7. Motion to note the annual report on the Assembly Commission's Official Languages Scheme for 2018-19

Part of the debate – in the Senedd at 4:08 pm on 17 July 2019.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Suzy Davies Suzy Davies Conservative 4:08, 17 July 2019

(Translated)

May I thank you, Siân, and members of the official languages scheme team, for this report? Once again, it reflects an organisation where increasing numbers of people feel comfortable working and being included in a bilingual environment. But this is the first time that I've felt that it's actually captured the perspective of our learners. 

Yes, the scheme has always been clear about the bespoke training available to Members and their staff and to Commission staff, and many of us have been delighted to be fortunate enough to benefit from this service. However, if you're learning the language of your own nation, you're in a unique situation that doesn't always emerge in policy discussions, be that about adult learners or Welsh language rights, perhaps because learners haven't always been involved in shaping those policies.

To be fair, the 'dysgwr' or 'learner' lanyards were an early development. When I was wearing my ‘iaith gwaith’ lanyard, learners wouldn’t necessarily speak to me, but when I wore my ‘dysgwr’ lanyard, they were willing to speak to me in Welsh, and I was, perhaps, also less intimidating to them.

So, I welcome very much the new method of setting language skills levels when defining requirements for posts. I rattled a few cages when I tried to raise this in a debate a few weeks ago, in the context of standards, but the principle is the same. But, here, our own Commission admits that people may choose not to apply for posts that are advertised as being ‘Welsh essential’, when the general understanding of the word ‘essential’ doesn’t necessarily accurately reflect what is essential. The same risk applies to bodies that are subject to standards, but the point is, in this place, the Commission has introduced a recruitment process that is far more nuanced, fairer and more accurate, seeking skills levels that are genuinely required from the outset, but also providing opportunities to improve and develop those skills in post. This makes the workplace a place to grow citizens who are increasingly bilingual and citizens who are increasingly confident in using both of their languages.

I will take the example of the new director of communications, which is in the report. The level 3 requirement was noted as the lowest level that was required. Now, working here, in that role, surrounded by fluent Welsh speakers, it wouldn’t be long before a level 3 applicant could develop their skills to reach levels 4 or 5. And I know that someone has now been appointed to that role. But, if that post had been advertised as being ‘Welsh essential’, then perhaps a level 3 speaker wouldn’t have applied, and perhaps they wouldn’t have improved their skills. So, I really do appreciate this as a way forward.

By the way, as we all know, women are less likely than men to apply for jobs where they don’t meet all of the criteria. So, it is possible that this matrix approach will eradicate unconscious gender bias as well as unconscious bias against those who are not wholly confident in their skills.

I was very pleased to see that you have already shared this approach with the National Centre for Learning Welsh, with unions and with some public bodies such as Swansea council. May I recommend that you approach the other two councils in my region too, where there are still problems in terms of culture and misconceptions surrounding the Welsh language?

At the other end of this linguistic spectrum, introducing a requirement for all staff to reach a courtesy level of Welsh has had a clear impact. Almost every day, I will hear at least a ‘bore da’ at the gate, and the majority of staff are not backwards in coming forwards with their new skills when they can. And some, such as a member of the night duty staff last week, are determined to show how much they have developed beyond a simple ‘bore da’ to becoming more fluent in their own particular field. This is another good idea for other public bodies to consider.

Clearly, we have the resources to do all of this. We cannot take for granted that it will be as easy for others to follow suit. But it may not cost that much. Of course, we have the resources to offer an entirely bilingual experience to staff, visitors and anyone who engages with this Assembly. 

Just one other thing, if I may, Llywydd. Other than a continuing problem with some documents not being laid bilingually—and it appears to me the reasons for that haven't changed at all—I don't want us to forget the fact that there is good work being done here. I do hope that this contribution will be a slight nudge to the statistics in terms of the use of the Welsh language in the Chamber and I encourage others to give it a go. Thank you.