Europe is a linguistic and cultural mosaic. Although Europe has a relatively low percentage of living languages in compassion to other continents, there are still over 200 autochthonous languages¹ used daily on our continent. And these do not include the many hundreds of African and Asian languages spoken by immigrants and guest-workers, who arrived in Europe over the past half century. Some of these autochthonous languages are widely used languages, even on a world scale [e.g. English and Spanish]. Others may be spoken by only a few hundred people. Some of these 'lesser used' languages are among the oldest in the Western world and most of them have rich cultural, literary and folk traditions. All of our languages form an integral part of Europe's cultural heritage. In addition to English, Scotland has two native languages, which fall into the category of 'lesser used' - Gàidhlig and Scots. What future have such languages in the new Europe? Has the policy or lack of policy of European institutions got any relevance for Gàidhlig or Scots? And, if so, can we influence them?

When we think of Europe we think automatically of the European Union. We also may think of the Council of Europe and the OSCE. What then is the position of these bodies in relation to our languages?

To speak of the position of the European Union on language is at once both simple and complex. Very little is said in the Treaty establishing the European Community about language. Only two articles are directly relevant. Article 314 states:

The treaty, drawn up in a single original in the Dutch, French, German, and Italian languages, all four texts being equally authentic, shall be deposited in the archives of the Italian Republic, which shall transmit a certified copy to each of the governments of the other signatory States.

Pursuant to the Accession treaties, the Danish, English, Finnish, Greek, Irish, Portuguese, Spanish and Swedish versions of this treaty shall also be authentic.

And Article 21, which states:

... Every citizen of the Union may write to any of the institutions referred to in this Article or in Article 7 in one of the languages mentioned in Article 314 and have an answer in that language.

So we have here twelve official, authentic versions of the Treaty and twelve languages in which a citizen may write to one of the Union's institutions. The question of official and working languages is dealt with, not in the Treaty itself, but in Council Regulation No. 1 of 1958. This Regulation, amended following on the accession of new member states, names eleven official and working language i.e. the twelve "Treaty languages", as listed in Article 314 of the Treaty, less Irish.

The exceptional status of Irish can be traced back to the attitude of the Irish government of the day, in the early seventies, when Ireland was negotiating its terms of accession. The government sought that Irish be an official language, but not a working one. It was claimed that Irish being a working language "could give rise to serious difficulties of a practical nature."² Some observers would suggest that the real reason lay in the fact that plans were being laid to end competence in Irish as an essential qualification for entry into general grades in the civil service - a move which would have been rendered well near impossible should Irish become a working language of the European Communities. Whatever the real motive may have been, the Irish authorities missed the point that Regulation No. 1 makes no distinction between official and working languages. The result was that Irish is neither an official nor a working language. However, the Irish government did succeed in agreeing that Irish could be used for certain purposes, subject to certain restrictions. Irish is an official language of the European Court of Justice. It may also be used in the European Parliament if advance notice is given to the interpretation service. Revised versions of the Treaty are produced in Irish, as are certain documents, e.g. Parliament resolutions, information material, if requested. Irish appears on all EU passports. This "in between" position of Irish has been underlined because it may serve as a precedent for other languages in the future. For instance, the status of Irish in the EU is a source of interest in Malta. Maltese is undoubtedly the national language of Malta but one spoken by only 300,000 people and rarely used for international communications.

The Union, with its eleven official and working languages is quite exceptional as an international organisation. The Council of Europe and NATO have only two working languages - French and English. The UN has only six. The practical difficulties which arise from having such a large number of working languages should not be underestimated. Labrie³ estimates that the Commission alone has to translate more than a million pages and to interpret for more than 100,000 interpreter days per annum. Geometric progression comes into play with each language added to the list of working languages, as translation and interpretation from and into this language must be possible from each and every other official and working language. The proverb, Talk is cheap, hardly applies in this case!

It is worth noting that the de facto as distinct from de jure position of language use does not reflect this multilingual situation. A study carried out in 1994 by the Gerhard-Mercator Universität of Duisburg⁴ showed that there were two dominant languages in use in EU institutions - French and English. Table 1 gives a résumé of the study:

LANGUAGES USED BY STAFF IN EU INSTITUTIONS

When the LINGUA Programme - now part of Socrates - was launched, to promote "foreign language" ability among European citizens, Irish and Lëtzebuergesch were included for the purposes of the programme. Later on, the three non-EU members of the EEA - Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein - agreed to participate in and financially support the EU's educational and cultural programmes. This led to the inclusion of Norwegian and Icelandic in the list of LINGUA languages. Of course, the lesser used languages, spoken by 40m.+ EU citizens did not figure in these provisions.

The European Parliament and regional and minority languages

The first signs of interest in the future of the Communities' regional and minority languages appeared in the European Parliament in 1979. On 28 September of that year a motion for resolution was tabled by Gaetano Arfé MEP and a number of other Socialist members, all of them from either Italy or France, on a Charter of Ethnic Minorities. Less than a month later, a further motion for resolution was tabled by John Hume MEP⁵, now a Nobel Peace Laureate, and co-signed by a Socialist deputy from all the member states calling for the drawing up of a 'Bill of Rights of the Regional Languages and Cultures of the Community'. Although at first glance both motions for resolution seemed very similar, there was in fact a very profound underlying difference in approach between them. Whereas the Arfé Motion for Resolution speaks of 'the demands for autonomy, of ethnic and linguistic minorities', the Hume Motion for Resolution side-steps issues such as ethnicity and autonomy and rather refers to 'this diversity' being 'again one of the main sources of the vitality, richness and originality of European civilisation'. In the event, the Parliament decided to have two different reports drawn up - one on the rights of ethnic minorities and another on the promotion of regional and minority languages. Gaetano Arfé MEP, a former Professor of History in the University of Firenze and a highly respected parliamentarian, was appointed rapporteur of the report on languages whereas the Legal Affairs Committee of Parliament appointed a German Christian Democrat, Mr. A. Goppel, to prepare the report on European legislation on ethnic groups.

Hume expressed the opinion on a number of occasions to me that an approach based on ethnicity would never meet with success because it would of its nature trigger off a substantial political reaction. He believed, however, that an approach based on language and culture would strike a chord across political and ethnic divides and stood a very good chance of being accepted. Hume's assessment of the situation proved to be correct. The Arfé Report and accompanying motion for resolution came before the plenary session of the Parliament in October 1981⁶. The Goppel Report on the other hand never got past committee stage nor did a subsequent attempt to prepare such a motion for resolution, prepared by Graf Stauffenberg MEP and later by Siegbert Alber MEP.

The Arfé Resolution called on the member state governments and on regional and local authorities to enact a number of measures to support and promote regional and minority languages particularly in the domains of education, mass communication, public life and social affairs. The motion was adopted by a comfortable majority - 80 votes in favour, 18 against and 8 abstentions. The only political block which voted almost solidly against the resolution was the English Tory group. It was interesting that the Irish Fianna Fáil deputies, who were members of the same political group as the French Gaullists, voted in favour of the resolution but persuaded their French colleagues to abstain rather than vote against the resolution. Most of the 80 votes in favour came from the centre left groupings, especially the Socialists. It should be clearly understood that it was not within the competence of the European Parliament to order a member state government to take any particular action in this field and it had to limit itself to calling on them to adopt certain measures.

In 1982, participants from lesser used language communities in a colloquy, organised by the Socialist Group to consider how best the provisions of the Arfé Resolution might be implemented, decided that the time was ripe to establish an organisation which could speak and act on their behalf at European level. This led to the establishment of the European Bureau for Lesser Used Languages. I was elected its first president and subsequently served as Secretary General for almost fifteen years. The Bureau has as its general aim to conserve and promote the lesser used autochthonous languages of the European Union, together with their associated cultures. It concerns itself only with its general aim and in matters relating to party politics, religion, race or ideology, it remains independent.

The organisation has committees in fourteen of the fifteen EU member states and now has its sole office in Brussels. [At one point, the Bureau had a head-office in Dublin and an education secretariat in Luxembourg, in addition to the Brussels office, which was then an information centre]. It aims at seeking political and financial support for lesser used languages in European institutions and has been particularly active in the European Parliament and the Council of Europe. It also seeks to facilitate an exchange of information and experiences among those working for lesser used languages and to this end organises an annual study visit programme, and has published a considerable number of booklets, posters etc. It has a bilingual newsletter, Contact-Bulletin and a news agency - Eurolang. It receives by far the greater part of its income from the EU.

The Arfé Resolution led to the opening of a small EU budget line to support measures in favour of regional and minority languages. This was first included in the budget of 1982 and amounted to only 100,000 ECU, as the Euro was then called. By 1997, this figure had grown to 4 million Euros.

A second resolution on lesser used languages was adopted by the Parliament in 1983⁷. Again, this resolution was prepared by Gaetano Arfé. It did not contain any new or innovative proposals and its main purpose was to keep pressure on the Commission and on the other EU institutions to fully support and implement the measures contained in the original Arfé Resolution.

The next major initiative on behalf of lesser used languages in the European Parliament came in the form of a report and resolution prepared by Willy Kuijpers, MEP, a Fleming from the Volksunie group⁸. The Kuijpers Resolution was more ambitious and wide-ranging than the original Arfé Resolution. While more or less respecting the division of domains as outlined by Arfé, it went into greater detail on specific actions which might be taken in different areas. Interestingly, it also called on the Council and Commission to continue their support and encouragement for the European Bureau for Lesser Used Languages by ensuring adequate budgetary resources.

Another very important development was to take place in 1983 with the establishment of the Intergroup for Minority Languages and Cultures. An intergroup is an informal committee, comprising MEPs from different political groups, who come together on a regular or an occasional basis because of their interest in a common issue - in this case, in the promotion of lesser used languages. The first meeting was convened on 9 February 1983 under the chairmanship of Gaetano Arfé MEP. The minutes of this meeting record Mr. Arfé as having 'explained the purpose of the meeting, which was to bring together those members of Parliament who had shown an interest in promoting minority languages and cultures with a view to working together in Parliament to promote and monitor community policies in favour of minority languages and regional cultures.' Unlike many other intergroups, the Intergroup for Minority Languages and Cultures has continued to flourish and over the past seventeen years has done sterling work to ensure the development of an EU policy in respect of the Community's linguistic heritage. While the minutes of the first meeting show that, with three exceptions, all of those present were either Socialist or Communist members, the membership of the Intergroup quickly spread to practically all political groups. Such was the respect in which Gaetano Arfé was held that he continued to remain President of the Intergroup until leaving the European Parliament at the time of the 1984 European elections. Since then the presidency has rotated, normally on a six-monthly basis, between one political group and another.

In 1990, John Hume tabled a new motion for resolution calling for another report on languages. This time the rapporteur chosen was Mark Killilea MEP. Killilea was an Irish Fianna Fáil deputy who was a member of the Union for Europe Group whose other members were mostly French Gaullists and Italian members of Forsa Italia. The report itself differed from the earlier Kuijpers and Arfé Reports in that it focused very much on the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages which had been accorded the status of an international convention by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in 1992. The Killilea Resolution⁹ was wholehearted in its support for the Charter.

The European Parliament ...

6. Supports the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, accorded the legal form of a European Convention, as an effective yet flexible instrument for the protection and promotion of lesser used languages;

7. Calls on the Member State Governments which have not yet done so as a matter of urgency to sign and their parliaments to ratify the Convention choosing at all times to apply those paragraphs best suited to the needs and aspirations of the linguistic communities in question ...

When the vote was taken on the Resolution in February 1994 there were 321 votes in favour with only one vote against and six abstentions. This landslide vote in favour of the most ambitious resolution yet to be put to the Parliament in favour of lesser used languages, serves as a yardstick in assessing the positive shift in public opinion in favour of linguistic diversity.

The latest resolution¹⁰ on this topic was adopted as recently as 13 December 2001. It was tabled by a number of MEPs, from different political groups and was aimed at reactivating EU support for lesser used languages, which by then had largely lapsed.

Finally, it is worth noting there were positive and helpful references to lesser used languages in resolutions relating to other matters such as cable television networks, European rural policy, regional policy, and radio and television production, adopted by the European Parliament.

Regional and minority languages in the work of the European Commission and the Inter-Governmental Council

The Union Treaty was amended at Maastrict in 1992. Among the changes made was the introduction of new provisions on education and culture. Article 149 (Education, Vocational Training and Youth) referred to the "cultural and linguistic diversity of the member states" whereas Article 151 (Culture) referred to the "national and regional diversity" of the member states. Paragraph 4 of the same Article declares that "The Community shall take cultural aspects into account in its action under other provisions of this Treaty, in particular in order to respect and to promote the diversity of its cultures" - the latter phrase being added at the time of the Amsterdam revision of the Treaty. At one level these references are vague but at another level they reflect a new and more inclusive perception of European unity.

Things might have continued to develop positively had not the former British Government (i.e. that of John Major) not taken a case against the European Commission to the European Court of Justice in 1996. The thrust of the British case was that the Commission had no legal right to spend money on a particular programme as it was not the subject of a legal act, agreed by the Commission, the Parliament and the Council. Ironically, neither the legal point at issue nor the particular programme in contention, which related to combating social exclusion, had anything to do with language. However, the Court found in favour of the United Kingdom and ruled that no monies could be allocated to projects if these projects did not form part of a programme, agreed by the three main Community institutions. The Court delivered its verdict¹¹ in early June 1998 and the immediate effect was that over a hundred budget lines, whose legal bases were doubtful, were blocked. Over the ensuing few weeks, over half of these were unblocked when the legal services of the Commission satisfied themselves that each programme had a satisfactory legal basis. Among those to remain blocked was Budget Line B3-1006 (Regional and Minority Languages and Cultures).

Some Commission officials and many sympathetic parliamentarians would have been happy to see an appropriate legal act adopted, one which would establish a multi-annual action programme to support lesser used languages. Much preparatory work was done before the legal advisers of the Commission ruled that Article 149 (Education) would not be sufficient as a legal base for the proposed legal act. Article 151 (Culture) would also have to be invoked. There lay the political impasse. Actions under Article 151 require unanimity - something impossible to achieve in the present political climate as it is almost certain that Greece, and even possibly some other states, would seek to veto any programme aimed at supporting regional or minority languages. Speaking at a Committee of the Regions function in Brussels on 14 December 2000, Commissioner Reading said, "At the recent Nice summit, European leaders failed to remove the right of veto in Article 151 of the Treaty, which deals with cultural matters. ... This means that if all Member States are not in favour of a programme to support these languages, it will be very difficult to achieve this. However, by the end of 2001, the European Year of Languages, the various communities will have made it very clear what they wish. The citizens of the regions will say, 'this is what we want Europe to do to support languages' and on the basis of these discussions perhaps we could put proposals". Nothing happened and there matters effectively rest.

The European Bureau for Lesser Used Languages was saved from financial ruin by supporters in the European Parliament managing to have a line in the A chapter of the EU Budget opened for the Bureau and the Mercator Centres. The Mercator Centres, originally established under the aegis of the Bureau in 1988, are information/documentation centres supporting lesser used languages by providing information in the critical domains of education, legislation and media.

It has also to be observed that there has been an ongoing rowing back of EU support from institutions working for lesser used languages. Support was withdrawn from the Bureau's Education Secretariat in Luxembourg in 1995, followed by a similar withdrawal of financial assistance from Mercator-France. Other casualties were the Children's European Publishing Secretariat in Kemper, which facilitated the publication of full-colour children's books in lesser used languages, and the Welsh-based Agora, which promoted economic development in areas where lesser used languages are spoken. The latest closure, as a result of the Commission withdrawing its support, is the Dublin Office of the European Bureau for Lesser Used Languages. For the first eight years of the Bureau's existence this was the Bureau's only office. Its closure has resulted in the Bureau losing its annual subvention from the Irish Government and, as one may reasonably imagine, much of the political support that the Bureau obtained from Ireland in EU institutions over the years. Commission officials will insist that these cutbacks were made in the interests of efficiency and for procedural reasons. However, some observers suspect that a more sinister agenda is behind these developments.

But the horizon is not entirely dark.

In autumn 2000 published a call for tenders to prepare a report on how best the EU might promote regional and minority languages. The call was won by a proposal tendered by the European Bureau for Lesser Used Languages and ECMO [European Centre for Minority Issues]. The project, entitled SMILE [Support for Minority Languages in the European Union: Analytical Framework and Strategic Options] is now close to completion. I have the honour of being a member of the SMILE team. I am convinced that we will be able to deliver a top quality report. Whether this will ultimately change EU is another matter.

Another interesting development was the adoption at Nice of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. Many see this document as an embryonic constitution for a federal Europe. Article 22 of the Charter states that:

The Union shall respect cultural, religious and linguistic diversity.

Not a very strong commitment but nevertheless a hopeful omen!

On 13 June 2001, the Committee of the Regions, an EU institution with primarily advisory functions, adopted a very positive Opinion on the Promotion and Protection of Regional and Minority Languages. This Opinion was prepared by two members - Tony McKenna from Ireland and José Muñoa Ganuza from the Basque Autonomous Community. A resolution of the Council of Ministers on 23 November 2001 to mark the end of the European Year of Languages includes the statement that:

All European languages are equal in value and dignity from the cultural point of view and form an integral part of European culture and civilisation.

As already observed, the European Parliament has tried to reintroduce a budget line to support regional and minority languages. There is a provision of ?1m for 2002. But the legal services of the Commission may again intervene and block the spending of this money.

I would also draw your attention to the fact that at the meeting of the European Council, held in Laeken, Sweden, on 15 December 2001, it was decided to establish a Convention on the Future of Europe. It is hoped that this body will do much of the preparatory work for the Intergovernmental Conference of 2004. This broadly representative body, composed of members of EU institutions and member state nominees, will be chaired by V. Giscard d'Estaing. It held its inaugural meeting on 1 March 2002. What is particularly relevant for us here is that it is envisaged that the Convention will convene a Forum, broadly representative of European civil society. It is imperative that our voice be heard at this Forum.

Another interesting and encouraging indication can be found in the acceptance address of the new President of the European Parliament, Pat Cox MEP. Before making a short intervention in Irish, Mr. Cox explained:

I shall now speak briefly in Irish. Why do I do this? Irish is my native tongue. It is an ancient language from an ancient European country. It is an official but not a working language of the European Union. I do it to underline my conviction that cultural pluralism and cultural diversity are the sine qua non of the Europe to which I am committed and which we seek to build.

What language policy in the European Union?

Even wider questions on language policy face the Union. Must it, or can it, continue to add indefinitely to its list of official and working languages? Enlargement adds a sense of urgency to the issue. Should a more limited number of working languages be agreed for reasons of cost and practicality? It is interesting to note that when the European Coal and Steel Community was established in 1951, Schumann and his colleagues envisaged that there would be only one working language - French. Indeed, the only authentic, as distinct from official, version of the ECSC Treaty is the French one¹². But this proved to be unacceptable. It is claimed that the Flemish were the first to object, fearing that a monolingual French-speaking body, as important as the Community, could upset the linguistic balance in Belgium. About seven years ago, the French Presidency of the Union proposed that there be only five working languages - French, German, English, Italian and Spanish. This proposal gave rise to a storm of protest, especially from the Netherlands, and was quickly and quietly dropped.

A recent Eurobarometer report¹³ shows that more EU citizens prefer to learn either English or French as a second or third language than any other European language. This is true, even for German, notwithstanding the dominant position of German as a mother-tongue. Table 2 from the report does not have any legal bearing on the situation but it probably does give us some clues as to the direction EU policy on language usage might take.

LANGUAGES SPOKEN BY EUROPEAN UNION CITIZENS

The challenge remains. The Union must be workable and practical in its approach. And yet Europe can be truly united only if it respects diversity. One wonders if a distinction might be agreed between internal working languages and languages of service to Europe's citizens. Internal working languages could be restricted for most but not all purposes to two or three languages. Languages of service should include not only all existing official and working languages but also most of those we now call "regional", "minority" or "lesser used". There should be no second-class citizens in the Community, which is under construction.

Organisation for Security & Cooperation in Europe [OSCE]

Let us now turn our attention briefly to the OSCE. The members of the OSCE were quick to recognise that dealing in an acceptable manner with issues relating to national minorities was a key factor in assuring peace and security in Europe. This led to the establishment in 1992 of the office of High Commissioner on National Minorities. This position was held until last year by a highly respected Dutch statesman, Max van der Stoel.

Mr. Van der Stoel requested that recommendations be prepared to guide him in carrying our his duties. The first of these were The Hague Recommendations Regarding the Education Rights of National Minorities, adopted in 1996. They were followed by the Oslo Recommendations Regarding the Linguistic Rights of National Minorities, adopted in 1998, and the Lund Recommendations on the Effective Participation of National Minorities In Public Life, adopted in 1999.

What is interesting about these recommendations is that they are not original in nature but are based on existing provisions in international law. They constitute an interesting résumé of codified international language rights. The HCNM has done much excellent work over the years and has contributed in no small measure to resolving many potential causes of conflict, particularly in Central and Eastern Europe.

The European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages

The Council of Europe now has 43 member states, including most of the former Communist Block countries.

In 1984 the first steps were taken to prepare an international legal instrument to protect lesser used languages. After a long period of preparation and gestation the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages was adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the CoE in 1992 and accorded the legal form of an international convention. Ten years on we find that 28 European states have signed the Charter and of these 16 have already ratified it, including the United Kingdom.

Let us look briefly at the Charter itself. It has a preamble and five parts:

It is Part III that we find the substance of the Charter. There are 7 articles in this Part and each article has paragraphs and sub-paragraphs:

Article 8 - Education
Article 9 - Judicial authorities
Article 10 - Administrative authorities and public services
Article 11 - Media
Article 12 - Cultural activities and facilities
Article 13 - Economic and social life
Article 14 - Transfrontier exchanges

A ratifying state must apply a minimum of 35 paragraphs or sub-paragraphs from the provisions of Part III to each named language to be covered, including at least three paragraphs or sub-paragraphs from Articles 8 and 12 and a minimum of one from Articles 9, 10, 11 and 13. As you can see, ratifying the Charter is a serious undertaking and not merely a vague expression of tolerance and good intentions.

The United Kingdom covers Gàidhlig, Welsh and Irish under Part III and Scots, including Ulster-Scots, under Part II. Welsh is covered by 52 paragraphs, Irish by only 36 and Gàidhlig by 39. Let us have a look at what these 39 paragraphs are.

By the way, there is nothing to prevent any ratifying state from upgrading its regime of support for its regional or minority languages, by naming new languages to be covered by Part III or by choosing stronger measures to support them. The Netherlands has already done so and Germany is preparing to do the same.

The provisions for the application of the Charter, as found in Part IV, are also very interesting. Within a year of the Charter coming into effect for a state, it must supply a written report on its implementation to the Council of Europe. It must provide further reports every three years thereafter. These reports must be made public. A committee of experts examines these reports and eventually makes its own report to the Committee of Ministers. The Committee of Ministers may make this report public. Bodies or associations legally established in a ratifying state may draw the attention of the committee of experts to matters relating to the undertakings entered into by the state under Part III of the Charter. After consulting with the state , the committee may take account of this information when preparing its report. In a word, citizens may complain that a state is not meeting its obligations under the terms of its instrument of ratification. And in turn the committee of experts may act on this information. I can say, from what I know of the work of the committee of experts, that it is taking its responsibilities very seriously and has visited a number of states to check on the situation pertaining there. In short, I think that the monitoring mechanism is proving to be quite effective and that, all in all, the Charter is proving to be a stronger document than some of us thought it might be.

Concluding Remarks

This leads us back to the question posed in the title of this paper - what future for Gàidhlig and other lesser used languages in the future. The future may be very uncertain in many respects but there are some things we can say we a reasonable degree of certainty.

First of all, considerable progress has been made in making the conservation and promotion of languages like Gàidhlig a European issue. Linguistic diversity was placed firmly on the European agenda, albeit not near the top. Political positions have been adopted and international legal instruments developed to protect our languages. Working on a pan-European basis, we have given encouragement to each other. We have learned that we could do things together that separately would be impossible. It is important that we fully utilise what we have gained.

In particular, I would encourage the Gàidhlig movement to carefully monitor the implementation of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages by the UK Government. Furthermore, it should aim at persuading the Government to upgrade its instrument of ratification within a reasonable time frame - say three to five years - and to extend other paragraphs and sub-paragraphs from Part III of the Charter to Gàidhlig.

Secondly, we should focus on the major developments and changes that are happening in the EU. We should, pay attention to the Convention on the Future of Europe and in particular on the Forum, which will be open to organisations from civil society. Let our voice be heard there. We should lobby at member state level and in European institutions to have an article included in the Treaty establishing the European Community, which would underpin language rights and linguistic diversity. The next intergovernmental conference on the Treaty will probably take place in 2004 so we have the time to prepare effectively. We should also insist on there being an EU multi-annual action programme to support our languages as well as on all other programmes being open to projects relating to our languages. MPs and MEPs should be briefed and lobbied on such issues.

Above all, I would say to you that we - all of us - should be active players, not mere spectators. We can and should influence events. The Gaelic civilisation of Scotland and indeed of my own country is an integral part of Europe's cultural heritage. It can be a source of enrichment, not only for us Celts, but for Europe as a whole. The challenges facing us are great but the rewards are even greater.

Appendix 1

Paragraphs and Sub-Paragraphs from Part III of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages being applied to Gàidhlig in Scotland

Paragraphs applied to Gàidhlig are in bold.

Article 8 - Education

1. With regard to education, the Parties undertake, within the territory in which such languages are used, according to the situation of each of these languages, and without prejudice to the teaching of the official language(s) of the State:
   1. 1. to make available pre-school education in the relevant regional or minority languages; or
      2. to make available a substantial part of pre-school education in the relevant regional or minority languages; or
      3. to apply one of the measures provided for under i and ii above at least to those pupils whose families so request and whose number is considered sufficient; or
      4. if the public authorities have no direct competence in the field of pre-school education, to favour and/or encourage the application of the measures referred to under i to iii above;
   2. 1. to make available primary education in the relevant regional or minority languages; or
      2. to make available a substantial part of primary education in the relevant regional or minority languages; or
      3. to provide, within primary education, for the teaching of the relevant regional or minority languages as an integral part of the curriculum; or
      4. to apply one of the measures provided for under i to iii above at least to those pupils whose families so request and whose number is considered sufficient;
   3. 1. to make available secondary education in the relevant regional or minority languages; or
      2. to make available a substantial part of secondary education in the relevant regional or minority languages; or
      3. to provide, within secondary education, for the teaching of the relevant regional or minority languages as an integral part of the curriculum; or
      4. to apply one of the measures provided for under i to iii above at least to those pupils who, or where appropriate whose families, so wish in a number considered sufficient;
   4. 1. to make available technical and vocational education in the relevant regional or minority languages; or
      2. to make available a substantial part of technical and vocational education in the relevant regional or minority languages; or
      3. to provide, within technical and vocational education, for the teaching of the relevant regional or minority languages as an integral part of the curriculum; or
      4. to apply one of the measures provided for under i to iii above at least to those pupils who, or where appropriate whose families, so wish in a number considered sufficient;
   5. 1. to make available university and other higher education in regional or minority languages; or
      2. to provide facilities for the study of these languages as university and higher education subjects; or
      3. if, by reason of the role of the State in relation to higher education institutions, sub-paragraphs i and ii cannot be applied, to encourage and/or allow the provision of university or other forms of higher education in regional or minority languages or of facilities for the study of these languages as university or higher education subjects;
   6. 1. to arrange for the provision of adult and continuing education courses which are taught mainly or wholly in the regional or minority languages; or
      2. to offer such languages as subjects of adult and continuing education; or
      3. if the public authorities have no direct competence in the field of adult education, to favour and/or encourage the offering of such languages as subjects of adult and continuing education;

   7. to make arrangements to ensure the teaching of the history and the culture which is reflected by the regional or minority language;

   8. to provide the basic and further training of the teachers required to implement those of paragraphs a to g accepted by the Party;

   9. to set up a supervisory body or bodies responsible for monitoring the measures taken and progress achieved in establishing or developing the teaching of regional or minority languages and for drawing up periodic reports of their findings, which will be made public.

2. With regard to education and in respect of territories other than those in which the regional or minority languages are traditionally used, the Parties undertake, if the number of users of a regional or minority language justifies it, to allow, encourage or provide teaching in or of the regional or minority language at all the appropriate stages of education.

Article 9 - Judicial authorities

1. The Parties undertake, in respect of those judicial districts in which the number of residents using the regional or minority languages justifies the measures specified below, according to the situation of each of these languages and on condition that the use of the facilities afforded by the present paragraph is not considered by the judge to hamper the proper administration of justice:
   1. in criminal proceedings:
      1. to provide that the courts, at the request of one of the parties, shall conduct the proceedings in the regional or minority languages; and/or
      2. to guarantee the accused the right to use his/her regional or minority language; and/or
      3. to provide that requests and evidence, whether written or oral, shall not be considered inadmissible solely because they are formulated in a regional or minority language; and/or
      4. to produce, on request, documents connected with legal proceedings in the relevant regional or minority language,
         if necessary by the use of interpreters and translations involving no extra expense for the persons concerned;
      
      
   2. in civil proceedings:
      1. to provide that the courts, at the request of one of the parties, shall conduct the proceedings in the regional or minority languages; and/or
      2. to allow, whenever a litigant has to appear in person before a court, that he or she may use his or her regional or minority language without thereby incurring additional expense; and/or
      3. to allow documents and evidence to be produced in the regional or minority languages,
         if necessary by the use of interpreters and translations;
      
      
   3. in proceedings before courts concerning administrative matters:
      1. to provide that the courts, at the request of one of the parties, shall conduct the proceedings in the regional or minority languages; and/or
      2. to allow, whenever a litigant has to appear in person before a court, that he or she may use his or her regional or minority language without thereby incurring additional expense; and/or
      3. to allow documents and evidence to be produced in the regional or minority languages,
         if necessary by the use of interpreters and translations;
      
      
   4. to take steps to ensure that the application of sub-paragraphs i and iii of paragraphs b and c above and any necessary use of interpreters and translations does not involve extra expense for the persons concerned.
   
   
2. The Parties undertake:
   1. not to deny the validity of legal documents drawn up within the State solely because they are drafted in a regional or minority language; or
   2. not to deny the validity, as between the parties, of legal documents drawn up within the country solely because they are drafted in a regional or minority language, and to provide that they can be invoked against interested third parties who are not users of these languages on condition that the contents of the document are made known to them by the person(s) who invoke(s) it; or
   3. not to deny the validity, as between the parties, of legal documents drawn up within the country solely because they are drafted in a regional or minority language.
   
   
3. The Parties undertake to make available in the regional or minority languages the most important national statutory texts and those relating particularly to users of these languages, unless they are otherwise provided.

Article 10 - Administrative authorities and public services

1. Within the administrative districts of the State in which the number of residents who are users of regional or minority languages justifies the measures specified below and according to the situation of each language, the Parties undertake, as far as this is reasonably possible:
   1. 1. to ensure that the administrative authorities use the regional or minority languages; or
      2. to ensure that such of their officers as are in contact with the public use the regional or minority languages in their relations with persons applying to them in these languages; or
      3. to ensure that users of regional or minority languages may submit oral or written applications and receive a reply in these languages; or
      4. to ensure that users of regional or minority languages may submit oral or written applications in these languages; or
      5. to ensure that users of regional or minority languages may validly submit a document in these languages;
      
      
   2. to make available widely used administrative texts and forms for the population in the regional or minority languages or in bilingual versions;
      
   3. to allow the administrative authorities to draft documents in a regional or minority language.
   
   
2. In respect of the local and regional authorities on whose territory the number of residents who are users of regional or minority languages is such as to justify the measures specified below, the Parties undertake to allow and/or encourage:
   1. the use of regional or minority languages within the framework of the regional or local authority;
   2. the possibility for users of regional or minority languages to submit oral or written applications in these languages;
   3. the publication by regional authorities of their official documents also in the relevant regional or minority languages;
   4. the publication by local authorities of their official documents also in the relevant regional or minority languages;
   5. the use by regional authorities of regional or minority languages in debates in their assemblies, without excluding, however, the use of the official language(s) of the State;
   6. the use by local authorities of regional or minority languages in debates in their assemblies, without excluding, however, the use of the official language(s) of the State;
   7. the use or adoption, if necessary in conjunction with the name in the official language(s), of traditional and correct forms of place-names in regional or minority languages.
   
   
3. With regard to public services provided by the administrative authorities or other persons acting on their behalf, the Parties undertake, within the territory in which regional or minority languages are used, in accordance with the situation of each language and as far as this is reasonably possible:
   1. to ensure that the regional or minority languages are used in the provision of the service; or
   2. to allow users of regional or minority languages to submit a request and receive a reply in these languages; or
   3. to allow users of regional or minority languages to submit a request in these languages.
   
   
4. With a view to putting into effect those provisions of paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 accepted by them, the Parties undertake to take one or more of the following measures:
   1. translation or interpretation as may be required;
   2. recruitment and, where necessary, training of the officials and other public service employees required;
   3. compliance as far as possible with requests from public service employees having a knowledge of a regional or minority language to be appointed in the territory in which that language is used.
   
   
5. The Parties undertake to allow the use or adoption of family names in the regional or minority languages, at the request of those concerned.

Article 11 - Media

1. The Parties undertake, for the users of the regional or minority languages within the territories in which those languages are spoken, according to the situation of each language, to the extent that the public authorities, directly or indirectly, are competent, have power or play a role in this field, and respecting the principle of the independence and autonomy of the media:
   1. to the extent that radio and television carry out a public service mission:
      1. to ensure the creation of at least one radio station and one television channel in the regional or minority languages; or
      2. to encourage and/or facilitate the creation of at least one radio station and one television channel in the regional or minority languages; or
      3. to make adequate provision so that broadcasters offer programmes in the regional or minority languages;
      
      
   2. 1. to encourage and/or facilitate the creation of at least one radio station in the regional or minority languages; or
      2. to encourage and/or facilitate the broadcasting of radio programmes in the regional or minority languages on a regular basis;
      
      
   3. 1. to encourage and/or facilitate the creation of at least one television channel in the regional or minority languages; or
      2. to encourage and/or facilitate the broadcasting of television programmes in the regional or minority languages on a regular basis;
      
      
   4. to encourage and/or facilitate the production and distribution of audio and audiovisual works in the regional or minority languages;
   5. 1. to encourage and/or facilitate the creation and/or maintenance of at least one newspaper in the regional or minority languages; or
      2. to encourage and/or facilitate the publication of newspaper articles in the regional or minority languages on a regular basis;
      
      
   6. 1. to cover the additional costs of those media which use regional or minority languages, wherever the law provides for financial assistance in general for the media; or
      2. to apply existing measures for financial assistance also to audiovisual productions in the regional or minority languages;
      
      
   7. to support the training of journalists and other staff for media using regional or minority languages.
   
   
2. The Parties undertake to guarantee freedom of direct reception of radio and television broadcasts from neighbouring countries in a language used in identical or similar form to a regional or minority language, and not to oppose the retransmission of radio and television broadcasts from neighbouring countries in such a language. They further undertake to ensure that no restrictions will be placed on the freedom of expression and free circulation of information in the written press in a language used in identical or similar form to a regional or minority language. The exercise of the above-mentioned freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

3. The Parties undertake to ensure that the interests of the users of regional or minority languages are represented or taken into account within such bodies as may be established in accordance with the law with responsibility for guaranteeing the freedom and pluralism of the media.

Article 12 - Cultural activities and facilities

1. With regard to cultural activities and facilities - especially libraries, video libraries, cultural centres, museums, archives, academies, theatres and cinemas, as well as literary work and film production, vernacular forms of cultural expression, festivals and the culture industries, including inter alia the use of new technologies - the Parties undertake, within the territory in which such languages are used and to the extent that the public authorities are competent, have power or play a role in this field:
   1. to encourage types of expression and initiative specific to regional or minority languages and foster the different means of access to works produced in these languages;

   2. to foster the different means of access in other languages to works produced in regional or minority languages by aiding and developing translation, dubbing, post-synchronisation and subtitling activities;

   3. to foster access in regional or minority languages to works produced in other languages by aiding and developing translation, dubbing, post-synchronisation and subtitling activities;

   4. to ensure that the bodies responsible for organising or supporting cultural activities of various kinds make appropriate allowance for incorporating the knowledge and use of regional or minority languages and cultures in the undertakings which they initiate or for which they provide backing;

   5. to promote measures to ensure that the bodies responsible for organising or supporting cultural activities have at their disposal staff who have a full command of the regional or minority language concerned, as well as of the language(s) of the rest of the population;

   6. to encourage direct participation by representatives of the users of a given regional or minority language in providing facilities and planning cultural activities;

   7. to encourage and/or facilitate the creation of a body or bodies responsible for collecting, keeping a copy of and presenting or publishing works produced in the regional or minority languages;

   8. if necessary, to create and/or promote and finance translation and terminological research services, particularly with a view to maintaining and developing appropriate administrative, commercial, economic, social, technical or legal terminology in each regional or minority language.
   
   
2. In respect of territories other than those in which the regional or minority languages are traditionally used, the Parties undertake, if the number of users of a regional or minority language justifies it, to allow, encourage and/or provide appropriate cultural activities and facilities in accordance with the preceding paragraph.

3. The Parties undertake to make appropriate provision, in pursuing their cultural policy abroad, for regional or minority languages and the cultures they reflect.

Article 13 - Economic and social life

1. With regard to economic and social activities, the Parties undertake, within the whole country:
   1. to eliminate from their legislation any provision prohibiting or limiting without justifiable reasons the use of regional or minority languages in documents relating to economic or social life, particularly contracts of employment, and in technical documents such as instructions for the use of products or installations;

   2. to prohibit the insertion in internal regulations of companies and private documents of any clauses excluding or restricting the use of regional or minority languages, at least between users of the same language;

   3. to oppose practices designed to discourage the use of regional or minority languages in connection with economic or social activities;

   4. to facilitate and/or encourage the use of regional or minority languages by means other than those specified in the above sub-paragraphs.
   
   
2. With regard to economic and social activities, the Parties undertake, in so far as the public authorities are competent, within the territory in which the regional or minority languages are used, and as far as this is reasonably possible:
   1. to include in their financial and banking regulations provisions which allow, by means of procedures compatible with commercial practice, the use of regional or minority languages in drawing up payment orders (cheques, drafts, etc.) or other financial documents, or, where appropriate, to ensure the implementation of such provisions;

   2. in the economic and social sectors directly under their control (public sector), to organise activities to promote the use of regional or minority languages;

   3. to ensure that social care facilities such as hospitals, retirement homes and hostels offer the possibility of receiving and treating in their own language persons using a regional or minority language who are in need of care on grounds of ill-health, old age or for other reasons;

   4. to ensure by appropriate means that safety instructions are also drawn up in regional or minority languages;

   5. to arrange for information provided by the competent public authorities concerning the rights of consumers to be made available in regional or minority languages.

Article 14 - Transfrontier exchanges

1. to apply existing bilateral and multilateral agreements which bind them with the States in which the same language is used in identical or similar form, or if necessary to seek to conclude such agreements, in such a way as to foster contacts between the users of the same language in the States concerned in the fields of culture, education, information, vocational training and permanent education;

2. for the benefit of regional or minority languages, to facilitate and/or promote co-operation across borders, in particular between regional or local authorities in whose territory the same language is used in identical or similar form.

NOTES

¹ David Crystal [Language Death, Cambridge, 2000] estimates that only about 4% of the world's living languages are European. ^{^}

² Letter dated 23.07.71 from Dr. Patrick Hillery TD, Minister for Foreign Affairs, to the President of the European Communities. ^{^}

³ Labrie, Normand, "The Historical Development of Language Policy in Europe", in A Language Strategy for Europe - Retrospect and Prospect, Pádraig Ó Riagáin and Síle Harrington, editors, Dublin 1999. ^{^}

⁴ Reported in the New Language Planning Newsletter, Vol. 9 No.4, June 1995. ^{^}

⁵ Motion for Resolution on a "Bill of Rights of the Regional Languages and Cultures of the Community", B3-0016/90. ^{^}

⁶ Resolution on a Community Charter of Regional Languages and Cultures and on a Charter of Rights of Ethnic Minorities, adopted by the European Parliament on 16 October 1981 (A1-965/80) 16.10.81 OJC 287 p. 57 ^{^}

⁷ Resolution on measures in favour of minority languages and cultures. Resolution prepared by Gaetano Arfé and adopted by the European Parliament on 11.03.1983 (A1-1254/82) OJC 68 (14.03.93) p. 104 ^{^}

⁸ Resolution on the languages and cultures of regional and ethnic minorities in the European Community adopted by the European Parliament on 30.10.87 (A2-0150/87) OJC 318 (30.11.87) p. 144 ^{^}

⁹ Resolution on Linguistic and Cultural Minorities in the European Community adopted by the European Parliament on 9 February 1994 (A3-0042/94) OJC 061 pg. 110 ^{^}

¹⁰ Resolution on Regional and Lesser Used European Languages - RC B5-0770/2001 - Martens, Pack, Morgan, Esteve, Eurig Wyn & Fraisse - adopted on 13 December 2001 ^{^}

¹¹ C-106/96 ^{^}

¹² Labrie, Normand, La Construction Linguistique de la Communauté européenne, Paris, 1993. ^{^}

¹³ Eurobarometer Report No. 50 - March 1999. ^{^}

Language Policy and Planning | Celtic Section Homepage

All queries concerning Research on Language Policy and Planning in the Department of Celtic and Scottish Studies should be directed to: w.mcleod@ed.ac.uk

All other queries concerning Celtic should be directed to: Celtic.Dept@ed.ac.uk

Page last updated by Kaye Brewster
Email: K.Brewster@ed.ac.uk