Meeting of the Parliament 17 June 2025
That is a very fair point. One criticism that has been made is that there is a lot of duplication and overlap. If we believe in grass-roots community work, we know that it should start with the community. We will take that into account, and I am happy to express my desire to consult extensively with relevant bodies and other members on the substance of the guidance.
I recognise the importance of local authority support at every level, but, as I have said, amendment 65 creates a measure of overlap.
I want to come back to Pam Duncan-Glancy’s question about what we are doing if we are not supporting her amendments 13 to 16. I mentioned that we have concerns about the mandatory implementation of areas of linguistic significance without details on which areas the duty applies to. At the moment, census data, which goes to output areas, is the main source of data when it comes to knowing whether obligations to people with Gaelic skills are being met.
Two backstops strengthen the approach that we have taken to how an area can determine its plan: a local authority can designate if an area falls under certain descriptions, which we have covered, and, if the local authority does not proceed, Bòrd na Gàidhlig can request that the local authority consider making a designation. If Bòrd na Gàidhlig makes such a request, it can do so on the evidence of demand for designation from those who reside in the authority’s area. Essentially, a referral from the community who are unhappy that a designation has not proceeded goes to Bòrd na Gàidhlig, which can request that the local authority make the designation. If the authority does not submit a proposed designation, the local authority must publicise the decision and the reasons for making it. The authority has to publish up front the reasons why it is not proceeding.
A third backstop is that, if a local authority does not submit a proposed designation, the Scottish ministers may require it to reconsider the decision. A local authority must submit a proposed designation or confirm its original decision and notify ministers of the reasons for it.
16:00As part of the debate on whether the duty should be obligatory, rather than the bill including the word “may”, I consulted Western Isles Council, Highland Council and Argyll and Bute Council in particular to get their views on the matter. There was a range of views, but they were all keen on proceeding at pace with designation, although they all expressed to me that they have very different geographical and demographic spreads. For example, in Argyll and Bute, it would not be obvious to designate an entire ward, because there are multiple islands in one ward, so it would make more sense for the designated area to cover an island rather than a ward. In relation to Highland Council, as I have referenced, Skye would be an obvious contender, and each part of the Western Isles could, arguably, be designated. There was certainly an appetite in that regard from all local authorities.
If Pam Duncan-Glancy’s primary concern is about the pace at which the provisions will be implemented—which is my primary concern—I heard reassurance from local authorities that they want to move at pace, but they stress the importance of there being an iterative process, with engagement with the community, to ensure that the size of the area matches what the community wants. As we are all aware, if we proceed with a designation that does not work for the community because the area is the wrong size—either too big or too small—that might create more challenges.
I hugely respect the work that Pam Duncan-Glancy has done, and I share her sentiment, but I am struck by the operational challenges in implementing what she has set out.
Presiding Officer, you will be delighted to know that that concludes my comments.