Hywel Williams (Caernarfon) (PC): Before lunch I was saying that the status of the language is contested and that there is a continuing process of disputed change, but that a Panglossian consensus seems to have broken out in some quarters, albeit temporarily. Voltaire eventually arranges for the disillusion of Dr. Pangloss, so that he changes from saying that all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds to saying that we must cultivate our garden. Certainly there are people in Wales who are doing that.

Paul Flynn (Newport, West) (Lab): On expenses.

Hywel Williams: On expenses, yes. Thank you.

The pressure for change in Wales has often been led by people who feel obliged, rightly or wrongly, to take responsible, limited, non-violent direct action to make their point. It is significant, but unsurprising as far as I am concerned, that Cymdeithas yr Iaith, the Welsh Language Society, chose to give evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee on the legislative competence order. All hon. Members present agree that the evidence was of a high and persuasive quality. That is a positive step.

I do not, of course, know what Cymdeithas yr Iaith’s campaigning intentions are, but I hope that it engages fully and positively in developing the forthcoming Assembly Measure and any subsequent Measures. I know from my experience of many years ago that some of the most creative and insightful proposals for the emancipation of the Welsh language have tended to come from the Cymdeithas; another example would be the proposals for a Welsh-language television channel. Unfortunately, in my experience such proposals have too often been ignored, possibly because of their source. However, the point has some bearing on remarks that I want to make a little later.

Before I proceed any further, it would be useful briefly to consider the context of the LCO. Since the Acts of Union, with the section in the 1536 Act that no person who uses

there have been blanket, penalising provisions on the Welsh language, but the Courts of Wales Act 1942 allowed limited use of Welsh in the courts. The landmark Welsh Language Act 1967, introduced by a Labour Government, established the principle of equal validity, and the Welsh Language Act 1993 provided that Welsh and English should be treated on the basis of equality. That development occurred over several centuries, most significantly between 1942 and 1993. The process continues.

What does the LCO seek to achieve? It allows the National Assembly to legislate, as with the 1993 Act, in the field of

and on the treatment of the Welsh and English languages being

That is the 1993 position.

The LCO will also allow the National Assembly to legislate to place language duties on certain categories of bodies and to protect the freedom of persons wishing to use the Welsh language. I come from an intensely Welsh-speaking constituency, where that has been a matter of dispute fairly recently, in a commercial context—I do not have to go into the Thomas Cook business, but the matter was in dispute. Such a positive statement, although I do not know its value in law, is reassuring for Welsh speakers.

We have already heard about the creation of the language commissioner, which is likely to be the first Measure, and the confirmation of equal status for the Welsh and English languages.

Mr. David Jones (Clwyd, West) (Con): Is it a concern of the hon. Gentleman’s, as it is of mine, that the role and function of the language commissioner is rather opaque at the moment?

Hywel Williams: It is not a concern, as such, of mine. I am confident that the language commissioner’s functions will not be dissimilar from those of other commissioners who have been appointed in Wales. The functions of the Children’s Commissioner and the Commissioner for Older People vary somewhat, and we have seen changes in the equality legislation, so I think that the functions would be in such areas. We shall have to wait and see what the Assembly comes up with.

There is a long list of bodies—I counted 18—that come within the scope of the LCO, from public authorities to royal charter bodies and, last but not least, bodies opting in. To save time, I will not go through them. I note that we have discussed telecommunication services already. I do not say this with any joy, but opponents of the LCO within the industry substantially overstated their case. Having done so, reality eventually tripped them up and telecommunications are in, although there were arguments about whether they should be out.

Such a substantial list will establish a level playing field and organisations that have already developed their Welsh language services will not face unfair competition from bodies that have not done the work or had that expense. One might say that virtue is, therefore, rewarded and errors corrected, in that everyone will face the same circumstances. However, the long list has significant absentees, most notably large-scale private sector bodies.

The CBI gave evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee and argued a self-contradictory case about the Welsh language and the private sector. It seemed to say, on the one hand, that under the current voluntary arrangements recorded demand for the language was small or even minuscule—“There is very little demand, so we don’t need this.” On the other hand, it insisted that only the voluntary approach should be adopted in future—the very approach that allegedly led to low demand, despite the fairly large and ever growing proportion of people who speak Welsh. It seemed to be saying two things at the same time.

During our evidence sessions, I asked witnesses from the CBI to resolve the apparent contradiction in their favouring a volunteer approach despite the fact that such an approach had manifestly not succeeded on their terms—in the number of bodies and inquiries. Sadly, I am still waiting for an answer.

Alun Michael (Cardiff, South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op): May I draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to a note that was privileged by the CBI during August? I think that it had listened to the very point that he made. It argued for

including

It appears that his point has been listened to.

Hywel Williams: I am extremely gratified by that. I did not see that release, but I would contest it—I might do that with the CBI itself.

It occurred to me that I should look at what prominent CBI members are providing. I did not have a great deal of success, so I looked at who the president and vice-president were and which companies they had been associated with over the years. I picked 10 at random. If the CBI sticks to its guns, it would be useful if it told the people of Wales what those companies had done to use the Welsh language. I will not go through them all now but they include British American Tobacco, Eagle Star, Faber and Faber, Northern Foods, the Economist Group, Centrica and, interestingly the Rolls-Royce Group. Clearly, not all those will have used the Welsh language, but I hope that some of them will. It would be interesting to see. Otherwise, the CBI could tell us what a notional proportion, such as 5 per cent. of its membership—12,000 companies—is doing. I cannot say that I am aware of 12,000, 1,200 or even 120 companies using the Welsh language. Irrespective of the LCO, it is clear that the use of Welsh by the private sector is substantially unfinished business. The private sector now has a breathing space. I sincerely hope it seizes the opportunity to reshape its relationship with the people of Wales so that it more closely reflects the linguistic diversity that is such a positive feature of our civic society.

The private sector now has the opportunity to do something about it, because when organisations use the Welsh and English languages consistently, over a long period with no comeback whatsoever, Welsh speakers tend to choose Welsh services. In the short term, perhaps they do not, but there we are. Welsh speakers do use English a lot—I have seen that happen in local hospitals and companies—where there are clear consequences: for instance, when the Welsh language is presented as somehow extraordinary, where that service would be likely to be delayed and would mark the user out. Of course, sometimes the person providing the service has to look in the bottom drawer of the unused desk in the back office under the paper clips to find the relevant, dusty, badly photocopied documents— I am afraid that happens.

Unfortunately, this week I have heard of a rather more pressing example of a form relating to cremation services, which has been produced in English only. People in Wales who want to provide the details of their loved ones are unable to do so, because the form is in English only. That is what I have heard and I ask the Under-Secretary to inquire into that matter. Clearly, that could cause great distress to relatives, and I would be glad to hear him address that matter.

I want to make one particular point about small businesses, to which I referred in an earlier intervention. There are many thousands of small businesses in Wales; they are the backbone of the business enterprise community in many constituencies, including my own. Before I was elected, I operated a small business bilingually very successfully for six years, with no extra costs involved in being bilingual. The Federation of Small Businesses stated in evidence to the Committee that virtually none of its members would be affected by the LCO and subsequent Measures, as far as it understood them. That evidence was useful in dispelling myths that language is in some way being forced on unwilling businesses, leading to their inevitable ruin. That picture is often painted and I was very glad that the FSB was able to counter that impression. Looking at businesses in my own constituency, I often find that the most innovative are those that have the most positive and creative language practices. That is also the evidence I have seen from other parts of the world, such as Catalonia and Quebec. Perhaps I could take the opportunity to thank the Governments of Catalonia and Quebec for their assistance with the LCO, particularly the Catalan Government, who arranged for evidence to be given in person. The evidence of Mr. Bernat Joan i Mari, the Secretary for Language Policy, and Mr. Jordi Bosch i Garcia, the Secretary for Telecommunications, was particularly influential, in my terms at least, in showing up the limits of the monolingual parochialism around the use of English and Welsh, which so besets the languages debate so often in Wales.

On monolingual parochialism, the Chairman of the Welsh Affairs Committee referred this morning to Iolo Morgannwg. I think we would all join in opposing any moves to remove the bilingual memorial recently put up on the top of Primrose hill—an excellent initiative by London Welsh people that, I understand is facing some problems.

As we heard this morning, since the Welsh Affairs Committee report, there have been further developments. I will not go through them all, but they bring in the provision for challenge of any duties imposed on the grounds of reasonableness and proportionality. The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Alun Michael) was the author of that, but he had the support of the Committee, including me. As we have heard, bus services are coming in and the £200,000 limit has been raised to £400,000. Significantly, the LCO will also be amended, apparently to ensure that duties may not be placed on bodies receiving one-off grants. Those positive steps show the Welsh Affairs Committee doing its work properly. I still have severe reservations about the LCO process. Unsurprisingly, I am very much in favour of moving to full law-making powers. But it is not a straightforward picture of the wicked Welsh Affairs Committee delaying the LCO for its own political and nefarious purposes. That is not how it was, but there has been a great deal of delay on either side. Let that pass for now. You will stop me, Mr. Caton, if I start referring to the broader debate about part 4 powers.

I draw the attention of the Committee to the changes in respect of bodies established by a royal charter, which exercised some members of the Committee greatly. The focus now will be on those who provide key services, as I always assumed would be the case. Whatever the LCO said, the Welsh Assembly Government would not be pursuing minor and irrelevant bodies. That is what I thought, anyway. Now, they are excluded. I compiled a brief list for the information of the Committee. Bodies now excluded are: the Worshipful Company of Cordwainers; the English-Speaking Union of the Commonwealth—unsurprisingly; the Benevolent Institution for the Relief of Aged and Infirm Journeymen Tailors; the Worshipful Company of Basketmakers; and a little-known organisation—little known to me, I assure the Committee—the Asylum for Idiots. That is all very worthwhile, I am sure, but I doubt that such august bodies would have been in the Welsh Government’s sights.

We have already heard about shops and training providers being excluded. As I said this morning, I spent 16 years providing training on a bilingual basis, often to the private sector. I managed to recruit professional trainers who were able to deliver training bilingually with no difficulty at all. The main difficulty that we faced was that organisations had little idea of what sort of training in Welsh they wanted. Did they want brain surgery? Possibly not. Did they want training on how to work with groups and how to interview people more effectively? Possibly. There was a lack of clarity among both public and private sector organisations about what they wanted. I appeal to such organisations to decide what they want. Too often one would go and see such a body and say, “What do you want?” The answer would be, “What have you got?” They would then choose from a list rather than having an active training policy.

I accept that the changes are the consequence of a process of negotiation and I am content with them as far as they go. Accepting the changes opens the door to passing the LCO and the passing of the first Measure before the 2011 elections. We hope that a language commissioner will be in place by 2012, a full 75 years after the passing of the courts Act that I referred to earlier.

I said that not all legislative competence in respect of the Welsh Language is transferred to Cardiff by the order. The UK Government policy, rightly or wrongly, is that a single LCO should not give the National Assembly legislative competence over an entire field—

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy) (PC): My hon. Friend knows that for some time both he and I have been campaigning for the right for people to be tried by Welsh language juries. I remember moving an amendment in the Standing Committee on the Welsh Language Act 1993, where all Labour members present voted in favour of the amendment. Does he not believe that it is high time the National Assembly took care of that aspect as well, or at least had some positive dialogue on this long outstanding wrong?