Legislation Committee No. 5

Proposed National Assembly for Wales (Legislative Competence) (Welsh Language) Order 2009

Consultation Responses

IG2(o) - Welsh Language Board

LC5(3)-03-09 : Paper 1  

1. The Welsh Language Board welcomes this opportunity to give evidence to the Legislation Committee on the proposed Order relating to the Welsh language.  More generally, we welcome also the Assembly Government’s intention to introduce further legislation on the language, for which the Board itself has been pressing for some years.  We look forward to viewing the details of such legislation, which will, inter alia, realise the main commitments to support Welsh contained in the One Wales document, namely, to confirm official status for both Welsh and English; to define linguistic rights in the provision of services; and to establish a Language Commission.

2. The remainder of this paper seeks to answer concisely the specific questions which the Legislation Committee has posed in its letter to us of 12 February.

3. We are firmly of the view that the National Assembly for Wales should be able to make laws on the promotion and use of the Welsh language; on which services the public should be able to receive bilingually; and on the freedom of persons to use the Welsh language with each other.  This principle holds whatever one’s view of the contents of the proposed Order; after all, the Welsh language is different from all other matters for which the National Assemble is responsible, since it is unique to Wales by and large, and any legislation relating to Welsh will have a substantially greater effect on the people of Wales than on anyone else in Britain.  This is especially true if one regards legislation as something which should, principally, make a difference to the lives of the citizens of Wales, rather than to institutional procedures.  Also we simply believe that the National Assembly is the appropriate body to legislate on Welsh.

4. It follows from this that legislative competence in the area identified in Matters 20.1 and 20.2 should be conferred on the National Assembly.

5. We agree that including Matter 20.1 in the Order would echo the principles that underpin the Welsh Language Act 1993, and would build on those principles, and that Matter 20.1 would allow the Assembly to legislate on the range of functions carried out by the Welsh Language Board.  Indeed, in doing so, our hope is that we will see a natural evolution from the present situation, soundly based the achievements which the Board has motivated, in relation to its expertise in language planning, its general function in the Welsh Language Act 1993 ‘to promote and facilitate the use of the Welsh language’, and, in particular, its statutory function to oversee the process of preparing and implementing Welsh Language Schemes, of which nearly 500 are now operational.   

6. So far as the scope of the proposed Order is concerned, we welcome unreservedly the persons listed in sub-sections (a) to (h).  It is good to see the inclusion of several bodies which will be charged not only with treating the Welsh and English languages on the basis of equality – namely in accordance with the main principle of the Welsh Language Act 1993 – but also with promoting or facilitating the use of the Welsh language: for example, in sub-section (h)(v), skills agencies, which have a key part to play in the continuing development of the Welsh language.  Even so, our view is that the proposed Order is too narrowly drawn, and consideration should additionally be given to including in sub-section (h) the following persons, in view of that fact that they all provide services of a public nature to the public in Wales:  

Persons providing savings, credit, loan, or bank account services to the public.
Persons providing to the public statutorily required insurance services, for example insurance for driving a car, since one cannot legally drive a car without that insurance.  
Persons providing public transport services, for example, companies offering scheduled bus services.  
Persons providing transport infrastructure, such as airports, ports, bus and coach stations, and toll-gates.  
Persons providing sports, leisure, or conference facilities, at fixed venues licensed to hold more than one thousand people, say.

7. Our main consideration in proposing the above is to respond positively to the Government’s aspiration to secure citizen-centred services.  In accordance with this, one should not, for instance, expect the public to have to distinguish between the various ways of regulating public transport services, such as trains and scheduled buses.  The same point holds for public transport infrastructure.  In travelling, the user’s main consideration is to reach one place from another as expeditiously as possible; it is unlikely that they would want to give any thought to how the service providers are regulated.

8. So far as sub-section (d) of the proposed Order is concerned, we are apprehensive as to whether partnerships providing public services are included here, such as Children and Young People’s Partnerships; Health, Care and Wellbeing Partnerships; Local Service Boards; and Spatial Plans.  If they are simply not included, the clause should be amended, for obvious reasons, to ensure that they are included.  

9. We believe that the definitions contained in the proposed Order for ‘public authorities’, ‘telecommunication services’, and ‘public money’ are both appropriate and necessary.  It also appears that the threshold of £200,000 under Matter 20.1, sub-section (e) is reasonable.  But so far as ‘postal services and post offices’ are concerned, we believe that further consideration should be given to the definition of ‘postal services’: specifically, the phrase ‘by post’ seems somewhat unclear to us.  

10. So far as Matter 20.2 is concerned, naturally we welcome the principle, particularly if legislation will prevent once and for all those unfortunate situations which have arisen in the past when attempts were made to stop Welsh speakers from speaking Welsh together at work.  This is nothing less than oppression, and, as such, every step should be taken to eradicate it in a civilised society.  Nevertheless, we do have some concerns about limiting the freedom of persons desiring to use Welsh.  The Assembly Government’s Memorandum should have explained more clearly what is meant: for example, would it be possible to prevent prisoners from Wales from speaking Welsh with their families, or from corresponding with them in Welsh?  The question also arises, of course, whether the Matter should be a right rather than a freedom.

11. The Board support Articles 4 and 5 of the proposed Order, in respect of amending the Government of Wales Act 2006, and in relation to the functions of Crown Bodies.  So far as we know, there is no logical reason why Crown bodies should not be expected to comply with the same duties as other public bodies, insofar as providing services to the public in Wales is concerned.

12. The above comprises the Welsh Language Board’s response to the questions posed by the Legislation Committee.  We should be very happy to expand on any of the points raised above, in our oral presentation on 3 March, and, as always, we remain prepared to assist and advise the National Assembly for Wales on any further matters relating to the Welsh language.

Welsh Language Board
19 February 2009