Seòmar agus comataidhean

Wellbeing is still very much a focus, and that is not because I get emotional about it. However, if you read out my job title at the beginning of the meeting and included everything that used to be in it, that would form an opening statement in itself. There was an opportunity to have very clear job titles, particularly as there are many different areas in my brief.

On obstacles, I have asked the team to look at examples of good practice and to try to replicate those across every experience that businesses or workers have with any form of government or public body. For example, two investments were made the week before last, in Sumitomo and Haventus. I am not sure about the extent to which this is appreciated, but I am very struck by the fact that those businesses can go anywhere in the world. They can choose any jurisdiction to invest in in a global economy. So why invest in Scotland? They can speak for themselves, but the feedback that we got was that they found a receptive public sector, a willingness to work with them, and an ease in getting answers and going through processes. I would like to see that replicated in every experience that external investors have when they choose where to invest and, indeed, when Scottish businesses are trying to grow and develop.

I know that the new deal for business group has reconvened the regulatory review group, which is chaired by Russel Griggs. That is looking at how every portfolio of Government—from public health to the environment to education—interacts with the economy and businesses’ experiences, basically. That is my mission. You asked about what making the economy grow and removing hurdles means. My point is that we should make the positive experiences consistent right across every experience that a business or an inward investor has.

I followed what was happening in Wales closely long before I had this job. I recall a conversation with the then Welsh language minister, who said that their having ambitious targets and an ambitious deadline, as it were, had focused minds.

I am in two minds about targets. They can be quite dangerous, because they end up focusing a lot of money and attention on particular areas that might be successful but do not reveal the breadth of the issue. Ultimately, my aim is that we have a significant increase in the number of speakers, who will have depth of skills in the language. Having skills in Gaelic might be being able to say “Madainn mhath,” or it might be the language being someone’s heart language. My aim is to have a substantial increase year on year, and to stop depopulation of, and the reduction in Gaelic speakers in, more traditional communities.

If you look at what the requirements are for Scots, you will see that the bill places a duty on the Scottish ministers and education authorities to

“promote ... and support Scots language education in schools.”

Take that as an example. Some of that will probably be happening already, if you recall your primary school years and what you may have had to read, or not read—I do not know—

It is a nice problem to have. Your point about Edinburgh could be echoed in Inverness and Fort William, which is precisely why we are working to expand provision.

I ask Claire to come in on what we are doing to expand capacity.

Mòran taing, agus madainn mhath a bhuill.

Tha e na urram mòr dhomh gun deach mo chur an dreuchd mar Rùnaire a’ Chaibineit airson na h-Eaconamaidh agus Gàidhlig, a thuilleadh air na dleastanasan eile a th’ agam. Tha uallach glè shònraichte aig Riaghaltas na h-Alba—[Interruption.]

I would not be content with a bill that is just symbolic. The protection that the bill will give the rights of a minority language is not just symbolic; it is very meaningful. Enshrining rights needs to lead to action. The actions of public bodies and communities will make the biggest difference.

It is an excellent idea that we consider how to adapt what already exists. At the moment, Bòrd na Gàidhlig has to report to ministers and Parliament. Your point about scrutiny is well made. If the committee has some good ideas in its stage 1 report about how to establish that scrutiny and to make it slightly broader by saying what should be reported, I would be very open to that.

I do not think that that will have any implications, as it were, for Scots. Obviously, the bill is pretty important for legal recognition of Scots, so it is not exclusive. After all, if ministerial titles referenced everything that we were responsible for, they would be quite lengthy.

What was the second part of your question again?

I hope that you will hear Gaelic being spoken the minute you step off the boat, because it is a living, breathing language for those individuals. It remains living and breathing, because when they go into a local shop, go to church or whatever, they do whatever they do in Gaelic. They feel that they can live their lives entirely through the medium that they choose to live in. That is the difference that I hope you will see.

I favour a local-led process. It is not for me to tell the Western Isles what or what not to do, but I am very supportive of Comhairle nan Eilean Siar’s Gaelic first approach in some policy areas. Indeed, I support it when it comes to everything that you see.

The idea is that, where a community is identified as a key Gaelic community, there would be a responsibility on Bòrd na Gàidhlig and on other bodies to support the language and its speakers, and to enhance the service that they give to Gaelic speakers.

I am most interested in the community work that goes on. We are obviously conscious of the formalised role of the state and the work that it does through legislation. However, under the bill, Bòrd na Gàidhlig—it tries to do this already, and it does an excellent job—would be required to support and give advice to people and organisations who are keen to embark on community initiatives or to support Gaelic language use in those communities. It is a far more grass-roots approach than just looking at the formal public bodies.