FIRST REPORT
The Procedure Committee has agreed to the following
Report:—
USE OF THE WELSH LANGUAGE BY SELECT COMMITTEE
WITNESSES
1. In 1996 our predecessor Committee inquired into
the use of the Welsh language in parliamentary proceedings in
Wales. Its ensuing report[8]
noted that the Welsh Affairs Committee had, as long ago as 1981,
agreed guidelines to govern the taking of evidence in Welsh at
public oral evidence sessions in Wales. Our predecessors endorsed
those guidelines, in an amended form, as a basis for any future
select committee proceedings in Wales at which Welsh might be
used.[9]
They further recommended that members of the Welsh Grand Committee
should be entitled to address the Committee in Welsh at any meeting
of the Committee in Wales; and that simultaneous translation facilities
be provided where necessary both for the Welsh Grand and for select
committees.[10]
These recommendations were approved by the House on 5th June 1996,
in the following terms:
That, whilst English is and
should remain the language of this House, the use of Welsh be
permitted in parliamentary proceedings held in Wales, subject
to the conditions set out in the Third Report from the Select
Committee on Procedure, Session 1995-96 (House of Commons Paper
No. 387).
2. In February 1998 we produced a short report which
recommended a variation in the conditions approved by the House,
to allow Members to change languages in the course of a speech.[11]
This report was approved by the House on 20 March 1998.
3. Hitherto the use of Welsh has only been permitted
in parliamentary proceedings within Wales. The Chairman of the
Welsh Affairs Committee, Mr Martyn Jones MP, has written to us
urging that the rules be changed to permit witnesses to speak
Welsh in committee meetings at Westminster also, with simultaneous
translation.[12]
Mr Jones did not consider that his committee would seek to make
extensive use of this facility, but he felt it important that
first-language Welsh-speakers should be able to use Welsh if they
choose either because they feel more comfortable speaking in that
language or simply out of pride in the language. He noted that
"the current Welsh Language Act was enacted in 1993, and
the advent of devolution has given considerable impetus to bilingualism
in public affairs even where the provision of Welsh is not a strict
legal requirement".
4. We have given careful consideration to this matter,
and believe that Mr Jones has advanced a sensible and modest proposal
which should be adopted. We note the following arguments in favour
of doing so:—
(a) it would remove the
incongruity whereby the Welsh Affairs Committee can operate in
Wales in a way that it is not allowed to do at Westminster (something
that is difficult to explain to witnesses);
(b) it would acknowledge the special status enjoyed
by the Welsh language not only as a medium of communication but
as a symbol of cultural inheritance—a status which is recognised
in law (the Welsh Language Act 1993) in a way which is not the
case with any other non-English language spoken in the UK; and
(c) it would remove a perverse incentive to spend
public money (because under the existing rules the Committee can
take evidence as it wishes by choosing to meet in Wales rather
than London, with the concomitant travel and subsistence costs).
5. We sought advice from the Clerk of Committees
on the likely costs of providing simultaneous translation at Westminster.
This information is given in a note appended to this report.[13]
We consider that these are costs which could reasonably be borne
by the House in the same way that it bears the costs of other
support services for select committees. We also note the point
made by the Clerk of Committees, that since the opening of Portcullis
House, the House now has dedicated facilities for simultaneous
translation which were lacking before.
6. For these reasons we recommend that the House
should approve the use of Welsh by select committee witnesses
at Westminster, subject to the same conditions as those previously
approved by the House in relation to proceedings in Wales.
7. When our successors in the next Parliament review
the subject of the procedural consequences of devolution (following
up our report made last year[14]),
we believe that it would be valuable for them to investigate how
the fully bilingual policy adopted by the National Assembly for
Wales has worked in practice, and whether there are any implications
or lessons for practice at Westminster.
8 Procedure Committee, Third Report of 1995-96, Use
of the Welsh Language in Parliamentary Proceedings in Wales
(HC 387). Back
9
Ibid., para 12. Back
10
Ibid., para 13. Back
11
Procedure Committee, First Report of 1997-98, Use of the Welsh
Language in Parliamentary Proceedings in Wales (HC 461). Back
12
Mr Jones's letter is printed below as Appendix 1. Back
13
Appendix 2. Back
14
Procedure Committee, Fourth Report of 1998-99, The Procedural
Consequences of Devolution (HC 185). Back
| 
