FIRST REPORT
The Procedure Committee has agreed to
the following Report:-
USE OF THE WELSH LANGUAGE IN PARLIAMENTARY
PROCEEDINGS IN WALES
Origin of inquiry
1. On 1st May 1996 our predecessor Committee approved a
Report setting out the rules to be observed for the use of the
Welsh language at meetings of the Welsh Grand Committee in Wales.[1]
The most significant of these was that Members should restrict
themselves to one language in the course of any one speech, question
or intervention.[2] The
reason for this restriction was the perceived risk that the problems
of attempting subsequently to piece together a mixture of English
and Welsh translation without transposing text could cast significant
doubt on the ability of staff of the Official Report to produce
an accurate report of proceedings.[3]
2. The Welsh Grand Committee met in Wales for the first
time at Mold on 30 June 1997. The opportunity to speak in Welsh
was widely welcomed, but the view was also expressed that the
rule referred to above acted as an undue constraint on Members.
The Leader of the House subsequently suggested amending the rule
to allow Members to change from one language to another not more
than twice in the course of a speech, so that they could (for
example) begin in Welsh, continue in English and conclude in Welsh.[4]
We agreed to undertake a short inquiry into the practicability
of this suggestion.
3. We wrote to all members of the Welsh Grand Committee
asking for their views on the proposed change, to the Editor of
the Official Report, and to the Shorthand Writer. We then took
oral evidence from Rt Hon Barry Jones, MP, Chairman of the Welsh
Grand Committee, accompanied by Mr Paul Silk, Clerk of the Committee,
and from Mr Ian Church, Editor of the Official Report, accompanied
by Lorraine Sutherland, Assistant Editor in charge of proceedings
at Mold.
Changing language during the course of a speech
4. We received 19 replies to our letter to members of
the Welsh Grand Committee. All but one supported the amendment.
Three replies suggested that no restriction was needed on the
number of times a Member changed from one language to another
in the course of a speech, citing the practice in local government
in Wales. This raised the possibility of changing the rule to
a greater extent than suggested by the Leader of the House in
her original letter to us and allowing Members to change from
one language to another as and when they wished.
5. In his reply to our original letter, the Editor of
the Official Report expressed the opinion that, following experience
of the meeting of the Committee in Mold, his staff would be able
to cope quite adequately with the change as proposed, provided
that the standard of interpretation did not fall below that which
was available at Mold.[5]
When it was put to him in the course of questioning before the
Committee that the rule might be further relaxed so as to allow
Members to change from one language to another as many times as
they wished, he was able to confirm that, subject to the same
caveat as regards the standard of interpretation, such greater
flexibility would not impair the ability of his staff to produce
an accurate report of proceedings.[6]
Ms Sutherland agreed with this.[7]
Neither the Chairman of the Welsh Grand Committee, nor the Clerk,
could see any objection to this greater flexibility being permitted.[8]
We therefore recommend that, subject to the conditions set
out below, there be no restriction on the use of Welsh in proceedings
of the Welsh Grand Committee in Wales.
Power of the Chair to direct a Member to use
English
6. At present, the Chair is "empowered to direct
any Member to address the Chair in English so that there can be
direct communication between the Chair and a Member, particularly
where the maintenance of order is concerned"[9].
The Chairman of the Welsh Grand Committee suggested that the Chair
might be given discretion to require a Member to use one language
only, to be used if a Member was trying to disrupt the work of
the Committee by swapping languages every few words.[10]
We think it unlikely that our recommendation above, if accepted
by the House, would be abused in order to disrupt the Committee's
proceedings. However, in order to ensure the good maintenance
of order in the Committee at all times, we recommend that the
Chairman should have power to insist that a Member restrict himself
or herself to one language only, and furthermore, if necessary,
to specify which language that should be.
Interventions
7. One of the members of the Welsh Grand Committee, in
his response to our letter, felt that interventions on non-Welsh
speakers such as himself should only be taken in English.[11]
Whilst making a speech in English, Members would not necessarily
be wearing their headphones, and there is thus some potential
for confusion.[12] The
Chairman of the Welsh Grand Committee said that, should such a
situation occur, he would expect a Member to be able to field
the translation of the intervention quite adequately.[13]
However, he would be surprised if such a situation arose. Firstly,
Members needed to make their point clearly not just within the
confines of the Committee, but also beyond. Secondly, good manners
would normally suggest that interventions should not be made on
a Member in a language in which he or she is not fluent. We agree.
If a Member were so discourteous as to intervene repeatedly in
Welsh when it was inappropriate to do so, we trust that the Chairman
would use the powers to direct the use of one language only that
we have recommended in paragraph 6 above to require him or her
to make the intervention in English.
Points of order, &c.
8. We wish to reiterate the rules that points of order
and communications with the staff of the Committee should be in
English, in order to ensure the smoothest possible running of
the Committee.[14] We
also wish to remind Members of the requirements to give notice
of their intention to speak in Welsh, at the latest when called
to speak or to put a question, and to table motions and written
questions in English.
Resources
9. We note that the additional cost arising from the bilingual
nature of proceedings at Mold falls well within the amount envisaged
by the Clerk of the House in his memorandum to our predecessor
Committee in the course of the original inquiry.[15]
We have been assured that the change in the rules recommended
in this Report would not have any cost implications for meetings
of the Welsh Grand Committee in Wales.[16]
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
(a) We recommend that there be no restriction on
the use of Welsh in proceedings of the Welsh Grand Committee in
Wales, subject to the conditions set out below (paragraph 5).
(b) We recommend
that the Chairman should have power to insist that a Member restrict
himself or herself to one language only, and, if necessary, to
specify which language that should be (paragraph 6).
1 Third
Report from the Procedure Committee, Session 1995-96, Use of
the Welsh Language in Parliamentary Proceedings in Wales,
HC 387. Back
2 ibid,
para 8(b). Back
3 ibid,
Appendix 5, p.xxviii, para 9. Back
4 Ev.
p. 10. Back
5 Ev.
p. 6. Back
6 Qq.33,
34, 54, 55, 56, 60. Back
7 Q.35. Back
8 Qq.4,
5, 6, 7. Back
9 HC
387, para 8(c). Back
10 Q.28. Back
11 Ev.
p. 13. Back
12 Qq.46,
47, 48. Back
13 Qq.25,
26, 27. Back
14 Q.28. Back
15 Ev.
p. 5; HC 387, 1995-96, Appendix 8, para 10, p.xxxiii. Back
16 Qq.58,
59. Back
|
