Seòmar agus comataidhean

I welcome that very much.

I was about to close on the fact that targets must drive actions; just having another plan that flows from them is insufficient. There has to be housing, better transport links and jobs in those communities. That is what will make a difference.

On the basis of the assurances that I have had, I do not intend to press amendment 8. I look forward to the discussions ahead of stage 3.

Amendment 8, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 5—Gaelic language strategy

Amendments 9 to 12 moved—[Ross Greer]—and agreed to.

Amendment 13 not moved.

Amendment 14 moved—[Ross Greer]—and agreed to.

Amendment 15 not moved.

Amendments 16 to 18, 78 and 19 to 25 moved—[Ross Greer]—and agreed to.

Section 5, as amended, agreed to.

Section 6—Gaelic language standards

I thank the cabinet secretary for her comments, and I think that there is some common ground here on the lack of frequency of reporting with regard to the status—or state—of the language, as far as the level is concerned. I sense that we are moving towards a commitment to doing something about reporting in terms of the areas of linguistic significance, and on that basis, and if there is a commitment to having further discussions ahead of stage 3 on how we ensure that this is in the bill, I am happy not to press amendment 47.

Amendment 47, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 9—Gaelic language plans

Amendments 48 to 50 moved—[Ross Greer]—and agreed to.

My amendment 47 would require ministers to prepare a biennial report on the number of Gaelic speakers in Scotland. That ties in with some of the discussion that we had on the previous group of amendments, and with my earlier comments regarding amendments to insert into the bill provisions on measurable outcomes on Gaelic.

I recognise that there is no single measure by which the health status of the Gaelic language can be judged, but surely the most critical measure is the number of speakers in Scotland. As we have already explored this morning, the census is not an adequate means of measuring the number of Gaelic speakers in Scotland. The Deputy First Minister and other members of the committee have recognised and set that out.

Given the warnings that the committee has heard from authoritative experts about the decline in the number of Gaelic speakers and the risks to the future of the language in the next five to 10 years, it is not acceptable for Government or the Parliament to wait a decade for another census. To put it bluntly, by the time of the next census, it might well be too late. Gaelic communities need concrete actions to be taken now, and there must be a means for the Parliament to judge in a timely manner whether the actions that are being taken by Government are having the desired effect.

Many members of the Gaelic community have expressed to me that, as this will be the first bill on Gaelic since 2004, the Parliament has had a long time for in-depth consideration of the health of the language in their communities in the round. They cannot wait that long again, or even half that time. We need to make sure that we hold the Government to account on that on a regular basis. More particularly, we have to assess whether its actions are working, so that we can support the Government in getting new means by which to save Gaelic in Scotland.

I am yet to decide whether to move amendment 67, but with it I wanted to set out, as I mentioned earlier, that Scottish Labour is seriously concerned about the limited scope of the bill. It is clear that the bill was originally conceived as an education bill, and I fear that it may in the end represent a missed opportunity to revitalise the Gaelic language in communities where it is traditionally spoken. I am looking for recognition from the Deputy First Minister that the bill does not represent the full extent of the Government’s ambition for Gaelic and that we have to move well beyond it. I am looking for assurances that the Government will, at the earliest opportunity, seek to take more concrete actions to address the key economic questions of housing, jobs and infrastructure in Gaelic communities.

The Deputy First Minister would recognise that part of the significant reason why that does not happen is just a factor of the numbers. We have a very small Gaelic community as a component part of our overall population and, in many parts of the country, Gaelic is not spoken widely—in some areas, it is not spoken at all. The political reality of that is that there is a small group—of which you are one, as somebody who represents a Gaelic-speaking community. In essence, the weight of the concerns of other parts of the country cannot be allowed to drown out this vital issue. The Parliament will tend towards reflecting that. That is why legislation is an opportunity to put in place moments in the parliamentary calendar when reports might be lodged, where we can have a rhythm of scrutiny that does not lend itself to a moment of panic in 10 years’ time, when the census comes out and shows us a further precipitous decline. It is about the legislation and the purpose of trying to give the Parliament that moment—particularly for what is, by its very nature, a minority issue.

I certainly accept that that is an option. I have some reluctance in relation to where the targets are set. As, I think, the Deputy First Minister set out, Parliament might have a view on setting what the targets should be through a secondary measure or otherwise, and there would be broader consultation on them. However, I understand the complexity. Given the comments from across the room, there seems to be a willingness for development before stage 3.

My amendments 26, 27, 30 and 31 would require the Scottish Government to publish draft Gaelic language standards. The bill already requires the Government to carry out a consultation, but a requirement to consult is only worth while as long as there is something on which to consult.

Members of the committee will have gathered that there is significant public interest in the future of the Gaelic language from a range of stakeholders. I know that many have made passionate representations to the committee, in person and in writing, about how best to preserve and promote the Gaelic language. It is only right that the Government draws on the expertise of those stakeholders when publishing Gaelic language standards.

Amendment 32 holds the Scottish Government to a deadline for the publication of the draft Gaelic language standards, that being within one year of the day after royal assent.

There are two reasons for amendment 32. First, I think that it is fair to say that, in recent years, the Government has taken a very generous approach to its own deadlines, using nebulous targets such as “autumn”, which gives little certainty to Parliament or the wider public. The Government should not only set itself clear outcomes against which it can be measured but be transparent about when it expects to achieve those outcomes. A constant shifting of the goalposts erodes public trust.

Secondly, as the committee stated in its stage 1 report, the Gaelic language is in a “perilous state”. We do not have the luxury of time—perhaps you can detect a theme, convener, to many of my amendments. It is really important that the Government holds itself to a timeous deadline for the publication of Gaelic language standards.

I move amendment 26.

My concern about changing the deadline to two years is that that pushes the matter into the next parliamentary session, and goodness only knows what that will look like. Things are in great flux. I hope that we do not just pass the bill but ensure that substantive action is taken within this parliamentary session. On that basis, I have concerns about moving to a two-year timeframe. In the spirit of negotiation, could we go a bit further? Could we find something at 18 months—essentially, prior to May 2026?

I welcome that very much.

I was about to close on the fact that targets must drive actions; just having another plan that flows from them is insufficient. There has to be housing, better transport links and jobs in those communities. That is what will make a difference.

On the basis of the assurances that I have had, I do not intend to press amendment 8. I look forward to the discussions ahead of stage 3.

Amendment 8, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 5—Gaelic language strategy

Amendments 9 to 12 moved—[Ross Greer]—and agreed to.

Amendment 13 not moved.

Amendment 14 moved—[Ross Greer]—and agreed to.

Amendment 15 not moved.

Amendments 16 to 18, 78 and 19 to 25 moved—[Ross Greer]—and agreed to.

Section 5, as amended, agreed to.

Section 6—Gaelic language standards

That is fair; that could be one way to do it. What I have proposed in amendment 67 and what we are considering pushing for inclusion in the bill—we are waiting for the reaction to the proposal—is to be very specific about the broader context in which Gaelic exists. At the moment we are looking at what, in the main, feels to me like an education bill, but we must specifically recognise and address the fact that the key factors that will underpin the survival of the language are not purely educational. There are broader issues. A strategy must take account of those and the Government should present it now.

I take the constructive criticism that there could be duplication between a strategy and the reporting mechanisms that I propose, and that there might be a case for finding a crossover between the two. The point is to try to see the issue in all its complexity and in the round, while setting out the key data that is associated with it.

The recent work from the Government—the short-life working group—was welcome and it set out some of those themes, but I am afraid that, already, it feels to me as though that work is gathering dust on a shelf in St Andrew’s house. We need opportunities both in the Parliament and in communities to hold the Government to account for the analysis that it has produced; it is positive that the work identified issues that pertain to the issues of economic survival. There is a recent track record of some good work, but we need the opportunities to make sure that we can hold the Government to account on it.

I move amendment 47.

On the first point, regarding census-level activity, I do not think that the amendment necessarily stipulates that that would be required in exactly that way. There are different methodologies by which the numbers could—more usefully, to be frank—be gauged. The Deputy First Minister will be aware of the rather novel way—as we might put it—in which the Scottish Government conducted the most recent census. I think that it is fair to say that it was slightly sub-optimal in comparison with the approach in the rest of the United Kingdom.

Using modelling options based on authoritative data sampling would provide different ways of gathering the information, rather than using the household approach, which the Scottish Government, in essence, abandoned—erroneously—in the previous census. There are options by which the information could be gathered, so I do not really hold to the point that the Deputy First Minister makes. Any reflections from her in that regard would therefore be useful.

More broadly, on the Deputy First Minister’s point relating to amendment 67 and how we would see those broader concerns reported on, I take her comments on board. However, when would she see the Parliament having an opportunity to hold her to account on the related actions that are set out in the bill? Yes, the requirement for data gathering is set out in amendment 55, but when would we see that and how regularly, and when would we be able to ensure that there was scrutiny in order to see whether the actions had been successful?