Thank you, Llywydd, and thank you to Adam Price for his opening remarks in this regard. In our meeting on 10 May, the Culture, Welsh Language and Communications Committee considered the draft official languages scheme, as previously mentioned, and we heard oral evidence from Adam Price, the Assembly Commissioner with responsibility for official languages, and from Assembly officials. However, before scrutinising the draft scheme, the committee agreed that it would be helpful to hold a limited public consultation to seek the views of organisations that may have an interest in this area. We received written responses from the Welsh Language Commissioner, Cymdeithas yr Iaith Gymraeg, the Law Society of Wales, ‘mentrau iaith’, and National Assembly for Wales trade unions.

After hearing evidence from Adam Price, I wrote to him to summarise the committee’s views on the draft scheme. My letter is available on the Plenary agenda as a supporting paper, as is Adam’s response. Members were broadly content with the draft scheme, and acknowledged the generally excellent support they received to help them carry out their work in both of the Assembly’s official languages. Many of the issues raised in our consultation were addressed during questioning. However, my letter did ask for assurances on a number of points before the Assembly was asked to formally adopt the scheme.

These areas included the accessibility of the Assembly’s website for visually impaired people, and that the Welsh version of the interface was not intelligible in Welsh, as it was phonetically in English. I am pleased to note that there is work under way to address this issue, although I’d be grateful if Adam Price could confirm that the Assembly website will use the new synthetic voices as soon as possible. We also asked whether the Microsoft Translator software could be used to help develop the language skills of users. Again, I am pleased to note that further training is available if needed.

The scheme is somewhat lacking in quantitative targets. Adam Price explained to us that the Assembly Commission is not convinced that quantitative targets are necessarily the best way of becoming a truly bilingual organisation. Adam Price’s response set out further information on some of the more qualitative and regular ways in which the success of the scheme will be monitored. Nevertheless, it would be good to see targets for workplace training in the scheme, according to cymdeithas yr iaith. Would the Commission perhaps be willing to reconsider this, and to give us those kinds of targets?

I believe that we need to consider further whether qualitative and quantitative targets could be set as an incentive for improvement, so that we as an Assembly can scrutinise what’s happening with regard to the languages scheme, and so that the public can also scrutinise what’s happening in the languages scheme. The committee also asked for more information about the new approach to recruitment set out in the draft scheme. The committee was broadly in favour of the new fluency framework, which will mean that in future all new staff will need to demonstrate at least basic linguistic courtesy. This is defined as the ability to recognise, pronounce and use familiar phrases and names and to understand basic text, such as simple e-mails.

However, there is little information in the draft scheme about how this would work in practice. I note from Adam’s response that a working group is to be established to ensure that the proposed system is fit for this purpose. While I don’t think it’s a reason to reject the scheme today, I must admit that I find it a little odd that the Assembly is being asked to approve a scheme where one of the key innovations proposed may turn out not to be fit for purpose ultimately. Perhaps Adam Price and the Commission may wish to reflect on that. Also, Adam Price, in his evidence, confirmed that the new recruitment approach would only apply voluntarily to existing staff, and being able to speak Welsh would not be a key part of decisions about staff promotion or advancement. However, in his written response to the committee, Adam has said that staff applying for vacant or new posts would need to, and I quote, demonstrate the language skills level associated with that post.’

That is, of course, a rather different approach, and I’d be grateful if Adam could clarify the reason for the difference between the approach outlined in his oral evidence and that in the written response.

The committee also expressed concerns that the requirement for all new staff to demonstrate basic linguistic courtesy may have an impact on the recruitment of staff from under-represented groups, particularly BME staff. Adam Price provided the committee with an equality impact assessment that had been prepared to help mitigate some of those concerns.