaelic speaker in three lived in an area where Gaelic was spoken by a majority. On the other hand 40% of Gaelic speakers lived outwith the Highlands and Hebrides.)

To clear up anomalies an act is urgently needed which officially recognizes Gaelic as a national language of Scotland. It could also add that the new Board will co-operate with other bodies in formulating provisions for Gaelic through national and local language planning. These provisions will vary widely between different areas and institutions in accordance with local cultures and language realities. The new Board might subsequently recommend more specific legislation in the light of further experience.

There has been much disinformation about language planning and language acts. Some of this may have been deliberately malicious - and some may have been based upon lack of information or mistaken ideas. Language acts vary greatly throughout the world. Some may lay down a single language to be used by all (e.g. USA, Quebec). Others recognize two or more languages (e.g. two in Wales and New Zealand, four in Switzerland, eleven in South Africa). Each defines the range of uses and expectations differently. Scotland needs very simple legislation which merely recognizes Gaelic as a national language and empowers the new Board to work out in detail co-operatively with other authorities and institutions realistic provisions for Gaelic in each particular case.

Professor Kenneth MacKinnon,

Ministerial Advisory Group on Gaelic:

Language Development and Planning

SUBMISSION FROM PROFESSOR DONALD MEEK

1. Over the past two years I have been Chairman of the Ministerial Advisory Group on Gaelic (MAGOG). The Group completed its work on 2nd December 2002, having produced in May a major report entitled Cothrom Ur don Ghàidhlig: A Fresh Start for Gaelic.

2. The MAGOG report was very well received, and it led to the establishment of Bòrd Gàidhlig na h-Alba (The Board for Gaelic in Scotland), which will co-ordinate and enhance Gaelic language development in Scotland, in accordance with an agreed National Plan. The Board now has a Chairman, and it is expected that it will begin its work in mid-January 2003.

3. The MAGOG report recommended, as its first priority, that a Gaelic Language Act be passed.

4. In the summer of 2002, the MAGOG presented the Minister for Gaelic, Mike Watson MSP, with a draft Language Bill for Scotland, which (a) recognised Gaelic as one of Scotland's national languages, (b) defined Gaelic as a national asset in Scotland, and (c) empowered BGA to act as the principal planning agency for the development of Gaelic in Scotland, while demonstrating due sensitivity to the cultural profiles of different regions of Scotland. The draft Bill remains before the Minister.

5. The MAGOG was pleased to note the publication by Michael Russell MSP of his Private Member's Bill, and it recognised his very considerable achievement in keeping the Gaelic language alive as an issue in the Scottish Parliament. In this he had succeeded where the Scottish Executive had failed.

6. The MAGOG was willing to support Michael Russell's Bill as far as Stage One, but it registered its dissent from the terms of the Bill in its present form. It agreed with Michael Russell himself that there were deficiencies in the Bill in its present form.

7. The MAGOG advocated that the Scottish Executive should take ownership of the slot of the Russell Bill, and bring forward its own Bill on the lines suggested by the Group. The Group believes that the Scottish Executive has lost a significant opportunity to act purposefully and decisively, and in harmony with the stated wishes of the Gaelic people, to ensure the position of Gaelic in Scotland.

8. The MAGOG dissented chiefly in the following areas: (1) the zoning of Scotland in terms of the application of the Bill (since MAGOG advocated the application of legislation to the whole of Scotland); (2) the responsibility given to the Ombudsman rather than the Board; and (3) the element of coercion which was evident in the Bill in its present form. MAGOG advocated a consensual approach to the development of Gaelic in Scotland.

9. As the former Chairman of MAGOG, I am bound by the submissions already made to the Minister by his Ministerial Advisory Group. Although the MAGOG no longer functions, its recommendations and its position on legislation are likely to be reinforced by BGA.

10. The submissions made to the Minister reflect my personal views as well as those of the members of the MAGOG.

Professor Donald Meek

Ministerial Advisory Group on Gaelic

Tuesday, 10 December 2002 (32nd meeting 2002, Session 1), Oral Evidence

Full translation of Evidence

Tuesday, 10 December 2002 (32nd meeting 2002, Session 1)

3924

Prof Donald Meek (Ministerial Advisory Group on Gaelic): I have been chairman of the ministerial advisory group on Gaelic for two years. I have, therefore, been considering many of the questions which will be dealt with today. I hope you have received my written submission. That submission, which explains the conclusions of the advisory group on the bill which we are considering here today, outlines the arguments we made regarding the bill. I hope they are clear, and I would be happy to answer any questions to give clarification on the submission.

Prof Kenneth MacKinnon (Ministerial Advisory Group on Gaelic): I am very happy to be here today to discuss the bill. I have prepared a submission which has already been circulated. Maybe I will be explaining more about that in English. The written submission is in English and I will give explanations in English too.

3927

Prof Meek: We do not know at present when the minister will progress that bill. He has not said to us that he is going to do that for certain, but I hear rumours that the minister wishes to move on a law that will give security to Gaelic, possibly in the next parliament. If I understand the situation correctly, nothing at all is definite. The draft we prepared for the minister is being considered by him at the moment. We made it clear to him that it was a very, very good opportunity because the board will be in a special position as it will be an NDPB, and will need a legal foundation of one form or another. It would be extremely good to take up the opportunity to give Gaelic a legal standing in this new era. The opportunity is there and I hope the Executive does not miss the opportunity, but I do not know at the moment, for definite, what the plans are.

3928

Prof Meek: I did not hear about that. I do not know when --

I have no knowledge as to whether the report will be debated in Parliament.

Prof Meek: I think it would be possible for you to amend the bill in such a way as to satisfy people's desires. As I view the situation, we have this bill and we have no other bill, as far as I know. Therefore, the committee has an opportunity to amend the bill to suit the needs of Gaelic and also to acknowledge that Bòrd Gàidhlig na h-Alba is now established.

When Michael Russell was preparing the bill, many things were uncertain. The way forward was not clear at the time, but it is clear now. If there was an amalgamation of some form between the bill as has been prepared and what we have recommended to the Executive so that both could be combined and the bill amended according to what we have asked for, maybe then the majority would support it.

3929

Prof MacKinnon: I agree with that. In my opinion, we can establish a bill for Gaelic in the Parliament and can make it legally binding. As well as that, as I was explaining in English, I will turn to that language again --

3930

Prof MacKinnon: I strongly agree with that. As well as that, I think we are all, on all sides, coming together on these principles. I trust that we can look forward to seeing that sense of agreement bearing fruit soon.

3933

Prof Meek: I will respond in Gaelic again. I think there are many facets to this question. My colleague is considering ways in which a Gaelic act or secure status can be implemented regarding road signs and things like that.

Above all things, we want points in the law that would give stability to Gaelic. The political world is extremely unpredictable. It can change very quickly sometimes. We had two ministers whilst we were working on the advisory group. The first one went and the second one came. That happens to Governments too. You are likely to be losing out every time a change occurs. You must begin again and again, re-living the same struggles.

Whatever the details agreed at the end of the day, we want a foundation that will not be changed according to which Government or which party is involved. We want stability for Gaelic for future generations. If that exists, the board can deal with details which may be frightening people, such as road signs.

That fear is founded on money. How much will it cost to erect road signs and changing this and that? It is the question of money that scares people more today; not a question of language. The kind of bill recommended by the advisory group would hardly cost anything for the Executive. It is just going to give power to Bòrd na Gàidhlig and then also give secure status to Gaelic.

3935

This is a repeat of 3933

3937

Prof Meek: We need to implement the bill as quickly as possible for many reasons. We have the opportunity now to do that with the establishment of Bòrd na Gàidhlig. I do not know of a more suitable time than that. If we miss the opportunity, it will not be easy to get such an opportunity again -- it will not be in my lifetime anyway.

Therefore, there is a need for haste. We need to hurry and do this quickly. With regard to the state if Gaelic, there are two important issues. People in the islands, and in places throughout Scotland where Gaelic is spoken, are losing confidence because the Executive have spent so much time debating Gaelic, without doing much of worth.

Our group spent two years working towards Bòrd na Gàidhlig, and another report, which took at least a year to research, was produced before that. Time is passing and people are losing confidence. We must progress to regain the confidence of the people. That is a reason for haste.

Also, the number of people who speak Gaelic is ever decreasing, especially in the Western Isles. We need a law that will give security to Gaelic in a way which will provide opportunities for teaching Gaelic throughout the country in order to replenish stocks of Gaelic-speakers. There is haste needed on both counts. It does not matter which way you look at it, time is running out.

Coming back to the first point I made, there is an opportunity, in establishing Bòrd na Gàidhlig. A long time -- years -- are spent writing reports. We are tired of reports in the Gaelic community; we want action now. Bòrd na Gàidhlig is the first action, but there should be a Gaelic act alongside it.

3939

Prof MacKinnon: It is so true that the Gaels are losing confidence. In the communities, in the families and between generations we see that because so little is being done outwith the community or outwith the home to promote Gaelic. People think Gaelic does not matter and that there is little benefit in speaking Gaelic or bringing up children to speak Gaelic. I will turn to English for technical details.

Tuesday 17 December 2002 (33^rd meeting 2002, Session 1), Written Evidence

SUBMISSION FROM COMUNN NA GÀIDHLIG

Introduction

Comunn na Gàidhlig (CNAG) has been actively involved in campaigning, on behalf of the Gaelic community, for secure status for the Gaelic language since 1997, following a resolution at the Annual Gaelic Congress, to prepare a consultation paper on Secure Status.

The Need For Secure Status

CNAG was established in 1984, as a Company limited by guarantee with charitable status, and receives core funding from the Scottish Executive, and from Highlands & Islands Enterprise under an annual contract for specific projects and activities against targets. Over the years, CNAG has made significant achievements in Gaelic developments in education, youth, community, social and economic development projects, cultural tourism initiatives and general promotion of the language and culture. CNAG's advocacy and advisory roles have always been frustrated by the organisation's lack of any statutory powers. (e.g. progress in promoting Gaelic Medium Education and co-ordinating student and teacher recruitment has been limited because we lack the necessary powers and status to effect changes which involve other statutory bodies). Similarly, CNAG has no powers to secure agreement from public bodies, for example, to adopt effective bilingual policies to enable Gaelic speakers to use the language as a right, in dealing with these bodies. What progress has been achieved on this front has been very much on the basis of good will of individuals within the local and national bodies concerned. The lack of a secure status for Gaelic allows bodies such as the National Lottery New Opportunities Fund to turn down requests for support for Gaelic on the grounds that the language does not have official status in Scotland in the way the Welsh language has in Wales. This argument is inconsistent with the official government view stated on many occasions since 1970, that Gaelic "enjoys equal validity with English." CNAG's own experience in not being able to persuade the Scottish Office and more recently the Scottish Executive of the merits of Secure Status and the adoption of the recommendations of the National Strategy for Gaelic Education, highlights the extent to which the lack of statutory powers has been such a barrier in progressing these two important strategic issues. The fact that so much confusion continues to exist in relation to the legal and official status of Gaelic in Scotland, is ample evidence of the need to clarify the situation through a Gaelic Language Act.

Secure status, in the form of specific legislation to give Gaelic speakers certain rights to use the language in specific circumstances, as Welsh speakers are able to use their language since the first Welsh Language Act in 1967, received the overwhelming backing of the Gaelic community during an extensive consultation process between 1997 and 1999. This resulted in CNAG's Draft Brief for a Gaelic Language Bill being presented to the Scottish Executive in July 1999, accompanied by a petition with over 10,000 signatures. Although the Draft Brief was requested by the then Minister for Gaelic at the Scottish Office, Calum Macdonald MP, no formal response was ever received by CNAG from the Executive on this submission.

Executive Action To Date

The Gaelic community was reassured when the then Minister for Gaelic, Alasdair Morrison MSP, told delegates at the Gaelic Congress in Portree in 1999 that the Executive's Programme for Government included the commitment of "working towards secure status" and gave an assurance that Gaelic was on a "fast track". This was understood to indicate that the Minister would be pursuing legal status through legislation at an early date. A campaign to include specific provisions in the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000, making it a statutory obligation on local authorities to provide Gaelic Medium Education where reasonable demand exists, was unsuccessful. Ministers involved in the debate at the time gave assurances that sufficient statutory provisions to safeguard Gaelic Medium Education could be made by including Gaelic Education as one of the National Priorities under the Bill. There is no evidence, to date, that this provision has enhanced the position of Gaelic Medium Education, in any meaningful way.

Bòrd Gàidhlig na h-Alba is currently being set up and appointments to the Bòrd are expected to be announced shortly. A Gaelic Language Act must be approved by the Scottish Parliament as soon as possible to ensure that Bòrd Gàidhlig na h-Alba can function with a status and backing equivalent to its counterpart in Wales. As many commentators have recognised in recent years, time is fast running out for us to stem the decline of Gaelic speakers in Scotland.

The European Charter

The decision by the UK Government, in March 2001, to ratify the European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages and specify Gaelic under Part III of the Charter, in effect places Gaelic on the same "official footing" as Welsh, in the context of the Charter. Given this official recognition of parity with the Welsh language within the terms of the Charter, it is clearly unjust to deny Gaelic speakers in Scotland the rights which domestic legislation for Welsh speakers provides in Wales. It should also be noted that the Welsh Assembly, with fewer powers and a smaller budget than the Scottish Parliament, has recently announced a comprehensive policy and programme with the aim of making Wales a bilingual nation with appropriate additional funding for the development of Welsh.

CNAG'S Response To The Bill

CNAG warmly welcomes the Private Members' Bill on the Gaelic Language being promoted by Mike Russell MSP and supported by 11 MSP's. We recognise and acknowledge that it is the only attempt and the sole opportunity, which the Scottish Parliament will have of debating the question of legislation for Gaelic within this first term of the Parliament. We fully support the principle of the Bill in establishing a basis of equality between the Gaelic and English languages. Having carefully considered the provisions of the Bill and mindful of the reasons adduced for these provisions, we nevertheless have a number of concerns. Firstly, we firmly believe that the resources required to provide effective policies and programmes which will secure the future of Gaelic as a significant and important part of Scotland's national heritage and identity cannot, as the sponsor of the Bill has acknowledged, be addressed through the restricted provisions of a Private Members Bill. In applauding Mr Russell's endeavours in getting Gaelic onto the Parliamentary agenda we are of the view that the effective statutory provisions required, along the lines of our 1999 proposals, and which were recently supported by the Report of the Ministerial Advisory Group on Gaelic, can only be achieved through an appropriately resourced Bill supported by the Executive.

Secondly, CNAG's proposals for Secure Status did not envisage a situation where the rights of Gaelic speakers throughout Scotland would be determined on the principle of Postal Codes. In defining the geographical areas to which the current provisions of the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill applies, we believe that this will create divisions and tensions amongst the Gaelic speakers and learners throughout Scotland. An indication of the level of disquiet generated by "zonal provisions" was in evidence, last year, when the MacPherson Report proposed three clearly defined geographical areas in which Gaelic policies and support could be provided by the proposed Gaelic Development Agency. In our view, if the principle of the Gaelic language as a legitimate interest and concern to everyone in Scotland is accepted, as the Policy Memorandum to the Bill states (paragraph 3), we consider that any attempt at defining specific areas of Scotland, even as an initial step in granting official status for the language, should be avoided at all costs because of its divisive nature. A provision similar to the principles of the European Charter and in line with CNAG's own proposals as detailed in our 1999 submission is the only way forward. Legislation along these lines, is the only way in which the laudable aims and objectives of Bòrd Gàidhlig na h-Alba can be effectively attained to increase the number of Gaelic speakers throughout Scotland; to strengthen the use of Gaelic within families and in communities and to increase opportunities for the use of Gaelic by public bodies.

Recommendation

In commending the opportunity provided by the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill to address the key issues involved in secure status for the language, CNAG strongly recommends that the Education, Culture and Sport Committee should take this opportunity to propose amendments to the Bill to take full account of the relevant provisions of the CNAG Secure Status proposals and as recently supported in the Meek Report by the Ministerial Advisory Group on Gaelic.

This could be achieved by a short Bill stating as its first principle recognition by the Parliament and the Executive of the Gaelic language as one of Scotland's national language; secondly, establishing a basis of equality between the Gaelic and English languages in Scotland; and thirdly, empowering Bòrd Gàidhlig na h-Alba to prepare and implement a National Policy for Gaelic in Scotland, in conjunction with the relevant public, private and voluntary bodies.

SUBMISSION FROM COMHAIRLE NAN EILEAN SIAR

Comhairle nan Eilean Siar supports, in principle, the concept of a Gaelic Language Act as it will provide formal recognition by the Scottish Parliament that Gaelic is the major indigenous language of Scotland and deserves formal, legal status.

The enactment of a Gaelic Language Act will send out the unambiguous signal that the Scottish Parliament is committed to the maintenance, revival and development of the Gaelic language and culture.

The Gaelic Language Bill in the first instance will only apply to certain areas of Scotland, therefore, conferring secure language status on these areas only. The practicality and consequences of a limited approach must be questioned. Although the proposed areas are those where Gaelic continues to be used daily, they are not the areas of greatest population. The Bill denies the benefits of secure status to Gaelic speakers in urban areas. Comhairle nan Eilean Siar believes secure language status should be extended to Scotland as a whole.

To implement, even partial secure language status, will require additional financial resources but there appears to be no provision for this in the Bill.

A Gaelic Language Bill will be of significant assistance to Bord nan Gaidhlig and it will be a stimulus to ensure that a national co-ordinated and focussed approach to Gaelic is adopted so that future strategies and resources are effective and realistic. However, it might have been more appropriate to await the establishment of Bord na Gaidhlig and seek advice from the Bord on the content and form of the Gaelic Bill.

Comhairle nan Eilean Siar supports the concept in the Bill that all major public bodies should prepare and implement Gaelic language plans to ensure that Gaelic is accorded equal status with English and that the aims of these public bodies feed into a national strategy for Gaelic and culture, prepared by Bord na Gaidhlig.

Tuesday 17 December 2002 (33rd meeting 2002, Session 1), Oral Evidence

Full translation of Evidence

Tuesday 17 December 2002 (33rd meeting 2002, Session 1)

3949

Donald Martin (Comunn na Gàidhlig): I am happy to have this opportunity to come before the committee on behalf of Comunn na Gàidhlig to give evidence on the bill. We have prepared a paper which explains Comunn na Gàidhlig's point of view regarding the bill. We welcome the bill because it gives the committee, ourselves and the Parliament an opportunity to debate secure status for Gaelic. We have been campaigning for secure status for Gaelic for many years now and it is, therefore, good that we have come to the stage when it will be debated in Parliament. We endorse the principle of the bill. To a degree, the bill provides secure status and affords Gaelic equality with English. We can only support that.

In the bill we ourselves prepared, and which we submitted to the Government three years ago, we did not feel that the rights of Gaelic-speakers should be restricted to certain areas. Rather, we wanted the same rights for Gaelic-speakers and supporters throughout the whole of Scotland. Therefore, we could not support that section of the bill. Gaelic is a language that belongs to the vast majority of Scotland. We would, therefore, be doing a disservice to Gaelic-speakers and supporters in other parts of Scotland if a bill was in place which did not account for the rights of Gaels out with an area such as the Highlands and Islands.

We also think that we should grasp this good opportunity, with the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill, to give Bòrd Gàidhlig na h-Alba legal rights. We understand why it was not mentioned in the bill because, I believe, the situation was not clear at the time the bill was prepared. Bòrd Gàidhlig na h-Alba is to be established now and we thank the Executive and the minister for that. But the Board needs to have power, founded on a legal act in the same way as is the case with the Welsh Language Board in Wales. We think that is the way forward.

We recommend that a simple, short, non-controversial bill is all that is needed. Such a bill would include only three principles. The first of these principles would be to recognise the language as one of Scotland's national languages. The second principle would be to give Gaelic equality with English. The third principle would be to give Bòrd Gàidhlig na h-Alba power and authority to prepare a national language plan to be implemented in conjunction with public bodies, private companies and voluntary organisations as appropriate and suitable. These three principles do not contradict the principle and spirit of the bill being considered by the committee. They do not contradict anything the Executive has said to date regarding the Gaelic cause.

We have read closely the answer given by the minister to the committee regarding the Executive's stance. With regard to the four points in the final section of the minister's letter, we believe that these difficulties or impediments -- if they are impediments -- can be overcome with a simple, clear, concise bill which the Parliament could put through in a short space of time. That would give our first Parliament an opportunity to raise the profile of Gaelic and give support to Scotland's national language in a way that we would desire.

3952

Donald Martin: That is correct. We do not see anything that goes against the principle of the bill because the bill brings secure status a step closer. Secondly, it recommends that Gaelic be given equality with English in Scotland.

With regard to details such as whether it would be better that Bòrd Gàidhlig na h-Alba form part of the bill and authority be given to the board rather than the ombudsman, I think we would accept that at the second stage. The bill would need to give power to Bòrd Gàidhlig na h-Alba to make it possible for the board to fulfil the role given to it by the minister to devise and implement a national plan for Gaelic. That would need to be clear and effective within the bill.

3953

Donald Martin: I accept these strong arguments. We must be aware that a Gaelic bill which would include the whole of Scotland would not mean that every part of Scotland would be able to provide services in the language. I read the evidence the committee received from Prof. MacKinnon and Prof. Meek at the meeting last week, where crucial questions were raised regarding staff in the Executive's offices in Glasgow and Edinburgh. There is no way we could provide such a service. We must be aware that the level of support given to Gaelic in the Western Isles and some parts of the Highlands would be different to the level of support provided in places such as Glasgow and Edinburgh.

As we see it, the big danger in defining areas where the bill would be implemented in the first instance is that the Executive -- no matter what kind of Executive it was- would make excuses by saying "You have a Gaelic Bill and you do not need anything else". It is possible we would never see the bill extend to other parts. It would not be very easy to extend it to the whole of Scotland.

If I can make another point. When Bòrd Gàidhlig na h-Alba is implementing the national plan for Gaelic, I expect that will be done step by step. At the beginning, more will be done in areas where Gaelic exists just now, with the other areas being included gradually.

3954

Donald Martin: That is correct. I strongly agree with that, but rather than have an act for which we would have to return to the Parliament after six months or after a year, my desire would be for something much more simple --

3955

Donald Martin: The simplest thing that can be achieved and whatever the Parliament agrees to, that is the way forward. I thought maybe Bòrd Gàidhlig na h-Alba would be given the authority and power to implement a development plan for Gaelic throughout Scotland, as the board were enabled to do that. We must be aware that the board will be unable to carry out work unless it is given money be the Executive to implement its priorities. At the end of the day, the Executive have, in a way, control over what funds are put towards Gaelic because it is the Executive that decides what sum of money is given to the board.

Donald Martin: I see that finances are outlined in the financial memorandum in the bill. Those figures suggest that each organisation contribute £3000 to develop plans and I believe that is right. We cannot carry out such work without money from somewhere, and that is a small sum of money for the organisations. I do not know how much it would cost to implement everything, but one of the advantages in our recommendation for a simple bill which would give power to Bòrd na Gàidhlig, would be that Bòrd Gàidhlig na h-Alba would be responsible at the end of the day for ensuring that money would be provided for the developments resulting from the bill. The responsibility would be with the board itself.

3956

Donald Martin: Although it is Christmas time, I am a reasonable man and I realise I cannot get a blank cheque from you. The Executive would have to spend very little in the first instance on a concise, simple bill as, we are recommending. It would then be up to Bòrd na Gàidhlig, that would have the authority and responsibility to implement the programme, to go to the Executive -- just as the board has to do anyway -- to obtain further funding for the development it wishes to progress and implement.

Donald Martin: It would be useful but it would only be half the solution. We need to be clear that Gaelic is not only a national language or an official language in Scotland, but we need to follow that up by giving power to an organisation of some kind to ensure that terminology is being adhered to. If Bòrd na Gàidhlig is not given legal backing and powers, I am concerned that the board would be no better than Comunn na Gàidhlig has been in the past number of years. It has been a difficulty for Comunn na Gàidhlig not to have power or teeth to implement the developments they would desire to see.

3957

Donald Martin: That does not mean that those behind the counters in shops in Princes Street in Edinburgh have to be competent in Gaelic or that all members of Parliament need to be able to speak Gaelic. In the first instance, that recommendation would give confidence by giving the language a special status similar to what Welsh receives in Wales. That is important and is crucial in progressing the developments in the language.

Tuesday 7 January 2003 (1^st meeting 2003, Session 1), Written Evidence

SUBMISSION FROM HIGHLAND COUNCIL

1. The Highland Council welcomes Mike Russell's MSP Private Members' Bill on the Gaelic Language. This is the first opportunity, which the Scottish Parliament will have to discuss and debate a Bill for Gaelic.

2. According to the 1991 Census figures, 7.5% or 15,302 of the population of the Highland Council area are Gaelic speakers. In the Skye and Lochalsh area 42% of the area's population are Gaelic speakers. The total population in the Highlands in 1991 was 204,100. (2002 census figures, for Gaelic have not yet been published, due in February 2003)

3. One of the many goals of the Highland Council is to strive towards achieving for all the people of the Highlands, as far as is practicable, equality in service levels, in access to services and in communications, and to tackle disadvantage wherever and however it arises, also to promote the indigenous heritage and cultures of the Highlands and to recognise the importance of heritage and culture in underpinning and strengthening our place in the contemporary world.

4. The Highland Council since its inception made important decisions in relation to Gaelic and cultural development. The Council were the first local authority to produce a Gaelic Development Strategy and it now has a very robust Gaelic Education Policy, and they are now producing a Gaelic Development Plan. Gaelic plays a very strong role with in the Council's Gaelic Community Learning Plans, which are being implemented throughout the Highlands. The Community Learning Plans support adult and community education and the promotion and development of Gaelic Education.

5. The Council believe that if we are going to really begin to halt the decline of Gaelic that the Scottish Parliament and the Executive must lead by example and make provision for the Gaelic language and its associated culture through a form of legislation, which would give the language credibility and standing.

This has already happened in Wales and other Countries with lesser-used languages, such as the Faroes and all have experienced a dramatic increase in both people learning their respective languages and stature.

6. The Council is of the opinion that the Parliament should take the necessary steps to recognise Gaelic as one of Scotland's national languages.

Through Highland Council's Gaelic Education policy it is obligated to provide Gaelic education where reasonable demand exists.

7. A Private Members Bill is not of the same validity as a general Bill, and is also restrictive in information, detail and finance, this raises the question, should the Scottish Parliament not be making a concentrated effort to take forward a standard Bill which will be adequately supported, developed, and financed.

8. In the Spring of 2002, The Council invited Mike Russell to give a presentation to the Gaelic Working Group on the details of the proposed Gaelic Language Bill. The Shadow Minister indicated that the Bill would take effect (if approved) within a specific geographical area, re the former Highlands and Islands Development Board Area, including Orkney and Shetland, Western Isles, Highland, Argyll and Bute and North Ayrshire, with the aim of including the rest of Scotland at a later stage. Some areas where there are Gaelic speakers e.g. Edinburgh and Glasgow could implement aspects of the Bill on a voluntary basis.

Highland anticipated that they would be within the stipulated geographical area and its main concern is with its own boundaries. However if the Parliament is taking the language survival and development seriously it should look beyond the `geographical boundaries' and be Scotland wide, as the culture and language belongs to all individuals of the Country. The new Bord is called Bord Gaidhlig (na h-Alba) -Gaelic Language Board (Scotland) serving the whole of Scotland; therefore the Bill should also serve all of Scotland.

9. The Highland Council is recommending the following as a way forward;

· That the Parliament and the Executive work with Bord na Gaidhlig to implement the recommendations in the Ministerial Advisory Group on Gaelic - `A Fresh Start for Gaelic'
· That a robust, Scotland wide Gaelic Bill is developed, introduced and approved which includes the salient points from the Secure Status proposals.
· Lengthen aim of the Bill to be Scotland wide, but the Bill should be an interim stage
· That they take on board the concerns of Local Authorities especially regarding Teacher Training and Recruitment
· Take note and action on issues in relation to Public Signage, i.e. road signs
· Make Gaelic one of Scotland's national indigenous languages
· Equal parity for Gaelic
· Give Gaelic speakers and learners a right as citizens of the Country also in a European context a pride in Gaelic and its associated culture, as the Parliament and the Executive have been set up and established to serve all people resident in the Country.

Gaelic Bill: Highland Council Education, Culture and Sport Perspective

The essence of the draft Bill is that public bodies - including local authorities - should be required to publish, maintain and implement plans, the purpose of which would be

"to give effect, so far as is both appropriate in the circumstances and reasonably, practicable, to the principle that in the exercise of functions by public bodies the Gaelic and English languages should be treated on the basis of equality".

The Highland Council recently adopted a 'Gaelic Education and Early Years Strategy', which is, in effect, a plan for the development of Gaelic within the Council's Education, Culture and Sport service over the next five years.

The Gaelic Education and Early Years Strategy

· gives parents the right to Gaelic medium pre-school and primary education on request (subject to certain stated practical conditions)
· sets out a minimum level of provision for Gaelic medium secondary education
· seeks to extend access to the teaching of Gaelic as a second language, in the primary and secondary sector
· seeks to involve other organisations, including parents' groups, in this work.

The Strategy incorporates a paper entitled 'Issues of Status and Ethos in Gaelic medium education': this is now also Council policy. The key principle in this is that "English and Gaelic should have equality of status in the school environment."

The paper sets out in some detail how this is to be implemented.

We therefore believe that the Highland Council is already fulfilling the main aim of the proposed Bill in relation to its Education, Culture and Sport service in that it has a five year plan for the development of Gaelic education and childcare, which incorporates the principles of broadly equal treatment of the two languages.

There are two essential preconditions however if the plan is to be implemented

· Additional funding must continue to be made for this purpose by the Scottish Executive through the Specific Grant for Gaelic Education scheme
· The supply of Gaelic speaking teachers - currently the main constraint on the development of Gaelic medium education - must be greatly enhanced.

SUBMISSION FROM ROBERT D DUNBAR

I would like to thank members of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee (the "Committee") for the opportunity to present evidence in respect of the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill (the "Bill"). By way of background, I am a native of Canada, I am a fluent Scottish Gaelic speaker, and I have taught at the School of Law, the University of Glasgow, since 1995, where one of my main areas of research has been minority rights and, in particular, minority language rights, legislation and policy. Since coming to Scotland, I have served on the Board of Directors of several Gaelic organisations; I am still a member of the Board of Directors of Comunn na Gàidhlig ("CNAG"), and I am also the Chairperson of the CNAG Working Group on Secure Status.

My involvement with respect to the question of language legislation for Gaelic began in 1997, when I was invited by CNAG to make a presentation to its annual Comhdhail, or Congress, in June of that year on options for language legislation. Together with my colleague Dr. Wilson McLeod, now of the University of Edinburgh, I was subsequently invited by CNAG to help draft the Secure Status proposals that were submitted to the British Government in December, 1997 and then the proposals for a Gaelic Language Act that were submitted to the Scottish Executive in June, 1999. These proposals were guided by the experience of other jurisdictions that were seriously addressing the problems faced by minority languages. They were also guided by an assessment of relevant standards in international law, including Britain's potential obligations under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, which Britain later ratified in 2001. While no two minority linguistic situations are identical, it was, and is, absolutely clear that legislation is essential to any serious attempt to maintain a threatened minority language such as Gaelic.

The CNAG proposals for a Gaelic Language Act addressed a number of different areas. First, they recommended the creation of a statutory right to Gaelic-medium education where there was sufficient demand therefor. Second, they recommended that public bodies in Scotland, including local councils, be required to prepare Gaelic language plans which would create enforceable obligations with respect to the provision of Gaelic-medium services to the public. A "one size fits all" approach was rejected; rather, the extent of the obligations would depend on demand, measured primarily by the number of Gaelic speakers in any particular part of the country. Third, the proposals recommended the creation of a right to use Gaelic in Scottish courts and before administrative tribunals. Fourth, they contained recommendations for the use of Gaelic by the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Executive. Fifth, they supported the statutory creation of a cohesive Gaelic broadcasting service. Finally, the proposals contained recommendations as to how the various rights and obligations would be enforced.

The Bill is much more limited in scope than the CNAG proposals for a Gaelic Language Act. The Bill focuses primarily on the second aspect of the CNAG proposals, the creation of certain obligations for certain public bodies in Scotland. I am of the view that a more comprehensive piece of legislation, along the lines of the CNAG proposals, is desperately needed. It appears, however, that it was not possible for the sponsors of the Bill to introduce a more comprehensive set of proposals, partly due to the insufficient number of legislative draftspersons working in the non-Executive (i.e. Members') Bills Unit. This is a problem which sponsors of all non-Executive (i.e. Members') bills face, and is one which should, in my view, be addressed by the Parliament, as it acts as a serious obstacle to the creation of such bills. Because of this and other obstacles, it appears that the full implementation of the CNAG proposals would require an Executive bill. In spite of the fact that the Scottish Executive has had the CNAG proposals for almost four years, it has, to my knowledge, never formally responded to these proposals. In spite of the fact that two Executive-commissioned reports have now recognised the absolute urgency of the situation facing Gaelic and the pressing need for legislation, the Executive has failed to implement any of the CNAG proposals which would require legislative action, and appears to have no plans to do so before the end of this first Scottish Parliament.

In this context, and in spite of the fact that it is of more limited scope than the CNAG proposals, the Bill should be welcomed and its sponsors should be congratulated. It attempts to implement at least one very important aspect of the CNAG proposals. Indeed, Gaelic-medium public services and the use of Gaelic by public bodies is arguably as significant in the overall maintenance and revitalisation of Gaelic as Gaelic-medium education and broadcasting, and unlike education and broadcasting, little has been done up until now. So, this Bill is a potentially significant step forward. Furthermore, the Bill establishes two very important principles which, in my view, must guide any legislation with respect to Gaelic. First, it imposes clear obligations on public bodies, and therefore creates an element of what some submissions to the Committee have described as "compulsion". Second, it contains proposals for the enforcement of such obligations. The lesson from virtually any other jurisdiction which is serious about protecting minority languages is that both "compulsion" and enforcement are absolutely essential. In many jurisdictions, the element of compulsion is introduced through giving users of the language a legally enforceable right to use it in their dealings with public bodies. In others, it is introduced through the creation of binding obligations. The Bill chooses the latter approach, as did the CNAG proposals, at least in respect of public bodies.

Why is the element of "compulsion" so important? Some have argued, I understand, that legislation for Gaelic should be "enabling" rather than being based on "compulsion". Quite what this term "enabling" means in this context, from a legal point of view, is unclear. In particular, I am not aware of any barriers within the law that would prevent public bodies in Scotland, including local councils, the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive from implementing Gaelic language plans of the sort that are envisioned in the Bill. If such barriers existed, legislation which eliminated such barriers could be understood to be "enabling", and could be useful. However, as no such barriers appear to exist, calls for "enabling" legislation strike me as being spurious. The fundamental point is that, in spite of the fact that public bodies and local councils could create and fully implement Gaelic language plans of the sort contemplated in the Bill, very few appear willing to do so. For example, to the best of my knowledge, only two local councils, the Highland Council and Comhairle nan Eilean Siar, have prepared Gaelic policies. It is questionable whether even that of Comhairle nan Eilean Siar meets the standards which would be required under either the CNAG proposals or the Bill. Crucially, however, the major shortcoming with respect to the Comhairle's policy is not its content, but its implementation; while such a policy has existed for about a quarter of a century, the number of council services that are available through both the medium of Gaelic and English appear to be very limited. I understand that, apart from its use in certain meetings of the council and its committees, Gaelic cannot be said to be an internal working language of the Comhairle. Thus, in spite of the fact that public bodies and local councils seem to be fully able to implement Gaelic language policies that would meet the principles set out in the CNAG proposals and the Bill, none in fact have done so. This is why "compulsion" is essential. Quite simply, without an element of compulsion, and without a means for scrutinising the extent 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. As the Gaelic community has made abundantly clear, the time for symbolic gestures is well past.

With respect to the obligation which the Bill would place on public bodies, I welcome the broad range of public bodies which would be covered, and the potential breadth of the obligation, which, by virtue of the definition of the "functions" of public bodies in paragraph 6(2) of the Bill, would apply both to services to the public and to internal operations of public bodies. The main concerns I have with this aspect of the Bill are two-fold.

The first concern is that the application of the obligation to prepare language plans is limited in the first instance to public bodies exercising functions in a relatively limited area of Scotland--"the relevant area", as defined in paragraph 6(1) of the Bill. I share the concerns which have been expressed by others about this aspect of the Bill. In particular, the areas defined in paragraph 6(1) of the Bill seem to be derived from some understanding of an historical "Highland line", rather than on current demographics. Gaelic speakers and Gaelic learners are found all over Scotland. Many areas within an historical "Highland line" have very few speakers or learners, whereas many areas outwith such a "Highland line" are home to considerable numbers of speakers and learners and are, indeed, centres of considerable linguistic energy. If Gaelic is to survive as a spoken language, it must be strengthened both in those areas where it is still a community language-which generally would come within the area defined in paragraph 6(1) of the Bill-and in those other areas of the country that are centres of energy-many of which would fall outside the area defined in the Bill. In my view, the approach taken in the CNAG proposals is a preferable one, and could be usefully applied here. It anticipated that all public bodies would have to prepare a Gaelic language plan, but that the obligations imposed on public bodies would be tailored to meet local needs and local linguistic and other resources.

The second concern I have is with respect to the preparation and content of any plans prepared under paragraph 1 of the Bill. Paragraph 1(2) of the Bill, when read with paragraph 1(3), requires that Gaelic language plans must give effect to the principle that Gaelic and English should be treated on a basis of equality, and requires that such plans make reference to the matters mentioned in the Schedule. In my view, the Schedule provides an excellent framework for the preparation of Gaelic language plans, and is consistent with the approach recommended in the CNAG proposals. However, the requirement to give effect to the principle that Gaelic and English are treated on the basis of equality is subject to a limitation. In particular, paragraph 1(3) only requires the implementation of this principle to the extent "appropriate in the circumstances" and "reasonably practicable". While such limiting language is not unjustified, as language legislation such as this must be sensitive to barriers to the full implementation of the principle of equality that will invariably exist, such as numbers of users of Gaelic-medium services, it may also be subject to abuse. In this context, while public bodies must undertake consultations in the preparation of Gaelic language plans, those bodies would themselves have the ultimate authority in determining what is "appropriate in the circumstances" and "reasonably practicable". It is, in my view, inappropriate to leave the determination of the extent of the limitation in paragraph 1(3) wholly up to public bodies themselves; such a level of self-regulation would be inappropriate, even if such bodies had, up until now, a stronger record in Gaelic language development. In the CNAG proposals, which in this respect were inspired by the Welsh Language Act 1993, a language body would have an important role in assisting public bodies in drafting such plans, and, significantly, in approving them. In this respect, the Scottish Executive has created B_rd G_idhlig na h-Alba to oversee the development of Scottish Gaelic, and this new body could usefully play a role here in ensuring that the application of paragraph 1(3) is not simply left to public bodies themselves.

A final point I wish to address is the question of enforcement of Gaelic language plans under the Bill. I welcome the fact that the question of enforcement has been addressed; obligations which are not scrutinised and are not capable of easy and effective enforcement tend not to be observed. The task of overseeing the implementation of the plans is given, in the first instance, to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman. Whether this is the most appropriate method of enforcement will depend both on the powers of the Ombudsman and the other tasks which the Ombudsman will be required to carry out. The CNAG proposals recommended a separate body to oversee the implementation of rights and obligations. This sort of office is used to good effect in a number of other jurisdictions, and this would still represent the best way forward with respect to enforcement.

In conclusion, the Bill represents a potentially significant step forward for Gaelic development. While I have noted some concerns with respect to the Bill as it is presently drafted, these are matters which could still be addressed; such concerns should not be used as a pretext for rejecting the Bill outright, particularly given the fact that no other proposals for legislation with respect to Gaelic have been presented. It must also be noted, however, that the Bill is only one of many steps which must be taken, and taken as a matter of urgency. In particular, legislative action must still be taken in a number of other areas. If it is not possible to take such action by way of a non-Executive (i.e. Members') Bill, it is incumbent on the Scottish Executive to take such action.

Robert D. Dunbar

Senior Lecturer in Law,

The School of Law,

The University of Glasgow

SUBMISSION FROM DR WILSON MCLEOD

Tha mi glè thoilichte mo bheachdan air Bile Cànan na Gàidhlig (Alba) agus air reachdas cànain anns an fharsaingeachd a chur fo chomhair na Comataidh. Chan eil annta ach mo bharailean pearsanta.

Còmhla ri Robert Dunbar à Oilthigh Ghlaschu, bha mi-fhìn an sàs ann an deasachadh na h-aithisg poileasaidh aig Comunn na Gàidhlig Inbhe Thèarainte airson na Gàidhlig, a chaidh fhoillseachadh agus a thoirt don Riaghaltas ann an 1997. Tha an rannsachadh acadamaigeach agam a' dèiligeadh ri leasachadh cànain agus ri poileasaidh mhion-chànan ann an diofar dhùthchannan.

Seo na prìomh phuingean a chuirinn chuideam orra:

Tha reachdas cànain bunaiteach, deatamach agus riatanach ma tha Riaghaltas na h-Alba agus Pàrlamaid na h-Alba airson leasachadh na Gàidhlig a chur an gnìomh. Gu dearbh, chan fhaighear adhartas às aonais. Seo an leasan a tha ri ionnsachadh bho na dùthchannan a tha a' faighinn soirbheas ann an iomairtean leasachaidh cànain. Gu mì-fhortanach, tha e coltach nach eil a h-uile duine a' tuigsinn na h-abairt `inbhe thèarainte' agus gu dearbh, gu bheil cuid airson mì-thuigse a bhrosnachadh. Tha `inbhe thèarainte' a' ciallachadh Achd Ghàidhlig stèidhte air molaidhean na h-aithisg Inbhe Thèarainte airson na Gàidhlig, agus is e miann deimhinne na coimhearsnachd Ghàidhlig (ga nochdadh le athchuingean a fhuair na miltean de dh'ainmean taice) gun cuir an Riaghaltas Achd Ghàidhlig an sàs.

Tha e fìor chudromach agus fìor iomchaidh gun cuirear cuideam air na buidhnean poblach a thaobh solarachadh Gàidhlig. Seo ionnstramaid air leth feumail ann an leasachadh cànain. Ma tha a' Ghàidhlig gu bhith fallain agus làidir, feumar a cleachdadh ann an suidheachaidhean foirmeil, cliùiteach, àrd- ìre; tha i air a bhith ga dùnadh a-mach cus ro fhada. Gu mì-fhortanach, tha e coltach nach eil an Riaghaltas a' tuigsinn cudromachd a' phrionnsabail seo, ged a sgrìobh iad chun nan comhairlean ionadail anns a' Ghearran 2002 a' moladh dhaibh poileasaidhean Gàidhlig a chur ri chèile air sàillibh Cairt Eòrpach nam Mion-Chànan. A-rithist, tha leasan ri ionnsachadh bho dhùthchannan eile, gu h-àraidh a' Chuimrigh, far a bheil uallach laghail air gach buidheann phoballach sgeama Cuimris a chur an gnìomh (a rèir Achd na Cuimris 1993), agus far a bheileas a' togail dùthaich dhà-chànanach ri linn seo. Mean air mhean, fàsaidh an dà-chànanas nàdarra agus furasta, `mar phàirt den àrainneachd', mar gum b'eadh. Mar sin, tha e ceart agus cothromach gu bheil Bile Cànan na Gàidhlig a' cur nam buidhnean poballach fo uallach laghail a bhith a' deasachadh phlanaichean Gàidhlig. Tha seo glè luachmhor airson àbhaisteachadh a' chànain.

Tha Pàipear-Taic a' Bhile a' sònrachadh prìomh chuspairean nam planaichean Gàidhlig a tha gu bhith gan dèanamh le buidhnean poblach (eadar-theangachadh, dèiligeadh ris a' phoball, trèanadh, fastadh). Tha na cuspairean seo air an deagh thaghadh. Dhèanadh adhartas anns na raointean seo diofar mòr ann an leasachadh na Gàidhlig; tha e bochd dha-rìribh gu bheil cho beag adhartais air a dhèanamh gu ruige seo. Bhiodh e iomchaidh sùil eile a thoirt air àireamh 7, a tha a' cur gach buidheann phoblach fo uallach a bhith a' toirt seachad `cunntas mu na dreuchdan anns am bi a' bhuidheann phoblach a' [me]as comas conaltraidh sa Ghàidhlig mar riatanas deatamach'; bhiodh e iomchaidh am pàirt mu dheireadh den earrann seo atharrachadh gu `feart riatanach no luachmhor', atharrachadh a bhiodh a' leudachadh buaidh nam planaichean seo gu mòr.

Tha an sgaradh eadar Gàidhealtachd agus Galldachd a tha ga cruthachadh leis a' bhile ag adhbharachadh tòrr iomagain am measg luchd na Gàidhlig. Tha faireachdainn làidir aig luchd na Gàidhlig gur e cànan nàiseanta a tha anns a' Ghàidhlig. Tha an roinn `Gàidhealtachd' a tha ga cruthachadh stèidhte air eachdraidh na coimhearsnachd Ghàidhlig seach suidheachadh na coimhearsnachd Ghàidhlig anns an latha an-diugh: tha an roinn `Gàidhealtachd' a' gabhail a-steach sgìrean far a bheil glè, glè bheag de luchd-labhairt na Gàidhlig a' fuireach an-diugh, ach a' dùnadh a-mach aon 15,000 luchd-labhairt ann am Machair Alba. Cuideachd, is d'fhiach a chur an cèill gum biodh e fada na b'fhasa luchd-obrach le Gàidhlig a lorg airson oifis a tha suidhichte ann an Dùn Èideann, can, na ann an Ceann Loch Cille Chiarain air neo Inbhir Uige.

Ma tha Achd Ghàidhlig gu bhith ga cur an sàs air feadh Alba, ged-tà, tha e riatanach gum bi ìrean diofraichte ann: ged a bhiodh a h-uile buidheann phoballach fo uallach a thaobh na Gàidhlig, bhiodh ìre agus meud an dleastanais seo stèidhte air suidheachadh agus iarrtasan nan coimhearsnachdan a tha gam frithealadh leis gach buidheann fa leth. Bhiodh e reusanta a bhith a' sùileachadh tòrr bho Chomhairle nan Eilean Siar, fada bharrachd na gheibhte bho Chomhairle Aonghais, can. Bha an aithisg Inbhe Thèarainte a' beachdachadh air na ceistean seo ann an doimhneachd.

Mar cho-dhùnadh, tha amasan Bile Cànan na Gàidhlig (Alba) ionmholta; tha reachdas deatamach ann an iomairtean leasachaidh na Gàidhlig. Tha e iomchaidh gu bheil am bile a' cur cuideam air na buidhnean poballach. Ach is e làn Achd Ghàidhlig a tha a dhìth. Bu chòir don Riaghaltas tòiseachadh leis a' Bhile seo agus achd iomlan a chur ri chèile anns an fhìor-aithghearrachd.

Translation from Gaelic

I am pleased to present my views on the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill and on language legislation in general to the Committee. These views are given in a personal rather than any representative capacity.

Together with Robert Dunbar from the University of Glasgow, I was involved in drafting the Comunn na Gàidhlig report Secure Status for Gaelic, which was published and presented to the Government in 1997. My academic research is largely concerned with questions of language development and comparative minority language policy.

The following are the main points I would wish to emphasise:

Language legislation is fundamental and necessary if the Scottish Executive and Scottish Parliament are serious about defending and developing Gaelic. There can be no real progress without this. This is the lesson to be learned from those countries that have experienced success with their language development policies. Unfortunately, it seems that not everyone understands the phrase `secure status' and indeed, that some have endeavoured to encourage confusion and misunderstanding in the matter. The phrase `secure status' means a Gaelic Language Act based on the recommendations in the Secure Status for Gaelic report - and nothing else. It is the settled will of the Gaelic community (as manifested by petitions with many thousands of signatures) that the Executive introduce and implement a Gaelic Language Act.

It is important and highly appropriate that emphasis is placed on provision for Gaelic by public bodies. This is a key front for language development. If Gaelic is to be healthy and vigorous, it must be used for formal, prestigious, high-level functions; it has been excluded for much too long. Unfortunately, the Executive does not seem to understand the importance of action in this area, even though they wrote to all the local authorities in February 2002 urging them to adopt Gaelic policies in response to the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. Again, a lesson can be learned from international experience, especially the transformation in Wales following the Welsh Language Act 1993, which requires all public bodies to develop Welsh language schemes. Wales is steadily developing into a bilingual country, and bilingualism is slowly becoming normal and natural, part of the environment, as it were. As such, it is entirely appropriate that the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill should place public authorities under an obligation to develop Gaelic plans. This can be an important means of normalising the language.

The specification provided in the Schedule to the Bill that sets out the action areas for Gaelic language plans (translation, contact with the public, training, hiring) is well directed. Action in areas such as this can make a real difference for Gaelic development; it is very unfortunate that there has been so little progress on this front up to now. One specific point that might be corrected by an amendment is number 7, which requires the public body to give `details of the posts for which the public body will treat the holder's ability to communicate in the Gaelic language as an essential requirement'; it would be appropriate to change the last part of this section to `as an essential or desirable attribute', thereby increasing considerably the practical impact of such policies.

The division between Gaelic areas and non-Gaelic areas that the bill creates has caused a great deal of concern in the Gaelic community. Gaelic is very much perceived by Gaelic speakers as being a national language. The `Gaelic' area created by the bill is based on where Gaelic speakers lived in past centuries rather than the demographics and needs of today's Gaelic community: the `Gaelic' area includes districts where there are no very few Gaelic speakers now, while excluding some 15,000 Gaelic speakers in the Central Belt. In addition, it is important to note that it would be much easier to find Gaelic-speaking staff for an office located in Edinburgh than for one in Campbeltown or Wick.

If a Gaelic Language Act is to be implemented Scotland-wide, however, it is crucial that different levels be established: although every public body would have obligations with regard to Gaelic, the extent of these obligations should depend on the situation of, and the level of demand from, the communities served by such bodies. It would be reasonable to expect a good deal more from Comhairle nan Eilean Siar (Western Isles Council) than from Angus Council, say. The Secure Status for Gaelic report explored these questions in some detail.

In summary, the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill is a commendable effort to strengthen the foundation for Gaelic development, and its focus on public bodies is appropriate and useful. However, a full Gaelic Language Act for all Scotland is needed. The Executive should begin with this Bill and craft a comprehensive language act as a matter of urgency.

Dr Wilson McLeod

Lecturer in Celtic

University of Edinburgh

SUBMISSION FROM CLI - THE NEW GAELS

This evidence has been agreed by the Board of Clì, which is chosen by the membership of Clì, the national group for New Gaels.

The New Gaels - as Clì describe them - are Gaelic learners, fluent speakers who have learnt their Gaelic, and those who have gone through Gaelic medium education.

The aims of Clì are: to promote the learning and national status of Gaelic; to disseminate information on Gaelic and Gaelic matters; and to act as a voice of Gaelic learners and non-traditional speakers.

Secure Status

Clì have fully supported a National Gaelic Act since this course of action was recommended in the consultation arranged by Comunn na Gàidhlig (CnaG) in 1997-99 and put into the form of a draft bill by CnaG on behalf of the Minister for Gaelic, Calum Dòmhnallach / Calum MacDonald MP in 1999. At that time, public support was given to the draft bill by the main Gaelic groups, and over 10,000 names were gathered on a petition in its support.

The name of the consultation recommendations and the title of the draft bill were Secure Status. From the beginning this phrase was understood by the Gaelic community to mean a National Act which would extend protection to the language, to its users (in using the language) and to the public services which are delivered without a statutory foundation.

The current Scottish Executive have promised since 1999 that it will "work towards secure status", but it has never been explained what this reference to secure status meant, or whether it meant the same as Secure Status as used by CnaG.

Clì has publicly supported the main recommendations of the Macpherson Report and of the Meek Report, which were prepared for the current Executive on the subject of an effective public funding structure for Gaelic. A Secure Status Act was one of the main recommendations of both reports.

Two petitions have been before the Parliament which support a National Gaelic Act, and Clì lent support in their distribution. These were the petitions by Comunn nam Pàrant (a national group for parents with children in Gaelic medium education) in 2001 and by Strì nan Oileanach (Gaelic students, Lews Castle College, Stornoway) in 2002.

The European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages

In 2001 the UK Government signed the European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages for Gaelic in Scotland and Welsh in Wales under Part 3, and Scots in Scotland under Part 2.

Part 3 says, for example, under Article 10 that the UK has promised: to allow administrative authorities to draft documents in [Gaelic]; to allow and/or encourage users of [Gaelic] to submit oral or written applications in [Gaelic]; to allow and/or encourage the use or adoption, if necessary in conjunction with the name in the official language, of traditional and correct forms of place-names in [Gaelic].

The Executive has said (Advice to NDPBs and Local Authorities 14.2.02), "public bodies are advised in the spirit of the Charter that they should, where practicable, offer more than the minimum required.

"The Executive encourages all public bodies operating in Scotland to review their policy on Gaelic in the light of the Charter or, where relevant, to consider drawing up a policy, which may include a statement of the services in Gaelic which the public body can provide. It is not intended that this should impose any additional financial burden on public bodies, but, where relevant, it should be part of their normal service to the public."

Clì has written to the chief executive of every local authority in Scotland to ask the Councils to establish Gaelic policies, or if they already have a Gaelic policy, to develop this in the light of the Charter.

Clì greatly praises Mike Russell MSP's effort to put the cause of the protection and retention of Gaelic before the Parliament, shameful though it is that a members bill is needed to do this, and though a bill of this type must be narrow in its scope. We ask the executive to take advantage of this opportunity.

Principles of the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill:

Gaelic Language Plans (Section 1).

This is supported by Clì. All that is being asked is that each group should implement what the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages is already encouraging. Many of the responses from Councils replying to Clì's letter (10/32) (European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, above) originated from the Education departments, even though we had written to the Chief Executives - it was as if many Councils could not visualise the issue of Gaelic as anything more than a question of learning. We do not have much hope in the vision and the goodwill of the public bodies in general to implement the recommendation of the Charter in the absence of firmer and more concrete direction.

We dispute the argument that has been put forward in some of the responses to the bill that such a duty would force Gaelic upon people. This duty would merely serve to give people the opportunity to use Gaelic in dealing with public services, without taking anything away from any other language or from any other culture. If the public bodies feel that this is an imposition upon them, they should remember that the provision of services is their raison d' etre.

Basis of equality between Gaelic and English (Section 1): Clì supports this and believes that it is the heart of the bill. However, this foundation is not confirmed within the bill as a principle which will apply to all of Scotland but rather is mentioned in passing in the policy memorandum accompanying the bill (even though the functions of the bill would not build upon this nationally in the first instance). We would like the bill itself to establish a basis of equality for Gaelic and English throughout Scotland from the outset, as a sign that the language is a national language, open to anybody who wishes it in any part of Scotland and that ethnic grounds are not used to obstruct any person or family from access to the language.

Ombudsmen (Section 4). Clì supports the recommendation that ombudsmen should deal with breaches of Gaelic Language Plans, at least until another statutory structure is put into operation. We feel that it is appropriate that a language plan should have the same standing as any other plan, it is to have any meaning. This would be a protection against detrimental interpretation or reinterpretation of the plan by the employees of public bodies. Additionally, the ombudsman system would be a simple, clear way of eliminating any argument about the liability of each new group to comply with the act.

Applying initially to in a portion of the country only (Section 7). Clì does not agree with the view that the Act must start by applying only to part of the country, and we are conscious of the danger that the drawing of any line on the map of Gaelic in Scotland will be used to perpetrate the undervaluing of the language through legitimising false history and through undermining the use of the language on the "other" side of the line - also that the line will be used as an obstacle on the Scots language on "this" side of the line, thus dividing Scotland and its languages in two.

One Council mentioned the Scots language in the responses which we received (European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, above). The chief executive said: "In effect ... the rich linguistic heritage [of Scotland] is significantly reflected through the use of Scots rather than Gaelic." But despite two requests, Moray Council has not shown us a policy on Scots and there is no sign of such a policy on the Council's website. As corporate members of the Scots Language Resource Centre and the Scots Language Society, we can only suspect that Scots and Gaelic are sometimes used against one another as an excuse to do nothing about either - or perhaps about any minority language.

We would hope and expect that the strengthening of the status and progress of Gaelic would be the cause of encouragement and appreciation of linguistic diversity and of linguistic skills throughout Scotland.

We reject the arguments about a lack of a history of Gaelic which were used in some of the submissions to the consultation on the bill, for two reasons: 1) historically there is only one council area in which there was never a Gaelic community in some place at some time, this being Shetland (even Orkney -a number of Gaelic speakers came to Hoy in the 18^th century!). It is merely a question of which century people prefer: they are all in the past, and all in the tradition of the area and the country and 2) users of Gaelic are alive today and not yesterday, and it is where they live today that the demand for services will be - the groups that deny that there is a need for services through Gaelic in their area are either, at best, involved in prophecy, or, at worst, blocking diversity - if there is not a great deal of interest or genuine demand, that fact can be recognised in the type of Gaelic Language Plan which they have.

As a small example of what the 21 century demographics of Gaelic may be like, the membership of Clì (full members) is measured compared to the size of the population in each council area, with the following council areas being above the national average for membership (from the largest downwards): Highland> Western Isles> Argyll> Perth> Borders > Edinburgh> Angus> North Ayshire. It can be seen that interest in Gaelic is not confined to one area, and that it can be found in rural areas in addition to the city.

MAGOG Draft Bill

Clì note that the Ministerial Advisory Group on Gaelic (MAGOG) presented the Executive with a draft bill in summer 2002. We understand that this short bill recognises Gaelic as one of Scotland's national languages and consolidates Bòrd Gàidhlig na h-Alba in the law. Clì supports these aims.

Clì's Recommendations:

That the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill be supported but be amended so that it will apply to all of Scotland from the outset.

That the content of MAGOG's draft bill be added to it, as an improvement which would add to the bill above without any duplication.

Peadar Morgan

Stiùiriche (Director)

Tuesday 7 January 2003 (1^st meeting 2003, Session 1), Oral Evidence

Full translation of evidence

Tuesday 7 January 2003 (1^st meeting 2003, Session 1)

3966

Councillor Allan Beaton (Highland Council): We thank the committee for inviting Highland Council and for the opportunity to discuss the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill. We are also grateful that Michael Russell has proposed this bill. Also, we thank the minister for Gaelic, Mike Watson, for the support he has given to us and for recommending Bòrd Gàidhlig na h-Alba.

We think that the aims of the bill are good, but we have further views regarding other useful and important things which could be included in the bill. This is the Scottish Parliament's first opportunity to debate the status of the language and where the language will be in the years to come. We should not let this opportunity pass us by. The Scottish Parliament has a big responsibility to ensure that the language will continue for future generations. Would it not be good if the Scottish Parliament passed a Gaelic bill in its first term? Many thanks.

3987

Rob Dunbar: Firstly, I must correct a small mistake: I am not a doctor but just a mister. I do not have a doctorate -- not yet anyway. I am not a doctor despite my poor hand-writing.

Many thanks for the invitation to come before the committee today. I am delighted to give evidence at this meeting. I have already submitted written evidence. Rather than go over the points I made in the written submission, I would prefer not to say too much.

I must, however, say a thing or two about the evidence we have just heard. I am fairly knowledgeable about the laws regarding minority languages and minority groups, which exist in Europe at the present time. Throughout Europe, we are at the stage where Governments and politicians are knowledgeable and informed regarding rights of minority-groups, as we are in Canada.

After the evidence we have just heard, I must say that I feel I have stepped back one hundred years. Many people in this country do not understand what minority groups' rights are within Europe in the present day. I am extremely sorry to have to say that, but that evidence was unbelievable. I will not say any more at this stage: I will leave you with the evidence I have already submitted.

3988

Dr. Wilson Macleod: I am grateful for the invitation given by the committee to be here with you today. I, also, have submitted a short written submission. As Mr Dunbar said, the evidence given by COSLA was difficult to believe on many counts, but it shows us how extremely important it is to be placing legal obligations on organisations in this country. The huge difficulty we have is that there are organisations involved in COSLA that support Gaelic year after year. That is a large part of the difficulty we in the development of Gaelic. Therefore, if we are to make any progress regarding Gaelic development, legal obligations through a legal act are necessary. Language rights are necessary in the country, for the whole of Scotland.

3989

Rob Dunbar: As I said in my written submission, I have questions as to how general the legal obligations should be but I am supportive of the bill in principle and I do welcome the bill.

Dr Macleod: I wholeheartedly agree with that. It is of utmost importance that there be a legal right for Gaelic within the first Parliament. Therefore, the principle is commendable.

3990

Rob Dunbar: I am well aware of the difficulties which could arise in some local authorities and other public bodies -- we must remember that we are talking not only about local councils but also about other public bodies such as the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament. There are impediments without doubt and the number of Gaelic-speakers is one of the greatest of the impediments. Where are they if there are to be services throughout the country? We are in need of people who possess language skills and they are fairly scarce.

I would suggest that it is important to know where the demand exists for such services. If we draw a line through the map, as it were, I do not think it would work very well, in a way. Some places, like Little Cumbrae, which used to be a Gaelic-speaking area where very few Gaelic-speakers live today, unfortunately.

In and around Glasgow, there are around 10,000 Gaelic-speakers. There is one Gaelic school in Glasgow. There are over 3,000 Gaelic-speakers in Edinburgh. Now, these numbers are small in comparison with the total population of the areas but, at the same time, these numbers are significant regarding where the Gaelic-speakers live.

It is just as important to implement initiatives in these places as it is for the Highlands and in the Western Isles. Even in the Highlands, I think it could be easy for the Highland Council to establish initiatives in some places and be extremely difficult in other places, according to the number of Gaelic-speakers.

Rather than place the responsibility solely on the Highland Council, I would prefer to see the responsibility placed on the Highland Council and other public bodies operating in some areas -- such as Gairloch, in the Isle of Skye, in Thurso and, maybe, in Inverness itself -- rather than other places. That is my only complaint. Gaels who live outwith these boundaries have demands -- they are large in number, especially in terms of learners and Gaelic-medium school pupils -- but these areas are extremely important. We must devise policies for those areas which are certainly suitable and appropriate, but there must be plans. That would be my one complaint.

3991

Dr McLeod: I agree with what Rob Dunbar has said but I would just like to explain the practical side of the situation. We were talking about costs. There is a perception that services through the medium of English are free and that it is expensive to do anything through the medium of Gaelic. The problem is that there are many people in this country who do not think about Gaelic at all -- those from COSLA, perhaps.

More often than not in this country, if a council seeks a secretary -- someone who will type letters and things like that -- people do not consider whether that person should possess bilingual skills, or whether it would be useful for that person to have Gaelic. It is not expensive to say "Right, it would be useful for this person to have Gaelic."

In some areas, it will be difficult to find people with Gaelic -- as the Scottish Parliament learned recently. They wished to employ two people and, as it happened, only one person was appointed initially. The Parliament did as much as possible to find someone and the post will be re-advertised in the near future.

We are talking about reasonable demands and reasonable steps. If Gaelic-speakers cannot be found, it cannot be done immediately. As it is, very few people understand the Gaelic situation. They do not consider the Gaelic community at all. If we wish to make progress, there must be responsibility. As Rob Dunbar said, the same kinds of difficulties arise in all areas of the country. Someone said earlier that there are areas where Gaelic is still strong but even in Stornoway on the Isle of Lewis it is quite difficult to find capable people who speak Gaelic. Gaelic is in a poor, sad situation. We have national problems and we are in need of a national solution.

3993

Rob Dunbar: That is a good question and I am sorry I was not more clear earlier.

Firstly, it is important to place a national responsibility on public bodies to devise plans. Not every public body would have the same plans; there would have to be differences in the actual plans. In some areas -- say, in Shetland -- there is no demand because there is no Gaelic there; with that, maybe it would be fine if there was nothing, or very little, in their plan.

Why is it important to devise plans? Well, firstly we have to ask the question in each area. I suspect that there is insufficient demand, or no demand, in Shetland, but I am not entirely sure because I have never posed the question. Perhaps there will be people in Shetland who may desire some services -- for example, a little Gaelic-medium education or a Gaelic evening class. Maybe the plan in Shetland could be that simple. If the question was asked, it might be found that there is a greater demand than anticipated.

The reason it is so important to as the question is that there may be a greater demand for services in some areas -- especially in Glasgow or in Edinburgh -- than we would have anticipated. I am sure there must be people working for Glasgow City Council with the ability to use Gaelic. I am sure the question was not put to these people. That is the kind of costs that would be involved.
I am not entirely sure what costs would be involved in implementing the Gaelic plan. In certain -- in the Highlands, maybe and in the Western Isles -- there would be costs because very few public papers are published in Gaelic and few council workers have the ability to use Gaelic. Because there would be a high demand in these areas, maybe they would have high expenses.

I think the biggest cost initially would be the cost involved in asking que

Education Culture and Sport Committee

4th Report 2003

Report on Stage 1 Report on the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill Volume 2 - Evidence

Report on Stage 1 Report on the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill
Volume 2 - Evidence