The following amendments have been selected: amendments 1 and 2 in the name of Paul Davies, and amendments 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth.

We move on to item 7 on the agenda today, which is a debate on the White Paper on proposals for a Welsh language Bill, and I call on the Minister for Lifelong Learning and Welsh Language to move the motion—Alun Davies.

Motion NDM6516 Jane Hutt

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

Notes the White Paper on proposals for a Welsh Language Bill published for consultation on 9 August 2017.

Motion moved.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer, and thank you for timetabling these discussions.

Members will recall that I published our strategy, ‘Cymraeg 2050: A million Welsh speakers’, and our ambition to reach a million Welsh speakers back in June. I was clear, and I hope I was clear to all Members at that time, that I was very eager to set our strategy and vision for the future before we discussed legislation, because the strategy and vision are more than a Bill, they are more than legislation, and they are more than the processes that we go through here.

The vision of transforming the position of the Welsh language in Wales is something that I hope will unite all parts of this Chamber. But I also want to ensure that we do have the kind of legislation that will ensure that we have a foundation that will allow us to reach a million Welsh speakers by 2050.

The Welsh Language (Wales) Measure 2011 was made at the end of the third Assembly, following delays by the Westminster Government in providing the necessary powers to the Assembly to legislate in the area of the Welsh language. Because of those delays, there wasn’t sufficient time at that point to consult on language policies, and the deficiencies there are to be seen within the Measure. The Measure’s heart is in the right place. It gives official status to the Welsh language. It gives people the freedom to use the Welsh language in conversing with each other and, through standards, it gives everyone a right to access services through the medium of Welsh.

But we must now consider how the Measure has been implemented. When councils such as Gwynedd and Blaenau Gwent agree that there is too much bureaucracy, then we have to listen to those comments. The title of the White Paper is ‘Striking the right balance: proposals for a Welsh Language Bill’; that is to say the balance between regulation and the promotion of the Welsh language. First of all, therefore, I propose in the White Paper that we should establish a Welsh language commission, and the purpose is to provide new leadership and energy in promoting the Welsh language.

There are a number of reasons for establishing a commission, rather than placing additional duties on the commissioner. First of all, the authoritative report of the House of Lords on the governance of regulators is very clear that a body that regulates shouldn’t be run by an individual or a single person. I agree with that. Secondly, the promotion of the Welsh language doesn’t mean balloons and biros. Promotion means particular expertise in areas such as language planning, workforce planning, economic development and behavioural change, and goes further in terms of media and marketing. The commission leading the new body must have a cross-section of these skills in order to be able to promote the Welsh language effectively. Thirdly, and separate from the other commissioners, I propose that the commission should have powers to penalise, and it will be a central part in introducing ‘Cymraeg 2050’. There is strength in having varying experiences and viewpoints to provide challenge.

One objection I’ve heard is that one body can’t regulate and promote simultaneously. I don’t accept that argument. There are many bodies that do the two things very successfully. The clear example, of course, is Natural Resources Wales, or the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

I’m not recommending going back to the days of the Welsh language board. The responsibilities of the commission will be broader, and standards are far more powerful than Welsh language schemes. The commission will work within the targets of ‘Cymraeg 2050’, and I have no doubt that the Welsh Government, the Assembly, and the public, will be asking some very difficult questions on the performance of the commission and its contribution to the million.

What of the standards, then? Well, first of all, we must retain standards. That is clear. There is no turning back on that. There are two main aims to the proposals in the White Paper: (1) to cut out as much bureaucracy as possible, and (2) to ensure a regime that puts the focus on putting things right where things go wrong, and making improvements. I also think that accountability for us in a democratic way must be in place, and I propose that the Welsh Government should impose and make standards, and, in so doing, it should have the support of this place, our national Parliament. The role of the commission will be to monitor and to enforce.

I am yet to be persuaded that we need a separate system when complaints are made about Welsh-language services. We can use the same regime as exists if an individual complains of a service to a local authority or a health service. I therefore intend that the commission should follow the same systems as the ombudsman when complaints are received, and, in this context, I have accepted some responses to the White Paper from the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales. The ombudsman has copied his response to the commissioner and to Simon Thomas, as the Chair of the Finance Committee, responsible for introducing the Public Services Ombudsman (Wales) Bill.

The ombudsman is proposing that his office could deal with complaints and inquiries relating to standards as part of its core duties. This would be similar to the system in the Basque Country, where the public services ombudsman is responsible for the language. Deputy Presiding Officer, I think this proposal is an interesting one. It does show that there are other possibilities that can be considered beyond the proposals in the White Paper, and I will be considering the ombudsman’s response in addition to all of the other responses to the consultation. I encourage everyone to respond with their own ideas before the deadline for the consultation, which is the end of this month.

I ask, therefore, that Assembly Members support this motion, accepting amendments 1, 3, 5 and 7, and rejecting 2, 4, 6 and 8. I reject amendment 2 because there is a bigger picture in ‘Cymraeg 2050’. I reject amendment 4 because I do believe that it would be confusing for the public, and a waste of public resources, to have two bodies responsible for the Welsh language. I reject amendment 6. I intend to replace health standards before the end of the year, but, if there is support for the proposals in the White Paper, we will have to take that into account before making further regulations. And I reject amendment 8. I have set out in the White Paper and before the Assembly today my clear reasons for abolishing the role of the commissioner and establishing a commission.

I accept amendment 1. The evidence reflects a variety of opinions on some areas, and that is a positive thing. I accept amendment 3. The White Paper protects the rights of Welsh speakers. I accept amendment 5. Everyone wants to see reduced bureaucracy. And I accept amendment 7. The White Paper makes a definite proposal on extending the standards regime to the private sector.

May I say this in conclusion, Deputy Presiding Officer? I am very eager to hear the views of Members this afternoon, but I am also very eager to hear the views of people across the country. What I have endeavoured to do throughout this process is to ensure unity across the nation on the future of our national language. That means that we ensure our rights as Welsh speakers to speak and use the language and that we also promote in order to ensure that more of the people of Wales can use the language and learn the language. That means, on occasion, that we listen to views that we don’t want to hear and that we listen to views that are very different to our own. What I have done as a Minister with responsibility for the Welsh language is to have the kind of debate that will ensure that there is unity at the end of the debate. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I have selected the eight amendments to the motion. I call on Suzy Davies to move amendments 1 and 2, tabled in the name of Paul Davies.

Amendment 1—Paul Davies

Add as new point at the end of the motion:

Notes the variety of views expressed in the summary report of responses to the call for evidence, 'Preparing for a Welsh Language Bill', published in July 2017.

Amendment 2—Paul Davies

Add as new point at the end of the motion:

Notes the narrow remit of the Welsh Government's White Paper.

Amendments 1 and 2 moved.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I move the amendments in the name of Paul Davies. May I thank the Minister for opening the debate today and Plaid for their amendments? We support a number of them. Now, the first thing I’d want to say is that the Welsh Conservatives support the three core objectives of this legislation: value for money, reducing bureaucracy in the standards system, and improving the balance between regulation and promotion and empowerment. Now, linking empowerment and promotion is an interesting decision, and it separates the issue of promotion and regulation, and this, to me, gives an impression of the role of the commissioner that is very narrow and is steered by a particular time in the story of the commissioner and doesn’t reflect the duties of the commissioner as they are noted in the 2010 Measure. Those duties, before there was any talk of regulation and enforcement, include promotion and facilitating the use of the language, and it isn’t restricted to the context of standards. So, at the moment, I find it difficult to see where the difference lies between the objectives of your proposed commission and the original objectives of the commissioner as they were anticipated by the Welsh language Measure.

I agree with you that we should take the bureaucracy out of the processes that are contained in the current Measure. We do have some thinking to do here still in terms of how exactly the appeals process could develop, and I’m just thinking of shifting complaints to the organisation that has perhaps made the error in the first place, because I’m not quite sure whether the ombudsman would provide remedies for people in those circumstances. So, that deserves further consideration. I also agree in terms of changing the nature of standards that don’t protect meaningful rights, and that’s why I have difficulty in supporting amendment 4, because there is a risk of seeing any change, particularly in terms of process, as weakening those rights as a whole. I’m sure that’s not what you mean in Plaid, but, for that reason, I will be abstaining on that amendment. But, in future, perhaps we may return to the issue.

There’s also a separate question, namely: if there are some standards—keeping records for many years, for example—where no-one is interested in those rights, is that standard still proportionate? There is a question to be answered during this process there. We do need to get rid of those that aren’t effective in order to improve focus on rights that are important and to focus on promotion and facilitating the use of the language. In saying that, we are deferring our views on this until we see the detailed proposals by the Government, as I’ve said.

We are also deferring our view on amendment 4. Now, I don’t accept the suggestion made by officials during our committee meeting of last week, namely that there is no role for two separate bodies here. The existence of the Welsh for adults centres undermines that proposal already. My argument is that there is mixed evidence in the responses to the Welsh Government’s consultation, and there’s no clear, definitive support for the options favoured by the Minister and by Plaid. Now, the purpose of my amendment is to try and prevent the Minister from jumping in a particular direction when there are credible options available that need to be worked through. And, for the same reason, I will be supporting amendment 8.

The main consideration for us, as the White Paper proceeds, is the level of independence given to whoever regulates and promotes the language. Despite the Measure underlining the independence of the commissioner in terms of her activities, Leighton Andrews ignored that statutory defence, took the promotion role of the commissioner and brought it back within Government. This left the commissioner with the work on standards and facilitation, and, according to responses to the consultation, there is a warm welcome to her in doing that. Helping bodies conform to standards is better than the heavy-handed enforcement that is required by current legislation—and the commissioner does more of that now, and has done recently. So, we don’t know what the commissioner could do in terms of promotion and facilitation on a wider level, because of Government intervention.

In supporting amendment 8, we agree that the Government hasn’t won the argument that a commission is an improvement on a reformed role for the commissioner, and I think that there’s been a false start, which has actually pushed the Government to push for a new structure and relationship with Government that is far from being clear. That’s why we have included our second amendment. This legislation could create a new role for the commissioner that is more arm’s-length and accountable to this Assembly rather than to Government, as we have argued for a long time.

I call on Sian Gwenllian to move amendments 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Amendment 3—Rhun ap Iorwerth

Add as new point at end of motion:

Calls on the Welsh Government to ensure that there will be no weakening of the current legal rights of Welsh speakers.

Amendment 4—Rhun ap Iorwerth

Add as new point at end of motion:

Calls on the Welsh Government to ensure that regulatory work and promotional work in relation to the Welsh language is undertaken by two different bodies.

Amendment 5—Rhun ap Iorwerth

Add as new point at end of motion:

Welcomes the Welsh Government's desire to reduce the level of bureaucracy that exists in the Welsh-language standards system.

Amendment 6—Rhun ap Iorwerth

Add as new point at end of motion:

Calls on the Welsh Government to proceed with the language standards for health and housing associations urgently, and to publish a timetable for the publication of language standards for the energy sectors, water companies, telecommunications, train and bus companies.

Amendment 7—Rhun ap Iorwerth

Add as new point at end of motion:

Calls on the Welsh Government to extend the language standards to the rest of the private sector.

Amendment 8—Rhun ap Iorwerth

Add as new point at end of motion:

Calls on the Welsh Government to outline clearly its rationale for proposing the scrapping of the role of Welsh Language Commissioner.

Amendments 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 moved.

Thank you for holding this debate on the White Paper on the proposals for the Welsh language Bill. This consultation goes on until the end of the month and this debate is a good way of reminding people of the need to record their comments throughout the consultation before the closing date.

We have set our viewpoint as a party very clearly through the medium of amendments that explain our vision—a vision that is different to the one of the Government. We don’t want to see any weakening or limitation on the legal rights of Welsh speakers. We believe that we need to keep regulation and promotion separate, and that they should be undertaken by two separate bodies, and we’re calling for moving forward with the Welsh language standards on health and housing associations urgently, and we’re calling for a timetable for introducing standards to the energy sector, water companies, telecommunications and train and bus companies. We’re calling on the Government to extend the standards to the private sector. So, we’re setting our stall clearly at the start of the process.

Any weakening or restriction on the legislation would be a significant backward step for the Welsh language. Friends, the Welsh language is losing ground. Only in 7 per cent of communities in Wales is Welsh the language of 70 per cent of the population—a living language on the street and in the pub. That is the subject of great pain for me, and I can’t support any back-turning on any rights that have already been established. To the contrary: we need to strengthen these rights if we seriously want to see the Welsh language continuing.

The Llywydd took the Chair.

Can we be clear from the outset? The proposals of the Labour Government are going to weaken our rights. Abolishing the role of the commissioner is going to weaken our rights. Going back to one body and expecting that to carry out two entirely different functions is weakening our rights. Putting the power in the hands of the Government instead of the Assembly in terms of determining who should fall under that language duties and when—that weakens our rights. Abolishing the current list that ensures that the Assembly has the right to impose language duties on some private companies does weaken our rights as Welsh speakers. Abolishing the right of the public to complain to the Welsh Language Commissioner does weaken our rights as Welsh speakers. Saying that only serious complaints will be investigated—there’s no definition of what a serious complaint actually constitutes—that, again, restricts our rights as Welsh speakers. Plaid Cymru is against any weakening, any restriction, on our rights.

In terms of promotion, Plaid Cymru believes that we need an independent body to do this important work, leaving the commissioner to focus on the work of setting standards and regulation. Establishing a commission that would be trying to do all the work that was necessary would be a backwards step, and that’s why we’ve argued consistently for having an arm’s-length agency to promote and to facilitate and to plan strategically for the Welsh language on the basis of robust linguistic principles.

We need to strengthen our rights, and that brings us to the private sector. There are several examples of why we need to extend these standards to the private sector, and they’ve been highlighted over the last few months: the Sports Direct saga, when Welsh speakers’ rights were restricted in the workplace; and Santander and Lloyds Bank refusing to accept papers in the Welsh language and so forth. I’d like to thank the Minister for his swift response to those cases. But I do note that the White Paper says this:

‘We are not proposing that the Welsh Government will imminently be imposingStandards on bodies which do not currently come within the Standards system.’

Namely the majority of the private sector. Unfortunately, history shows that depending on persuasion of bodies to protect Welsh language rights doesn’t work. We need to legislate and we need to extend the legislation to the private sector. But that’s not in White Paper, although I do note that you this afternoon have said that you’re in favour of our amendment 7, and I do welcome that greatly.

We need you to act—that’s the main issue. You need to act. We need to move forward with imposing these standards on the health bodies, and I do welcome the fact that you say at last, after nearly two years—over two years, to tell you the truth—that the Government will move on this. Patients have the right to discuss their problems through the medium of Welsh. And the report on standards for the housing associations has been on your desk for two years, and the water companies for nearly two years. Buses and trains and railways—nearly two years. There’s a lot of work to be done and we’re just starting. Now is the time to act, and maybe now is not the time to be discussing this kind of White Paper. What about moving forward with the work? What about starting to act?

In the background, of course, is your 1 million speakers strategy. Shouldn’t the Government be focusing on the work that’s needed to launch that million Welsh speakers strategy, rather than having an unnecessary debate about a piece of legislation that’s going to take time to bed in and standards that need to be imposed and implemented?

We have to deal with the Government’s White Paper on the basis of one important principle—that everything now in the area of the Welsh language is subject to the principle of securing a million Welsh speakers by 2050. The challenge posed by the new strategy is transformational for all of us. If we are serious that we want to see the ambition of the strategy made reality, then we have to recognise that the linguistic landscape has to change entirely. In a period of austerity, we will need to ensure that every penny spent by any body on the growth of the Welsh language has a direct impact on the ground.

The focus for the most part has been on rights—rights through standards—and it is clear that there is room to reform the process of creating and imposing standards. We saw evidence from all areas that it was a burdensome process for everyone, and the aim here is to ensure that the standards work and that effort and resources are focused on driving up standards of provision, rather than negotiating and administration.

May I say that I personally support the concept of a general right? We have a number of regimes that do provide rights, as well as a process of balancing rights when they come into conflict. And with some imagination, I think that could work with a general right to use the Welsh language. But I’m willing to accept the point made in the White Paper that there are some complexities and limitations arising from that. I am convinced that we should extend standards to include supermarkets and banks and so on, and I welcome the commitment of the Minister to do that under the proposed system. I would like to hear from him, therefore, what his proposals are in that area.

The truth of the matter is that we can’t reach that aim of a million Welsh speakers with the current balance between rights and promotion. Maintaining and enhancing the current standards system is not enough. The power of rights to generate change depends on the willingness to insist on using those rights. The White Papers is clear that there are far more Welsh speakers than there are people taking advantage of the right to use the Welsh language. So, only through promotion can we create that confidence for more and more Welsh speakers to insist on those rights. We need to promote in wider society. The strategy and the White Paper go into some detail on that. But we need promotion within the organisations that are subject to standards too—a culture change, not just regulation. Changing ways of working to create a bilingual ethos can develop access in various ways and it can generate creativity, and we need to create a space for an inclusive conversation on the benefits of the Welsh language within those organisations.

I welcome, therefore, the proposals to redefine standards and to create a new focus on language planning duty—a duty that will mean more than a tick-box exercise and a system that will mean compliance with a duty to carry out inquiries, to plan and to provide. This is the opportunity now to truly transform the landscape.

Just a few words on structure, namely the new commission. This isn’t the most important element of the White Paper in my view, but we shouldn’t be conservative in our views to reforming structures, if that is required to meet new demands. The scale of the challenge in the strategy does create new demands. The proposal is that the enforcement and compliance powers of the commissioner should remain. It has been recognised for a decade or more that it is through a board, rather than through an individual, that that is most appropriately achieved for many reasons. So, it is appropriate that we evolve the regulatory body.

Fifty-five years ago, in February 1962, in a radio interview, Jim Griffiths, Member of Parliament for Llanelli, stated that the future of the Welsh language was the greatest challenge facing Wales. It was an unusual statement for a Labour MP to make at that time. In the same month, Saunders Lewis gave his ‘Tynged yr Iaith’ lecture, which transformed our awareness as a nation of the threat to Welsh culture. He predicted that the Welsh language would have died by the beginning of this century. Well, as Welsh speakers, we are still here, but it’s only through working together and taking action—

Before you close, could you, and I’ve been listening intently—? On this central question, which arises in other contexts, of course, is it a system that centralises power with the Government or a system of a commissioner or a commission, which is independent of a Government in order to give the credibility and the confidence to our Welsh speakers that their rights are being recognised—what’s the Member’s opinion on that?

Well, I think that the commission can be sufficiently independent to provide that service to the people of Wales.

We are now, I hope, at the beginning of a period of development for the Welsh language and we must ensure that the powers and resources are available to us, through the Welsh language Bill, to achieve that.

My party broadly supports the approach that the Government takes to the promotion of the Welsh language and we strongly support the Cymraeg 2050 proposals. I believe that the Minister for Lifelong Learning and Welsh language’s approach is the right one—it’s a consensual approach, and that is the only way in which we will, I think, be able to succeed in the objective that everybody in this Chamber approves of.

I think that the proposals in the White Paper, by and large, are very sensible. Suzy Davies started by saying that value for money, cutting bureaucracy and improving the balance between promotion and empowerment are very laudable objectives. I certainly support what the Minister said in his speech about introducing real democratic control into the development and imposition of standards. I think it is right that it’s from the Government that those should be initiated rather than from an independent body. I think he hit the nail exactly on the head when he said that what he wanted to achieve was unity across the nation for a consensus to take this forward. This is vitally necessary because we’ve got a long way to go and there are a lot of people who need to be convinced that this is the right thing to be doing. I have no doubt myself that it is. I do want to see ultimately a bilingual nation. It probably won’t be in my lifetime, but nevertheless, I think that this strategy is definitely going to help us to achieve that.

Having said that, we can support the Plaid Cymru amendments, apart from amendment 7, as well as the Conservative amendments, but I don’t think that the wording on the order paper is actually in conflict with what the Minister was arguing for earlier on. I do think that the arguments that have been put forward on this side of the Chamber will flesh those words out, but they won’t actually be on the record in the same way as an amended motion. So, I do think that that is worth while.

The only caveat that I want to introduce into this debate is about the extension of standards to the private sector. This is something that should happen but it’s the time frame that is the key issue here. It is right that big companies like BT, or big utility companies, should be treated, in effect, as the public sector—they can afford it—but we’ve heard debates about the impact of austerity today, and I’m not going to rehearse those, but the business climate is not easy and we must be careful not to impose too early what might be significant costs upon businesses that can’t afford them.

I was rather alarmed, in a way, to hear Sian Gwenllian say that persuasion doesn’t work therefore we must have compulsion. This, I don’t think, is the right attitude. [Interruption.] Yes—

Thank you for taking the intervention, as I didn’t get a chance to speak in my submission here. On the point of private companies, obviously, we’re a small and medium enterprise country. Do you think that the requirement for any standards to be reasonable and proportionate is enough to ensure that those small and medium enterprises are protected against the possibilities that you were alluding to?

Well, it might be. It’s not something as yet I’ve been convinced on. I would like to consider that in greater detail. I do think that there should be some sort of de minimis test, whether that’s by reason of the size of the company, whether that’s measured in terms of number of employees or turnover or whatever. I don’t personally believe that the Government has any intention of embarking upon two draconian set of obligations at all. But I would hate to think that we would create antagonism where it needn’t exist by adding fuel to people’s fears that are unnecessary.

We had a most unfortunate situation in Llangennech last year in the school, and what I saw there worried me a great deal, because I do want to see more bilingual education and I do want to see more Welsh language-medium education, but the parents of that school were not convinced that this was the right thing to do, and the policy of the county council was creating a real antagonism there, which I think actually would set the language back rather than take it forward. So, I’m in favour of an evolutionary approach to this. I do believe the Government has to lead and I do think it should nudge heavily in the right direction, but I do think that we need to be very clear, before we pass motions, exactly what obligations we’re imposing. Broad, general-terms formulations that might be misinterpreted in a way that is disadvantageous to the achievement of the objective that we all share I think would be a retrograde step.

There is major work to be done to reach the objectives of the language strategy. There are gaps, certainly. And the promotion agency is one of them. Our party called for the creation of that kind of agency and it certainly was a strategic error to get rid of that element. But in trying to fill that vacuum, the risk is that we then weaken severely the part of the system relating to regulation, which it starting to deliver, to tell you the truth.

I was looking at figures for the progress that has been in terms of the annual report of the Welsh Language Commissioner. They’re amazing, to tell you the truth, given that the new system under the Measure has only been in existence for just over a year in full. That is, a Welsh language or bilingual greeting to 90 per cent of phone calls—a 31 per cent increase since the previous year. Fifty four receptions showing clearly that you’re welcome to use Welsh—an increase of 28 per cent over the previous year. And now 25 per cent of job advertisements saying that the Welsh language is essential—an increase of 9 per cent from the previous year.

We’re at risk of destroying the regulatory system as it starts to deliver. Well, it’s not me saying that, Alun. You said that you wanted a consensus. Well, the language consensus is being destroyed. Dyfodol yr Iaith and Cymdeithas yr Iaith both oppose, and even Huw Onllwyn, the former head of the Government’s language unit, is criticising some of the core suggestions that you have. Creating one body for promotion and regulation is an error, and they are different objectives and different activities that call for a different approach and different governance skills.

This question is central, in giving the power to the Government to impose the standards. That is a huge error, and Huw Onllwyn himself says, ‘I’m afraid that we’re on the verge of losing the service of an independent language champion’, and the Government will be managing everything. And in the context of rights, that is a great concern, because what happens if politics changes? The Minister talked of the fact that the position of the commissioner put the power all in the hands of one person. Well, in fact, there is a deputy commissioner and so forth, and there is a governance system, and of course there are staff and so forth. But, of course, what you’re suggesting, in giving the right to the Government to impose standards, is—. Well, at present, Alun, at present the standards come back to this Assembly. That is appropriate in a democratic system. What we’re talking about here is giving too much direct control to the Government, and the Government, of course, then facing conflicts of interest. They fund the bodies that are being regulated, and Ministers coming to them and saying, ‘Well, can we weaken the standards in that context?’

Having a system of independence through a commission or a collective body means that Welsh speakers have confidence that the rights are going to be protected. Sian Gwenllian said this is central: the right of the individual to complain directly to a commissioner, and to the office of the commissioner, which then conducts an investigation. Instead of that, complaining to the bodies that transgress, and that didn’t work very well for Welsh speakers, did it? That’s why we had to have the Welsh language Measure: in order to give assurance to the Welsh language speakers that we were going to have equal rights in Wales.

Alun, you and I were part of that campaign for rights for Welsh speakers, and we are now turning our backs on that, and it’s being withdrawn, there is a loss of momentum, and we’re diluting this. This is what your White Paper does represent. We need to start again. I agree with Jeremy Miles: why not have basic rights in legislation? That’s what’s delivered to other people in other contexts of disadvantage. Why doesn’t the Welsh Government show that kind of ambition and radicalism instead of this pitiful White Paper, which takes us a step back?

I call on the Minister for the Welsh language to reply to the debate.

I am grateful, Llywydd, for the opportunity to have this debate on the White Paper and how we make progress with language policy. I’m very grateful to everyone—everyone—who’s participated in this debate. I was very pleased to hear the comments made by Suzy Davies, Neil Hamilton, even Adam Price, and I’m also pleased that we can still have this kind of debate on the future of the Welsh language.

I was particularly pleased to hear Jeremy Miles quoting Jim Griffiths, one of the leading figures of Welsh Labour, and one who reflects the kind of Welsh identity that Wales wants to see, not just from Government but from us all. May I just make a few points in response to the debate? I hear these allegations that we are weakening our rights as Welsh speakers. We are not weakening any rights that currently exist. In fact, what we are doing is going further to extend the kinds of rights that we have, to extend the rights that we can implement, and what we’re going to ensure is that we can implement these rights. I have no patience at all with rights that exist only on paper. What I want to see is rights that can be delivered for Welsh speakers every day, wherever they are in this nation, and that doesn’t happen at the moment. It doesn’t happen at the moment, and that is why we must see change.

Adam Price rose—

No, I’m not going to take an intervention at this point, but what I am going to do is to ensure that we can operate those rights wherever we are in Wales. That is why I think that we must consider how we strengthen our rights. It is not good enough—it’s never good enough—simply to come to this Chamber and say that we’re not content to change, we have the status quo; it’s not adequate, but we’re not willing to consider how we change that system.

I know, Adam, that you’re sitting next to UKIP now, but I would ask you not to be quite so conservative as you have been.

Does the Minister at least consider that it’s clear evidence that there are deficiencies in this White Paper that everybody that represents Welsh campaigners, Welsh speakers, say that they’re concerned that this White Paper is going to weaken the rights of Welsh speakers? You would listen to Stonewall if it was a matter of the rights of gay people. Why aren’t you listening to the Welsh language bodies?

I am listening. I am listening. I was in Llandudno discussing these issues yesterday. I was in Swansea a fortnight ago listening to people. I will continue to travel around Wales listening to people and discussing these issues with people. What I’m telling you now, quite clearly, Adam, is that people don’t particularly agree with what you’ve said this afternoon. The people I’ve spoken to across this nation don’t agree with what you and Sian have said this afternoon, and you have to consider that and think about it. We must, as the Parliament of Wales, reflect our collective vision for the future of the Welsh language. I am quite convinced in my own mind that we need to strengthen the rights we have as Welsh speakers to use the Welsh language wherever we are and to ensure that we can access Welsh services. This is something that we must do.

We must also do that within a democratic system. What I hear on occasion is that people don’t trust our democracy. People aren’t content to trust the democracy that we have. Now, I do think that we need a regulator that is wholly independent of Government, and that’s why I’m considering the ombudsman option, which is entirely independent of Government, and also the establishment of a commission with powers, with a budget and with the necessary powers to ensure that the Government is accountable for its actions. I also want to collaborate better in terms of how we enforce standards on various bodies. What I see is regulation as a positive means of ensuring that, where there have been failures, people have their rights implemented, but also that we regulate by collaborating with people, by collaborating with the large companies, and even with the banks, in order to ensure that we have a language policy that reflects our vision.

And what I want to say in concluding this debate is that there is a debate to be had, and I will bring the conclusions of this debate back to the Assembly during the next year, and we will then move towards legislating. But we will legislate to ensure a legislative framework that will reflect our ability to achieve our vision, and a vision that I think each and every one of us shares. We are not going to spend time discussing different structures. We are going to discuss the future of the Welsh language, and we are going to ensure a vision that will be shared in all parts of this country, from Holyhead to Monmouth—[Interruption.]

Allow the Minister to finish.

[Continues.]—and we will be leading on that.

The proposal is to agree amendment 1. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I will defer voting, therefore, until voting time.

Voting deferred until voting time.