Meeting of the Parliament 17 June 2025
Yes, but the fact that the amendment says “must” and would therefore create a mandatory obligation to designate an area would lead to huge questions about whether the statutory duty had been met in particular areas. Having set out a process through the use of the word “may”, we have set out clear expectations for where an area of linguistic significance may be designated.
It is an iterative process. There is consultation and responsiveness. The member will know that there are a number of obligations, so that it could be an area in which significant activity relating to the Gaelic language takes place, an area in which teaching and learning by means of the Gaelic language is provided, an area that is historically connected with the use of Gaelic or an area where that 20 per cent figure is met. If we turned that “may” into a “must”, it would be very difficult to determine whether that statutory duty had been met. The criteria for “must” are much higher than for “may”, which would involve an iterative consultation process.
The member will know—I say this for the benefit of other members in the chamber—that I have grappled extensively with this issue, because I was quite drawn to the proposal that she has set out in her amendments. It was by considering what would happen in implementing her proposal that we came to the conclusion that, legally, if it is stated as a statutory duty that an area “must be designated”, but there are grey areas around exactly what needs to be designated, that would create a significant legal challenge.