Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will pose my question to Adam Stachura, but I suspect that other witnesses might want to come in. You made some very powerful arguments, as you do in championing the work that you do, but those powerful arguments surely can be applied to a multitude of concerns.

We have considerable concerns across all of society, so what counter-arguments would you posit as to why there should not be commissioners for other areas that are of similar concern? Some potential commissioners have been suggested, but they are the tip of the iceberg, considering the issues and challenges that we have. What would be the tipping point be before we get somebody advocating for a commissioner for making pâté out of crabs’ eyelashes? I am being a bit facetious, but you get the point that I am making. What are the counter-arguments, and what is the tipping point before it becomes a completely crowded landscape? What the heck is the Parliament—whether it is the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body or MSPs—not doing?

Good morning. In relation to the financial memorandum for the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill, which my colleague Michael Marra brought up, I can confirm that we were brought back an updated FM, which the committee had the chance to scrutinise. Given that, in that case, there was no reverting back to the process that is set out in standing orders, and it was deemed both appropriate and necessary to update the FM, why do you not simply agree to do likewise, and then we would all be happy?

I fully accept what you say about the scale of the numbers. A multitude of financial memorandums come before the convener, and the tendency is to pick a sample of those. However, in general terms, this committee has now got its teeth into the rigour around framework bills and, arguably, it is that, as much as anything else, that we are testing here.

The committee looks forward to hearing back from you; I certainly do, because that would be helpful. Although I accept what you say about the pay claim—we understand that—that would come within the margins of uncertainty.

In your replies, you have articulated a compelling case for increased scrutiny on your part with regard to revised costs, so I would find it surprising from the point of view of rigour and good practice in this place if that same respectful position were not adopted with regard to the finance committee, which is, after all, a specialist in this area. The issue for the committee is about good practice and rigour in the face of chronic funding constraints on the public purse.

I heard that very clearly.

Thank you.

You might have an opinion about that.

I will come back to you, Dr Dempster, to talk a little more about financing.

The financial memorandum shows that some costs will be accrued by the Scottish Administration and local authorities. As you started to point out, other bodies, individuals or businesses have not been assigned anything. The discussion that we have been having shows that we have got to the end of the symbolism road with Gaelic and that we are looking for something more organic. How critical is the fact that there is no additional funding whatsoever for Scots, despite your pleasure at its inclusion in the bill?

Good morning. I want to chat a bit more about the financial memorandum. Some questions arising from that have bounced around as we have gone through today’s evidence session. The FM sets out that the total anticipated spend is £694,500, so it is not a significant spend. Therefore, I am trying to understand the extent to which you really want to create a shift or whether you want to move things about a bit. The financial memorandum figure suggests that the spend will allow for a bit of moving things about. Am I wrong on that? Are you really trying to create a significant shift?

Yes, and that is what I want to explore. I can see why creating provisions that allow for activity or that provide clarity—some of which we have discussed—can add value. However, the figure of £29 million that you spoke about has remained the same since 2010. You would have to spend roughly £1.50 today to get the same value as £1 would have achieved in 2010. So, in reality, there has been a real-terms decrease since 2010.

I am struggling to understand how, on the basis of those figures, the bill is going to make the difference that people are looking for. If you do not mind, I will quote a couple of organisations that have given evidence to the committee. Misneachd Alba said:

“Whilst in paper the Bill mostly provides for regulatory changes which should not incur direct costs ... it is difficult to see how new (or indeed existing) provision for Gaelic can be implemented in a way which meets the scale of the challenges, as well as the Government’s ‘commitment to have a focus on arresting language shift in areas with significant speaker numbers’ without meaningful funding increases.”

Is the organisation wrong?

Some of what you have said is clear. I understand that a range of bodies are undertaking activity that is within existing budgets and that the increase in activity is being enabled by a groundswell of opinion that we need to promote and support Gaelic and further promote Scots. You are nodding, so it looks as though you agree with my understanding so far. However, I am still confused about the overriding intention of the bill to shift the dial, particularly for Scots, because there is existing infrastructure—it sounds like growing infrastructure—for Gaelic. Where are we in shifting the dial for Scots, or is this a gentle step forward? How would you articulate that in your own words?