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?

You have made it very clear that you are accountable for only those areas for which you are accountable. However, I wonder whether I can press you, with regard to some of the evidence that is emerging today and from our previous evidence session, to cascade throughout the entire body of the civil service the need for the processes for the devising of framework bills to be consistent and rigorous.

I say that because we are seeing an emerging pattern that the committee has been driven to write about. I myself have raised the issue in the chamber. That is more in relation to framework bills. I appreciate that you are accountable only for what you are accountable for. However, in your capacity as a cabinet secretary, it would be helpful if you could you see your way to raising that matter generally.

It is, because it has to be financed.

You have neatly rounded it back to what I know you are very passionate about. If other people want to come in, I am trying to get your sense of where we go from here, because we could end up with commissioners for everything.

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?

There was some earlier discussion about separating Scots out. We all welcome the focus on Scots and definitely want to carry on with it but separating it out would enable a really clear look at what is needed, given the number of people who already speak Scots.

Different measures are required and different funding. Would that also be an idea? At the moment, Scots is lumped in with Gaelic, and you are right to say that it is a zero-sum game, because, as we are all aware, there are difficult constraints on funding. Do you think that the financial perspective also adds weight to separating Scots from Gaelic in legislative terms and perhaps having a stand-alone bill for Scots?

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?