Part of the debate – in the Senedd at 4:37 pm on 5 July 2017.
Thank you very much, Llywydd, and I move the Welsh Conservative amendments in the name of Paul Davies. Thanks also to Plaid Cymru for bringing forward today’s debate and for commissioning the report referred to in the motion. It’ll be interesting to see how much the report has influenced the Minister’s work, and, of course, we need to hear from the Minister on this, because local authorities are preparing their own Welsh language strategies up to 2020, as required by the standards, without any understanding of what the Welsh Government will be looking for when this year ends.
We have our own amendments, so we will oppose the motion, but we’re not hostile to its general thrust. We would like to support point 3(a). I’ve been calling for compulsory, meaningful introduction of Welsh in Flying Start settings for some years now, but in addition to the introduction of Welsh language skills as an intrinsic part of vocational courses such as social care, hospitality, hair and beauty, even, and, of course, childcare. While fluency would be the gold standard, as it were—we shall see—my main focus would be on confidence, and I think we’ve all come to the conclusion that if you haven’t got the confidence to use your incorrect Welsh, perhaps, then there’s no opportunity for it to become good Welsh.
This is reflected in our first amendment. We tabled this in these terms, Sian Gwenllian, partly because I didn’t understand what point 3(b) actually meant. If it was about looking for fertile ground to promote the acquisition and use of Welsh language skills within the Welsh Government’s economic strategy, then I would agree with you. If it was about not rolling back from the standards, I would agree with you. If it was about acceptance that any programme in this territory would have to be multi-speed to reflect that everyone in Wales will be buying into this from different starting points, then, again, I would agree with you.
Amendment 4 relates to the Welsh Language Commissioner, and we invite once again the Welsh Government to consider the accountability of the commissioner, not least as the Liberal Democrats have also called for that role to be independent of Government and accountable to us directly. As Plaid has now embraced the idea of an arm’s-length agency to promote the Welsh language, I wonder if we might see some shift in their previous viewpoint on this too.
It wasn’t so long ago, in a meeting with Dyfodol, I think it was, that I was advocating for the delivery of Welsh language promotion to be brought out of Government, and Alun Ffred was arguing the contrary. While I welcome the conversion to the Welsh Conservative way of thinking, perhaps I can press you on what the length of that arm will be. If you have in mind a body that will simply carry out the Government planning board’s instructions, well there’s no point moving the work out of Government. [Interruption.] Could you wait until the end, please? I don’t know if I’ve got enough time, sorry.
I have to say, and it’s an important point about why we don’t agree with what the Government is trying to say today, at present, I remain to be convinced on the purpose of this panel and that’s why, as I said, I don’t support the Government’s amendment. At this moment, I’m still favour of an independent arm’s-length body to take on this work, but one with the freedom to think differently. However, there is an argument that a Welsh language commissioner accountable to this Assembly rather than the Government might also be placed in an interesting position to be the primary promoter of the Welsh language. We are still in a period where many of our constituents praise or condemn this Assembly for Welsh language policy rather than the Government. This would be an opportunity to strengthen the role of the Commissioner, as called for in part 3(c) of the original motion, in a different way. Amendment 6 invites you to think why not make it the property of the people rather than the Executive—the Welsh language, that is.
Our amendment 5 is not in conflict with part 3(c) of the motion. It simply asks for a period of reflection and analysis before taking the next step with standards. The commissioner has said that the bodies affected are now getting used to the idea, and I hope that we will see formal evidence to that effect in consultation responses to the Government White Paper.
I have more to say, but there’s not enough time. So, I’m sorry, Simon, too.