INTRODUCTION

Comunn na Gàidhlig (CnaG) welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Consultation process on the Draft Gaelic Language Bill and hopes that the following comments will assist the Executive in producing a revised version of the Bill, which will reflect the views expressed by CnaG and other respondents.

While the timescale for the consultation process has not been a problem for CnaG, we are aware that the Autumn holiday period in October and the Christmas and New Year period may have caused problems for some respondents, and concerns have been raised that the timescale was a bit tight. We hope that any respondent who requires more time to submit their views will be given an extension to the deadline of 9 January 2004.

We would be happy to be given the opportunity to expand and amplify the points made in our submission at any future hearing held by the Committee, which will be scrutinising the Bill. We would also invite the Committee to undertake a series of visits to appropriate places in Scotland in order to gain a closer understanding of the position of the Gaelic language and culture, in a range of different communities, throughout Scotland.

Q1: Is it right that Gaelic be recognised as one of the languages of Scotland in statute?

The wording of the Bill falls far short of CnaG’s Inbhe Thèarainte proposals, which states that “any Gaelic Language Act should begin with an expression of the principle of equal validity for Gaelic and English in Scotland”. This principle implies certain basic rights with respect to Gaelic medium services to all users of the Gaelic language. The Bill should specifically state that Gaelic is an official language in Scotland and will, in principle, be treated equally with English in the conduct of public business. We are strongly of the view that the wording in the Bill should be amended to follow the wording of the Welsh Language Act 1993. This would, in the case of Gaelic, underline the principle that so far as is appropriate and practicable, Gaelic and English will be treated on the basis of equality.

Unless the opportunity is taken to clarify what precisely is meant in the Bill by “securing the status of the Gaelic language as one of the languages of Scotland”, confusion and uncertainty will continue to prevail. Government Ministers at both Westminster and Edinburgh have indicated, on previous occasions, that Gaelic is already officially recognised by successive Governments. This view was stated in a House of Lords debate on broadcasting in Summer 2003, by a Minister at the Department of Culture, Media and Sport, Lord Evans of Temple Guiting. If this is the case, then there should be no objection to consolidating Ministerial statements in legislation, through the Bill, in order to avoid problems such as those which arose earlier this year, with the Registrar General for Scotland when, initially, the request of a parent to register a child with a Gaelic surname was refused.

Q2: Should Bòrd na Gàidhlig have the functions provided in Section 1 of the draft Bill?

Bòrd na Gàidhlig should have the functions specified in Section 1 of the Draft Bill, but consideration needs to be given to including those who are able to read or write Gaelic, in addition to those who are able to speak or understand the Gaelic language. No mention is made of the rights of parents to Gaelic medium education or users of the language and this should be incorporated within the functions of Bòrd na Gàidhlig.

Q3: Should the requirements in sections 2 and 3 of the draft Bill be placed on Bòrd na Gàidhlig?

We agree that the requirement in Section 2 and Section 3 of the Draft Bill should be placed on Bòrd na Gàidhlig in relation to the preparation of National Gaelic Language Plans and in preparing guidance for public bodies in establishing their own Language Plans. However, clarification is required on the timescale required by Bòrd na Gàidhlig for preparing the National Gaelic Language Plan. The Bill itself requires Bòrd na Gàidhlig to prepare and submit to Scottish Ministers a National Gaelic Language Plan within 12 months of the commencement of Section 2 of the Act. However, in the pre-amble to the Consultation Document, there is a suggestion that the Bòrd has 24 months in which to prepare and submit to Ministers, for approval, a Plan for Gaelic. There seems to be a contradiction in these two statements.

Q4: Should Bòrd na Gàidhlig be given the powers in schedule 1, paragraph 11 to the Bill?

The powers in Schedule 1, paragraph 11 to the Draft Bill would appear to be appropriate and relevant to enable the Bòrd to carry out its general functions. However, it is essential that adequate resources are made available to the Bòrd to enable it to undertake its functions effectively.

Q5: Are there other matters beyond those in section 5(5) of the draft Bill that public bodies should have regard to in determining whether to prepare a Gaelic language plan?

Section 5(5) of the Draft Bill requires to be amended since provisions (a) and (b) are not considered to be sufficient criteria which public bodies should use to determine whether to prepare a Gaelic Language Plan.

We would strongly urge that it should be a requirement on all public bodies specified in Schedule 2 of the Act to prepare and implement a Gaelic Language Plan, rather than the current provisions which merely require public bodies to determine whether it is appropriate for them to adopt such Plans. Furthermore, a requirement by the public body to determine the extent to which persons in relation to the public body’s functions are exercisable to use the Gaelic language is not considered to be a logical or meaningful criterion. It would be more appropriate to require the public body to take account of the extent to which the language is used within the location and area served by the body. It would then be up to the public body, in consultation with Bòrd na Gàidhlig, to determine the extent to which Gaelic should be reflected in the day to day operations of the public body. Language Plans prepared by the public bodies should be appropriate to their functions and to the area served by them and take account of the strength and interest of the Gaelic language within their areas of operation.

Public bodies specified in Schedule 2 should also include all Whitehall administrative arms of Central Government active in Scotland, such as the Dept of Work and Pensions, Inland Revenue, Job Centres etc. There are also some notable omissions to the list at Schedule 2 e.g. COSLA, Land Court, Local Health Councils, Caledonian MacBrayne, Highlands & Islands Airports, Careers Scotland, Further Education Colleges, Universities and public utilities. There is also a need to consider a method under which local public bodies operating in a strong language community such as The Stornoway Trust, for example, could be taken under the scope of Schedule 2. A rather curious omission from the list is the Gaelic Media Service, which comes into force on 29 December 2003 and takes over Gaelic broadcasting responsibilities from the Gaelic Broadcasting Committee, under the provisions of the Communications Act 2003.

Q6: Should public bodies be required to consider whether it is appropriate to prepare and publish a Gaelic language plan describing the services they will offer in Gaelic?

As mentioned in the response to Q5 we question the effectiveness of the current requirement in the Bill on public bodies merely to “determine, having regard to the matters mentioned in Sub-Section 5, whether it is appropriate to prepare and publish a Gaelic Language Plan”.

A more positive and effective approach would be a statutory requirement on public bodies to publish and prepare their Language Plans (or should they be called Schemes?), following invitation from Bòrd na Gàidhlig to do so. This would have the effect of Bòrd na Gàidhlig taking the initiative in a proactive way and acting in an advisory and consultancy role to the public bodies in the preparation and contents of their Plans. It would also enable Bòrd na Gàidhlig to determine its own timescale in seeking Language Plans from public bodies. To require the specified public bodies to prepare plans within two years of the Act becoming law will inevitably result in Bòrd na Gàidhlig being inundated with anything between 150-200 Gaelic Language Plans. The practicalities and the ability of Bòrd na Gàidhlig to deal with such a workload, within a two year period without considerable additional resources, is questionable.

Q7: Should the Bill provide for Bòrd na Gàidhlig to assist and advise public bodies in the preparation of Gaelic language plans?

It is essential that Bòrd na Gàidhlig has the powers not only to assist and advise public bodies in the preparation of Gaelic Language Plans, but also powers to ensure implementation of the Plans. We must question whether it is necessary for guidance issued by Bòrd na Gàidhlig to be approved, in advance, by Ministers. If Ministerial approval is given to Bòrd na Gàidhlig’s National Plan for Gaelic, there should be no further need for Ministerial approval for any guidance prepared by the Bòrd, for public bodies, since the guidance should, in any event, be drawn up in accordance with the contents of the National Plan.

Q8: Should the Bill require Bòrd na Gàidhlig to prepare guidance on Gaelic language planning?

In order to ensure national consistency in Gaelic language planning it is essential that Bòrd na Gàidhlig is given the powers in the Bill to prepare National Guidelines on Gaelic language planning. However, as previously mentioned, we need to query whether it is essential and necessary for Bòrd na Gàidhlig to seek Ministerial approval for such guidance. One would expect that approval of the National Gaelic Language Plan by Ministers would be sufficient to enable Bòrd na Gàidhlig to take the necessary action and provide adequate advice to public bodies flowing from the approval of the National Gaelic Language Plan. In line with Bòrd na Gàidhlig’s powers to advise public bodies on their respective Gaelic Plans through those guidance statements, it is logical for the Bòrd to also have similar powers in relation to local authorities for the provision of Gaelic Medium Education. We are strongly of the view, however, that the aspirations of the Gaelic communities, as enunciated strongly in the consultation process which preceded CnaG’s Secure Status proposals, was to seek a strong commitment, embedded in legislation, to give parents the right to obtain Gaelic Medium Education where a reasonable number of requests (defined by CnaG at the time as 5 pupils) for admission to Gaelic Medium Education had been received. We believe that this aspiration is still strongly supported by the Gaelic communities throughout Scotland and we urge that this matter be addressed fully in the next version of the Bill.

Q9: Should Bòrd na Gàidhlig have a role in advising education authorities and the Scottish Executive on plans for Gaelic medium education flowing from the 2000 Act?

One of the functions of Bòrd na Gàidhlig is to ensure the survival of the language through an increase in the number of Gaelic speakers. Gaelic education at all levels is central in pursuing this aim. The current provisions under the Standards in Scotland’s Schools etc Act 2000 have, so far, failed to live up to the promise given at the time by the Executive when attempts were made to amend the Act to provide a stronger commitment in relation to parental rights for Gaelic education. In the absence of any concrete evidence that the 2000 Act has significantly increased Gaelic Medium Education provision throughout Scotland, we must ask that the provisions of this Bill be amended to include the rights of parents for Gaelic Medium Education in accordance with Comunn na Gàidhlig’s 1999 proposals. Local Authorities themselves have admitted that the 2000 Act has not enhanced the position of Gaelic Medium Education in any meaningful way. Since the scope of the 2000 Act is restricted to statutory education, the important sectors of pre-school, community, further and higher education is not, at present, covered either by the 2000 Act or the Gaelic Bill. It is essential that provision be made for the development and support of Gaelic in these sectors and this can only be done through the Bill. It is now clear, in our view, that any significant improvement in increasing the numbers of Gaelic speakers can only be done through a firm commitment by the Executive to include Gaelic as one of the subjects within the core curriculum at primary and secondary school levels. However, this is regarded as a long-term aim, and will require the recruitment and training of adequate teachers, before this aspiration can be met. An advisory role for the Bòrd, on education matters, without more specific monitoring and implementation powers, is unlikely to be very effective in fulfilling Bòrd na Gàidhlig’s functions in increasing the number of Gaelic speakers, since this can only be done with the full support of education authorities and other providers of Gaelic education.

Q10: Would you like to comment on any other aspects of the draft Gaelic Language Bill?

Comunn na Gàidhlig welcomes the publication of the Gaelic Language Bill and the Executive’s commitment to “provide a Gaelic Language Act which will meet the aspirations of the Gaelic community”. However, for the reasons outlined above, it is clear that the provisions within this first draft of the Bill fall far short of the aspirations of the Gaelic community as evidenced through the consultation process (which included a petition of 10,000 signatures) when Comunn na Gàidhlig formulated it’s proposals in 1999. We have no evidence to suggest that the views of the Gaelic community have changed in any way since 1999. In fact, based on the strong views which have been expressed at the recent series of public meetings throughout Scotland, it is obvious that the Gaelic community is as resolute as ever that the proposals contained in CnaG’s proposals of 1999 are still relevant and strongly supported.

1. the Gaelic language being specified as having equal validity with English, where appropriate, practicable and reasonable, in order to remove the confusion that continues to exist in the minds of many public bodies and individuals in relation to the legal and official status of Gaelic within Scotland. All that is required is to consolidate previous Ministerial announcements to this effect in legislation, in order to clarify the status of the language, within Scotland, once and for all.
2. inclusion in the Act of the rights of parents and Gaelic users in relation to the use of Gaelic in their dealings with public bodies, including education authorities and other providers for the provision of Gaelic Medium Education at all levels; and
3. adequate powers being provided to Bòrd na Gàidhlig to ensure that public bodies prepare and implement the provisions of their Gaelic Language Plans.

We are also concerned that there is no specific provision in relation to the rights of people appearing before all Courts of General Jurisdiction (both criminal and civil, administrative tribunals and all other judicial or quasi-judicial bodies) to present cases and give evidence through the medium of Gaelic. Limited provision already exists under the European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages in relation to civil cases in Stornoway, Lochmaddy and Portree, but this requires to be extended to all courts within Scotland.

All legislation relating to the registration of personal names, all election laws, laws relating to regulation and corporation of companies, the establishment of charities, trusts, proprietorships and partnerships, should be amended to allow for the use of Gaelic names and descriptions. It is further recommended that changes to the Race Relations Act and the Public Order Act are considered to ensure that Gaels and Gaelic speakers have the same protection under these measures of legislation as other minorities.

The funding of Gaelic Broadcasting needs to be addressed. Although legislation for broadcasting, including Gaelic broadcasting, is a reserved power and within the province of the Westminster Parliament the anomaly exists, since the Scotland Act, whereby the Scottish Parliament is responsible for funding Gaelic broadcasting. An agreed funding formula, along the lines of S4C in Wales, needs to be addressed, as a matter of urgency. Consideration should be given to making the necessary provision for the funding of Gaelic Broadcasting within the Gaelic Bill.

Finally, it is suggested that the Executive introduce measures that would require the relevant Committee of the Parliament, such as the Equal Opportunities Committee, to scrutinise all legislation being approved by Parliament, to ensure that the relevance of the Gaelic language and culture to each Bill being proposed by the Parliament, is considered.

Donald Martin
Chief Executive
Comunn na Gàidhlig
71-77 Cromwell Street
Stornoway HS1 2UN

January 2004