Hansard

I welcome the bill and congratulate Michael Russell on introducing it. I am aware of the hard work that he put into it over a long time. I hope that he will forgive me for saying that the proposal is modest but nonetheless worthy. It will take Gaelic a step forward. A more comprehensive bill that sought to address secure status more fully would have been welcome, but I appreciate the difficulties that producing a member's bill on a larger scale presents. The bill is at least a step in the right direction.

I am proud of the record of previous Conservative Governments on supporting Gaelic. During our time in office, we passed several relevant pieces of legislation, such as the British Nationality Act 1981, which specified that knowledge of Gaelic would satisfy the language conditions for naturalisation; the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, which placed a duty on education authorities to provide for Gaelic teaching in Gaelic-speaking areas; the Grants for Gaelic Language Education (Scotland) Regulations 1986, which provided a scheme of specific grants for Gaelic education; the National Heritage (Scotland) Act 1985, which allowed for financial support to organisations to promote the Gaelic language and its culture; and the Broadcasting Acts of 1990 and 1996, which placed a duty on the Secretary of State for Scotland to make payments for a Gaelic broadcasting fund. In 1979, under a Labour Government, there was no funding for education or broadcasting. The only sum that was available for Gaelic was a grant of just over £60,000 that was given to An Comunn Gaidhealach. By 1997, public support for Gaelic had increased to more than £12.5 million.

I would like to outline briefly current Conservative thinking on Gaelic. Governments cannot make people speak Gaelic or create a demand where none exists. However, Governments can and should respond to demand that exists and create an environment in which those who wish to learn, speak and conduct their affairs in Gaelic have the opportunity to do so.

In recent years, there has been a welcome resurgence of interest in Gaelic, particularly among the young. However, that has not always been matched by Government support. For example, there is a growing demand for Gaelic-medium education, but local authorities have sometimes been slow to respond to that demand, which has hampered the development of the language. Conservative members have previously made the point—and I do so again—that we must empower parents and give them real rights to Gaelic-medium education for their children. There should be a right, subject to demand, to establish their own Gaelic-medium schools with direct state funding.

I would like to make a few points about the specifics of the bill. I would have liked to have seen a specific reference to Gaelic-medium education in the bill, but I appreciate that that might be outwith its scope. I am concerned that the bill extends only to certain parts of Scotland. Much of the new interest in Gaelic comes not from the traditional Gaelic-speaking areas, but from our cities—Glasgow, Edinburgh, Perth and Aberdeen. In many ways, the future of the language is in those areas, so why should they be excluded from the bill's ambit?

On section 1(3), I question whether it is realistic to say that

"the Gaelic and English languages should be treated on a basis of equality."

I appreciate that that is a fundamental point for Michael Russell, but I am aware that even some activists in the Gaelic community do not consider that objective to be achievable. We need assurances about exactly what impact such proposals would have if they were to be implemented. I have no doubt that if the bill progresses—and I trust that it will—such points can be addressed at stage 2.

Opponents of public support for Gaelic sometimes use the argument that nowadays more people in Scotland speak Urdu or Punjabi than Gaelic. Even if that is true, it misses the point. Gaelic is a unique part of our Scottish heritage and that brings an obligation on us to try to preserve and strengthen it. There are millions of Urdu and Punjabi speakers elsewhere in the world and even if those languages were to die out in Scotland—which I do not advocate—they would survive and prosper elsewhere. Gaelic is our responsibility and ours alone.

Why should we encourage Gaelic? Why should we not just let it die? Whether or not we speak Gaelic and whether or not we know people who speak it, it is one thread in the complex tapestry that gives us our Scottish identity. If we lose Gaelic, we will all be diminished, whether we are Gaels or not.

The bill will not be the salvation of Gaelic, but it is a small step in the right direction and will therefore receive Conservative support. I am pleased to hear that it will have Executive support. I trust that such support is not just a token, but that the Executive will ensure that the bill will complete its passage through the Parliament before the end of March. Michael Watson's speech was a little mean-spirited and nit-picking, but I hope that he is genuine in his support for the bill.

In this historic first session of the Scottish Parliament, we have an opportunity to pass a bill that will benefit our ancient Scottish language. I hope that we will do so in order that future generations of Scots—whether or not they are Gaelic speaking—will look back on today as a day that made a difference.