Dr.
Francis: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that
intervention, and I thank him, too, for his contribution to the work of
the Committee.
I turn now to
the findings. For both ourselves and the Assembly Committee, the key
criticism of the order that we heard in evidence was about the way in
which its scope was defined. The order contained a number of categories
setting out which bodies and organisations could be subject to Welsh
language duties under future measures. Witnesses told us that the way
in which the categories were set out was inconsistent. For example,
certain industries were specified in the order, such as
telecommunications, railways and gas and electricity companies, but
others were not— for example, buses, banks and financial
services.
In addition,
the order included in its scope companies receiving over
£200,000 of public money in a year. We never received a
convincing explanation of why that figure was chosen. Nor did we
receive any analysis of the effect of setting the threshold at that
figure rather than a higher or lower
sum.
Mrs.
Gillan: I am very interested in the Committee’s
deliberations on the threshold. While considering the £200,000
threshold, which the Committee obviously deemed to be an unreasonable
and arbitrary threshold, did it make any recommendations or discuss
internally whether there would be a suitable limit attached to the
provision?
Dr.
Francis: We had internal discussions about that. I was
particularly interested to hear the official response from the
Secretary of State. It would be appropriate to listen to his explanations. The
fact is, whatever the threshold, it is problematic. That was the
general feeling of the Committee.
Mr.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con): Will the hon.
Gentleman clarify whether the figure of £400,000 was ever raised
during the Committee’s discussions?
Dr.
Francis: No, that was never raised with
us. We
understand that the intention behind the order is to require large
organisations that have significant dealings with the public in Wales
to offer a Welsh language service to the growing number of people who
would prefer to use Welsh. At the same time, the aim is not to place an
unreasonable burden on small companies or charitable bodies that might
struggle to cope. That is an intention that the vast majority of Welsh
people
endorse. In
legislation, however, good intentions are not enough. Clarity and
equality of treatment are needed for bodies covered by the law and we
concluded that changes were needed to the LCO to achieve that. Because
of the
problems with the list of categories in the order, we suggested in our
report that the Government might want to consider an alternative
approach to the LCO. During our inquiry, we heard about legislation in
other countries which focuses much more on the type of service received
by the customer or the size of the organisation involved rather than
trying to divide up business sectors between those who are
“in” and those who are “out”. We believe
that the aim should be to establish reasonable, proportionate and
cost-effective language legislation. We also believe that more
information is needed on the role of the proposed language commissioner
in Wales. Furthermore, we believe that burdens should not be imposed on
smaller bodies, such as charities, non-governmental organisations,
organisations established by royal charter and very small
companies. The
spirit of our report focused more on the quality of the service
provided to the citizen rather than exclusively on the needs of the
provider, as has been emphasised by Maria Battle and Viv Sugar of
Consumer Focus Wales. I welcome their progressive and enlightened
approach, which they publish this week. Last week, the Wales Office
published its response to our report and the Welsh Assembly Government
announced how they intend to proceed with the
order. I
note from the Wales Office response to our report that much of our
approach has been taken up positively, and we can expect the redrafted
order to reflect that. My Committee looks forward to seeing the new
draft order, with some of our fingerprints on it. It is true to say
that my Committee sees the bulk of its work as being complete and it
endorsed that view in its meeting yesterday. I am particularly pleased
that steps will be taken to ensure that new duties will be
proportionate to the size and functions of an organisation, as
recommended by our report.
Mr.
David Jones (Clwyd, West) (Con): The hon. Gentleman says
quite rightly that the Select Committee is looking forward to seeing
the redrafted order. I invite him to remind the Secretary of State of
the recommendation in paragraph 12 of the report that it is possible
that if there
are “significant
changes to the wording of the draft Order...the Committee would
wish to return to the draft ...to give consideration to any
substantial changes
that” may
be
made.
Dr.
Francis: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing
my attention to that once again. I am sure that the Secretary of State,
and my Committee, will have noted that. As the hon. Gentleman stated
yesterday, of course it is in our gift to return to the issue. I am
sure that we will return to it, but I am confident that that will not
be seen as a barrier—it will be seen simply as an enabling
process, if it is necessary for us suggest improvements to the
order.
Hywel
Williams (Caernarfon) (PC): Will the hon. Gentleman
confirm that if the Committee returns to the issue it will be a matter
of tidying up or reviewing? There is no intention whatever to delay
unduly the progress of the LCO because, in fact, we have acted
expeditiously in our considerations.
Dr.
Francis: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for
using the word “expeditiously” rather than
“swift”. I can assure the Grand Committee and the House
that in no way will my Committee delay the process. It will not
necessarily be just tidying up. We will perhaps offer constructive
suggestions, which might be regarded as tidying up, but which might
also be slightly more than
that.
Mrs.
Gillan: The hon. Gentleman has made a statement about the
future work of the Select Committee. I appreciate that he is going to
some lengths, with the assistance of other Select Committee members, to
ensure that its work is not seen as a barrier or delaying tactic. Where
have such suggestions come from? It is rather alarming that the work of
a Select Committee looking at something in a proper and orderly fashion
should result in, obviously, messages being passed to the Chairman
suggesting that the Select Committee was delaying. Will he please
ensure that that is not the case and tell the Grand Committee where
those suggestions have come from? It cannot be right. As a
supplementary: the two documents from the Secretary of State and the
Assembly have no legal status as far as I know. They are a set of good
intentions. If neither we nor the Select Committee have seen the
order—
The
Chairman: Will the hon. Lady draw her question to a
close?
Mrs.
Gillan: One cannot presuppose what is in that order until
it arrives.
The
Chairman: Will hon. Members keep interventions as short as
possible?
Mrs.
Gillan: I am sorry. It was a bit
long.
Dr.
Francis: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. She asked me
where I heard the notion of delay; I suggest that she reads the press
of the past year—the suggestion is there in abundance. The
implication is always that we delay and that we should rubber-stamp. I
would repudiate both
processes.
Alun
Michael: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way.
When the Committee made a strong caveat that we might wish to return to
the issue, we thought there might be a lot of resistance—from
perhaps the Assembly or the Secretary of State—to the
constructive ideas proposed by the Committee. Does my hon. Friend agree
that it has been a pleasant surprise to the Committee to find that the
responses of the Secretary of State and the Assembly were so positive,
and that there is such a clearly developing consensus about a
constructive way forward that will be supportive to the language, but
not unreasonably burdensome to any organisation in
Wales?
Mr.
David Jones: I refer to the hon. Gentleman’s
reference to suggestions that the Select Committee should simply
rubber-stamp requests for legislative
competence.
Dr.
Francis: Not my suggestion.
Mr.
David Jones: No. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that
suggestion has been made most frequently and loudly by none other than
the Presiding Officer of the Welsh
Assembly?
Dr.
Francis: I note the observations of the hon.
Gentleman.
May I begin
to conclude? The Secretary of State said that his aim is to
“ensure a strong
and healthy future for the Welsh language, building on the solid
foundations established since
1993”. I
know that all members of my Committee share that aim, and I am sure
that all members of this Committee also share that
aim. Lembit
Öpik (Montgomeryshire) (LD): Just before the hon.
Gentleman concludes, it might be useful for the record—as it
sets a valuable precedent in terms of process—if he could
outline the key strengths of the process as he has seen them, in a more
generic sense, and the things that we need to watch out for in the
future. We do not want to keep re-learning the process of the
relationship between the Assembly and Westminster in the future, when
evidently it has worked rather well on this
occasion.
Dr.
Francis: I welcome that positive intervention. I draw the
hon. Gentleman’s attention to the fact that the Welsh Affairs
Committee has undertaken a review of the process and is about to make
an announcement. Without betraying any secrets—the draft review
has not been properly discussed yet—I think it will point out
some of the positive and negative points. We will take note of
constructive observations that have been made about the process, some
of which have come from the hon. Gentleman’s
party.
Hywel
Williams: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the
positive remarks that he has made about the process, which I agree
with, refer specifically to the process of the Committee, and are not
necessarily general praise for the whole process over a number of
years?
Dr.
Francis: Indeed, yes. I think the hon. Gentleman wants me
to agree with that, and I endorse that.
In
conclusion, Mr. Jones, I refer to a previous meeting of this
Committee, when the hon. Member for Clwyd, West suggested that I should
return to my previous occupation. [Interruption.]
It was a kind observation, I know. I will revert to my earlier, now
lapsed profession, as a historian, once again. The great Edward
Williams, Iolo Morgannwg, invented myths, legends, the Gorsedd and the
National Eisteddfod, itself as a democratic, albeit patriarchal
creation, which, among other things, has been the longest surviving
bulwark in modern times for the Welsh language, and we should celebrate
that.
In the
inimitable words of the late Gwyn Alf Williams:
“Iolo
built his Gorsedd out of legends of remote and misty druids. He
invented ceremonies, ritual and robes that Wales had never seen. Having
created his Bards out of fantasy and forgery, he then gave them the
watchword: Y gwir yn erbyn y byd: the truth against the
world.” Surely,
near as we are to Primrose hill, we can in all truth, take this small
forward step together, for the sake of the Welsh language. Set against
Iolo’s inventions and achievements this is but a very simple
request. The
real challenge is to ensure that the measures which will flow from the
agreed order are not sources of division within Wales but sources of
enhanced pride
and greater unity in support of both our languages. I hope my Committee
has prepared the way for that unity. After all, mewn undeb mae nerth a
heddwch: in unity there is strength and
peace. 9.55
am
Mr.
Hain: Mr. Jones, it is a privilege to serve
again under your chairmanship and to see the bow tie proudly adorning
the top table. It is a privilege too to follow my hon. Friend the
Member for Aberavon, who once again demonstrated with distinction his
historic depth and breadth, his love of Wales and his love for the
Welsh language. We are all genuinely grateful to the Welsh Affairs
Committee under his leadership, because it has done a very good job. It
is exemplary parliamentary scrutiny at its very best.
My right hon.
Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth highlighted the
consensus that has arisen——and that I hope will be
reflected in our Committee today——as a result of the
Welsh Affairs Committee’s work and that of all its members,
particularly my right hon. Friend, who has done a good job
too.
It gives me
great pleasure to be here today to debate the order and the Welsh
Affairs Committee’s report. I asked for this debate so that all
members of the Committee could give their views on this important
order. I am a strong supporter of the Welsh language and I hope that my
record speaks for itself. For example, when I was Minister for Welsh
education in 1998, I extended Welsh as a compulsory subject to the GCSE
age cohort in the face of hostile criticism in some quarters.
I am strongly
committed to the future development of the language. I understand the
central role it plays in Welsh society and in the day-to-day lives of
many people in Wales. Parts of my constituency are strongly
Welsh-speaking, especially in the valleys, and Neath hosted the
National Eisteddfod in 1994 where I give a welcome address, speaking in
Welsh——after considerable coaching, as my Welsh is very
limited. I wanted to do that to make a statement of solidarity with the
language, its culture and traditions and I was grateful for the
response that I
received. I
requested this sitting of the Welsh Grand Committee because I believe
it is essential that Parliament give this order full consideration and
thorough scrutiny. When my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen, West
and South Pembrokeshire was at the Wales Office, he and Jane Hutt, then
the Assembly’s Business Minister, submitted a memorandum of
evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee inquiry into legislative
competence orders in 2006. It said something important for our
consideration today, stating:
“It is
anticipated that the Report of the Welsh Affairs Committee, following
its pre-legislative scrutiny process, would usually be sufficient for
the Commons. However if proposals were extensive, complex, or of
considerable political interest it may be necessary for the Welsh Grand
Committee to be convened to debate that
Report.” My
hon. Friend will recall that he mentioned that possibility and the
procedure to be followed on the Floor of the House when he took the
Government of Wales Bill through the
Commons.
| 
