Meeting of the Parliament 17 September 2024 [Draft]
At stage 1, the Parliament considers a narrow point on whether to vote for or against the principles of a bill. In this case, it does so following consideration by the Education, Children and Young People Committee, which has produced a fair report that rightly flags a number of challenges for which the witnesses who helped us, the clerks to the committee and, indeed, my fellow members deserve great credit.
The Scottish Languages Bill expresses its general principles as being
“to provide further support for Scotland's indigenous languages, Gaelic and Scots.”
On that narrow basis, I confirm that the Scottish Conservatives will vote for the general principles of the bill at decision time tonight, in order that it can move to stage 2—the amending stage—at which radical surgery is required.
Let me explain. Last week, there was a report about the Scottish National Party’s repeated failures to deliver the intended outcomes of its stated policies, alongside a failure to evaluate their effectiveness. I fear that the bill may result in more of the same. Witnesses told us as much. Bòrd na Gàidhlig said:
“the legislation will not solve the issues that we face at community development level, which require a new and transparent investment model that can deliver the targets in the new national Gaelic language plan.”—[Official Report, Education, Children and Young People Committee, 15 May 2024; c 29]
Further, Professor Conchúr Ó Giollagáin said that the bill would not introduce
“anything new that will help the vernacular community in the islands with the linguistic crisis that they live with.”—[Official Report, Education, Children and Young People Committee, 1 May 2024; c 30]
Indeed, we have just heard the bill described as having “symbolic importance only”, which is hardly what the Gaelic community, in particular, would hope for.
Throughout the evidence-taking, there were persuasive and, indeed, pervasive indications that much—if not all—of what is in the bill could perhaps more competently and coherently be achieved through non-legislative means.
The bill suffers by seeking to address two issues that are at different stages and that require different interventions. Gaelic is evidently clearly identifiable and definable as a language, and it seems to me perfectly possible and, indeed, way past time, for the Government to decide what it wants to achieve in relation to Gaelic; where the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005 has fallen short and why; what the outcomes and measures of success might be; and, therefore, what is required and at what cost to achieve them.
The cabinet secretary aspires to reversing the tide in the declining number of Gaelic speakers, but I do not think that that, in itself, is a measurable outcome. It is regrettable that such outcomes are not currently in the bill, but I hope that the deficiencies that are apparent at stage 1 of the process can be rectified at stage 2.
Part 2 of the bill relates to, as section 26 puts it, the “Scots language”. Following the debate, the Government might feel it prudent to reflect carefully on what it is trying to achieve in that part and, indeed, whether the bill is the best place to do it. The problems started immediately views were called for, with the Law Society of Scotland’s submission recognising, as did the committee, that the bill persists in defining the “Scots language” as “the Scots language as used in Scotland”. Apart from that definition being circular, it is simply a prescription for ambiguity and uncertainty. In recognising Scots without defining what falls within or outwith it, all that will be achieved will be the folding of all of Scotland’s dialects under a term that is recognisable by people in parts of the central belt but utterly alien to those who speak Doric, for example.