���˿���

My last question is about cross-border interaction with the UK on this matter. Under the scope of your bill, as drafted, the access criteria are far wider than those in the bill that recently passed its first reading in the UK Parliament. Your bill also makes it explicit that the treatment would be provided in the NHS, whereas there is no such explicit commitment in the UK bill, at the moment. People in the UK will also face potentially very high legal costs in order to access the provisions in the bill if it is passed by the UK Parliament.

Is there not a significant risk that, in the event of both bills being passed, a significant number of people will come to Scotland to access that form of care on the NHS in Scotland? Therefore, the numbers will be much higher, and the costs of accommodating people and making the care available will be significantly higher, too.

People are travelling to Switzerland, at the moment.

Yes.

My question to Claire Mack is on the allocation of money to renewables. The committee has received various pieces of evidence suggesting that the ScotWind money has been used as a second reserve by the Government. It looks like we are beginning to get a commitment to spend that money on what it was intended for, which is the creation of jobs, particularly in the north-east of Scotland but also across the country. I welcome that.

What kind of projects do you see that money being committed against? You have talked about ring fencing, but can you give us some examples of what it should be funding and when those projects will be possible?

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Amendment 8, by agreement, withdrawn.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.

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?

It has been a very useful discussion, and I agree with much of what members have said.

There is a core question about the urgency of the situation. I take some comfort in agreeing with what the Deputy First Minister said about setting the wrong targets and policy being driven in the wrong direction. Frankly, that happens far too often in Scotland. Some of her comments in describing the process seemed to be a very long-winded version of what we are trying to achieve. A big part of this is about urgency and ensuring that the bill’s intention—the survival of the language—is set out clearly.

However, I take on board and fully agree with the Deputy First Minister’s points about the complexity that sits below the numbers. In fact, that sits at the heart of my analysis of the census and the broader literature around the issue. It is one thing to have young people in the central belt of Scotland leaving Gaelic-medium education with some skills in the language then never speaking Gaelic again, but it is an entirely different thing to have people living in a Gaelic community using Gaelic daily as part of their culture and of how they live their lives. I understand that there could be a tension between the two, with the Government and its agencies driving towards the wrong outcome.

I hope that, rather than leaving some of the detail for the strategy, the Government will, ahead of stage 3, come round to the idea that the bill should include a real signal of intent, and I hope that other colleagues will agree with that. It might not be appropriate to set the direct targets that we are describing, but we should give a sense of impetus and urgency.

Scottish Labour has concerns about the scope of the bill, which we set out at stage 1. The key questions as to the survival of the Gaelic language relate to a functioning economy in communities in the areas in which Gaelic is already spoken. We know that the decline in the number of Gaelic speakers in those areas is precipitous. Experts have given the committee grave warnings about the future of the language without significant intervention. Good jobs, affordable housing and reliable transport links are all essential if we are to have a thriving economy in Gaelic-speaking areas. I believe that the bill is a missed opportunity for the kind of transformational change that Gaelic-speaking communities need. Some of my later amendments will give more detail on what that transformational change would be.

Turning to the detail of my amendments, I welcome the collegiate approach that the Deputy First Minister has taken thus far on the bill. I believe that there is cross-party consensus about the importance of the Gaelic language and the need to preserve it for future generations, which is very welcome.

However, I am concerned that, without measurable targets and outcomes, the legislation risks becoming symbolic. We cannot afford for there to be a cosy consensus in Holyrood that, in reality, does little to reverse the current trend of decline in the number of Gaelic speakers in traditional Gaelic-speaking areas. There is little point in the Government or the Parliament boasting about processes or inputs: it is outcomes that matter to people across the country.

My amendments in group 6 would insert a duty on Scottish ministers to specify targets in order to, in essence, define a core intent for the bill and a strategy for dealing with the precipitous collapse in the number of Gaelic speakers in Scotland. It is not really just about respect, as we have already heard, but about survival and the opportunity to thrive.

The targets that we have set out include the number of

“Gaelic speakers, broken down by geographical area ... candidates entered for Gaelic medium national qualifications”

and the number of

“candidates entered for national qualifications in Gaelic.”

I am under no illusion whatsoever that those targets would be silver bullets or that they would provide a solution, but I believe that they would strengthen the legislation so that the Parliament and the public could get a sense of what the legislation would achieve, and so that the Government could be held to account on whether it is allowing the Gaelic language to survive and thrive in Scotland.

I move amendment 8.