Seòmar agus comataidhean

This is not an excuse, but I am only 10 days in this job, as I think that I have established, and I am still considering all the evidence that I have taken. I have made a commitment to Willie Rennie to engage with some of those who have given evidence, and I am very much in listening mode.

I appreciate that that is unfair to the committee, as it has been taking evidence for quite a while. However, being new in post, I want to familiarise myself with the issue. If there are opportunities to improve the bill and expand it in line with its objectives, I very much want to be constructive and respond well to any amendments that you might want to lodge.

On Gaelic, it is important, but it is not the full story. I was speaking to officials who have counted that, across the different Gaelic organisations, there are about 50 community workers with a mission of Gaelic revitalisation and support. I confess to being quite surprised by that number. My question was whether there is any form of unity and consistency in approach and objectives. That work strikes me as being important when it comes to the community. It does not need legal backing, because it is already happening. It is being done well, and it is happening on a very devolved basis in different organisations.

I do not think that legal routes are the primary or only route to revitalisation. The bill is critical because, if there are no legal rights or legal backing, it is a lot more difficult to get, for example, public bodies to do the things that we want them to do. I do not think that we can ignore that. However, I will maybe come back to the committee at some point, if you are still interested, and talk about what is happening more generally on housing, social interventions and work opportunities, because that is where the real excitement and potential exist.

The bill cannot be dismissed. It has to be part of the picture, and I think that, if you speak to those who are heavily invested in the bill, they will say that having the legal backing matters. When people engage with a public body and they want to be able to access a service in Gaelic, they either have the right to do that or they do not, and they want the right to do it. We cannot dismiss the legal underpinning of that work.

I still have to respond formally to the piece of work that was done by the short-life working group on economic and social opportunities for Gaelic, which is a mouthful. It contains some brilliant recommendations, as you will know if you have seen it—I am sure that you have. I intend to respond formally to that, and I think that that response will capture a lot of the stuff that you are interested in.

I would not dismiss anybody’s comments and I will not dismiss the committee’s report either. I will read it with interest. I will review all the comments that have been made by those who have given evidence, and I intend to meet them personally to discuss the matter, including Professor Ó Giollagáin.

We have that already. If that information is not being provided to the committee, we can see what more we can provide.

In terms of the overall spend on Gaelic, funding goes to the Bòrd na Gàidhlig, and funding is given to MG Alba, which I have talked about already. There is also funding for Sabhal Mòr Ostaig and Stòrlann Nàiseanta na Gàidhlig, and there is other Gaelic development work. Indirect capital also goes to Gaelic. There is funding for Gaelic schools, and there are specific grants that go through local authorities for Gaelic schools.

There is not only one line of funding for Gaelic to allow us to see the full funding package—although that can be drawn out. There is also all the funding that is distributed through schools and so on, and I hasten to add, through broadcasting. The Media Bill, which is progressing through the Houses of Parliament in Westminster, is key. Welsh language television and broadcasting get their financial support from the United Kingdom Government, because broadcasting is reserved, and equity with Welsh is being sought.

I will take that away. The bill gives Scots legal recognition, but there is an appetite and an ambition for Scots. The committee has had recommendations and ideas on what more we could do for Scots, and I am keen to listen, engage and see what else we can do.

I will ask Claire Cullen to talk about the development of the bill. What I would say is that, at the beginning of the meeting, Pam Duncan-Glancy asked about outcomes and outputs, and I am a lot more interested in those and in distributing the funding directly among communities than I am in establishing structures and organisations.

There is extensive academic research that confirms that, for a community to feel that its Government has its best interests at heart, recognising its language really matters. It is not just about the past and recognising the literature, the heritage and the culture that encapsulate the language, but about the present and the future, and feeling that you do not have to switch to English in your nation of birth in order to access public services.

The bottom line is that if Scotland cannot recognise its own languages it is unlikely that anyone else will. We have a moral duty to recognise them legally, but more than that, we have a moral duty to support, recognise and protect the speakers. As I have said, if people cannot depend on the Scottish Government to do that, who can they depend on?

That is an interesting question, because, with a bill on language, we will always struggle to know what to exclude. I suppose that it is maybe a daft comparison in some people’s eyes, but if you had an English language bill, what would you include and what would you exclude? You would want to include everything under the sun, because you live your life through English. Everything comes into that—how you access public services, how you learn and study and so on. The same challenge applies to a Gaelic or Scots language bill.

I caveat that by saying that I am very interested in what the committee comes back with. I am certainly not closed to any recommendations that the committee might make and would value them. What we have chosen to put in the bill means that it could be seen as a framing bill, but it has a specific focus on elements such as Gaelic-medium education and Gaelic language plans. It also has legal recognition of Scots—we have gone through that. However, it means that the bill has an opportunity to take into account the committee’s feedback.

For people working more generally?