| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Prys-Davies: I rise to speak in support of Amendment No. 53 in this group. I agree with almost every word uttered by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy. He is an immense authority on the modern legal status of the Welsh language, he being the author of the expression, "treating both languages on the grounds of equality". The amendment addresses itself to the two significant issues which I raised at Second Reading. They are, first, the omission from the Bill of a duty by Welsh Ministers to treat the Welsh language on a basis of equality with the English language, and secondly, the equally significant omission of a duty on Ministers to promote and facilitate the use of the Welsh language in the good governance of Wales. The immediate effect of the first omission is significantly to weaken the present statutory infrastructure for the support of the Welsh language, which was created by the Welsh Language Act 1993 and the Government of Wales Act 1998. It is a backward step and therefore thoroughly unsatisfactory. The second omission denies the Welsh language the statutory support that the Government readily make available to other key areas of governance in Wales. Thus in Clause 73, Welsh Ministers are under a statutory duty,
Clause 74 creates a duty to promote the voluntary sector, and Clause 75,
The Welsh language is also a vital element in the good governance of Wales. Its history goes back well beyond Magna Carta. It goes back to the creation of the Welsh nation itself. It is a part of the Welsh nation and can be said to be a part of the culture of Britain, yet a duty to support it is totally missing from the Bill. I suggest that a duty to support it is just as relevant, if not more relevant, if the language is to enjoy a realistic prospect of survival by the end of this century.
19 Apr 2006 : Column 1148
I have a feeling, from what Ministers have said to me previously, that my noble friend on the Front Bench will once again not be reluctant to tell the Committee that the Assembly Government have consistently supported the Welsh language and they propose to adhere to that policy. But in reply, I cannot avoid saying, with deepest respect to my noble friend, that that would be a totally irrelevant argument, because the policy may change in the future, either due to a change of personalities or to a change of government. The fact remains that under the present Bill the Government are given a free hand to decide whether to promote the language. Can we accept that as right? I shall turn very briefly to the amendment. Subsection (1) is in line with Clause 73, relating to local government, or Clause 74 relating to the voluntary sector, or again to Clause78 relating to sustainable development. Subsection (1) refers to a "plan" instead of a scheme, but that is merely in order to avoid confusion with a Welsh language scheme.
Subsection (2) is parallel to the duty of the legislature contained in Clause 35 and in Section 47 of the 1998 Act to which the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, referred. Subsections (3) to (5) relate to reporting on the implementation of the plan and the scheme and an assessment of its effectiveness. They are not new. They are based on Clauses 77 and 78, being "Equality of opportunity" and "Sustainable development" respectively. I believe that the amendment will go some way in providing the statutory infrastructure for the Welsh language in the governance of Wales. Primary legislation will also be required to reform the substantial law itself, but that is for another day.
I should add that the Welsh Language Board, which is the Government's own advisory body on the interests of the Welsh language and its members are appointed by the Government, has agreed the wording of the amendment. I hope that the Members of the Committee will be able to support the amendment and that my noble friend Lord Evans on the Front Bench can be persuaded that the Government should think again about the merits of what is being proposed in the amendment.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno: We would of course give wholehearted support to the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. At the same time, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, for all that he has done over the years when in office in support of the Welsh language. It has been seen in the revitalising of Welsh throughout Wales. The census in 2001 was the first for many years to show that more people than before were able to speak and write in Welsh. We thank all who contributed so substantially to that for what they have done: S4C—the independent television channel—and the Welsh language schools. We understand that, in the reorganisation of schools in Cardiff, the one shortage
19 Apr 2006 : Column 1149
is of Welsh language education and that we are to be provided with more Welsh-medium schools in Cardiff. Substantial progress has been made, and so we pay tribute to all who have contributed towards that.
I am sad to see the demise of Welsh Language Board, Bwrdd yr Iaith Gymraeg. It was an organisation that did a tremendous amount for the support of Welsh and the promotion of the Welsh language in Wales. It was an organisation—quango or not—that was at arm's length from the Assembly Government and because of that independence at least it was able to act in a way that was at times not entirely supportive of the views of the Assembly Government. We should pay tribute to work done by the Welsh Language Board, and possibly it would be worthwhile to save it at the last moment.
We see in the present Welsh Assembly Government a lack of dynamism and commitment towards the expansion of Welsh. I hope that we have not come to the end of one type of progress where we are taking backwards steps rather than forward steps as the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, said. When we had co-operation in Cardiff and the two parties working together, the work of Mrs Jenny Randerson as the Minister involved deserved a great deal of appreciation. We seem to have lost policies such as the Welsh language action areas, which were instigated then and which could have done so much more to further the cause of Welsh. If we support the amendments tabled by the three parties and the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, I am sure that we can go forward with far more confidence that we have at present. It is our great pleasure to support the amendment.
10 pm
Lord Crickhowell: I warmly support the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and my noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy, and echo what has just been said by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno, about the Welsh Language Board. I share his doubts, as I said earlier, about it being absorbed within the Assembly, and this is a good example of why I have those doubts. I have a letter in front of me from the chairman of the board, urging us to support the language and giving reasons why we should do so. I wonder whether, if the circumstances were different and we were a little further down the road and debating the situation without the Welsh Language Board, we would have that independent voice making the demands that it reasonably makes for the changes.
I, too, pay tribute to the Welsh Language Board for its work under successive chairman since we set it up. Incidentally, the chairmen appointed in some cases by my noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy and Conservative Secretaries of State could by no means be described as Conservatives. We appointed those whom we thought could make the best contribution to
19 Apr 2006 : Column 1150
the future of the Welsh language, and we should express a debt of gratitude to the distinguished chairmen who have served and to the members of the Welsh Language Board during its existence.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I start by paying tribute to the work that the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, has done over the years in promoting the Welsh language.
Amendment No. 38 would insert a requirement for the Assembly's standing orders to be made in both English and Welsh. It is widely recognised that the Assembly has an excellent record of producing bilingual legislation. However, there have been moments when it has not been reasonably practicable to do so. For example, the Assembly's foot and mouth disease order describes several chemical tests which would not easily translate into Welsh. It would appear in that one case that the fact that it appears just in English is sufficient. Also, in 2005, the Assembly made a series of regulations regarding avian flu which were drafted in English only because of the severe time constraints imposed by decisions of the European Commission. It would have taken 20 days to translate, and then there was the possibility that urgent amendments might need to be made and those would have to be bilingual if the order was drafted in English and Welsh.
The Bill at present provides, in paragraph 18 of Schedule 11, that both the standing orders made by the Secretary of State, and the Assembly's proposals as to what provisions they should include, must be made in both English and Welsh. Subsequent revisions will be a matter for the Assembly. There is no reason to expect that these will not be made bilingually. The current Assembly's standing orders are in both Welsh and English. Any resolution of the Assembly to remake or revise the standing orders must be approved by at least two-thirds of the Assembly members voting. Any changes that were not proposed bilingually would be unlikely to secure sufficient support to be made. Furthermore, Clause 35 places obligations on the Assembly to treat English and Welsh on a basis of equality in the conduct of its proceedings. In drafting the Bill, the Government's approach has been to give the Assembly as much freedom as possible to make its own decisions about how it will work. This issue can properly be left to the Assembly to handle without the need for provision in the Bill.
Amendment No. 73 would oblige the Assembly to pass every Assembly measure in English and Welsh, with no exceptions. I realise that that would ensure that no measure could be passed in Welsh or in English alone, but that is unnecessarily restrictive. There are circumstances in which it would be desirable for the text of an Assembly measure to be in one language only. The Assembly may, for example, pass a measure that makes textual amendments to existing legislation. If the existing legislation is only in English, it is surely
19 Apr 2006 : Column 1151
needless for the Assembly to provide Welsh translations of terms that would appear only in English in the enactment itself.
I appreciate that some of the examples relate to statutory instruments rather than Assembly measures, but they illustrate the circumstances that can arise. In addition, there is a need for Assembly measures to make consequential amendments to other legislation that has been produced only in English, and that illustrates why it would not be sensible to require the text of every Assembly measure to be entirely bilingual. I should add in the light of the debate on that point in another place that Clause 97(5) will not prevent an Assembly measure from containing terms in languages in addition to Welsh and English, should that prove necessary.
Amendment No. 90 attempts to prevent the Assembly from passing a Bill if the text contained terms in any language other than English and Welsh, with no discretion for standing orders to provide otherwise. As previously debated in relation to Clause 97, there are practical problems with requiring the Assembly to produce all Bills in English and Welsh. The amendment would place an unnecessary constraint on the Assembly's discretion to determine its own procedures. I hope that, with the benefit of those explanations, noble Lords will not move their amendments.
Amendment No. 53 will place on Welsh Ministers a duty to have a Welsh language plan, setting out how they will promote the Welsh language in the exercise of their functions, and a Welsh language scheme, setting out how they will give effect to the principle that the English and Welsh languages should be treated equally. I appreciate—as I am sure that every noble Lord does—the sincerity and strength of the views of my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies. He is advocating that the Government should give a stronger statutory basis to what the Welsh Assembly Government do already—"securing the future", to use his phrase. The Welsh Assembly Government have already produced their action plan for a bilingual Wales, which aims to ensure that consideration of the Welsh language is at the heart of all their policies. They also have a Welsh language scheme, which is subject to the provisions of Section 21 of the Welsh Language Act 1993. For the past two years they have published a combined annual report on both the plan and the scheme.
I assure the Committee that the Welsh Ministers will inherit the Welsh language scheme that applies to the current Welsh Assembly Government. The scheme will therefore continue to be subject to the provisions of Section 21 of the Welsh Language Act 1993. I acknowledge that the detail of how that will be achieved, in the light of the Assembly assuming the functions of the Welsh Language Board, will be set out in the order to be made by the Assembly under Section 28 of the Government of Wales Act 1998. However, the policy intention is clear. A Welsh Assembly Government consultation document on the merger of the Welsh Language Board with the Welsh Assembly Government was published on 6 April. It
19 Apr 2006 : Column 1152
states the Assembly Government's intention to ensure that their Welsh language scheme is scrutinised independently and carries on as a statutory scheme. It sets out how the Assembly Government propose to ensure this, by retaining a residual body with statutory powers to scrutinise the Assembly Government's Welsh language scheme until the establishment of a statutory Dyfarnydd, which would take on that function.
With regard to the idea of a Welsh language plan, the Government expect that the Welsh Ministers will also inherit from the Assembly the function of promoting and facilitating the use of the Welsh language. This will be a consequence of the Assembly assuming that function of the Welsh Language Board from April 2007. I appreciate that this is different from a duty to set out how they will promote and facilitate the use of the Welsh language in the exercise of their other functions. However, I maintain that a direct function of promoting and facilitating the use of the Welsh language will be an even stronger impetus for the Welsh Ministers to ensure that all their policies are consistent with this function. I feel confident therefore that the fundamental objectives of this amendment will be met, albeit by different means.
It is for the Assembly to hold the Welsh Ministers to account for how well they carry out their functions in relation to the Welsh language. It will be open to the Assembly as a result of this Bill to seek the legislative competence to enable it to place further statutory requirements on the Welsh Ministers in relation to the Welsh Language should it wish to do so. This Government consider that it would be more in keeping with the underlying devolution policy underpinning this Bill for these matters to be determined by the Assembly itself in Cardiff.
I am sure that we shall return to this very important issue as the Bill progresses through its various stages. I hope that in the light of the explanation I have given my noble friends will agree to consider further the content of the Welsh Assembly Government's recent consultation and that they will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |