Hansard

Nearly 20 years after the first Gaelic language act, the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005, the Scottish Languages Bill comes at a critical point for Scotland’s ancient language and culture. In the words of the stage 1 report from the Education, Children and Young People Committee, the Gaelic language

“is in a perilous state.”

Other members have covered the Scots language provisions in the bill, and the Deputy First Minister set out well some of the institutional progress in that area. I will concentrate my remarks on Gaelic, as I believe that the very survival of the language is at stake.

Research by academics at the University of the Highlands and Islands that was published in 2020 revealed the depth of the Gaelic crisis in the vernacular community. The decline in Gaelic speakers was steepest among young people, the majority of whom were not using Gaelic socially or in the home. The evidence is clear. Without changes to policy and intervention at community level, the present Gaelic vernacular community will not survive beyond the next decade. The social use of Gaelic within those communities is at the point of collapse.

A plan to revive Gaelic that is rooted in the communities where the language is spoken is required. The experts are clear that

“the education system alone cannot effectively implement revitalisation efforts among the Gaelic vernacular community”,

yet here we are—that is exactly what we have received to date. We have a narrowly drawn, poorly conceived piece of education legislation.

Recent census figures should not be used by the Government to mask the imminent demise of a living language. It is, at best, statistical sophistry to equate Gaelic speakers of limited proficiency in the central belt with a living language in the vernacular community. I know that the Deputy First Minister did not seek to do that in her speech, but that thinking has been used in other circumstances. The young people concerned leave school and never speak Gaelic again. Young people in the islands leave home and never live in a Gaelic community again. So dies this ancient culture, preserved only as an academic curiosity.

The issues that endanger Gaelic are principally economic and social. Last October, Scottish Labour published a policy paper entitled “An Economic Plan for a Living Language”, which argued that economic issues including housing, jobs and other critical infrastructure must be addressed in order to arrest the decline of the Gaelic language. The Deputy First Minister, I suspect, agrees. The report of the short-life working group on economic and social opportunities for Gaelic rightly acknowledged the structural issues that must be addressed. However, more than a year after that report’s publication, the Scottish Government has made no formal response. I would urge the Deputy First Minister, who commissioned that report in her previous role in government, to ensure that the response is published as soon as possible. The bill before us is far too narrow. Alone, it will not meet all our shared objectives.

The Deputy First Minister might also look to the proposed crofting bill, which has been fairly universally slated. It has been described by the Scottish Crofting Federation as “extremely disappointing”. The continued decline of crofting tenure will do more to harm Gaelic than any good that might come from the bill before us.

The Scottish Languages Bill gives responsibility for a national Gaelic strategy to the Scottish Government, replacing the previous responsibility for a national Gaelic language plan, which sat with Bòrd na Gàidhlig. The bòrd has welcomed that clarity and the change that it will bring.

On the subject of areas of linguistic significance, which has already been covered in members’ speeches, a range of stakeholders told the committee that further clarity is needed, and I was glad to hear the Deputy First Minister recognise that significant changes are required in that regard. As the bill stands, it remains unclear how such a designation would work in practice or what further duties would be placed on local authorities. As colleagues have pointed out already, given that there is zero financial resource attached to the bill, local authorities may be reluctant to designate an area of linguistic significance, or the designation may exist in name only. Stakeholders have already suggested that we could end up in the perverse situation where an authority with a clear and compelling case for the designation of an area of linguistic significance chooses not to, simply because it is already vastly overburdened and sees the prospect of extra duties with no additional resource.

The bill inserts a new section 6B into the Education (Scotland) Act 2016, giving the Scottish ministers power to make regulations to prescribe the standards and requirements of an education authority in relation to Gaelic-learner education, Gaelic-medium education and the teaching of Gaelic in further education. However, as the committee heard in evidence, the biggest issues for Gaelic-medium education rest in teacher recruitment and retention. There has been no indication from the Government that it has further interventions planned to address those issues.

I fear that the bill is raising expectations around GME without any of the necessary resource or action to be able to deliver on those expectations. Furthermore, having spoken with leaders in education, I know that there is real scepticism about the extent to which any of this will be achieved without additional resource. They are weary of Government promises in education policy and press releases hailing consultations and reviews that fail to deliver any of the tangible actions that are needed—the Muir review, the Hayward review, the Withers review, the reform of Education Scotland and the abolition of the Scottish Qualifications Authority. Nothing ever happens—nothing happens at all.

Were there a financial resolution today, given all that I have said so far, citing the zero pounds and zero pence cost of expanding duties, Labour would have rejected it as incompetent. Exactly two weeks ago, we were in the chamber for the finance secretary’s now annual statement of in-year budget crisis cuts. I am acutely aware of the pressures on the budget stemming from an incompetent Scottish National Party Government making promises that it cannot afford to keep. However, it is not credible to keep increasing the duties on public bodies and claim that they cost nothing. The Finance and Public Administration Committee, of which I am a member, was very clear in that regard.

During her time as finance secretary, the Deputy First Minister was keen to align her Government’s promises with fiscal realities. She is, I am sure, painfully aware that the current finance secretary and, indeed, the First Minister have taken a rather different approach. If the Deputy First Minister cannot win the argument for fiscal responsibility around the Cabinet table, she should do so at least in relation to the bills in her control.

Scottish Labour supports the general principles of the bill, but, bluntly, the best that can be said at present is that, if amended, it will do no harm. Scottish Labour wants to make legislation that does some good. We have waited 20 years for legislation on Gaelic, but on the current course, in another 20 years’ time, there will be no language to save.