Chamber and committees

That is an interesting question, because, with a bill on language, we will always struggle to know what to exclude. I suppose that it is maybe a daft comparison in some people’s eyes, but if you had an English language bill, what would you include and what would you exclude? You would want to include everything under the sun, because you live your life through English. Everything comes into that—how you access public services, how you learn and study and so on. The same challenge applies to a Gaelic or Scots language bill.

I caveat that by saying that I am very interested in what the committee comes back with. I am certainly not closed to any recommendations that the committee might make and would value them. What we have chosen to put in the bill means that it could be seen as a framing bill, but it has a specific focus on elements such as Gaelic-medium education and Gaelic language plans. It also has legal recognition of Scots—we have gone through that. However, it means that the bill has an opportunity to take into account the committee’s feedback.

For people working more generally?

I see the bill as necessary, but it is not the full picture of what is required for our aims to revitalise and support Gaelic. The committee has taken extensive evidence but, in Gaelic communities, it has always been critical to have the language recognised publicly and legally and to have rights for speakers and for the language enshrined in law.

The bill comes almost 20 years after the 2005 act, which was a pivotal piece of legislation. It was absolutely critical and hugely exciting, and it stands to reason that, 20 years later, we should reflect on what else needs to be done legally.

The bill makes a clear statement about the legal recognition of Gaelic and Scots as languages of Scotland and it places requirements on the Scottish ministers to have an effective Gaelic strategy. It provides ministers with powers to specify standards and requirements for relevant public bodies, and it places a duty on relevant public bodies to have regard to promoting and supporting languages. It also deals with other areas, which I am sure that we will come on to and unpack. For example, it meets the commitment on establishing a Gàidhealtachd through the areas of linguistic significance.

That is my short answer on why the bill is essential, but—this will be a common theme in what I say this morning—I would not want anyone to think that the bill, in and of itself, provides everything that we need when it comes to the Government’s aims. It is, however, a critical part of the package of work that is required.

From the committee’s perspective, this is where our interest lies. We cannot have both counts—that the bill does not do much and that it is very expensive—at the same time. For me, when it comes to Scots, what is critical is the legal recognition and legal backing of a lot of what is happening already, while, hopefully, pushing it further in terms of preparing a strategy for Scots. That is the requirement. Work will be done to prepare that strategy and at that point I am sure that there may be further discussions about finances and what Government may or may not be able to do as an outcome of that strategy. Regarding the bill, however, its requirements have been costed accordingly, but I hear the committee’s feedback and the feedback from consultees in terms of the financial asks.

There are two parts to that—and Claire Cullen should feel free to come in. The first is creating the opportunities in the public sector; secondly, there is the question of creating opportunities to work with employers in the private sector, too—and some employers are doing that actively by creating a Gaelic-medium environment for work.

No, it is about choice. I am not suggesting that teachers should double up. I personally know a number of teachers who are qualified to teach, for example, maths in Gaelic, who are currently teaching only maths. That is by virtue of the fact that they are not employed in a Gaelic-medium school, or because of where they live.

For me, it is about providing pathways: where there are skills that teachers want to use, we should be sure to provide them with opportunities to do that. I can think of an individual who did a four-year degree in Gaelic and maths. It is incredibly rare to be able to teach maths in Gaelic, but she may not be using all her skills because of her current place of residence, or another factor. We need to provide those opportunities in our recruitment, and so on. In that situation, the teacher may want to teach Gaelic and maths or maths in Gaelic, but as the committee will know, there are a limited number of high schools that teach subjects in Gaelic medium.

I think so. It is about having the legal right to access support and to feel recognised in what they are doing—that is the big shift. If legal recognition had not been given to the Gaelic medium, which—and I do not often say this—happened under the Government of Liam Kerr’s party at the time—

Indeed. I am sorry, convener—it is easy to forget.

If there had not been that recognition, what has happened in the past 40 years would not have happened. What we are doing here is to give legal recognition to and endorse what, in many cases, is already going on, but also to give a legal right to access support where it currently does not exist.

Traditionally, Gaelic policy has nearly always sat within education or culture. I am chuffed that I have responsibility for the economy and for Gaelic, because that gives it a new perspective. The report that you referred to, which I commissioned, was one of the first reports to look at how outcomes for Gaelic should be embedded in other policies, such as housing. Some of what we might call traditionally Gaelic communities—if that is an acceptable phrase—are struggling with depopulation full stop. It stands to reason that Gaelic would be affected by that issue.

The report was produced by Arthur Cormack. His team looked at how Gaelic could be supported through economic and social measures, and the report referenced transport and housing. I am not aware of that kind of work having been done before, because Gaelic has traditionally been treated as an education issue.

Education is critical. When we are reviewing things, there can be a tendency to say, “Well, that worked, so now let’s focus on a different area.” Gaelic education has been an enormous success story. We see in the census figures that more than 50 per cent of young starters in primary 1 in the Western Isles are going into Gaelic-medium education.

I have a lot of respect and admiration for the work that he has done and for the way that he has almost escalated the discussion about Gaelic. He makes extremely pertinent points about supporting traditional communities, because, if we look at this historically, we see that, where the frontier has receded, the language has never come back to those communities. It is a very relevant point, and I think that the census figures concentrate the mind in that regard.

The question, then, is what we do about that. We could all spend for ever and a day in this room talking about whether we should use the word “crisis” and diagnosing the problem. I actually want to solve the problem, and that requires action. It requires legislation, too, but it requires more than that. I am thinking about every intervention that we as politicians make; we all know that legislation is important in underpinning activity, but it does not solve entirely all the economic and social problems that we wrestle with.