AC(4)2011(6) Paper 2
Date: 24 November
2011
Time: 09:30–11:30
Venue: Presiding Officer’s
office
Author name and contact number: Non Gwilym, ext 8647
Bilingual Services
1.0 Purpose
and summary
1.1 At
its meeting on 14 July 2011 the Commission agreed to consult on a
draft National Assembly for Wales (Official Languages) Bill (the
Bill) and Bilingual Services Scheme (the Scheme) and to provide,
under the Scheme, a fully bilingual Record of Plenary Proceedings
within five working days, provided a sustainable arrangement at a
reasonable cost could be found.
1.2 This
paper seeks decisions by the Commission as to how to proceed, based
on:
· an
update on investigations into practical means of providing a fully
bilingual Record of Proceedings;
· an
update on the public consultation exercise (as well as discussions
with staff) and the key themes to emerge; and
·
suggested changes to the Bill and Scheme in the light of these
responses.
2.0
Recommendations
2.1 The
Commission is invited to:
a.
agree to provide a fully bilingual Record of Plenary
Proceedings as proposed in paragraphs 3.4-3.6;
b. note
the summary of responses to the public consultation exercise on the
draft Bill and proposed Scheme set out in Annex B;
c.
consider and approve any resulting changes to the Bill, as
discussed in paragraph 5.1;
d.
consider and approve any resulting changes to the proposed
Scheme, as discussed in paragraph 5.3;
e.
agree that the Bill, incorporating any changes approved under
c. above (together with supporting Explanatory Memorandum) be
introduced into the Assembly as soon as possible;
f.
agree that the proposed Scheme, incorporating any changes approved
under d. above, be laid before the Assembly as soon as possible
(with a view to it being scrutinised in parallel with consideration
of the Bill;
g.
authorise Rhodri Glyn Thomas AM:
i. to be the member
in charge of the Official Languages (Wales) Bill, in accordance
with Standing Order 24.12;
ii. to approve, in
accordance with any changes approved under c. and d. above, the
final versions of the Bill, Explanatory Memorandum and Scheme
(subject, in relation to the financial provisions of the
Explanatory Memorandum, to the agreement of Angela Burns AM).
3.0 A fully
bilingual Plenary Record of Proceedings.
3.1 At
its meeting on 14 July the Commission agreed in principle to
reinstate a fully bilingual Record of Proceedings (Record) provided
that the arrangement was sustainable in the long term and
demonstrated good value for money.
3.2
Commissioners will wish to note that of the 59 responses to the
bilingual services consultation, 43 were in favour of reinstating a
fully bilingual Record as a provision to be included in the Bill,
and that the Assembly has also now received a petition calling on
the Assembly to reinstate a fully bilingual Record of Proceedings
with 1,334 signatures.
3.3 Over
the period July-October, Assembly officials have, with a view to
giving effect to the Commission’s decision:
·
Consulted the Welsh Language Board (WLB) on the latest
technological developments to assist with translation services.
Consultation has resulted in the WLB commissioning new, independent
research on machine translation and the Welsh language due for
completion mid December.. Officials also attended the
WLB’s Technology and Translation seminar in October and have
considered its advice note The Welsh Language, Translation and
Technology.
·
Procured a memory translation system. As well as
aiding translation in its own right, the WordFastPro memory
translation system can also be used to complement most machine
translation systems.
·
Tested two online machine-based translations systems – Google
Translate and Google Translate Toolkit.
·
Developed options for providing a fully bilingual Record of
Proceedings. These options were based on an average Plenary of
36,000 words, turn-around within five working days using the Google
Translate Toolkit machine translation system with WordFastPro,
manual editing and proof-reading for quality assurance
purposes.
3.4
Based on our research and test results, we calculate that the
annual costs for producing a fully bilingual Record of Proceedings
is approximately £95k.
3.5 Our
investigations have therefore demonstrated that we can provide a
fully bilingual Record of Plenary Proceedings within five working
days, through an arrangement that is sustainable in the longer
term, and a reasonable cost. We recommend that these
arrangements begin in January 2012.
3.6 A
fully bilingual transcript of the Record of Plenary Proceedings
between September 2010 and December 2011 will be completed as and
when time and budgets allow, primarily during recesses.
4.0 Bilingual
Services (draft Official Languages Bill and proposed Bilingual
Services Scheme) Consultation
4.1 The
public consultation on the draft Official Languages Bill and
Bilingual Services Scheme was launched at the National Eisteddfod
on 3 August and closed on 14 October.
4.2
During this period:
· 587
organisations were contacted directly about the consultation
process;
· we
launched a media campaign to publicise the consultation which
generated positive, accurate coverage including thought pieces by
Rhodri Glyn Thomas in Golwg and Keith Bush in the Western Mail;
·
over 60 representatives attended stakeholder meetings which had the
aim of enabling and encouraging attendees to make full, considered
written responses to the consultation;
· we
held 13 staff meetings to provide them with an opportunity to
comment and consider the scheme’s impact on service delivery;
and
· we
held an introductory meeting with party group managers to outline
the principles of the Bill and Scheme.
4.3 The
Commission asked for the views of interested parties on the Bill
and Scheme. Summary of responses:
·
there were 59 written responses to the public consultation;
·
two - the Canadian Parliament and Arriva Trains Wales - did not
express a view on either the Bill or Scheme;
·
of the remaining 57, 50 were in Welsh only and seven were in
English only;
·
40 were based on a template response Cymdeithas yr Iaith issued on
their website; and
·
in general, comments were made on the Scheme and the Bill as a
whole, rather than in response to the specific consultation
questions (Annex A). Responses in Welsh agreed with or wished
to strengthen the Scheme and/or Bill while, with one exception,
those in English were against the Scheme and Bill (and indeed
against bilingual provision in general).
4.4 The
responses received from the public were generally strongly
supportive of the principles of the draft Bill and proposed Scheme.
With the exception of six respondents, all responses either
contained an express endorsement of the principles of the package
or, by seeking further strengthening of particular detailed
provisions, implied strong support for those principles.
4.5
Themes raised and discussed at stakeholder events and meetings
reflected those of written responses received.
4.6 The
Welsh Language Board expressed its support for the principles of
the Bill and Scheme, whilst making a number of detailed proposals
for specific changes.
4.7
Staff consultation and their responses were focused on specific
practical issues but have been summarised to inform the process of
planning for and implementing the provisions of the Bill and
Scheme, which will coincide with the Assembly’s consideration
of both documents.
4.8 The
views of respondents are summarised in Annex B.
5.0 Proposed
revisions to the Bill and the Scheme in the light of the Responses
to Consultation
The Bill
5.1 The
Commission is invited to consider whether to make the following
revisions to the Bill in the light of the responses:
a.
whether to place a duty to provide a fully bilingual Record of
Plenary proceedings on the face of the Bill itself, or
only in the Scheme;
(Discussion: Such a change was strongly urged both in
written responses and in stakeholder meetings. Whilst it
would be consistent with the Commission’s current policy on
translation of the Record, incorporating it into the Bill instead
of the Scheme would mean that it would be much more difficult,
requiring an amendment to the Act, to change to a different
arrangement at a future date should the present or a future
Commission so decide. This, of course, is the reason why
respondents wish to have the duty embedded in the legislation
rather than only in the Scheme made under it.)
b.
revise the wording of section 1(2) relating to use of either
official language in Assembly proceedings so as to refer to a
“right” to do so;
(Discussion: This does not alter the effect of the
provision.)
c.
change the name by which the Scheme is to be known to
“Official Languages” scheme;
(Discussion: This does not alter the
effect of the provision.)
d.
include in the Bill a provision for annual compliance monitoring
reports to be prepared and laid before the Assembly;
(Discussion: The Scheme already requires the Commission to
do so and including the commitment in the Bill will impose no added
burden.)
e.
include in the Bill a requirement for the Scheme to incorporate a
transparent mechanism for dealing with complaints of breaches of
the Scheme; and
(Discussion: The Scheme already refers to a procedure for
making a complaint of non-compliance and including a requirement in
the Bill will not add a further burden. The current procedure
in the Scheme may need to be strengthened, however, for example by
requiring rulings on complaints to be published.)
f.
change the current requirement for the Scheme to be reviewed
“at least once every four years” to “at least
once every five years”.
(Discussion: The intention is that the Scheme should not
need to be reviewed before the end of the term of the current
Assembly and the extension of that term to five years makes this
change necessary in order to achieve this.)
5.2 A
number of respondents to the consultation argued that the Bill and
Scheme should impose duties on Assembly Members in relation to
their dealings with the public (e.g. requiring them to respond to
correspondence in Welsh) and on the Assembly as a legislative body
(e.g. by formally requiring an assessment of the impact of proposed
legislation on the Welsh language). Whatever the merits of
such proposals, they would be well outside the scope of the current
Bill and Scheme and would give rise to important constitutional
issues not covered by the present consultation. It is
therefore recommended that the current proposals should not be
extended to include such provisions.
The Scheme
5.3 The
Commission is invited to consider the following revisions to the
Scheme. Some are proposed in the light of responses received
as part of the consultation process. Additional revisions
have been suggested to better reflect current practice and to aid
understanding:
a.
changing the name of the Scheme to Official Languages Scheme (in
line with proposed revision to the Bill);
b.
redraft the relevant paragraphs of the Scheme to reflect the
Commission’s decision on the Record of Plenary
Proceedings;
c.
include new paragraph referencing the Access Fund and outline the
associated bilingual provision available to Members (e.g.
simultaneous interpretation for all-party groups or Member
sponsored events);
d.
significantly enhance the section “Using bilingual
information technology” to better reflect progress to date on
implementing the recommendations of the Independent Panel on
Bilingual Services;
e.
enhance and strengthen the wording of the section on support
available to staff on enhance language awareness and bilingual
skills to better reflect current practice;
f.
review and reword the section outlining the procedure for
publishing written evidence;
g.
include explanatory paragraphs explaining why communication between
individual Assembly Members and the public is outside the scope of
the scheme;
h.
revise wording on visitor services (tours, phone reception, public
facing contractors) to ensure that it reflects current
practice;
i.
draft and include explanatory paragraphs on the interface between
the Bill and Scheme and the Welsh Language Measure 2011 and Welsh
Language Commissioner;
j.
make it clearer that the proposal that all members of staff should
be able to speak some level of Welsh is an aspiration of the
organisation as a whole and is not intended to affect the
individual rights of staff; and
k.
update target dates (e.g. the July 2012 date for the above
aspiration and the March 2012 date for preparation of the bilingual
skills strategy) to reflect the revised timetable for adoption of
the Scheme.
6.0 Further
action
6.1 An
Explanatory Memorandum (EM) to accompany the Bill, incorporating a
Regulatory Impact Assessment, will be prepared in consultation with
Rhodri Glyn Thomas AM and Angela Burns AM.
6.2 The
Bill (accompanied by the EM) will be introduced, and the proposed
Scheme laid, in January 2012. The target date for the Bill
becoming law and the Scheme coming fully into for completion is
September 2012.
Consultation questions
Part 1 – Official Languages
(Wales) Bill
Issues on
which views would be particularly welcomed
a) Do you agree
that there is a need for the legal framework relating to standards
of bilingual provision in the work of the National Assembly to be
brought up to date?
b) What are your
views on the general approach of the draft Bill, namely that clear
statements of the status of English and Welsh in relation to
National Assembly proceedings and Assembly Commission functions
should be set out on the face of the Government of Wales Act
2006?
c) Do you agree
that these statements should make it clear that English and Welsh
are the official languages of the National Assembly and should be
treated on a basis of equality?
d) If not, what
alternative approach should be adopted?
e) Do you agree
that the detail of how the principle of bilingualism is to be
achieved in practice should be set out in a Bilingual Services
Scheme prepared by the Assembly Commission?
f) If not, by
what other means should the details of how bilingualism is
delivered in the National Assembly be defined?
g) Do you agree
that in drawing up and giving effect to the Scheme the Assembly
Commission should be accountable to the National
Assembly?
h) Should the
Assembly Commission be accountable to anyone else, either in
addition to or as an alternative to accountability to the National
Assembly?
i) Should the
intervals at which the Bilingual Services Scheme is reviewed be
linked to the term of each National Assembly (whether four years or
five)?
j) If not, at
what intervals should it be reviewed?
k) Do you have
any comments on the detailed provisions of the draft
Bill?
Part 2 – Bilingual Services
Scheme
Issues on
which your views would be particularly
welcomed:
a) Do you agree
that the detail of how the principle of bilingualism is to be
achieved in practice should be set out in a Bilingual Services
Scheme prepared by the Assembly Commission and approved by the
National Assembly?
b) If not, by
what other means should the details of how bilingualism is
delivered in the National Assembly be defined?
c) What are your
views on the general approach of the Scheme?
d) What
alternative approach should be adopted, if at all?
e) What is your
opinion of the bilingual services we provide to members of the
public as proposed in the Scheme?
f) Have we
proposed suitable and adequate ways for the National Assembly to
ensure that those who wish to deal with us through the Welsh
language are treated fairly?
g) Are there any
additional points which you think the draft Scheme does not
cover?
h) Do you have
any other observations on the Scheme and its
implementation?
Background to the consultation
The public consultation on the draft Official
Languages Bill and Bilingual Services Scheme was launched at the
National Eisteddfod on 3 August and closed on 14 October.
The public was asked to comment on both the draft Bill and
Scheme.
The consultation letter on the Draft Bilingual
Services Scheme contained 8 questions and the consultation letter
on the Official Languages Bill scheme 11 questions.
Consultation
responses
There were 59 responses to the
consultation.
Responses not
giving a view.
Of these one was from the Canadian Parliament
setting out how bilingualism works in their parliament and one from
Arriva Trains Wales stated they had no issues to express or further
suggestions to make relating to this consultation.
Responses giving a
view
Of the remaining 57 responses, 50 were
provided in Welsh only and 7 in English only. Whilst it is
not possible to make assumptions based on language of the
respondents it is worth noting that those responding in Welsh were
all in favour of the Bill and Scheme, or included suggestions to
strengthen these, whereas those responding in English were
generally against. Generally, responses tended not to respond
to the specific consultation questions, which makes analysis of the
results or drawing conclusions from the consultation less easy.
Number of responses
to the consultation by language
Of the 50 responses provided in Welsh, 40 of
these were based on a template response Cymdeithas yr Iaith issued
on their website; 32 of these were identical and 8 a variation on
this theme. This makes up more than two-thirds of total
responses so any aggregate responses need to be considered in this
light. Two of the responses were sent in by the same person,
one on behalf of Cymdeithas yr Iaith and one as an individual.
Six of the responses in English were from the
public.
There was one response in English from an
organisation, Agored Cymru who stated
that they are in favour of the Bill and Scheme.
Summary of responses
in support
The majority of responses in support of the
Bill and Scheme, 40, were based on a template response Cymdeithas
yr Iaith issued on their website.
Of the eleven which were not based on the
template, there were responses from the Welsh Language Board; a
policy officer from the Welsh Language Board; the Association of
Welsh translators; a Welsh language officers group in South Wales;
a Professor from Cardiff University School of Welsh; Mentrau Iaith
Cymru; Agored Cymru, (an organisation to champion opportunities for lifelong learning and progression
through high quality qualifications and credit); a
communications consultant and an independent translator.
These gave a mix of strong backing for the Scheme and a
strengthening of the content. Particular individual
suggestions for consideration have been highlighted in Section 5 of
the Paper (above). A response from Snowdonia National Park
authority gave agreement to all questions in the
consultation. There was also a response from the Language
Technologies Unit, Bangor University, who stated their full
agreement with the principle of bilingualism in the
Assembly’s operations. They did not comment on the
contents of the Draft Bill or Draft Scheme, but provided advice on
automatic translation technology, drafting documents in Welsh first
and building translation technology industry.
The main themes in
the responses were:
·
General support for placing a duty to provide a fully bilingual
record of Plenary proceedings on the face of the Bill from almost
all respondents;
·
The need for firm reporting and scrutiny arrangements in relation
to performance against the Scheme;
·
There were some calls for the Assembly to lead by example in terms
of supporting the Welsh language and Welsh language policy and
provision;
·
Objections in terms of equality for people having the right to
contribute in their language of choice; and
·
In relation to language used in the National Assembly, comments
ranged from increasing the strength of the target for all staff to
have some level of language skills to aiming that all staff should
be bilingual.
In addition there
were individual suggestions to amend specific sections of the Bill
or Scheme, these are highlighted in Sections 5.1 and 5.3.
Summary of responses
against
The six
responses against the Scheme and Bill were mainly general comments
from members of the public. There were some specific comments
on the Scheme or Bill:
·
Apart from one of the respondents who provided a very short general
submission, all raised strong objections in terms of the
cost. One of the respondents raised the issue of a need for
costings for this and other policies promoting the Welsh
language;
·
In general, all thought that the policy did not reflect the needs
of the majority of Welsh population and some respondents went on to
highlight the current economic climate and that they felt that
funds could be better spent elsewhere;
·
There were objections raised in terms of equality of opportunity
for the majority of the population who do not speak Welsh and the
perceived exclusion for them in terms of public sector jobs caused
by the Bill / Scheme;
·
Two of the respondents raised concerns about how poorly the
consultation was advertised and the lack of awareness of it in the
public;
·
There were two calls for a referendum relating to the wider issue
of bilingualism spend in the public sector as a whole.
Analysis of Responses to the consultation by language
used
Representativeness
From the nature of the responses cannot be
assumed that they are representative in terms of reflecting the
views of the population as a whole. One explanation might be
that certain sections of the population are more engaged in this
issue.
From the responses received, some responded
directly to the questions raised in the consultation, some
responded in general to the consultation and some responded to the
principal of promotion / equality of languages in general.
Due to the low level of responses it cannot be assumed that
these views would be reflected by the relevant populations.