– in the Senedd at 5:21 pm on 10 November 2020.
The next group of amendments relates to Welsh language standards. The lead amendment in the group is amendment 158 and I call on Delyth Jewell to move the amendment and to speak to other amendments in this group. Delyth Jewell.
Thank you, Llywydd. It's a pleasure to open the debate on this group and to formally move the four amendments—all four tabled in my name on behalf of Plaid Cymru.
We have four amendments in two sets, 158 and 159, and 165 and 166. The intention of this first set of amendments is to scrap the anomaly in law that means that returning officers, or acting returning officers, are not subject to any legal responsibilities in relation to the Welsh language, although their work, in the view of any normal person, would be seen as an integral part of the work of local government, which is subject to clear expectations on the use of the Welsh language under the standards.
The intention of the second set of amendments is to ensure that any corporate joint committee newly created or established would be required to comply with Welsh language standards, so we would ensure that compliance from the very outset and that the Welsh Language Commissioner can impose standards on them. Accepting these amendments would add returning officers and the corporate joint committees to the Schedules in the Welsh Language (Wales) Measure 2011, and would add them to the most relevant set of regulations in this case, namely the Welsh Language Standards (No. 1) Regulations 2015, passed by the Senedd for local government bodies back in 2015. That, in turn, would allow the commissioner to do his work in imposing the most appropriate standards.
The amendments have been drafted in exactly the same way that has been accepted by Government already as an entirely appropriate way of adding bodies and organisations to the standards. The Government supported this approach of taking advantage of a piece of primary legislation as a vehicle to introduce standards in the case of the Public Services Ombudsman (Wales) Bill and the Health and Social Care (Quality and Engagement) (Wales) Bill, leading to adding, first of all, the ombudsman and the citizen voice body to standards as a result of that. The Government has also mentioned, on a number of occasions during this Senedd, the limitations on its legislative capacity that prevent it from introducing further standards and creating more rights for service users and Welsh speakers. But the Government has said that it remains an ambition for it to see more bodies subject to standards. Therefore, there is an opportunity on a plate here to do that today, and I do hope that I've done you a favour as a Government, by saving some of your capacity by introducing the standards on your behalf. And I look forward to hearing the Minister confirming, therefore, in response to the debate, that the Government will support these amendments.
The need for action is clear, but don't take my word for that. The Welsh Language Commissioner has published a number of reports and has said to Senedd committees on a number of occasions that Welsh speakers have difficulty in seeking simple services, such as Welsh-language forms, and that the Welsh language is often treated less favourably than the English language in presenting the results of elections. 'Inadequate' was the description of the use of the Welsh language in the 2016 Assembly elections, according to the commissioner at that time. It makes no sense that returning officers and acting returning officers who, more often than not, are local authority officials and use local authority resources and are remunerated by local authorities, but are not subject to the same duties as that very same local authority in this aspect of their work.
And it's a concern for the commissioner too, the number of new important national organisations that will be created and that the Government will place standards on in some time. Some are still waiting for this to be addressed. We can't allow the corporate joint committees, given the significant role that they could play in the lives of the people of Wales, to be the latest addition to that lengthy list of bodies that have been forgotten. The Minister suggested at Stage 2 that her intention was to use the regulations establishing the committees to impose requirements in terms of the Welsh language, but there is a question mark as to the ability of the commissioner to set and monitor standards through that approach. These amendments are a more appropriate, clear way of introducing that aim. Thank you.
I fully support the principles of amendments 158 and 159, and I agree that there is a need for further work with the entire electoral community around ensuring that the Welsh and English languages are treated equally throughout the elections process.
The Bill already contains provision to improve the accessibility of electoral documents, including in Welsh, and, separately, I am bringing forward regulations to exclude Welsh and English language translation costs from candidates' expenditure limits. However, what is being proposed in this amendment is part of a much wider piece of work that is already under way, which relates to the technical electoral administration Bill that will need to be introduced in the next Senedd. It is important that we continue discussions with returning officers, the Welsh Language Commissioner and the electoral community to ensure that the entire candidate and voter experience for devolved elections is the same in Welsh and English. I want to make sure that we get this right by taking the time to ensure that all necessary matters are considered before we start making legislative provision. In the meantime, for the 2021 elections, I will ask my officials to raise the matter during their regular discussions with the electoral community.
I also recognise and agree with the intent behind amendments 165 and 166 in respect of corporate joint committees. However, these amendments are not necessary nor in line with the approach being taken in this instance. The Bill provides the framework for the establishment of CJCs; the details that support their operation will be set out in regulations. This approach is outlined in the consultation on the draft regulations establishing CJCs, launched last month.
I already intend to ensure that corporate joint committees are subject, where appropriate, to the same rules and procedures as principal councils and it's my intention to apply the same Welsh language standards to CJCs as apply to principal councils. My officials have been in discussion with the office of the Welsh Language Commissioner to ensure that the regulations achieve this.
The Welsh language standards will be addressed as part of the general regulations that were referred to in the CJC consultation. Work is already under way to develop these regulations, and it's my intention to ensure that they're in place before the CJCs are required to meet for the first time. On this basis, Llywydd, I ask Members to reject all the amendments in this group. Diolch.
Delyth Jewell to reply to the debate. Is there a response?
Yes. Thank you, Llywydd. I thank the Minister for that. I am disappointed to hear that the Minister has said that the Government is willing to agree in principle, but not willing to take action immediately on this. But I do hear her comments and there are some things that we would welcome.
But I would just restate that the Government has accepted this approach and this drafting in order to add bodies to standards in the past, so there is no technical difficulty, and it's Government policy to extend standards to more bodies in order to create more opportunities and rights for the people of Wales to live their lives through the medium of Welsh. So, there is no policy disagreement here either.
The Government often complains, perhaps the Minister didn't do so now, but the Government often complains of a lack of capacity, and clearly, in a time of pandemic, that will be even more of a problem in terms of a lack of legislative capacity to introduce further standards. And, as I said earlier, there is an opportunity on a plate here in order to deliver this. So, it's the opposite of a lack of capacity and resource that we see here. I would urge you, Minister, to reconsider this issue. If the Government rejects these amendments today, as you have said that you will, then the Government can never use the excuse of a lack of capacity and resource when it comes to not introducing standards in future, and it will be clear for everyone to see that it's a lack of enthusiasm in legislating for the Welsh language that is the true problem, and I wouldn't want people to get that impression.
So, to conclude, Llywydd, I would urge Members to consider something. We were reminded over the past few days of the excellent work that returning officers do in the name of democracy, ensuring that the democratic process is accessible to everyone, and that every vote counts. I am talking clearly about America, but in Wales it is crucially important that the Welsh language is given its proper place and that our citizens can be confident that the law will guarantee, as a matter of right, not at the discretion of an individual returning officer, their ability to engage with the democratic process and to engage with democratic bodies in Wales through the medium of Welsh, particularly as we expand the franchise and expand our democracy to the next generation through this Bill. So, I thought this was a golden opportunity. Senedd Members have an opportunity to secure this today. Let's grasp that opportunity.
The question is that amendment 158 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is an objection. We move to a vote on amendment 158. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour nine, 11 abstentions and 31 against. And, therefore, amendment 158 is not agreed.
Amendment 159, Delyth Jewell. Is it moved?
Moved.
It is. Are there any objections to 159? [Objection.] Yes. We'll move to a vote on the amendment and open the vote. Close the vote. In favour nine, 11 abstentions, and 31 against. Therefore, the amendment is not agreed.
Amendment 106, in the name of Mark Isherwood, is moved.
Are there any objections to 106? [Objection.] Yes, there are objections. We'll move to a vote on amendment 106. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 17, five abstentions and 29 against. Therefore, the amendment is not agreed.
Amendment 62, Julie James.
Are there any objections to amendment 62? [Objection.] There is an objection, yes. We'll move to a vote therefore on amendment 62. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 44, six abstentions and one against. Therefore, the amendment is agreed.
Amendment 145 in the name of Mark Isherwood is moved.
If 145 is agreed, amendment 176 falls. Is there any objection? [Objection.] Yes, there is. Therefore, we'll move to a vote on amendment 145. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 10, four abstentions, 37 against, and therefore amendment 145 is not agreed.
Delyth Jewell, amendment 176.
It is moved. Any objection? [Objection.] Yes, we'll move to a vote on amendment 176. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour nine, three abstentions, 39 against. Therefore, amendment 176 is not agreed.
Amendment 146 is moved.
If amendment 146 is agreed, amendments 63 and 177 will fall. Are there any objections to amendment 146? [Objection.] Yes. We'll therefore move to a vote on amendment 146. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 11, three abstentions, 37 against. Therefore, the amendment is not agreed.
Amendment 63, Julie James.
Any objections to amendment 63? [Objection.] Yes, so we'll move to a vote on amendment 63. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 44, five abstentions, and two against. And therefore, amendment 63 is agreed.
Amendment 177, Delyth Jewell.
Move.
That's moved. Any objections? [Objection.] Yes. Therefore, we'll vote on amendment 177. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour nine, three abstentions, 39 against. Therefore, the amendment is not agreed.
Amendment 64, Julie James.
That's moved. Any objections? [Objection.] Yes, I see Gareth Bennett objecting. We will therefore move to a vote on amendment 64. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 43, six abstentions, and two against. Therefore, amendment 64 is agreed.
Amendment 65 is moved.
Any objections to amendment 65? [Objection.] Yes, I see an objection from Gareth Bennett. A vote, therefore, on amendment 65. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 44, six abstentions, and one against. And therefore, amendment 65 is agreed.
Amendment 66 is moved by the Minister.
Yes. Any objections to amendment 66? [Objection.] Yes, there is an objection. We will therefore move to a vote on amendment 66. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 44, six abstentions, one against. Therefore, the amendment is agreed.
Amendment 67. Is that moved?
Yes, it is moved by the Minister. Any objections to amendment 67? [Objection.] Yes. We'll therefore move to a vote on the amendment. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 44, six abstentions, and one against. Therefore, amendment 67 is agreed.
Amendment 147 is next in the name of Mark Isherwood.
That's moved. Any objections? [Objection.] Yes. We'll move to a vote on amendment 147. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 17, five abstentions, 29 against, therefore the amendment is not agreed.
Amendment 83, in the name of Mark Isherwood.
It is moved. If amendment 83 is agreed, amendment 151 will fall. The question is that amendment 83 be agreed. [Objection.] There is objection. I will therefore open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 12, three abstentions, 36 against, therefore the amendment is not agreed.
Delyth Jewell, amendment 151.
Move.
Are there any objections to amendment 151? [Objection.] Yes, we will therefore move to a vote on the amendment. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour nine, three abstentions, 39 against, therefore the amendment falls.