The next item on our agenda is the motion under Standing Order 26.91 seeking the Assembly’s approval to bring forward a Member Bill on the protection of historic place names in Wales. I call on Dai Lloyd to move the motion.

Motion NDM6249 Dai Lloyd

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales, in accordance with Standing Order 26.91:

Agrees that Dai Lloyd AM may introduce a Bill to give effect to the information included in the Explanatory Memorandum tabled on 28 February 2017 under Standing Order 26.91A.

Motion moved.

Thank you, Llywydd, for the opportunity to explain the rationale for proposing this Billon protecting historical place names, and for giving Members an opportunity to discuss the means by which the Bill may develop. Essentially, there is no protection now. I hope to use this debate to explain to members the very clear policy objective that I have in mind, to show that I have undertaken consultation with a range of organisations and experts in the field, to show that there is support for the Bill’s aims, and that there are a range of options open to us in being able to deliver against the policy objectives. I will also state how I believe that we can look to learn from international experiences in this field in developing the legislation.

Essentially, the purpose of the Bill is very simple—it is to protect historical place names in Wales, and to try and ensure that a key element of our local and national heritage is not lost. Members across the Chamber will be aware of the high-profile examples of historic place names that have been lost or have been at risk of being lost and have received media attention as a result—changing ‘Maes-llwch’ in Powys to ‘Foyles’, ‘Cwm Cneifion’ in Snowdonia to ‘Nameless Cwm’, and ‘Faerdre Fach’ farm near Llandysul, which is now promoted as ‘Happy Donkey Hill’ farm.

Fel mab ffarm, mae diwylliant amaethyddol yn bwysig i mi. Ac mae’n bwysig nodi bod gan bron pob cae ar ffermydd Cymru enw penodol hanesyddol—a phob craig a bryn, i’r perwyl hynny hefyd—ond bod llawer ohonynt nawr mewn perig o gael eu colli. Maen nhw ar hen fapiau ond nid o reidrwydd ar fapiau modern. Yn wir, ar draws Cymru, mae enwau ffermydd, caeau, tai hanesyddol, nodweddion naturiol a thirweddau yn cael eu colli. Yn aml, mae ein henwau lleoedd ni yn adlewyrchu topograffeg ardal, cysylltiad â pherson hanesyddol neu nodedig, cysylltiad â digwyddiadau yn y gorffennol, er enghraifft brwydrau fel Garn Goch yn Abertawe, lle collwyd lot o waed—dyna’r ‘coch’—neu gyfnodau, fel ymosodiadau, sydd wedi cael effaith ar hanes cymdeithasol-ddiwylliannol ac economaidd Cymru, a hefyd y cysylltiad â hanes diwylliannol lleoliad, er enghraifft cysylltiadau â thraddodiadau, diwydiant a chwedlau.

Mae colli’r enwau yma yn meddwl ein bod ni’n colli ein treftadaeth leol a chenedlaethol. Yn wir, mae Llywodraeth Cymru eisoes yn cydnabod pwysigrwydd yr enwau yma, ac mae Deddf yr Amgylchedd Hanesyddol (Cymru) 2016, a gafodd ei gynnig gan y Llywodraeth, yn rhoi dyletswydd ar Weinidogion Cymru i—ac rwy’n dyfynnu nawr—

‘lunio rhestr o enwau lleoedd hanesyddol yng Nghymru.’

O ran cynnwys y rhestr hon, mae memorandwm esboniadol y Bil yn nodi:

‘Mae enwau lleoedd hanesyddol yn dystiolaeth werthfawr o ran hanes cymdeithasol, diwylliannol ac ieithyddol. Mae enwau aneddiadau, tai a ffermydd, caeau a nodweddion naturiol yn darparu gwybodaeth am arferion amaethyddol y presennol a’r gorffennol, diwydiannau lleol, sut mae’r dirwedd wedi newid a chymunedau’r presennol a’r gorffennol. Maent yn dystiolaeth o ddatblygiad treftadaeth ieithyddol gyfoethog—yn Gymraeg, yn Saesneg ac mewn ieithoedd eraill.’

Mae hyn yn adlewyrchu ein hanes dros y 2,000 o flynyddoedd diwethaf. Mae enwau Cymraeg, Lladin, Eingl-Sacsonaidd, Llychlynnaidd, Ffrengig, Normanaidd, Saesneg—maen nhw yna i gyd, ac unrhyw iaith arall rwyf wedi anghofio sôn amdani.

Mae’r rhestr genedlaethol hon yn y broses o gael ei chreu, gyda Chomisiwn Brenhinol Henebion Cymru yn arwain ar y gwaith. Felly, mae diffiniad o enw hanesyddol yna’n barod. Mae gyda ni restr yn barod. Mae arbenigwyr penodol yn helpu gyda’r gwaith ac, ar y foment, mae mwy na 300,000 o enwau hanesyddol ar y rhestr yma. Mae angen gwneud yn siŵr bod y gofrestr yma yn ddibynadwy ac yn awdurdodol, ac wrth sicrhau hyn, fe fydd hi’n bosibl defnyddio’r rhestr hon fel sail i ddeddfwriaeth ychwanegol i ddiogelu a hyrwyddo’r enwau lleoedd hanesyddol sydd arni.

Yn dilyn y balot llwyddiannus ar 25 Ionawr eleni, fe wnaeth nifer o sefydliadau ac unigolion sydd â diddordeb mewn diogelu enwau lleoedd hanesyddol ddangos eu diddordeb i mi a'u cefnogaeth ar gyfer egwyddor gyffredinol ac amcanion polisi’r Bil. Rwyf wedi cysylltu ac ymgynghori gyda nifer o fudiadau ac arbenigwyr yn y maes, ac fel rhan o’r broses ymgynghori yma, penderfynwyd cynnal digwyddiad penodol i randdeiliaid ar 17 Chwefror, yma yn y Senedd. Roeddwn yn falch iawn gweld cymaint yn mynychu, gan gynnwys cynrychiolwyr ac unigolion o Gomisiwn Brenhinol Henebion Cymru, yr Ymddiriedolaeth Genedlaethol, yr Arolwg Ordnans, Cymdeithas Enwau Lleoedd Cymru, Prifysgol Caerdydd, Cymdeithas Llywodraeth Leol Cymru, swyddfa Comisiynydd y Gymraeg a Chymdeithas yr Iaith Gymraeg.

Mae cefnogaeth i amcanion y Bil wedi ei derbyn wrth Gymdeithas Enwau Lleoedd Cymru, Mynyddoedd Pawb, Comisiynydd y Gymraeg ac amryw o unigolion eraill, gan gynnwys academyddion ac arbenigwyr yn y maes. Prif nod y digwyddiad i randdeiliaid yma ar 17 Chwefror oedd i drafod cwmpas y Bil, yr opsiynau o ran fframweithiau deddfwriaethol a chostau posibl y Bil. Fe wnaeth y trafodaethau hynny ddangos yn glir fod yna amrywiaeth o ffyrdd y gellid diogelu enwau lleoedd hanesyddol.

Mae’r sbectrwm yma yn cynnwys, ymysg eraill, sicrhau bod perchnogion tir yn ymwybodol o arwyddocâd hanesyddol eu henwau lleoedd; neu gyflwyno gofyniad i berchnogion tir neu gyrff cyhoeddus ymgynghori â chorff cyhoeddus penodol, neu gyrff cyhoeddus penodol, pan fyddant yn newid enw lle hanesyddol; neu ei gwneud yn ofynnol i berchnogion tir neu gyrff cyhoeddus ddefnyddio enwau lleoedd hanesyddol wrth baratoi gwybodaeth sydd ar gael i’r cyhoedd; neu, eto, gyflwyno cyfundrefn ganiatâd wrth fynd ati i newid enw lle hanesyddol; neu gyflwyno gwaharddiad cyffredinol ar newid enwau lleoedd hanesyddol; neu, yn olaf, gyfuniad o’r opsiynau gwahanol cynt, gan ddibynnu o bosibl ar y math o enw neu sefyllfa lle y gallai enw gael ei newid. Mae’n bwysig nodi bod dim diogelwch ar gael i enwau lleoedd hanesyddol ar y foment, ond am y ffaith eu bod nhw’n bodoli, neu yn mynd i fodoli ar y rhestr genedlaethol sy’n cael ei datblygu gan Gomisiwn Brenhinol Henebion Cymru. Felly, byddai unrhyw un o’r opsiynau uchod, ar y sbectrwm, yn gam ymlaen.

Rwyf wedi gweithio yn agos â’r Gwasanaeth Ymchwil a gwasanaeth deddfwriaeth y Cynulliad dros y mis diwethaf, ac yn ddiolchgar tu hwnt iddynt oll am eu gwaith wrth i ni ddatblygu opsiynau ar gyfer y Bil. Yn dilyn y gwaith yma, rwy’n gwbl argyhoeddedig ei bod hi’n bosib i greu deddfwriaeth bositif yn y maes, ac hefyd o’r posibilrwydd o edrych at wledydd eraill a sut y maen nhw’n mynd ati i warchod enwau hanesyddol. Mae gwledydd fel Seland Newydd, er enghraifft, yn cydnabod pwysigrwydd enwau hanesyddol, ac wedi datblygu deddfwriaeth, ac felly mae yna botensial i ddysgu wrth eraill wrth i ni ddatblygu deddfwriaeth yma yng Nghymru. Yn amlwg, yn dilyn y bleidlais heddiw, rwy’n gobeithio y bydd gen i flwyddyn arall i ddatblygu’r Bil yma, ac i benderfynu ar fodel a strwythur o ddeddfwriaeth briodol. Rwy’n edrych ymlaen at wrando ac i gydweithio ag Aelodau ar draws y Siambr i sicrhau ein bod ni’n gallu datblygu’r ddeddfwriaeth yma. Yn wir, mae’r trafodaethau hynny eisoes wedi dechrau, ac roeddwn yn falch o gael cyfle i drafod y mater gyda’r Ysgrifennydd Cabinet dros ddiwylliant yr wythnos diwethaf, ac hefyd yr wythnos yma, a byddwn yn gobeithio gweld y trafodaethau hynny yn parhau wrth i’r Bil ddatblygu.

Mae gofyniad yn Rheol Sefydlog 26.91A(iv) i gynnal asesiad cychwynnol o unrhyw gostau neu arbedion sy’n deillio o’r Bil, ac mae cryn dipyn o waith wedi’i wneud i drio ystyried yr agwedd yma. Gan fy mod i’n ystyried ystod o opsiynau o ran sut y bydd y Bil hwn yn cael ei ddatblygu, daeth i’r amlwg yn ystod y digwyddiad rhanddeiliaid cychwynnol, a gynhaliwyd ar 17 Chwefror, y bydd cyfle i greu Bil na fyddai’n esgor ar effaith ormodol, ond a fyddai’n dal yn driw i egwyddor y bwriad o warchod enwau lleoedd hanesyddol Cymru. Mae hyn wedi’i nodi fel rhan o’r memorandwm esboniadol i’r Bil, sy’n cynnwys ysgrifennu canllawiau a gwneud newidiadau i ddeddfwriaeth yn hysbys; sefydlu neu ddilysu rhestr gyfredol o leoedd ac enwau; unrhyw gostau ymgynghori a allai fod yn rhan o system weithredu a sefydlir gan y Bil a/neu gostau sy’n gysylltiedig â phrosesu ceisiadau am gydsynio ag enw lleoedd hanesyddol; gorfodi’r ddeddfwriaeth a chostau apeliadau/tribiwnlys; ac unrhyw ganlyniadau annisgwyl. Yn amlwg, byddai angen cyfathrebu’r newid statws a’r newidiadau o ran y gofynion sydd ar bobl sy’n berchen ar eiddo, neu’r sawl sy’n cael eu heffeithio gan y Bil. Mae amcangyfrif o’r costau yma ar gyfer Biliau tebyg ar gael, ond, wrth gwrs, bydd y gost wirioneddol yn dibynnu ar gymhlethdod y canllawiau a nifer y bobl neu sefydliadau y byddai angen cysylltu â nhw i’w hysbysu o’r newidiadau i ddeddfwriaeth.

Tra gallai’r dasg o sefydlu rhestr o enwau a lleoedd fod â chost sylweddol ynghlwm â hi, rwyf eisoes wedi nodi bod Deddf yr Amgylchedd Hanesyddol (Cymru) 2016 eisoes yn sicrhau bod yn rhaid i Weinidogion Cymru greu a chynnal rhestr o enwau lleoedd hanesyddol Cymru. Byddaf felly yn archwilio pa mor dda y mae’r rhestr yn diwallu anghenion y Bil a gaiff ei ddatblygu. Byddai angen golygu ansawdd y wybodaeth ar y rhestr yma, ac ystyried a fyddai angen dilysu’r enwau ar y rhestr, neu gynnal gwaith pellach arnynt. Serch hynny, mae’r ffaith bod rhestr eisoes yn bodoli, a chyllid eisoes ar gael i greu’r rhestr, yn golygu na fydd y goblygiadau ariannol sy’n deillio o’r Bil yma yn fawr o gwbl. Mae potensial hefyd y gallai rhoi’r Bil hwn ar waith godi proffil rhestr gyfredol Llywodraeth Cymru ynghyd â’i disgwyliadau. O ganlyniad, gall fod mwy o alw i ychwanegu enwau at y rhestr.

Yn amlwg, byddaf yn ymgynghori yn eang yn ystod datblygiad y Bil er mwyn lleihau’r posibilrwydd y bydd canlyniadau anfwriadol yn dilyn, er enghraifft, costau ychwanegol ar sefydliadau ac unigolion. Rwy’n hynod ymwybodol o’r angen i reoli costau a biwrocratiaeth, ac wrth ddatblygu’r ddeddfwriaeth a’r wahanol opsiynau, byddaf yn pwyso a mesur yr angen i leihau’r gost gymaint ag y gellid a’r modd y gellid cyflawni amcanion y Bil hwn.

So, Llywydd, in summary, I am pleased to note that there is strong support for the Bill’s objectives from a number of external organisations and from key individuals within the field, and that there are a number of options open to us as we seek to develop the legislation. I would be keen to listen to Members from across the Chamber over the next year in developing the Bill, and I look forward to hearing what Members have to say on the subject today as that conversation begins. Diolch yn fawr.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary for the Economy and Infrastructure, Ken Skates.

Diolch, Lywydd. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and can I start also by thanking Dai Lloyd for bringing forward this proposal and also for the constructive dialogue that I’ve had with him in recent weeks? There is no doubt that historic place names are an important part of our heritage and bear witness to the linguistic, social, and historical changes that have shaped our nation. Dai recognises this and so do I. They constitute a rich legacy for the present and for future generations and, as some in this Chamber may recall, this is not the first time that the Assembly has given consideration to recognising and to promoting the importance of historic place names.

Indeed, during the passage of the Historic Environment (Wales) Act, historic place names were a subject of debate, both here in the Chamber and in committee. The Assembly considered a number of options for their protection and I’ve always been clear that a formal consenting regime is very complex: it’s costly to administer and near impossible to enforce. But, I do understand and appreciate the desire to protect the historic names that mean so much to all of us. That’s why I was very pleased to respond to the constructive debate that we had during the passage of the Historic Environment (Wales) Bill and to successfully introduce a Government amendment to place a duty on Welsh Minsters to create and maintain a list of historic place names for Wales.

In May, Wales will have the only statutory list of historic place names—a first, not only for the United Kingdom, but a world first. This groundbreaking list is being developed by the royal commission under the guidance of a steering group that includes representatives of the Welsh Place-Name Society, the Centre for Advanced Welsh and Celtic Studies and the National Library of Wales, and also, as an observer, the Welsh Language Commissioner.

The list will be freely accessible, not only online, but also through the Welsh historic environment records. It will record historic names and variants of geographical features, settlements, thoroughfares, farms, houses and fields. Indeed, the only criteria for the inclusion of a place name is that it can be confidently identified and mapped for reliable historical evidence. At launch, as Dai Lloyd has outlined, the list will contain over 350,000 place names derived from historic Ordinance Survey maps, nineteenth century tithe maps, and apportionments and earlier evidence. However, that will only be the beginning. The list will continue to develop and grow as other sources are added and further research adds greater depth to the records of our historic place names. The list will not attempt to identify a single authoritative historic place name for each feature, locality or property. That would be an impossible task given the sheer volume of names and their sometimes complex transformations over many centuries. Rather, it will present the evidence to show how a place name has changed over time. Researchers will, of course, find this an invaluable tool, but it will also be something that members of the public can easily use if they are curious about the history of their property or their local area. As such—.

Will you take an intervention?

Of course.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary for giving way and, of course, I wasn’t here when that Act, as it now is, was taken forward. What are the implications of that, whether it’s a local authority or a developer in a local area, in terms of having due regard to that list of names? Because, as you say, it cannot be utterly definitive. Even in my own area I know of areas of attractive woodland that have two, possibly three, different names that are used by local people and have been used for generations. But what is the practical effect of that on somebody proposing some sort of development or, for example, on the Ordnance Survey map?

The Member makes a very strong point. Many place names have changed multiple times over the centuries. There are towns and villages in Wales that have had no fewer than five names. The key point to the historic environment Act is that we were able to bring forward statutory duties on—and I’ll come to this point—local planning authorities to pay due regard to that list and to consider historic place names in any changes that may take place. So, there are practical purposes behind this list that go beyond merely educating and informing the public.

The list will, of course, help to raise general awareness about the importance of historic place names and encourage their use, but it will be much more than just a record. It will also support, as I’ve mentioned, the informed and sensitive management of the historic environment. In statutory guidance that I will be issuing to local and national park authorities and Natural Resources Wales this May, use of the list of historic place names will be specifically considered. In general terms, that guidance will direct these public bodies to take account of the list of historic place names when considering the naming and renaming of streets, properties and other places, either directly or, indeed, as the Member outlined, by another party. This will make sure that appropriate historic names are given proper consideration before these bodies take any naming decisions. More specifically, it will guide local authorities on the use of the list of historic place names in the exercise of their statutory responsibilities over street and property naming and numbering. Anyone wishing to change a property name that is part of its official address, whether that name is historic or not, must make an application to the local authority. The new guidance will direct local authorities to recognise historic place names and their policies on street and property naming, and make applicants aware of historic names and encourage them to use them.

These measures will highlight the importance of historic place names and make sure that they continue to be vital elements of Wales’s heritage. These measures are proportionate and crucially they are deliverable. Any legislation to introduce formal protection at this time would be premature. Moreover, based on the information provided in the Member’s explanatory memorandum, I have some reservations about the proposals.

Would the Cabinet Secretary give way again?

Yes.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary for giving way. Could I ask about the flip side of that? Having due regard by local developers or a local authority or a national park authority to historic place names is absolutely right. But, what is the balance in terms of the developer coming forward with a proposal, which they have market tested, for some wonderful new name for an attractive development they have? Is that proportionality right in the burden that is placed on them as well? Is there anything within this that actually makes it too burdensome and too bureaucratic with too much red tape? Do you feel that the balance is right?

We were always conscious of the need to minimise bureaucracy and administration, but equally to ensure that any provisions that we bring forward lead to a better understanding and appreciation of historic place names and our heritage. We are confident that the arrangements that were developed as part of the passage of the Historic Environment (Wales) Bill results in minimal additional bureaucracy costs and administration but do deliver the job of better informing and ensuring that historic place names are, indeed, guaranteed and protected.

I’ve already said that the list of historic place names now contains over 350,000 entries and it will, of course, continue to grow. It will grow at a rapid rate. It will grow to, potentially, 1 million place names. And given the number of historic place names and the wide-ranging protection that the Member would like to introduce, I do not see how any system of general consent or control for changes can be feasible or affordable.

The issue of enforcement also gives me concern. A particular problem will be the regulation of names for natural features, fields and archaeological remains. Who would police infringements and what penalties would be imposed? In practice, I struggle to see what the legislation that the Member proposes will achieve beyond the actions that we are already taking. In May, we will have a resource that will, for the first time, provide access to our rich stock of historic place names for all. This will promote our historic place names so that they continue to be a living part of our nation long into the future.

Although I cannot support this motion, I believe that the groundbreaking measures that we are about to introduce are vital steps in appreciating and valuing this precious inheritance. And this is where I believe our energies and our resources should be directed. We will continue to work with the royal commission and its advisers, relevant public bodies and other interested parties to broaden awareness of the list and the important role it will have in the future, and I will keep Members fully informed of our work.

Thank you, Dai Lloyd, for bringing these proposals forward today. You may have to run all those languages past me again, because I really didn’t catch them all, but thank you very much.

On behalf of the Welsh Conservatives, I can confirm that we’re happy to support the proposals for the Bill at this stage, recognising the aims that you set out. During the passage of the Historic Environment (Wales) Bill, the Welsh Government did indeed agree to the compilation of a list of historic place names, accessible through the historic environment record, and with that duty on Welsh Ministers to compile and maintain that list of place names. So, accordingly, I’m not hugely surprised that the Cabinet Secretary argues that he’s already protecting historic place names by virtue of this growing list.

Nevertheless, at Stage 2, the then Deputy Minister accepted that referencing historic place names via the historic environment record would not formally safeguard them. Huw Irranca-Davies, you spotted that without even being here during the fourth Assembly, so I am grateful to the Cabinet Secretary today for the confirmation regarding due regard. However, I’ve still got to ask: what status does guidance have in these circumstances, and what consequences would befall those individuals who fail to observe the guidance that you’ve indicated you’re producing today, Cabinet Secretary?

Dai, the explanatory memorandum suggests that this duty is the basis for a more explicit piece of legislation, and some of its aims I can support without any further query, actually, but there are some others I’d like to see developed in a revised explanatory memorandum or, indeed, in a draft Bill. In particular, I just want to look at the requirement for landowners to consult on changing names, and there are three things there. The first is that, on first reading, it doesn’t of itself seem to solve the ‘happy donkey’ problem, where the holding is called whatever the holding is called, but the business is called something else, and that’s what causes the upset. So, I’m wondering, as this Bill develops, whether you will be tackling that particular question.

The second on this particular point is the relationship between ensuring landlords are aware of an historic name and the duty to consult if they wish to change it. And I’m looking for a categoric assurance that we do not repeat the unhappy story of the Historic Environment (Wales) Bill, where an offence of strict liability was created, even when there were identifiable instances where it was clearly not reasonable to expect an individual landowner to know something important about their land. While I don’t think you can place a failure to consult due to ignorance in the same category as damaging a scheduled monument due to ignorance, you will need to make it clear what you mean by ensuring that landowners ‘are aware’ of the historical significance of a place name for us to support that point at the next stage.

The third thing is—and, in fact, the Cabinet Secretary raised something similar—what penalties you have in mind for those who may flout the proposed consent regime. Will you be coming down harder on big developers than someone who turns Pen-y-bryn into Squire’s Roost, to quote a miserable local example? Using the list in a consent regime rather than as a reference point, if you like, is attractive, but you will have to be very clear that the process is proportionate to the purpose of that.

I’m pleased to see that the protection would apply regardless of language. I wonder, though, if you have any plans to capture local pronunciation as well. Seven or eight years ago, local communities found themselves caught up—some of you may remember this—in consultations on the correct spelling of the name of their town or village in both languages for road signs and official documents, and I can remember an excruciatingly long evening discussing how to spell Crickhowell in Welsh. On the back of that though, we confirmed correct Welsh spellings, losing the Anglicised spelling in many cases, though my understanding of this is that the historic environment Bill list will still record the ‘Dolgelleys’ and the ‘Llanellys’ with a ‘y’ in them. On the other hand, we haven’t done anything to acknowledge that spelling and local pronunciation can diverge quite considerably. I’m just wondering what’s going to happen to Hirwaun, Pencoed, Groesfaen, Llanfaes, Waunarlwydd, Beddau, Ponty, Llani, Aber—I’m wondering whether your Bill will cover those as well.

Just briefly then, two other questions. The Deputy Minister at the time was adamant that the inclusion of commonly used current names would fundamentally alter the character of the list. While I have no particular issue with a centralised system for recording a list for purposes of consistency and avoiding a sort of Wikipedia free-for-all, I did very much come from the perspective that local opinion mattered when it came to inclusion on the list and supported Bethan Jenkins in her amendment to include current usage, because today’s social use, of course, is tomorrow’s historic use. When my grandchildren grow up, I want them to know what I meant when, as a child I was forbidden to go up the Werfa—something Vikki Howells might know what I’m on about—and I’d like them to know that I wasn’t coalmining and I wasn’t doing anything rude. So, I want you to explain whether the Bill will be covering current as well as historic usage. Thank you.

Well, I rise to support Dai Lloyd in this proposal and congratulate him on the convincingly ministerial way in which he introduced the motion today. My party’s often unfairly accused of living in the past, but respect for the past is an essential element in what we stand for. Lee Waters, the other day, talking about UKIP wanting to take the party back to the 1950s—of course, what he really meant was the 1450s. If we look at the history of a nation, it is very importantly reflected in the etymology of the place names, and they tell us so much about the country that we are and the country that we were. I forget who it was who once said that, as the past ceases

‘to throw it’s light on the future the mind of man wanders in obscurity’, but I think there is an essential truth in that.

We’re all accustomed to the corruption of names over the years. Indeed, I suppose Dai should really be called ‘Dai Llwyd’, although he is the very opposite of a grey man in my opinion. But, in place names, this is all part of our history, as Suzy Davies pointed out a moment ago. The changes themselves and corruptions are an essential part of history too.

With the examples that have featured in the newspapers et cetera in recent years—unhappy ones like the ‘Happy Donkey Hill’ story. It refers to, as Dai said in his speech, y Faerdre Fach, which I believe means ‘little home farm of the prince’, which was a smallholding that was designed to provide an income to the lord in medieval times. I would have thought that it doesn’t require a great deal of imagination, in marketing terms, if you’re running a business based upon such a plot, to make something of that. To change it to something like ‘Happy Donkey Hill’, which bears no relationship whatsoever with the history of the place, is rather unfortunate and I wouldn’t have thought that there’s much business advantage in that. It’s interesting that Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch was itself an invention of the mid nineteenth century designed to sell the touristic advantages of visiting that part of Anglesey. So, this works perhaps two ways as well.

There is an argument, of course, which was referred to by Suzy Davies in her speech, about interfering with people’s own rights to do with their own property what they will. But, of course, we accept this in relation to historic buildings where people know that there is a public interest in protecting what they are entrusted with for the period that they’re on this planet earth. I think, therefore, that there is no real question of principle involved here in relation to the protection of historic place names, and, whilst there are lots of technical issues that might arise during the course of the passage of the Bill, which has been referred to already, nevertheless, in general terms, we should give a warm welcome to what is a measure that is long overdue.

I’m sorry at the rather unimaginative approach that has been given by the Welsh Government, because I certainly don’t think we should make the best the enemy of the good, and, just because the Government is already doing something that is worth while and valuable, that we shouldn’t overlay that with another measure that could supplement what the Government is doing. So, I give this proposal a very warm welcome and we’ll do our best to make sure that it gets onto the statute book.

Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this afternoon’s debate. Clearly, I’m going to support Dai Lloyd’s attempts in bringing this Bill forward, which is important in terms of our heritage and history as a nation.

As has been mentioned by a number of Members this afternoon, there was a thorough debate in the last Assembly, and amendments were tabled by us as a party and by other parties, and we did reach some sort of consensus on the list, but we still weren’t happy with the fact that there was no means of protecting those place names within the legislation as it was passed in the last Assembly. I do believe, and still believe, that that was a missed opportunity to ensure that the legislation could be more robust. As Dai Lloyd has already highlighted, a list is simply a list, and we must put some meat on the bones in order to ensure that people can use that list and have faith in how that is developed.

Of course, any new guidance in that regard is going to be a positive development, but that isn’t going to be on a statutory basis, so I need to know from the Minister today how that is going to change the situation as it currently exists, and how people can ensure that that list is robust in and of itself. Because I think what’s important in this debate is how we protect and defend our heritage in terms of our past, and also how we discuss and deal with what’s happening in contemporary society. If place names are to change just on a whim, because someone prefers another name, then how can we actually tell our own story about the history of a certain field or of a particular industry unless there is some sort of status to that heritage for the future?

As one who has brought legislation before this place in the past, I don’t really buy the argument about cost in terms of this Bill. I know that Dai Lloyd has presented some information about that, because he wants to reach a compromise with Government. But, if something is a political priority, then something like a list and protecting these place names shouldn’t be impossible. I have heard the Government saying in the past that relatively complex things are possible, and I don’t see how this could be too complex to be achievable if the political will is there to deliver in this area.

I would want to hear more from the Minister as to how we can use the historic environment records in that regard. There are people doing some very detailed work in gathering data on a daily basis at the moment. Some of our historic names remain unknown because of the fact that archaeologists are only now working in the field, carrying out that research. So, how can we use these records to complement the work of the list? That is what I would want to add to this debate today.

Also, one of the amendments I put forward in the last Assembly was that individual people should be able to add to the list or remove names from that list. Of course, somebody needs to monitor that and there need to be safeguards, but this provides a means for ordinary people across Wales to become involved in this process. And so, if someone—as Suzy is aware of something locally in Aberdare, for example, if someone is aware of something in their own locality that isn’t a national issue at the moment, they could add that to that list as part of the debate on this issue.

I think it’s important that we don’t lose our history, and that we celebrate it and that we see the value of it, and, through place names—. Some people may think that it is not important, but, through place names, we can understand our history. We all here have our own names as individuals. Neil Hamilton has described Dai Lloyd’s name, but it makes us as an individual—our name is who we are, it reflects our personality, and I think the same is true for place names, be it a house, a field, a mountain. We know that mountain or hill or field through that name, and there is a sense of ‘hiraeth’ or a more fundamental relationship with that place because of its name. So, we shouldn’t discount the argument, and I’d like to thank Dai, therefore, for bringing this idea forward again. I very much hope he will be successful, as Dai has been successful with previous legislation when he’s been a Member in the past in terms of playing fields. Thank you.

Thank you, and warm congratulations to Dai Lloyd on his attempt to introduce a Member’s Bill as regards the protection of historic place names in Wales. I’m very pleased to support him today, and I’m confident that he will receive cross-party support. The historic names of Wales are part of our proud heritage, and they deserve the same protection as rare plants and animals. Very often, the original Welsh name is full of meaning, and, in a couple of words, you can get a wealth of historic background as regards the landscape or local history.

Unfortunately, there are a number of examples of pointless changes or perhaps corruption of our traditional place names. We’ve heard a number of examples of this today. I am going to talk about an example from my constituency that led to a short, but, I’m pleased to say, effective, campaign to retain the historic name of a famous mansion, namely Plasty Glynllifon. It stands in a large, walled country park about six miles from Caernarfon on the main route to the Llŷn peninsula. The name Glynllifon was used as far back as the sixteenth century—a 100 room mansion in a 700 acre park—but, in 2015, there was an attempt to change the name. A company from Yorkshire in England called MBI Sales proposed to sell units in the historic mansion as buy-to-rent opportunities. This came to the attention of the local population, and it was noted that the name Glynllifon wasn’t being used, but that the company had coined a new name, ‘Wynnborn Mansion’, with no mention of the real name, Plas Glynllifon. All the marketing materials referred to ‘Wynnborn Mansion’. It was an attempt, apparently, to create a particular kind of image—an echo of ‘To the Manor Born’, or the famous opera location Glyndebourne, perhaps, that, in rural Wales, did not fit at all.

The local people were livid. No local consultation had taken place on the name change. An effective campaign was launched, and I had the privilege of leading that campaign. At the time, I was a member of Gwynedd Council’s language committee, and I got cross-party support to try and get the company to change their mind. I received support from every part of the community, because the non-Welsh speakers were just as supportive as the Welsh speakers. Very strong feelings came to the fore, and it was good to see how important local heritage was to the people of the constituency. I met with MBI Sales, there was a great deal of press attention, and, finally, in the face of such local opposition, the company changed its mind and reverted to using Plas Glynllifon in October 2015. By the way, nothing came of the idea of buy-to-rent, and by now I understand that Plas Glynllifon is in new hands, and those owners intend to convert it into a hotel, keeping the original name, Plas Glynllifon, with all its associated history.

This is just one story, and, thankfully, it had a positive outcome. But how many names, and, therefore, how much of our heritage has already been lost forever? I’m pleased to see that Dai Lloyd’s Bill offers a number of options as regards how to address this matter of protecting historic names. I note the comments of the Cabinet Secretary for the economy, but I do wish Dai well, and thank him for bringing this Bill forward. There is a great difference between guidelines and placing protection into law and legislation, and that is what is required in this case. Thank you.

I call on Dai Lloyd reply to debate.

Thank you very much, Llywydd. May I start by thanking all contributors to today’s debate and those Members who are supportive of the principle and main objective of the Bill, namely safeguarding historic place names in Wales and putting that in law? Now, I can say ‘yes’ to virtually all of Suzy Davies’s questions, but I can expand upon that again outside the Chamber, perhaps, because the main purpose of the debate today was just to win a vote on the general principles—on the need for legislation. I have 13 months to pursue the details—the kinds of details that the Cabinet Secretary wanted today. Well, we’ve had around a month to reach this point. That’s why there is a process, and we’re today voting simply on the principle of making new law—that’s all. The details will be thrashed out over the next 13 months. That’s why the process is in place as it is. So, asking for the details today makes no sense whatsoever, and I’m disappointed, therefore, in the approach of the Cabinet Secretary.

Roedd y bleidlais heddiw yn ymwneud â sefydlu egwyddor gyffredinol. Dyna i gyd. A yw’n syniad da i ddiogelu ein henwau lleoedd hanesyddol yng Nghymru—ydi neu nac ydi—yn gyfreithiol? Nid yw’n anodd, Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet.

Can I thank the Member for giving way? Nobody would dispute that whatsoever, but the point of legislation is that it should be a last resort. The problem with the proposals is that, as presented, there is no evidence base, and, indeed, Sian Gwenllian asked the question of how many names have been changed. Without a sound evidence base, it is simply not possible—I’m sure the Member would agree—to make sound legislation.

I beg to differ with the Cabinet Secretary there. There have been countless representations. That’s why we had the original historic environment Act and the Plaid Cymru amendments that have got you to the position of having the register that you have today. The fact is that there is no statutory protection for our historic place names, be they of any language—English, Anglo-Saxon, Viking, Latin, old Welsh, new Welsh, Norse, Flemish, you name it. The rich smorgasbord of our history is going down the tube, and we’re standing idly by, either doing nothing or lamely saying, ‘Duw, let’s have a bit of guidance, is it?’ [Laughter.] No, it is not on. We’re talking history of nation here, pride in the history of that nation, pride that deserves to be enshrined in law. Nick.

You’ve inspired me with that bit of old English there, Dai, or whatever it was.

Member of the Senedd:

Norse.

Norse. I will be supporting your Bill at this stage and the general principles, but I have to say I do have some sympathy for the Cabinet Secretary, because law does have to be very clear. In my constituency, the village of Trellech has 13 different local variants in pronunciations and spellings, which causes massive confusion on road signs, as you can imagine. So, you have to be very careful when you do develop this that you don’t protect one variant of a place name at the expense of others. So, I’m looking forward to seeing how you actually achieve that.

It’s not about protecting one place name vis-à-vis another form of it. If it’s historic and on that list, they’re all protected, regardless of language—Trellech, Treleck, whatever. I’m reminded there’s a village also in Monmouthshire, ‘point of Scotland’ and people say, ‘Well, Duw, where do we get “point of Scotland” from?’ From the old Welsh ‘pysgotlyn’, a pool full of fish, originally. But both names would be protected under my Bill. Diolch yn fawr.

The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I will defer voting on this item until voting time.

Voting deferred until voting time.