Legislation Committee No. 5
The Proposed National Assembly for Wales (Legislative Competence) (Welsh Language) Order 2009
Consultation Responses
IG8(o) Urdd Gobaith Cymtu
Neither transferring powers, nor creating legislation, in isolation will protect the Welsh language. For this to happen, we must ensure that there are excellent opportunities for people to enjoy their Welsh identity. Enthusiasm, devotion and skills are needed when transferring this to children and young people.
The Urdd’s experience as an organisation is that children and young people love to speak and use the Welsh language - if they are given the opportunity to do so. They are more likely to be confident in their use of the Welsh language if the language is frequently used around them.
The Urdd’s mission is to present the Welsh language as a natural and exciting medium that has wide appeal. Transferring powers, and any legislation that emanates from that, will improve the context in which that is possible.
1.Should the National Assembly for Wales be able to make laws on the promotion and use of the Welsh language?
Certainly. We cannot see any sense in holding these legislative powers anywhere else. The Welsh language is unique to Wales - if the Assembly cannot legislate on the language, it is difficult to see how it can justify legislating on any other issue.
2. Should the National Assembly for Wales be able to make laws about which services the public should be able to receive bilingually?
Yes. This is a natural continuation from former Acts. The Urdd considers the whole matter from the perspective of a young person who has either learnt Welsh at home, or in school. The ability to receive services of a consistent standard through the medium of Welsh makes an enormous difference to that person’s use of the language once they have left home or school.
3. Should the National Assembly for Wales be able to make laws on the freedom of persons to use the Welsh language with each other?
Yes. The need to legislate in this regard has manifested itself through recent events.
4. What are your views on the general principle that legislative competence in the area identified in Matters 20.1 and 20.2 be conferred on the Assembly? i.e.: Matter 20.1: Promoting or facilitating the use of the Welsh language; and the treatment of the Welsh and English languages on the basis of equality; Matter 20.2: Provision about or in connection with the freedom of persons wishing to use the Welsh language to do so with one another (including any limitations on it).
In accordance with our answers above, we agree with this.
5. The Explanatory Memorandum states that Matter 20.1 would echo and build on the principles that underpin the Welsh Language Act 1993 and would allow the Assembly to legislate on the range of functions carried out at present, by the Welsh Language Board, and to build on these functions. Do you agree that it will allow the Assembly to do this? If not, how should it be amended?
We agree.
6. What are your views on the scope of the proposed Order with respect to the categories of persons on whom it would allow the Assembly to impose duties to provide particular services bilingually to the public e.g. is it too narrowly or broadly drawn (Matter 20.1 (a) - (i))? Please indicate clearly to which sub-section(s) your comments relate i.e. (a) - (i) and any particular sub-sub-sections under (h).
Again, from the perspective of a young person in Wales today, we believe that any legislation should be able to affect the use of the Welsh language in everyday life. This would lead us to argue for the right to legislate in terms of banking, internet banking, the use of mobile phones, and so on. It would include an argument to consider the provision of phone companies who offer services in Wales. It would include leisure services providers—for example, sports stadia and cinemas—large shops and transport companies.
7. Is the definition used for "public authorities” for this Matter appropriate ("each public authority within the meaning of section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998”)? If not, what definition should be used and why?
We cannot propose another definition.
8. Matter 20.1 would allow duties to be imposed on "telecommunications services” and "postal services and post offices” (Matter 20.1 sub-section (h)(iii) and (h)(iv)). Are the definitions used for "postal services” and "telecommunications services” under the "Interpretation of this field” section in the proposed Order necessary and appropriate? If not, how should they be re-drafted and why?
We have already explained our view that a young person should be able to receive a service by a telecommunications company through the medium of Welsh, in the same way that we would wish to receive postal services and services in post offices through the medium of Welsh - we would just want any internet provision to be included in the definition.
9. In relation to Matter 20.1 sub-section (e) - "persons providing services to the public who receive public money amounting to £200,000 or more in a financial year”, and includes "moneys made available directly or indirectly”: (i) Is it necessary to set out the definition of "public money” in the proposed Order? If so, is it appropriate (as set out under "Interpretation of this field”)? (ii) Duties would only be imposed on the recipients of more than £200,000. Is £200,000 the right threshold for the Assembly to have legislative powers?
It appears to be a sensible threshold. We assume that this includes any money that comes from public sources e.g. Lottery grants, much of which is directed towards children and young people, but which is not always provided through the medium of Welsh and English.
10. Is the scope of Matter 20.2 appropriate ("provision about or in connection with the freedom of persons wishing to use the Welsh language to do so with one another (including any limitations on it)”)? Will it allow the Assembly to legislate in future to implement the policy proposal as outlined in the Explanatory Memorandum?
The clause regarding restricting the freedom to use the Welsh language causes us concern, and we would like to have more information on that before giving our opinion. Perhaps this is a right, rather than a freedom.
11. What are your views on Articles 4 and 5 of the proposed LCO which deal with the application of the proposed LCO to Crown bodies?
We agree with this.
12. Are there any other issues which would have implications for the effectiveness of any future Measures, because the proposed LCO is insufficiently broad? If so, can you suggest how the proposed LCO would have to be broadened to address these issues?
No.
