Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru
The National Assembly for Wales

 

 

Y Pwyllgor Cymunedau, Cydraddoldeb a Llywodraeth Leol
The Communities, Equality and Local Government Committee

 

 

 

Dydd Iau, 15 Mawrth 2012
Thursday, 15 March 2012

 

 

Cynnwys
Contents

 

Cyflwyniad, Ymddiheuriadau a Dirprwyon
Introductions, Apologies and Substitutions

 

Bil Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru (Ieithoedd Swyddogol): Sesiwn Dystiolaeth Cyfnod 1—Ysgol y Gymraeg, Prifysgol Caerdydd

National Assembly for Wales (Official Languages) Bill: Stage 1 Evidence Session—School of Welsh, Cardiff University

 

Bil Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru (Ieithoedd Swyddogol): Sesiwn Dystiolaeth Cyfnod 1—Grŵp Swyddogion Iaith

National Assembly for Wales (Official Languages) Bill: Stage 1 Evidence Session—Welsh Language Officers Group

 

Cynnig Gweithdrefnol

Procedural Motion

 

 

 

 

Cofnodir y trafodion hyn yn yr iaith y llefarwyd hwy ynddi yn y pwyllgor. Yn ogystal, cynhwysir cyfieithiad Saesneg o gyfraniadau yn y Gymraeg.

 

These proceedings are reported in the language in which they were spoken in the committee. In addition, an English translation of Welsh speeches is included.

 

 

Aelodau’r pwyllgor yn bresennol
Committee members in attendance

 

Janet Finch-Saunders

Ceidwadwyr Cymreig
Welsh Conservatives

 

Mike Hedges

Llafur
Labour

 

Mark Isherwood

Ceidwadwyr Cymreig
Welsh Conservatives

 

Bethan Jenkins

Plaid Cymru
The Party of Wales

 

Alun Ffred Jones

Plaid Cymru (yn dirprwyo ar ran Rhodri Glyn Thomas)
The Party of Wales (substitute for Rhodri Glyn Thomas)

 

Ann Jones

Llafur (Cadeirydd y Pwyllgor)
Labour (Committee Chair)

 

Eluned Parrott

Democratiaid Rhyddfrydol Cymru (yn dirprwyo ar ran Peter Black)

Welsh Liberal Democrats (substitute for Peter Black)

 

Gwyn R. Price

Llafur
Labour

 

Kenneth Skates

Llafur
Labour

 

Joyce Watson

Llafur
Labour

 

 

Eraill yn bresennol
Others in attendance

 

Cath Baldwin

 

Swyddog Iaith, Gwasanaeth Tân ac Achub De Cymru

Welsh Language Officer, South Wales Fire and Rescue Service

 

Dr Simon Brooks

 

Yr Uned Ymchwil Iaith, Polisi a Chynllunio, Ysgol y Gymraeg, Prifysgol Caerdydd

Language, Policy and Planning Research Unit, School of Welsh, Cardiff University

 

Ffion Gruffudd

 

Swyddog Iaith, Cyngor Dinas a Sir Caerdydd

Welsh Language Officer, Cardiff City and County Council

 

Dr Diarmait Mac Giolla Chriost

 

Yr Uned Ymchwil Iaith, Polisi a Chynllunio, Ysgol y Gymraeg, Prifysgol Caerdydd

Language, Policy and Planning Research Unit, School of Welsh, Cardiff University

 

David Thomas

 

Swyddog Polisi (Cydraddoldeb a’r Gymraeg), Cyngor Bwrdeistref Sirol Caerffili

Policy Officer (Equalities and the Welsh Language) Caerphilly County Borough Council

 

 

Swyddogion Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru yn bresennol
National Assembly for Wales officials in attendance

 

Leanne Hatcher

Dirprwy Glerc
Deputy Clerk

 

Joanest Jackson

Uwch Gynghorydd Cyfreithiol

Senior Legal Adviser

 

Owain Roberts

Y Gwasanaeth Ymchwil

Research Service

 

Gareth Williams

Clerc

Clerk

 

 

Dechreuodd y cyfarfod am 9.29 a.m.

The meeting began at 9.29 a.m.

 

 

Cyflwyniad, Ymddiheuriadau a Dirprwyon
Introductions, Apologies and Substitutions

 

 

[1]               Ann Jones: Welcome to the Communities, Equality and Local Government Committee. I ask Members around the table to switch off their phones, BlackBerrys and pagers, as they interfere with the electronic and broadcasting equipment.

 

 

[2]               We have substitutes for Rhodri Glyn Thomas, the Member in charge of the Bill, and Peter Black, who is also a Commissioner. We have Alun Ffred Jones and Eluned Parrott with us this morning. You are both very welcome.

 

 

[3]               We are not expecting a fire alarm today, so if we hear an alarm we will take our instructions from the ushers; the assembly point is by the Pierhead building. We operate bilingually, so translation facilities are available from Welsh into English on channel 1 and channel 0 is the floor language. We do not have to touch the microphones; our wonderful staff in the back rooms operate them for us. Members do not need to declare an interest before today’s meeting, do they? I see that they do not. Thank you very much.

 

 

9.30 a.m.

 

 

Bil Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru (Ieithoedd Swyddogol): Sesiwn Dystiolaeth Cyfnod 1—Ysgol y Gymraeg, Prifysgol Caerdydd
National Assembly for Wales (Official Languages) Bill: Stage 1 Evidence Session—School of Welsh, Cardiff University

 

 

[4]               Ann Jones: We are carrying on with our inquiry and evidence-taking on the National Assembly for Wales (Official Languages) Bill. This is our fourth evidence session and I am delighted to welcome today’s witnesses. It is ‘Diarmait Mac Giolla Chriost’?

 

 

[5]               Dr Mac Giolla Chriost: Yes, that is not too bad at all.

 

 

[6]               Ann Jones: Thank you very much. I was practising that all night, in between watching Chelsea. I also welcome Dr Simon Brooks from the planning and policy research unit from the School of Welsh, Cardiff University. I have attempted to introduce you both, but you may now introduce yourselves formally for the record and make any opening comments that you may wish to make before we go into questions.

 

 

[7]               Dr Mac Giolla Chriost: Dr Diarmait Mac Giolla Chriost ydw i ac rwy’n aelod o staff yn Ysgol y Gymraeg ym Mhrifysgol Caerdydd.

 

Dr Mac Giolla Chriost: I am Dr Mac Giolla Chriost and I am a member of staff at the School of Welsh at Cardiff University.

 

[8]               Dr Brooks: Dr Simon Brooks ydw i, ac rwyf hefyd yn aelod o staff yn Ysgol y Gymraeg, Prifysgol Caerdydd.

 

Dr Brooks: I am Dr Simon Brooks, and I am also a member of staff at the School of Welsh at Cardiff University.

 

 

[9]               Ann Jones: Do you have any opening remarks, or are you happy to go straight to questions?

 

 

[10]           Dr Mac Giolla Chriost: Rwy’n hapus i fynd yn syth i gwestiynau.

 

Dr Mac Giolla Chriost: I am happy to go straight to questions.

 

[11]           Dr Brooks: Ewn yn syth i gwestiynau.

 

Dr Brooks: We will go straight to questions.

 

[12]           Ann Jones: Thank you. I will just start with a general question. What are your thoughts on the Bill and the draft scheme as they have been currently drafted and presented?

 

 

[13]           Dr Mac Giolla Chriost: Yn gyffredinol, mae’r ddau beth yn cynnig rywfaint o wellhad o ran atebolrwydd ac o ran lle roeddem ni ychydig yn ôl. Ond, mae lle i wella o ran cynnwys y cynllun ei hun ac mae ambell le i wella cynnwys y Bil, rydym ni’n teimlo. Felly, mae’n gam ymlaen, ond rydym yn meddwl bod ambell beth y gall y pwyllgor feddwl am ei wella.

 

Dr Mac Giolla Chriost: Generally, they both offer some improvements in terms of accountability and where we stood a little while ago. However, we feel that there is room for improvement in the scheme itself and a few areas for improvement in the Bill. So, it is a step forward, but we believe that there are a few things that the committee should consider improving.

 

 

[14]           Dr Brooks: Rwy’n cytuno â sylwadau Diarmait.

 

Dr Brooks: I agree with Diarmait’s comments.

 

[15]           Janet Finch-Saunders: Since its inception, the Assembly has stated that every Welsh citizen is equal and that the Assembly is an inclusive and transparent body. The proposed legislation in its current form falls short of these fundamental principles that lie at the heart of democracy in Wales. Those were your comments when you last came to committee. Do you think that the current Bill is an improvement on the draft version and does it address the fundamental issues that you identified during the consultation, or would you prefer to elaborate more on the first question that you were asked?

 

 

[16]           Dr Brooks: Hoffwn sôn rywfaint ynglŷn â chynwysoldeb achos mae hynny’n bwysig. Nid oes dwywaith, o safbwynt y lenyddiaeth academaidd yn sicr, a’r trafodaethau gwleidyddol, bod y Cynulliad hwn yn bwysig oherwydd ei fod yn gynhwysol ac nid yw’n  camwahaniaethu ar sail unrhyw nodwedd bersonol, boed yn ymwneud â hil, rhyw, iaith, anabledd, rhywioldeb, neu beth bynnag yw’r nodwedd benodol.  Mae’n chwithig yn y cyd-destun hwnnw i gael sefyllfa, yn benodol felly o ran y prif drafodion mae’r Cynulliad yn eu cynnal mewn Cyfarfodydd Llawn, lle mae cyfieithu yn digwydd yn y cofnodion swyddogol o’r naill iaith i’r llall, ond nid o’r iaith arall mewn i’r iaith arall. Mae hynny’n beryglus, nid yn unig o safbwynt cynlluniau iaith, ond hefyd o safbwynt yr egwyddor sy’n waelodol i ddatganoli, sef y dylai cydraddoldeb fod wrth galon y sefydliad, ac y dylai’r sefydliad fod yn niwtral o ran ei agwedd at hunaniaeth unigolion. Mae llawer o’r anniddigrwydd am y pwnc hwn, sef a ddylai’r ymrwymiad i gofnodi’r trafodion llawn yn ddwyieithog fod ar wyneb y Bil ai peidio, yn deillio o ofid am i ba raddau mae siaradwyr Cymraeg yn cael eu trin yn gyfartal. Mae’n fater o ofid mawr i mi yng nghyswllt y Bil hwn.

 

Dr Brooks: I would like to say something on the issue of inclusivity because that is important. There is no doubt, certainly in terms of the academic literature, and the political discussions, that this Assembly is important because it is inclusive and does not discriminate on the basis of any individual characteristic, be it race, gender, language, disability, sexuality or whatever that characteristic may be. It is a little odd in that context to have a situation, specifically in terms of the main proceedings of the Assembly in Plenary meetings, where translation is included in the official report from one language to another, but not from the other language to the other. That is dangerous, not only in terms of language schemes, but in terms of the fundamental principle of devolution, namely that there should be equality at the very heart of the institution, and that the institution should be neutral in terms of its attitude to individual identity. Much of the discontent on this subject, as to whether there should be a commitment on the face of the Bill to report the entire proceedings bilingually, emanates from concern about the extent to which Welsh speakers are being treated equally. It is a cause of great concern to me in the context of this Bill.

 

 

[17]           Alun Ffred Jones: I fod yn glir, a ydych yn dadlau y dylai’r cyfieithu ar y pryd fod o’r Saesneg i’r Gymraeg yn ogystal ag o’r Gymraeg i’r Saesneg?

 

Alun Ffred Jones: To clarify, are you arguing that there should be simultaneous interpretation from English into Welsh as well as from Welsh into English?

 

 

[18]           Dr Brooks: Nid o angenrheidrwydd. Dylai fod cofnod o’r trafodion ar gael yn y ddwy iaith. Mae hynny’n hollbwysig ar gyfer trafodion llawn y Cynulliad oherwydd y rôl unigryw mae’r Cyfarfod Llawn yn chwarae ym mywyd cenedlaethol a civic Cymru. Mae’r trafodaethau’n eithriadol o bwysig ym mywyd y genedl a’r ddemocratiaeth sy’n cael ei chreu yng Nghymru. Mae’n briodol bod yr ymrwymiad hwnnw ar wyneb y Bil fel nad oes ansicrwydd am y mater o safbwynt dinasyddion ac etholwyr.

 

Dr Brooks: Not necessarily. A record of the proceedings should be available in both languages. That is crucial for the full proceedings of the Assembly because of the unique role that Plenary plays in the national and civic life of Wales. The proceedings are extremely important in national life and in the democracy being created in Wales. It is appropriate that that commitment is on the face of the Bill so that there is no uncertainty about the issue for citizens and constituents.

 

 

[19]           Janet Finch-Saunders: You state that the effective use of subsections (1A) and (1B) is ‘conditional’ because if no staff and other facilities are provided then the Assembly will be unable to meet those commitments. How could the Bill be strengthened to ensure that the Assembly can meet the provisions set out in subsections (1A) and (1B)?

 

 

[20]           Dr Mac Giolla Chriost: O ran gosod yr amodau neu’r elfennau yn eu lle fel bod modd i’r Comisiwn weithredu, mae lle i weithredu ar yr ymrwymiad i greu strategaeth sgiliau iaith. Byddai’n well petai hynny’n rhan integredig o’r cynllun iaith yn hytrach na bod rhyw fath o ymrwymiad ar wahân. Byddai gosod strategaeth felly yn rhan o gynllun iaith yn gliriach ac yn gryfach, a byddai pawb yn deall lle maent yn sefyll. Byddai’n dda petai’r strategaeth sgiliau iaith yn fanwl, gyda thargedau ac amserlen glir ar gyfer cyrraedd gwahanol dargedau, fel bod pawb yn deall lle maent yn sefyll. Pan fydd y Comisiwn yn gweithredu gwahanol wasanaethau, nid oes cwestiwn y dylai staff fod ar gael i ddarparu’r gwasanaethau.

 

Dr Mac Giolla Chriost: In terms of setting the conditions or elements in place to enable the Commission to operate, there is room to act on the commitment to create a language skills strategy. It would be better if that were an integrated part of the language scheme rather than a separate commitment. Setting out such a strategy as part of a language scheme would be clearer and stronger and everyone would understand where they stood. It would be good if the language skills strategy were detailed, with targets and a clear timetable for achieving different targets, so that everyone understands where they stand. When the Commission implements different services, there is no question that staff should be available to provide services.

 

 

[21]           Gwyn R. Price: Do you think that the financial resources outlined in the explanatory memorandum are sufficient to allow for the Assembly Commission to meet the duties set out in subsection (1A) and (1B)? You also state that,

 

 

[22]           ‘exercising a statutory ‘right’ [1B] is not dependent on the daily matters of running an institution, such as staffing and facilities. Furthermore, trying to impose such a condition would be an echo of the examples of weaker practices in the context of ‘language schemes’ in Wales.’

 

 

[23]           Could you explain why the Assembly Commission’s approach in relation to ‘rights’ in subsection (1B) is not best practice in this regard?

 

 

[24]           Dr Mac Giolla Chriost: Rwy’n credu bod dau bwynt i’w gwneud. O ran y costau, rwy’n siŵr bod gweision y Comisiwn a’r Cynulliad wedi bod yn ddiwyd wrth weithio mas y ffigurau—nid ydym yn awgrymu bod diffygion ynghylch hynny. Fodd bynnag, mae gweithredu ymrwymiadau yn fater arall. Os oes ymrwymiad statudol i wneud rhywbeth, ni ddylai fod yn amodol ar sicrhau bod digon o staff ar gael neu rywbeth felly. Naill ai mae ymrwymiad yn cael ei gwrdd neu nid ydyw. Os nad yw’n cael ei gwrdd, mae problem gyda’r sefydliad sydd wedi cytuno i’r ymrwymiad. Er mwyn sicrhau eich bod mewn sefyllfa i gwrdd â’ch ymrwymiadau, dylech osod yr adnoddau angenrheidiol yn eu lle.

 

Dr Mac Giolla Chriost: I think that there are two points to make. In relation to costs, I am sure that Commission and Assembly servants have been diligent in working out the figures—we are not suggesting that there are deficiencies in that regard. However, the implementation of commitments is another matter. If there is a statutory commitment to do something, it should not be conditional on ensuring that sufficient staff are available or some such consideration. Either a commitment is met or it is not. If it is not met, the organisation that agreed to the commitment has a problem. To ensure that you are in a position to meet your commitments, you should ensure that the necessary resources are in place.

 

 

[25]           Kenneth Skates: You state that the comparison made between provisions in this Bill and the Official Languages Act (New Brunswick) 2002 is incomplete. Why do you think that the comparison is incomplete?

 

 

[26]           Dr Brooks: Mae’n anghyflawn. Nid wyf yn dweud bod ymgais i gamarwain, ond rwy’n credu bod effaith ymarferol y gymhariaeth yn gamarweiniol. Os yw rhywun yn edrych ar y ddeddf berthnasol yn New Brunswick, sef Deddf Ieithoedd Swyddogol (New Brunswick) 2002, mae’r Ddeddf yn dweud,

 

Dr Brooks: It is incomplete. I am not saying that there is an attempt to mislead, but I think that the practical effect of the comparison is misleading. If one looks at the relevant Act in New Brunswick, which is the Official Languages Act (New Brunswick) 2002, the Act says that,   

 

[27]           ‘English and French are the official languages of the Legislature and everyone has the right to use either language in any debate and other proceeding of the Legislative Assembly or its committees’.

 

 

[28]           Wedyn mae cymal arall,

 

Then, there is another clause,

 

[29]           ‘Simultaneous interpretation of the debates and other proceedings of the Legislative Assembly shall be made available by the Legislature’.

 

 

[30]           Mae’r wythfed cymal yn dweud,

 

The eighth clause states,

 

[31]           ‘The records, journals and reports of the Legislative Assembly and its committees shall be printed and published in English and French and both language versions are equally authoritative.’

 

 

[32]           Yr hyn sydd wedi digwydd, o ran y dystiolaeth sydd wedi ei chyflwyno i’r broses arbennig hon, yw bod y chweched cymal wedi ei chodi, sef y cymal sy’n sôn am y ffaith bod dwy iaith swyddogol yng Nghynulliad New Brunswick, ond nid oes cyfeiriad o gwbl at y seithfed a’r wythfed cymal sy’n dilyn yn rhesymegol.

 

What has happened, in terms of the evidence that has been presented to this particular process, is that the sixth clause has been included—the clause that mentions the fact that there are two official languages in the New Brunswick Assembly—but there is no reference at all to the seventh and eighth clauses that follow logically.    

 

[33]           Mae’r adroddiad yn cyfeirio at y chweched cymal, ac yna am reswm nad oes esboniad yn ei gylch, cyfeirir at ochr arall yr Iwerydd, Iwerddon, sef cartref Diarmait, gan godi enghraifft o gyd-destun sosioieithyddol a chyfansoddiadol hollol wahanol. Felly, mae’r adroddiad wedi cymysgu dwy senedd a dwy broses gyfreithiol a chyfansoddiadol. Rwy’n gweld hynny’n ofnadwy o anghyson. Os ydych yn codi New Brunswick fel enghraifft, mae’n gwneud synnwyr deallusol, cyfansoddiadol a chyfreithiol i ystyried beth sy’n dilyn yn y Ddeddf honno. Mae manylion yr hyn mae Cynulliad New Brunswick yn dymuno ei wneud yn cael ei osod ar wyneb y Bil. Mae’n bosibl y bydd penderfyniad y Cynulliad hwn ynglŷn â’r hyn sydd i’w osod ar wyneb y Bil yn wahanol i’r hyn a benderfynwyd yn New Brunswick. Mae’n bosibl, er enghraifft, na fydd dymuniad i osod ymrwymiad i gyfieithu ar y pryd ar wyneb y Bil, ond mae’r egwyddor ynglŷn â gosod deunydd ar wyneb y Bil yn eithaf eglur yn y ddeddfwriaeth honno.       

 

The report refers to the sixth clause, and then with no explanation, refers to the other side of the Atlantic, to Ireland, Diarmait’s home, taking an example from a completely different sociolinguistic and constitutional context. So, the report mixes two parliaments and two legal and constitutional processes. I see that as terribly inconsistent. If you take New Brunswick as an example, it makes intellectual, constitutional and legal sense to consider what follows in that Act. The detail of what the New Brunswick Assembly wished to do is on the face of the Bill. It is possible that the decision of this Assembly  regarding what to put on the face of the Bill will be different to what was decided in New Brunswick. It is possible, for example, that there will be no desire to include a commitment to provide simultaneous interpretation on the face of the Bill, but the principle regarding putting material on the face of the Bill is quite clear in that legislation.   

 

[34]           Bethan Jenkins: Efallai y byddwn yn dod nôl at hyn yn y cwestiynau sydd i ddod, ond ydych chi’n ymwybodol o’r rhesymeg pam rhoddwyd cymalau saith ac wyth ar wyneb y Bil yn hytrach na pheidio â gwneud hynny, oherwydd y ddadl yn y fan hon yw pe bawn yn gwneud hynny, byddai gormod o wahaniaeth rhwng yr hyn a fyddai ar wyneb y Bil a’r hyn na fyddai ar wyneb y Bil?

 

Bethan Jenkins: We may come back to this in the questions that are to come, but are you aware of the rationale behind the decision to include clauses seven and eight on the face of the Bill rather than not doing so, because the argument here is that if we were to do so, there would be too much of a difference between what would be on the face of the Bill and what would not be on the face of the Bill?

 

 

[35]           Dr Brooks: Oherwydd bod y Saesneg a’r Ffrangeg yn ieithoedd swyddogol yn New Brunswick, mae sefyllfa cymharol debyg yn New Brunswick a Chymru. Mae tua 30% o boblogaeth New Brunswick yn siarad Ffrangeg. Nid yw hynny mor wahanol i’r 20% sy’n siarad Cymraeg yng Nghymru, ond oherwydd bod y Ffrangeg a’r Saesneg yn ieithoedd swyddogol, ac oherwydd bod y cysyniad o hawl yn cael ei ddefnyddio yn y ddeddfwriaeth, fel sydd wedi ei fabwysiadu yn y ddeddfwriaeth ddrafft fan hyn, erbyn hyn, rwy’n credu bod teimlad yn New Brunswick bod cael ymrwymiad statudol ar wyneb y Bil yn eglur a thryloyw ac yn ddealladwy i ddinasyddion, etholwyr a gwleidyddion etholedig ac nid oes amwysedd yn ei gylch, ac oherwydd hynny mae’n cynrychioli’r math o werthoedd tryloyw a chynhwysol y maent yn New Brunswick, fel cymdeithas, yn dymuno eu harddel.

 

Dr Brooks: As English and French are official languages in New Brunswick, the situation is relatively similar in New Brunswick and Wales. Approximately 30% of the population of New Brunswick speaks French. That is not so different from the 20% who speak Welsh in Wales, but because French and English are official languages, and because the concept of rights is used in the legislation, as has been adopted in the draft legislation here, by now, I think that the feeling in New Brunswick is that having  a statutory commitment on the face of the Bill is clear, transparent, and understandable to citizens, the electorate and elected politicians, and there is no ambiguity about it, and as such it represents the kind of transparent and inclusive values that they wish to uphold, as a society, in New Brunswick.

 

 

[36]           Kenneth Skates: So, which elements of the language legislation in New Brunswick and Ireland would you like to see included in this Bill?

 

 

[37]           Dr Mac Giolla Chriost: Mae Simon wedi cyffwrdd â hynny eisoes. Yn syml, mae gweld ymrwymiad ar wyneb y Bil yn cynnig sicrwydd, eglurder a hyder i bobl; dyna sydd gennych yn achos Iwerddon a New Brunswick.

 

Dr Mac Giolla Chriost: Simon has already touched upon that. Simply, seeing a commitment on the face of the Bill offers certainty, clarity and confidence to people and that is what you have in the case of Ireland and New Brunswick.

 

9.45 a.m.

 

 

 

[38]           Kenneth Skates: To move on, you state that that the rights included in the Bill are not extended to the citizen participating in Assembly proceedings. Why should the Bill be extended to cover the rights of citizens to participate and how could the Bill be amended to achieve that?

 

 

[39]           Dr Brooks: Unwaith eto, rwy’n credu bod y mater hwn yn mynd yn ôl i ddeddfwriaeth New Brunswick a’ch penderfyniad i ddefnyddio’r cysyniad o hawl wrth ddiwygio’r ddeddfwriaeth wrth gyrraedd y cam hwn yn y broses ddeddfwriaethol. Pan fydd rhywun yn trafod trafodion llawn y Cynulliad yn benodol, oherwydd mai dim ond Aelodau etholedig sydd yn cyfrannu atynt, roedd yn fy nharo i fod yr hawl i ddefnyddio’r Gymraeg yn gwbl gyfyngedig i Aelodau’r Cynulliad. Ar hyn o bryd, nid oes unrhyw hawl gan y dinesydd i gael gwybod am yr hyn sydd wedi digwydd yn nhrafodion llawn y Cynulliad yn ei ddewis iaith.

 

Dr Brooks: Once again, I think that this issue goes back to the New Brunswick legislation and your decision to use the concept of rights in amending the legislation as it reached this stage of the legislative process. It struck me that when one discusses the full proceedings of the Assembly specifically, because only elected Members can contribute to them, the right to use the Welsh language is entirely limited to Assembly Members. At present, citizens have no right to receive information about what has happened in the full proceedings of the Assembly in their language of choice.

 

[40]           Felly, mae gennych sefyllfa eithaf od yn y ddeddfwriaeth, buaswn i’n dadlau, lle mae hawl wedi cael ei hymestyn i Aelodau etholedig ond nid i ddinasyddion Cymru. Nid yw’r broblem honno yn bodoli yn neddfwriaeth New Brunswich oherwydd ei bod yn ymestyn yr hawl i Aelodau etholedig sy’n cyfrannu at y trafodaethau ac i etholwyr a dinasyddion sy’n gwrando arnynt neu yn eu darllen. Fodd bynnag, ar hyn o bryd, nid yw hynny yn bodoli yn y fan hon. Mae’n anghyson ac yn broblematig nad oes unrhyw ffordd gan y dinesydd, ar hyn o bryd, o gael sicrwydd y bydd modd iddo gael hyd i drafodion llawn y Cynulliad drwy gyfrwng y Gymraeg.

 

Therefore, you have quite a strange situation in the legislation, I would argue, whereby a right has been extended to elected Members, but not to the citizens of Wales. That problem does not exist in the New Brunswick legislation, because it extends the right to elected Members who contribute to proceedings and also to constituents and citizens who listen to them or read them. However, at present, that situation does not exist here. I see it as inconsistent and problematic that there is no way for citizens, at present, to know that they will be able to access the full proceedings of the Assembly through the medium of Welsh.

 

[41]           Alun Ffred Jones: A allwch chi fod ychydig yn fwy eglur ynglŷn â’r hawl honno? At beth rydych yn cyfeirio yn benodol a beth felly ddylai fod ar wyneb y Bil er mwyn ymestyn yr hawl hon i’r dinesydd?

 

Alun Ffred Jones: Can you be a little clearer on that right? To what are you referring specifically and what, therefore, should be on the face of the Bill in order to extend this right to the citizen?

 

[42]           Dr Brooks: Pe bai cyfeiriad ar wyneb y Bil at gael fersiwn ddwyieithog o drafodion llawn y Cynulliad, buasai gan ddinasyddion Cymru hawl i gael mynediad at drafodaethau llawn y Cynulliad drwy gyfrwng y Gymraeg neu’r Saesneg. Yn sgîl hynny, buasai’r hawl i ddefnyddio’r Gymraeg wedi cael ei hymestyn i’r Aelodau etholedig ac i’r etholwyr.

 

Dr Brooks: Were there to be a reference on the face of the Bill to a bilingual version of the full Assembly proceedings, Welsh citizens would have a right to access the full proceedings of the Assembly through the medium of either Welsh or English. In light of that, the right to use the Welsh language would have been extended to elected Members and also to their constituents.

 

 

[43]           Eluned Parrott: I would like to ask questions about section 2(2)(6), which states that the requirements set out in sections 1 and 2 of the Bill do not require

 

 

[44]           ‘all words spoken or written in one of the official languages to be interpreted or translated into the other’.

 

 

[45]           What are your views on that new subparagraph?

 

 

[46]           Dr Mac Giolla Chriost: Mae’r sefyllfa yn Iwerddon o ran trin cyfieithu ar y pryd yn gynsail camarweiniol ichi. Hynny yw, bwriad y ddeddfwriaeth yn Iwerddon yw caniatáu pobl i ddefnyddio naill ai Saesneg neu’r Wyddeleg yn y trafodion yn y Senedd a bod y cyfraniad hwnnw yn gallu ymddangos yn y cofnod naill ai yn Saesneg neu yng Ngwyddeleg yn unig. Yn ymarferol, mae hynny’n golygu pan fydd rhywun yn cyfrannu yn y Wyddeleg y gall y cyfraniad hwnnw aros yn yr iaith honno yn y cofnod, a dyna ni. Mae pobl yn cymryd yn ganiataol yn Iwerddon y bydd unrhyw un yn gallu deall y Wyddeleg yn y cyd-destun hwnnw, ond nid felly y mae yng Nghymru. Pe baem yn ymrwymo i gynhyrchu Cofnod yn y Gymraeg yn unig, byddai rhai pobl yn anhapus gyda hynny. Hefyd, yn ymarferol yn Iwerddon, yr hyn sydd yn dueddol o ddigwydd yw bod pobl yn trafod materion ynghylch y Wyddeleg yng Ngwyddeleg, ac felly pan fydd y cofnod yn ymddangos yng Ngwyddeleg yn unig, mae’n dueddol o fod yn berthnasol i faterion am y Wyddeleg yn unig. Pan fydd pobl yn defnyddio’r adran hon yn y ddeddfwriaeth yn Iwerddon, maent yn dueddol o fod yn trafod yr iaith Wyddeleg. Yr unig bwnc a drafodir drwy gyfrwng y Wyddeleg yw’r iaith Wyddeleg, yn ymarferol. Byddai pobl yn anhapus pe bai hynny’n digwydd i’r Gymraeg yng Nghymru. Felly, mae’r ffordd y mae’r memorandwm esboniadol wedi’i eirio ynghylch egluro eich ymrwymiad ychydig bach yn chwithig yn hynny o beth.

 

Dr Mac Giolla Chriost: The situation in Ireland on how interpretation is treated is a misleading precedent for you. That is, the intention of the legislation in Ireland is to allow people to use either English or Irish in the proceedings of the Parliament and that contribution can appear in the Official Report either in English or in Irish only. In practical terms, that means that when someone contributes in the Irish language, that contribution can remain in that language in the Official Report, and that is it. People take it for granted in Ireland that anyone can understand the Irish language in that context, but that is not the case in Wales. If we committed ourselves to producing a Record in Welsh only, some people would be unhappy with that. In addition, in Ireland, what tends to happen in practice is that people discuss matters in relation to the Irish language in Irish, and then when the Official Report appears in Irish only, it tends to be related to matters pertaining to the Irish language only. When people use this section of the legislation in Ireland, they tend to be discussing the Irish language. The only topic discussed through the medium of Irish is the Irish language in practical terms. People would be unhappy if that happened to the Welsh language in Wales. Therefore, the way in which the explanatory memorandum has been worded with regard to your commitment is a little ambiguous in that regard.

 

 

[47]           Eluned Parrott: Do you believe that this is a poor precedent for us to be following or do you feel that we have misinterpreted the intention of that precedent in this? If so, are there elements of the Irish Act that you think should be reflected in the Bill in Wales?

 

 

[48]           Dr Mac Giolla Chriost: Credaf fod y ddau beth yn wir. Mae’n gynsail eithaf gwael. Nid wyf yn credu y dylech ddilyn yr arferion Gwyddelig oherwydd maent yn perthyn i ddefnydd mwy symbolaidd o’r iaith Wyddeleg yng nghyd-destun y Senedd yn Iwerddon. Yn hynny o beth, byddai’n well pe baech yn gwneud eich penderfyniadau eich hun ar sail eich dymuniadau eich hun heb feddwl am yr hyn y maent yn ei wneud draw yn Iwerddon, boed yn bethau da neu’n wael. Mae’r ffordd y mae hynny’n gweithio’n ymarferol yn broblematig.

 

Dr Mac Giolla Chriost: I believe that both points are true. It is a pretty poor precedent. I do not think that you should follow the Irish practices because they relate to a more symbolic use of the Irish language in the context of the Parliament in Ireland. In that respect, it would be better if you took your own decisions based on your own aspirations without thinking about what they are doing over in Ireland, regardless of whether they are good or bad things. The way in which that works in practice is problematic.

 

[49]           Eluned Parrott: Do you believe that provisions included in section 2(2)(6) are consistent with the duties included in section 1(2) of the Bill that relate to treating both English and Welsh on the basis of equality in the conduct of Assembly proceedings?

 

 

[50]           Dr Mac Giolla Chriost: Nid wyf yn anhapus â’r hyn sydd gennych o ran hynny.

 

Dr Mac Giolla Chriost: I am not unhappy with what you have in that regard.

 

[51]           Eluned Parrott: In giving evidence to this committee in February, Rhodri Glyn Thomas, the Commissioner in charge of this legislation, stated that section 2(2)(6) does not undermine the integrity of treating the Welsh and English languages equally because the fundamental principles of the Bill have been adequately safeguarded within the Bill and scheme. Do you agree with this statement? If not, why not?

 

 

[52]           Dr Mac Giolla Chriost: Y pwynt yr oeddwn yn ei wneud am adran 2(2)(6) oedd bod yr honiad sydd gennych yn y memorandwm esboniadol, sef bod yr hyn rydych yn ei gynnig yn adlewyrchu’r sefyllfa yn Iwerddon, braidd yn gamarweiniol, ac y byddai goblygiadau hynny yn eich arwain at ryw fath o gyrchfan a fyddai’n annymunol o ran defnydd y Gymraeg yn y Cynulliad. Yn Iwerddon, yr hyn sy’n digwydd yn ymarferol yw bod y Wyddeleg yn cael ei defnyddio i drafod pynciau sy’n ymwneud â’r iaith Wyddeleg, a bod y cofnod, pan fydd hynny’n ymddangos yn uniaith Wyddeleg, ddim ond yn berthnasol i’r pynciau sy’n ymdrin â’r Wyddeleg fwy na lai yn ddieithriad. Nid oeddwn yn meddwl mai dyna’r hyn roeddech yn bwriadu ei ddweud wrth ddweud mai dyna oedd yn cael ei adlewyrchu. Dyna oedd fy mhwynt yn hynny o beth.

 

Dr Mac Giolla Chriost: The point that I was making about section 2(2)(6) was that the claim made in the explanatory memorandum, which is that what you offer reflects the situation in Ireland, is somewhat misleading, and that the implications of that would lead you to some kind of undesirable destination with regard to the Welsh language in the Assembly. In Ireland, what happens in practice is that the Irish language is used to discuss subjects that are related to the Irish language and the Official Report, when it appears in Irish only, is only relevant to the subjects that deal with the Irish language, more or less without exception. I did not think that that is what you intended to say when saying that that was reflected here. That was my point in that regard.

 

[53]           Bethan Jenkins: Nid wyf yn gwbl glir a ydych yn cytuno y dylid cymryd y cymal hwnnw allan gan nad yw’n berthnasol i fwriadau Cymru drwy’r Bil hwn.

 

Bethan Jenkins: I am not entirely clear as to whether you agree that that clause should be removed because it is not relevant to what Wales intends through this Bill.

 

 

[54]           Dr Mac Giolla Chriost: Mae’n awgrymu rhywbeth sy’n wahanol iawn i’r diwylliant a’r arfer o ran sut mae’r Gymraeg wedi ei defnyddio yn y Cynulliad o’r cychwyn. Mae’n fater o ganfyddiad yn hytrach nag unrhyw beth arall. Mae awgrymu mai hwnnw yw’r cynsail yn awgrymu mynd ar hyd trywydd sy’n niweidiol i’r Gymraeg. Pe baem yn dod i sefyllfa lle mae’r Gymraeg yn cael ei defnyddio yn yr un modd ag y mae’r Wyddeleg yn cael ei defnyddio yn y Senedd yn Iwerddon, byddem mewn lle annymunol o ran y Gymraeg.

 

Dr Mac Giolla Chriost: It suggests something that is very different to the culture and practice as regards the way in which the Welsh language has been used in the Assembly from the beginning. It is a matter of perception rather than anything else. To suggest that that is the precedent is suggesting that you are following a path that is harmful to the Welsh language. If we ended up in a situation where the Welsh language is used as the Irish language is used in the Parliament in Ireland, we would be in an undesirable situation for the Welsh language.

 

 

[55]           Eluned Parrott: I want to return quickly to that subject. What would you wish to see in place of this to improve the Bill?

 

 

[56]           Dr Mac Giolla Chriost: Nid wyf wedi meddwl yn fanwl iawn am yr hyn allai fod yno yn lle hynny, ond byddwn yn berffaith hapus i fynd i ffwrdd ar ôl y cyfarfod hwn a dod yn ôl atoch gydag awgrym manwl ynglŷn â sut y gellir gwella hynny, os yw hynny’n dderbyniol gennych.

 

Dr Mac Giolla Chriost: I have not thought in great detail about what could be there instead of that, but I would be perfectly happy to go away after this meeting and come back to you with a detailed suggestion as to how to improve it, if that is acceptable to you.

 

[57] Ann Jones: That would be helpful, thank you.

 

 

[58] Joyce Watson: Good morning. We have already touched on the issue of translation from English to Welsh and Welsh to English, and you have said that other countries that have sociolinguistic features similar to Wales—you cite Scotland and Catalonia as examples—have adopted methods of including on the face of legislation statements and duties relating to language status, linguistic rights and the use of language in and across legislative and governance procedures. Can you provide specific examples of that, and what are the benefits of this approach in your view?

 

 

[59]           Dr Brooks: Gallwn. Mae’r gwledydd a nodir yn y papur yn rhai y cyfeirir atynt yn ‘Adolygiad o Wasanaethau Dwyieithog Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru’ a gynhaliwyd o dan gadeiryddiaeth Arwel Elis Owen ym Mai 2010. Yr hyn y mae rhywun yn ei weld o edrych ar yr Alban, Catalonia, Gwlad y Basg, New Brunswick yng Nghanada ac ati yw bod tuedd yn y gwledydd hynny, sydd mewn sefyllfa debyg i Gymru, yn yr ystyr bod ynddynt ddwy gymuned ieithyddol gymharol niferus ac ieithoedd swyddogol penodedig, fel sydd yn wir am Gymru erbyn hyn, i roi rhai ymrwymiadau cyfreithiol ar wyneb Bil. Rydym wedi gweld hynny yng Nghanada.

 

Dr Brooks: Yes. The countries noted in the paper are those referred to in the ‘Review of Bilingual Services in the National Assembly for Wales’ that was conducted under Arwel Elis Owen’s chairmanship in May 2010. What one sees from looking at Scotland, Catalonia, the Basque Country, New Brunswick in Canada and so on is that there is a tendency in those countries, which are in a similar situation to Wales, in that they all have two fairly numerous linguistic communities and stated official languages, which is now true of Wales, to include legal commitments on the face of legislation. We have seen that in Canada.

 

[60]           Ond i ateb eich cwestiwn, mae enghraifft benodol yng Ngwlad y Basg. Darllenaf frawddeg i chi o dudalen 32 o ‘Adolygiad o Wasanaethau Dwyieithog Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru’ o Fai 2010:

 

However, to answer your question, there is a specific example in the Basque Country. I will read a sentence from page 32 of the ‘Review of Bilingual Services in the National Assembly for Wales’ from May 2010:

 

[61]           ‘Mae Archddyfarniad Brenhinol 2568/1986 yn darparu y ceir cynnal trafodaethau senedd y Cymunedau Ymreolaethol yn Sbaen yn Sbaeneg neu yn yr iaith gyd-swyddogol a bydd yr holl gofnodion a’r penderfyniadau yn ddwyieithog.’

 

‘Royal Decree 2568/1986 provides that debates in the parliament of the Autonomous Communities in Spain may be held in Spanish or the co-official language and all minutes and resolutions shall be bilingual.’

 

[62]           Felly, yn yr adroddiad hwn a gomisiynwyd gan y Cynulliad ei hun, mae cyfeiriadau at enghreifftiau—heblaw am New Brunswick—lle mae ymrwymiad ysgrifenedig clir mewn termau cyfreithiol i amodau o’r fath.

 

So, in this report, which the Assembly itself commissioned, there are references to examples—apart from New Brunswick—where there is a clear written commitment to such conditions expressed in legal terms.

 

[63] Joyce Watson: Are you saying that that is an example of a commitment to provide specific bilingual services, including a record of plenary proceedings, that appears on the face of the legislation? Just so that we are clear.

 

 

[64]           Dr Brooks: A ydych chi’n sôn am wledydd eraill?

 

Dr Brooks: Do you mean in other countries?

 

[65] Joyce Watson: Yes.

 

 

[66]           Dr Brooks: Oes, mae ymrwymiad pendant.

 

Dr Brooks: Yes, there is a definite commitment.

 

 

[67] Joyce Watson: That was just for clarity; for the record.

 

 

[68] What specific duties relating to language status, linguistic rights and the use of languages in and across legislative and governance procedures would you like to see included in the Bill?

 

 

[69]           Dr Mac Giolla Chriost: Unwaith eto, mae hwn yn fater gweddol syml o’n rhan ni. Hynny yw, mae arwyddocâd i gael ymrwymiad wedi’i nodi ar wyneb y Bil, yn wahanol i osod ymrwymiad o fath arall mewn cynllun. Dyna’r hyn sydd gennych mewn sefyllfaoedd yr ydym yn eu cyfrif yn rhai tebyg i Gymru a’r Gymraeg, megis Gwlad y Basg neu New Brunswick. Mae hi mor syml â hynny.

 

Dr Mac Giolla Chriost: Once again, this is a fairly simple matter from our perspective. That is, there is significance in having a commitment noted on the face of a Bill, as opposed to setting out some other kind of commitment in a scheme. That is what you have in situations that we see as being similar to that of Wales and the Welsh language, such the Basque Country or New Brunswick. It is as simple as that.

 

 

[70]           Alun Ffred Jones: Nid wyf yn credu eich bod wedi ateb cwestiwn Joyce Watson. Hynny yw, pa ddyletswyddau penodol y byddech yn dymuno eu gweld ar wyneb y Bil? Dyna’r cwestiwn; rydym yn gwybod eich bod yn cefnogi’r egwyddor.

 

Alun Ffred Jones: I do not think that you have answered Joyce Watson’s question. That is, what specific duties would you want to see on the face of the Bill? That is the question; we know that you support the principle.

 

10.00 a.m.

 

 

[71]           Dr Mac Giolla Chriost: Ymrwymiad i gynhyrchu cofnod o’r trafodion dwyieithiog, yn y Gymraeg a Saesneg, ar yr un pryd, er enghraifft.

 

Dr Mac Giolla Chriost: A commitment to produce a bilingual record of proceedings, in Welsh and English, at the same time, for example.

 

[72]           Alun Ffred Jones: A dyna i gyd?

Alun Ffred Jones: And that is all?

 

 

[73]           Dr Mac Giolla Chriost: Dyna’r prif beth. Rwy’n meddwl ein bod yn gysurus â hynny oherwydd bod tystiolaeth i awgrymu bod y cyhoedd yn gyffredinol yn teimlo’n gysurus â’r math hwnnw o ymrwymiad.

 

Dr Mac Giolla Chriost: That is the main issue. I think that we are comfortable with that because there is evidence to suggest that the public feel comfortable with that kind of commitment.

 

[74]           Dr Brooks: Rwy’n cytuno â Diarmait. Yr hyn sy’n wahanol gyda thrafodion o Gyfarfodydd Llawn y Cynulliad yw bod consensws mewn cymdeithas sifil ynghylch pwysigrwydd y mater hwn. Mae hynny’n golygu ei bod yn briodol bod y mater hwn ar wyneb y Bil, oherwydd bod y trafodion hynny yn mynd tu hwnt i faterion ieithyddol yn unig. Dyna yw un o’r pwyntiau hollbwysig fan hyn: mae’r trafodion hynny, oherwydd eu bod mor symbolaidd bwysig ym mywyd y genedl, yn cynrychioli rhywbeth sy’n mynd tu hwnt i bolisi iaith yn unig. Mae’n ymwneud yn y bôn â sut mae dinasyddion yn gweld sut maent hwy eu hunain yn ymwneud â’r broses ddatganoledig yng Nghaerdydd a’u bod yn gallu dilyn y trafodaethau penodol hynny yn eu dewis iaith. Oherwydd hynny, rwy’n credu ein bod yn gosod y mater hwn ychydig ar wahân i’r ystyriaethau ieithyddol eraill sydd yn y cynllun, ac felly bod dadl benodol dros gyfiawnhau cynnwys hynny ar wyneb y Bil.

 

Dr Brooks: I agree with Diarmait. What is different about the proceedings of the Assembly’s Plenary meetings is that there is a consensus in civil society about the importance of this matter. That means that it would be appropriate that this matter is included on the face of the Bill, because those proceedings go beyond linguistic issues alone. That is one of the crucial points here: those proceedings, because they are so symbolically important to the life of the nation, represent something that goes beyond language policy alone. Essentially, it is to do with how citizens see how they themselves engage with the devolved process in Cardiff and that they can follow those specific proceedings in the language of their choice. Given that, I believe that this matter should be considered somewhat separately to other the other linguistic considerations in the scheme, and that, therefore, there is a specific argument for justifying including that on the face of the Bill.

 

 

[75]           Alun Ffred Jones: Yn ei thystiolaeth, cymharodd Cymdeithas yr Iaith Gymraeg ddylanwad y Cofnod â chyfieithiad William Morgan o’r Beibl. A ydych chi’n cytuno â hi?

 

Alun Ffred Jones: In its evidence, the Welsh Language Society compared the influence of the Record with William Morgan’s translation of the Bible. Do you agree with it?

 

 

[76]           Dr Brooks: Mae llawer iawn o bethau wedi’u cymharu â Beibl William Morgan yn ddiweddar, o S4C i bob math o bethau rhyfeddol a diddorol. Rwyf wastad yn mwynhau dilyn trafodaethau mewnol Cymdeithas yr Iaith Gymraeg. [Chwerthin.]

 

Dr Brooks: Many things have been compared to William Morgan’s Bible recently, from S4C to all sorts of other surprising and interesting things. I always enjoy following the internal debates of the Welsh Language Society. [Laughter.]

 

[77]           Joyce Watson: We will move swiftly on. You state in your written evidence that the results of the consultation on the draft Bill

 

 

[78]           ‘suggest that there is an opportunity here to increase the confidence of the likely users of the Assembly’s Welsh-language services.’

 

 

[79]           Two questions follow from that. The first obvious one is why do you believe that the results of the consultation suggest this—that is, how you have reached that conclusion? The second obvious one is: how can the Bill be amended to achieve it?

 

 

[80]           Dr Brooks: Y rheswm yr ydym wedi cyfeirio at hyder yn benodol yw oherwydd mai dyna’r geiriad yn y memorandwm esboniadol: mae’n dweud mai dau ddiben sydd gan y Bil, sef cynyddu hyder y cyhoedd yn ymrwymiad y Cynulliad i wasanaethau dwyieithog ac y bydd y fframwaith deddfwriaethol a amlinellir yn y Bil yn sicrhau hyder y cyhoedd. Mae pwyslais mawr ar y gair ‘hyder’ yn y memorandwm esboniadol. Rydym o’r farn y byddai ymrwymiad statudol clir ar wyneb y Bil, oherwydd ei fod yn dryloyw a diamwys, yn ffordd dda o sicrhau bod gan y cyhoedd hyder yn y gwasanaeth arbennig hwnnw yn yr hirdymor ac y byddai hefyd yn adlewyrchu canlyniad yr ymgynghoriad cyhoeddus, lle mae mwyafrif helaeth yr ymatebwyr wedi dweud yn glir eu bod yn dymuno gweld ymrwymiad o’r fath ar wyneb y Bil.

 

Dr Brooks: The reason why we made specific reference to confidence is that that is the wording used in the explanatory memorandum: it states that the Bill has two aims, namely to increase the confidence of the public in the Assembly’s commitment to bilingual services, and that the legislative framework that is outlined in the Bill will ensure confidence among the public. There is great emphasis on the word ‘confidence’, in the explanatory memorandum. We are of the opinion that a clear statutory commitment on the face of the Bill, because it would be transparent and unambiguous, would be an effective way of ensuring that the public have confidence in that particular service in the long term and would also reflect the outcome of the public consultation, where the vast majority of respondents stated clearly that they wish to see such a commitment on the face of the Bill.

 

 

[81]           Bethan Jenkins: Rwy’n credu ein bod wedi trafod y Cofnod yn hir, ond i gadarnhau, dywedodd cynghorydd cyfreithiol y Cynulliad y byddai cynnwys y Cofnod ar wyneb y Bil yn codi statws y Cofnod uwchlaw pethau eraill. A fyddech chi’n cytuno â hynny?

 

Bethan Jenkins: I think that we have had a long discussion about the Record, but just to confirm, the Assembly’s legal adviser said that including the Record on the face of the Bill would elevate the status of the Record above other things. Would you agree with that?

 

[82]           Dr Mac Giolla Chriost: Mae gan y Cofnod statws symbolaidd llawer mwy na statws unrhyw beth arall, mae’n debyg, o ran gweithgarwch y Cynulliad. Nid yw hynny i ddweud bod yr hyn sy’n digwydd ar lawr y Senedd yn bwysicach nag agweddau eraill ar waith y Cynulliad. Byddai rhoi ymrwymiad ynghylch y Cofnod ar wyneb y Bil yn fater sy’n bwysig yn symbolaidd. Fodd bynnag, byddai nodi ymrwymiadau ynghylch agweddau eraill ar y gwasanaeth cyfieithu yn y cynllun ieithoedd swyddogol yn golygu bod arwyddocâd neilltuol i’r gwasanaethau cyfieithu eraill hynny hefyd.

 

Dr Mac Giolla Chriost: The Record has a symbolic status much greater than that of anything else, it seems, with regard to the activities of the Assembly. That is not to say that what happens on the floor of the Chamber is more important than other aspects of the work of the Assembly. Placing a commitment in relation to the Record on the face of the Bill would be important symbolically. However, noting commitments in relation to other aspects of translation services in the official languages scheme would mean that a particular significance would be attached to those other translation services as well.

 

 

[83]           Bethan Jenkins: I droi at y cynllun, rydych yn dweud yn eich tystiolaeth ysgrifenedig y byddai’n dda o beth pe bai modd nodi’r union fecanwaith y bydd yn rhaid i’r Comisiwn ei ddefnyddio ar gyfer adrodd ar weithredu’r cynllun hwn: hynny yw, a fyddai pwyllgor neu is-bwyllgor yn ymdrin â’r cynllun. Pa fath o fecanwaith y byddech yn hoffi ei weld yn cael ei roi ar waith fel bod eglurdeb i’r cyhoedd ac i Aelodau Cynulliad?

 

Bethan Jenkins: To turn to the scheme, you state in your written evidence that it would be useful if it were possible to note the exact mechanism that the Commission will have to use to report on the implementation of this scheme: that is, whether a committee or sub-committee would deal with the scheme. What kind of mechanism would you like to see put in place so that there is clarity for the public and for Assembly Members?

 

[84]           Dr Mac Giolla Chriost: Y math o beth roedd gennym mewn golwg oedd rhyw fath o bwyllgor lle byddai modd i bobl fel chi gael mwy o amser i bori trwy yr hyn oedd yn digwydd, wedi digwydd neu’n debygol o ddigwydd o ran gweithredu’r cynllun iaith, fel bod y gwaith craffu hwnnw’n fwy hamddenol a manwl, fel bod modd i eraill fod yn rhan o’r broses honno, ac fel bod modd i randdeiliaid eraill gyfrannu at y broses pe byddai’r pwyllgor neu is-bwyllgor yn teimlo bod hynny’n ddefnyddiol. Credwn y byddai rhyw drefn felly yn gwneud y pethau hynny’n haws.

Dr Mac Giolla Chriost: The kind of thing that we had in mind was some sort of committee where people such as yourselves could have more time to look at what was happening, what had happened or what was likely to happen in the implementation of the language scheme, so that scrutiny could be undertaken at a more measured pace and in more detail, so that would be possible for others to participate in that process, and so that other stakeholders could contribute to that process should the committee or sub-committee feel that it would be useful or appropriate. We believe that such an arrangement would make those things easier.

 

 

[85]           Mike Hedges: Do you think that improvements have been made to the draft scheme following the consultation that took place last year?

 

 

[86]           Dr Mac Giolla Chriost: Rwy’n meddwl bod gwelliannau wedi cael eu gwneud i’r cynllun drafft. Fodd bynnag, rydym hefyd yn meddwl bod lle i wella eto. Pe bai modd, er enghraifft, i’r cynllun drafft ymgorffori cynllun gweithredu, amserlen ar gyfer gweithredu gwahanol bethau a thargedau i’w cyrraedd o ran gweithredu gwahanol bethau, byddai hynny’n cryfhau’r cynllun. Hefyd, lle mae cyfleoedd i wneud hynny, pe bai’r cynllun yn nodi arfer da i’w efelychu, neu ganllawiau sydd wedi’u sefydlu ym maes cynlluniau iaith ers rhai blynyddoedd bellach ac y gallai fod yn cynnig rhyw fath o arweiniad mewn gwahanol ffyrdd, byddai hynny’n beth da. Mae Bwrdd yr Iaith Gymraeg, er enghraifft, wedi darparu canllawiau ar wahanol elfennau y byddai’n berthnasol i ambell i agwedd ar y cynllun iaith drafft, a gallai’r canllawiau hynny fod yn ddefnyddiol. Mae’r cynllun wedi gwella, ond byddai cael cynllun gweithredu a thargedau, yn ogystal â dilyn arfer da fel mater o drefn, yn fodd o wella’r cynllun ymhellach.

Dr Mac Giolla Chriost: I think that improvements have been made to the draft scheme. However, we also think that there is room for further improvement. If it were possible, for example, for the draft scheme to incorporate an action plan, a timetable for the implementation of different things and targets to be reached in relation to the implementation of different things, that would strengthen the scheme. Also, where there are opportunities to do so, if the scheme were to note good practice to be replicated, or guidelines that have been established in the area of language schemes for some years and that could offer some of guidance in different ways, that would be good. The Welsh Language Board, for example, has provided guidelines on different elements that would be relevant to various aspects of the draft language scheme, and those guidelines could be useful. The scheme has improved, but having an action plan and targets, as well as following good practice as a matter of routine, would be a way of improving the scheme further.

 

 

[87]           Mike Hedges: I have been told outside of this committee that one of the problems is that the scheme assumes that everyone is fluent in English, while only some people in Wales can use the Welsh language. Do you know any Welsh-language schemes that work on the principle that there are people in Wales who feel much happier speaking Welsh, who have a far larger vocabulary in Welsh than in English and would, therefore, find it easier to follow more technical and complicated things in particular through the medium of Welsh rather than of English?

 

 

[88]           Dr Mac Giolla Chriost: Mae hynny’n gwestiwn arall. Mae llawer o bobl eisiau derbyn gwasanaethau yn y Gymraeg. Mae sialensiau o ran hynny, wrth gwrs. Mae trin a thrafod gwahanol feysydd technegol yn y Gymraeg yn gallu peri anhawster, ond, wrth gwrs, y ffordd o ddod dros hynny yw gwella’r ddarpariaeth, codi lefel y sgiliau gan y bobl sy’n darparu’r gwasanaethau a hefyd gynyddu hyder y cyhoedd yn ei allu i ddefnyddio gwasanaethau yn y Gymraeg. Pe bai rhywun yn meddwl am hwn yn nhermau hanesyddol—a nid wyf am fynd yn ôl at Feibl William Morgan eto—os yw’r cyhoedd wedi arfer cael gwasanaethau mewn un iaith ers blynyddoedd maith ac mae’r rhai sy’n darparu’r gwahanol wasanaethau i’r cyhoedd wedi arfer gwneud hynny mewn un iaith yn neilltuol, ac yna mae newid o ran hynny, weithiau mae’n cymryd ymdrech ac amser i ni gyrraedd y pwynt lle mae pawb yn teimlo’n hollol gysurus yn darparu’r gwasanaeth yn yr iaith arall ac yn defnyddio’r gwasanaeth hwnnw yn yr iaith arall. Fel y dywedais, y ffyrdd o gyrraedd y nod yw datblygu sgiliau a’r seilwaith ac i godi hyder ymhlith y cyhoedd yn hytrach na’r ffordd arall rownd.

 

Dr Mac Giolla Chriost: That is another question. There are a lot of people who want to receive services in Welsh. There are challenges in that regard, of course. Dealing with and discussing various technical matters in Welsh can cause difficulty, but, of course, the way to overcome that is to improve the provision, to raise the skills levels of those who provide the services and also to increase the public’s confidence in its ability to use services in Welsh. If someone were to think about this in historical terms—and I do not want to go back to William Morgan’s Bible again—if the public has been used to having services in one language for many years and those providing the various services to the public have been used to doing so in one language in particular, and then that changes, it can sometimes take time and effort to reach the point where everyone feels completely comfortable in providing the service in the other language and using that service in the other language. As I said, the ways to achieve that goal are to develop the skills and the infrastructure and to increase public confidence rather than vice versa.

 

 

[89]           Ann Jones: We have 10 questions to ask and two minutes in which to ask them, but, if you are both willing to stay for another 10 minutes or so, we can go through those. I think that we have covered most of them in general, but we would like to drill down to the specifics to help us with our scrutiny. Mark, you are next.

 

 

[90]           Mark Isherwood: In your previous answer, you referred to your belief that there should be detailed action plans separate to the scheme. Did I hear you say that you think that that should be included on the face of the Bill or, if you did not say that, do you think that it should be?

 

 

[91]           Dr Mac Giolla Chriost: Byddai’n dda o beth pe bai wedi nodi ar wyneb y Bil y dylai’r cynllun ei hun gynnwys, er enghraifft, cynllun gweithredu a strategaeth sgiliau iaith. Byddai hynny’n beth da. Ar hyn o bryd, mae’r ymrwymiad braidd yn foel, a byddai manteision i gyflwyno cynllun gweithredu fel rhan o’r cynllun. Byddai modd gweld, trwy edrych yr ymrwymiadau yn y cynllun, sut yn union mae’r corff am weithredu’r cynllun ac i ba raddau mae’r cynllun yn ymarferol. Weithiau, mae ambell i gorff—nid chi, rwyf yn siŵr—yn gwneud ymrwymiadau uchelgeisiol, a phe bai rhywun wedi cymryd y cyfle i feddwl am sut i’w gweithredu’n ymarferol, efallai y byddent wedi gofyn cwestiynau mwy ymarferol ar y pryd. Felly, mae manteision i hynny.

 

Dr. Mac Giolla Chriost: It would be good if it were noted on the face on the Bill that the scheme itself should include, for example, an action plan and a language skills strategy. That would be good. Currently, the commitment is rather bare, and there would be advantages to presenting an action plan as part of the scheme. You could see, by looking at the commitments in the scheme, how exactly the body wants to implement the scheme and to what extent that scheme is practicable. Sometimes, some bodies—not you, I am sure—make ambitious commitments, but if someone had taken the opportunity to think about how to implement them in practice, they perhaps would have asked more practical questions at the time. So there are advantages to that.

 

 

[92]           Mark Isherwood: I cannot think who you might be referring to. How do you respond to the statement made to committee on targets and goals by the commissioner, Rhodri Glyn Thomas, on 9 February? He said:

 

 

[93]           The scheme in its entirety is accountable to all Assembly Members through the annual report. That will be the opportunity to scrutinise what has been happening during the year and to see whether we have achieved our aims on the principle of enabling Members to work through the medium of either Welsh or English.’

 

 

[94]           Dr Mac Giolla Chriost: Mae pob cynllun iaith dan haul wedi mynd at ryw gorff tebyg yn y pen draw, hynny yw'r corff sy’n atebol o ran y cynllun iaith, beth bynnag yw’r corff hwnnw. Mae hynny’n wir, ond mae gwahanol gyrff yn y gorffennol wedi ei ganfod yn ddefnyddiol yn ymarferol i gael rhyw fath o dargedau, amserlen a chynllun gweithredu fel rhan o’r cynllun gwreiddiol er mwyn hwyluso’r broses o graffu.

 

Dr Mac Giolla Chriost: Every language scheme under the sun has gone to a similar body in the end, namely the body that is accounable in terms of the language scheme, whatever that body is. That is true, but different bodies in the past have found it to be useful, practically speaking, to have some sort of targets, timetable and action plan in order to facilitate the scrutiny process.

 

10.15 a.m.

 

 

 

[95]           Byddai sicrhau rhyw fath o dargedau, amserlen neu gynllun gweithredu fel rhan o’r cynllun gwreiddiol yn hwyluso’r broses o graffu, yn y pen draw. Hynny yw, mae’r bobl sy’n rhoi’r cynllun at ei gilydd ac yn ei weithredu o ddydd i ddydd yn deall bob math o bethau am sut mae’r cynllun i fod i weithio a sut mae yn gweithio, ond bydd rhanddeiliaid eraill, sydd â rhyw ddiddordeb neilltuol yn y cynllun, yn cymryd yn ganiataol y bydd yn gweithio mewn rhyw ffordd neu’i gilydd, ac ni fyddant yn deall manion y cynllun fel y bydd eraill yn eu deall.

 

Ensuring that there are some targets, timescales or action plan as part of the original scheme will, ultimately, facilitate the scrutiny process. That is, the people drawing up the scheme and implementing it on a daily basis understand all manner of things about how the scheme should operate and how it does operate, but other stakeholders, with some specific interest in the scheme, will take it for granted that it will work in some way or another, and they will not understand the specifics of the scheme as others do.

 

[96]           Felly, mae cael targedau, amcanion, enwi pobl i fod yn gyfrifol am wahanol bethau a nodi amserlen ar gyfer gwneud gwahanol bethau yn hwyluso’r broses honno; mae’n gwneud y gwaith o graffu ar beth mae pobl eraill yn ei wneud ynghylch eu cyfrifoldebau hwy yn rhwyddach. Rwy’n gwybod ei fod yn golygu ychydig mwy o waith i’r bobl sy’n ymwneud â llunio’r cynllun a’i weithredu, ond mae’n gwneud y cynllun yn well, ac mae’n gwneud gwaith y bobl sy’n craffu ar y cynllun yn haws, yn y pen draw.

 

Therefore, having targets and objectives, nominating people to be responsible for various aspects and setting a timetable for doing different things, would facilitate that process; it makes scrutiny of what others are doing with regard to their responsibilities easier. I know that it means a bit more work for those involved in drawing up and implementing the scheme, but it makes the scheme better, and it makes the work of those scrutinising the scheme easier, in the long run.  

 

[97]           Mark Isherwood: Moving on, you describe some of the words and terms in some of the paragraphs in the draft scheme as ‘ambiguous’. How do you believe that these should be strengthened?

 

 

[98]           Dr Mac Giolla Chriost: Mae rhai pethau sydd ychydig yn amwys, megis ymadroddion fel ‘ar fyr rybudd’ neu hyd ag y bo rhywbeth neu’i gilydd yn ‘rhesymol neu’n ymarferol’. Nid wyf yn deall pa wasanaethau yn union sydd dan sylw, ond i’r bobl a fydd neu sydd yn defnyddio’r gwasanaethau hynny, mae’n debyg y byddai’n dda o beth pe baent yn deall beth mae ‘ar fyr rybudd’ yn ei feddwl o dan wahanol amgylchiadau. A yw hynny’n golygu diwrnod o flaen llaw ar gyfer dogfen un dudalen A4, ynteu a yw’n golygu wythnos o flaen llaw gyda dogfen o’r un hyd? Rwy’n siŵr y byddai’n ddefnyddiol i’r bobl a fydd yn defnyddio’r gwahanol wasanaethau pe bai canllawiau ychydig yn fanylach ar gael, yn hytrach na gadael i bobl ddehongli beth yw ‘ar fyr rybudd’, ‘rhesymoldeb’ neu ‘ymarferoldeb’ ar y pryd. Gallai hynny achosi ychydig o letchwithdod diangen ar adegau lle mae rhywun neu rywrai yn disgwyl i rywbeth gael ei wneud yn weddol gyflym. Hynny yw, ceisio rhagweld pinchpoints neu pressure points mewn prosesau wrth drafod pethau a allai fod yn hynod bwysig ac a allai orfod cael sylw brys rwyf i. Bydd rhoi canllawiau sydd mor fanwl ag y bo modd o flaen llaw yn hwyluso’r broses hon, ac yn hwyluso’r gwaith o osgoi unrhyw ddiffyg amynedd neu gamddealltwriaeth a allai godi pan fo pethau yn gorfod cael eu gwneud ar fyr rybudd, ac yn y blaen.

 

Dr Mac Giolla Chriost: Some things are a bit ambiguous, namely phrases such as ‘at short notice’ or as long as something or other is ‘reasonable or practical’. I do not understand which specific services are meant, but for those people who are or who will be using those services, it would probably be good if they understood what ‘at short notice’ means in different circumstances. Does that mean a day in advance with a one page A4 document, or does it mean a week in advance with a document of the same length? I am sure that it would be useful for those using the different services if more detailed guidance was available, rather than leaving the interpretation of ‘at short notice’, ‘reasonable’ or ‘practicable’ to someone as issues arise. That could cause a bit of needless confusion at times when people expect something to be done fairly quickly. That is, I am trying to foresee pinchpoints or pressure points in processes as things that could be very important and that could require urgent attention are discussed. Providing advance guidance that is as detailed as possible will facilitate this process, and will facilitate the avoidance of any frustration or misunderstanding that could arise when things have to be done at short notice, and so on.       

 

[99]           Ann Jones: We have practically run out of time. Mike has very kindly said that he thinks that his questions have been covered, so we will move to Alun Ffred. We need to be brief—we have five minutes left.

 

 

[100]       Alun Ffred Jones: Beth yw eich barn ynglŷn â’r strategaeth sgiliau dwyieithog arfaethedig, ac a ydych yn credu y dylid cynnwys ymrwymiad i ddarparu strategaeth o’r fath ar wyneb y Bil?

 

Alun Ffred Jones: What is your opinion of the proposed bilingual skills strategy, and do you believe that a commitment to provide such a strategy should be included on the face of the Bill?

 

[101]       Dr Mac Giolla Chriost: Yn bersonol, rwy’n meddwl y byddai hynny’n ddefnyddiol. Y rheswm am hynny yw bod strategaeth sgiliau iaith ac adnoddau dynol yn hanfodol i weithrediad y cynllun iaith. Byddai sicrhau ei bod yn flaenoriaeth ac yn brif ymrwymiad yn tanlinellu ei bwysigrwydd.

 

Dr Mac Giolla Chriost: I personally believe that that would be useful. The reason for that is that a language skills and human resources strategy is vital to the operation of the language scheme. Ensuring that it was a priority and a main commitment would highlight its importance.

 

 

[102]       Alun Ffred Jones: Roedd hwnnw’n ateb clir. I grynhoi, os wyf wedi deall eich sylwadau, rydych yn credu y dylai fod cyfeiriad penodol at Gofnod y Trafodion ar wyneb y Bil ac y dylai’r Bil hefyd ofyn am gynllun iaith, rhaglen ymarferol a strategaeth sgiliau fel cyfanwaith, yn hytrach na chael cynllun a gadael i’r rhaglen waith ddilyn o hynny.

 

Alun Ffred Jones: That was a clear response. In summary, if I have understood your comments, you think that there should be a specific reference to the Record of Proceedings on the face of the Bill and that the Bill should require a language scheme, a practical programme and a skills strategy as a whole, rather than having a language scheme and allowing the work programme to follow from that.

 

 

[103]       Dr Mac Giolla Chriost: Byddai’r ddau beth hynny’n ddefnyddiol dros ben.

 

Dr Mac Giolla Chriost: Those two things would be extremely useful.

 

[104]       Ann Jones: Thank you for your evidence. You will get a copy of the transcript to check for accuracy. We would be grateful if you could send us the note as promised. Thank you both for your evidence today; I am sorry that we have run out of time.

 

 

Gohiriwyd y cyfarfod rhwng 10.21 a.m. a 10.24 a.m.

The meeting adjourned between 10.21 a.m. and 10.24 a.m.

 

 

Bil Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru (Ieithoedd Swyddogol): Sesiwn Dystiolaeth Cyfnod 1—Grŵp Swyddogion Iaith
National Assembly for Wales (Official Languages) Bill: Stage 1 Evidence Session—Welsh Language Officers Group

 

 

[105]       Ann Jones: Please ensure that, if you have a mobile phone, it is switched off, because it affects the translation and broadcasting equipment. We are running slightly late, so I apologise to our witnesses. We have received written evidence from the Welsh language officers group for south-east Wales, and we are grateful for the paper. Will you introduce yourselves for the Record? You are welcome to give any brief opening statements, or we could go straight to questions.

 

 

[106]       Ms Baldwin: Cath Baldwin ydw i, swyddog iaith Gwasaneth Tân ac Achub De Cymru.

 

Ms Baldwin: I am Cath Baldwin, Welsh language officer for South Wales Fire and Rescue Service.

 

 

[107]       Ms Gruffudd: Ffion Gruffudd, swyddog iaith Cyngor Caerdydd ydw i. Fi wnaeth baratoi yr ymateb, gyda help y ddau arall yma, ar ran swyddogion iaith de Cymru. Rydym yn diolch am y cyfle i fod yma heddiw i roi tystiolaeth gerbron y pwyllgor.

 

Ms Gruffudd: I am Ffion Gruffudd, Welsh language officer for Cardiff Council. I prepared the response, with the help of the other two who are here today, on behalf of south Wales’s Welsh language officers. We thank you for the opportunity to give evidence to the committee today.

 

 

[108]       Mr Thomas: David Thomas, swyddog cydraddoldeb a’r Gymraeg i Gyngor Bwrdeistref Sirol Caerffili ydw i.

 

Mr Thomas: I am David Thomas, equalities and Welsh language officer for Caerphilly County Borough Council.

 

[109]       Ann Jones: Do you have any opening remarks to make, or are you happy to go straight to questions? I see that you are. Will you give the committee your overall thoughts on the Bill and the draft scheme as they are currently presented?

 

 

[110]       Ms Gruffudd: Yn ein hymateb, rydym wedi dweud ein bod, ar y cyfan, yn croesawu’r Bil a’r cynllun yn fawr iawn. Maent yn welliant ar beth sydd wedi bod ynghynt. Felly, rydym yn croesawu’r Bil yn fawr, ar wahân i’r pwyntiau yr ydym wedi eu nodi yn ein hymateb. Rydym hefyd wedi gwneud sylwadau cynhwysfawr ar y cynllun o ran lle gellid ei gryfhau o ran geiriad ac yn y blaen. Rydym wedi cyflwyno’r wybodaeth honno o ganlyniad i brofiad ymarferol yn y maes o fod yn swyddogion iaith am gyn hired, ac o wybod pa mor anodd yw ceisio gweithredu cynlluniau iaith pan mae’r geiriad yn amwys. Ar y cyfan, mae’r grŵp yn croesawu’r Bil a’r cynllun.

 

Ms Gruffudd: In our response we have said that, on the whole, we welcome the Bill and the scheme very much. They are an improvement on what previously existed. Therefore, we welcome the Bill, apart from the points that have been noted in our response. We have also made comprehensive comments on the scheme around where it could be strengthened in terms of its wording and so on. We have given that information as a result of lengthy practical experience in the field as Welsh language officers, and from knowing how difficult it is to try to implement language schemes when the wording is ambiguous. On the whole, the group welcomes the Bill and the scheme.

 

 

[111]       Kenneth Skates: What are your general views on new sub-paragraph (6), which states that the Bill does not necessarily require the scheme to provide interpretation and translation both from Welsh into English and from English into Welsh in all situations?

 

 

[112]       Ms Gruffudd: Rydym yn teimlo bod geiriad Iwerddon yn llawer mwy positif. Er enghraifft, mae’r geiriad yn y Bil—dim ond yn Saesneg mae’n bodoli, rwy’n credu—yn dechrau gyda’r geiriau, ‘Nothing in this paragraph’ ac yn ymddangos yn negyddol o’r dechrau. Mae Deddf Ieithoedd Swyddogol Iwerddon 2003 yn dweud,

 

Ms Gruffudd: We believe that the wording of the Irish Act is much more positive. For example, the wording in the Bill—it is only available in English, I think—begins with the words, ‘Nothing in this paragraph,’ and it appears negative from the outset. Ireland’s Official Languages Act 2003 says,

 

[113]       ‘Every official report…shall be published in each of the official languages’.

 

 

[114]       Mae i wneud â’r geiriad a’r ffaith bod y geiriad yn ymddangos i ni yn negyddol. Rydym yn teimlo hefyd bod geiriad Iwerddon yn llawer cliriach a llai amwys. A dweud y gwir, rhyngom ni, nid oeddem yn deall mai at yr un peth yr oeddynt yn cyfeirio yn y bôn, o ddarllen geiriad Saesneg y Bil.

 

It is to do with the wording and the fact that the wording seems negative to us. We also feel that the wording in Ireland is much clearer and less ambiguous. To be honest, from reading the English wording of the Bill, we did not understand between us that they were essentially referring to the same thing.

 

[115]       Mr Thomas: Roedd rhaid i ni ailddarllen y frawddeg yn y drafft nifer o weithiau a dim ond wrth gyfeirio yn ôl at eiriad gwreiddiol Deddf Iwerddon y gwnaethom ddeall beth oedd pwrpas y geiriad yn y lle cyntaf. Felly, mae geiriad Iwerddon yn llawer mwy positif a chlir o ran esbonio beth oedd bwriad cael geiriad fel hynny yn y Bil yn y lle cyntaf.

 

Mr Thomas: We had to re-read the sentence in the draft many times, and it was only when referring back to the original wording of the Irish Act that we understood what was the purpose of the wording in the first place. Therefore, the Irish wording is much more positive and clear in terms of explaining the purpose of having such a wording in the Bill in the first place.

 

 

[116]       Bethan Jenkins: Rydym newydd dderbyn tystiolaeth yn dweud bod cyd-destun Iwerddon yn hollol wahanol i gyd-destun Cymru o ran dehongli’r hyn sydd yn Neddf Iwerddon. A ydych chi wedi gweld hynny hefyd? Oherwydd bod y Wyddeleg ond yn cael ei defnyddio pan drafodir yr iaith, dyna sy’n esbonio’r hyn sydd yn y Ddeddf honno, a bod hynny’n hollol wahanol i’r hyn sy’n digwydd yng Nghymru. Efallai nad ydych wedi cael y cyfle—

 

Bethan Jenkins: We have just received evidence saying that the Irish context is different to the Welsh context in terms of interpreting what is in the Irish Act. Have you seen that as well? As Irish is only used when the language is being discussed, that is what explains what is in that Act, and that that is vastly different to what happens in Wales. Perhaps you have not had the opportunity—

 

 

[117]       Ms Gruffudd: Nid wyf yn gweld pam y dylai’r geiriad fod yn wahanol a pham na allai’r geiriad weithio ar gyfer yr hyn sy’n digwydd yng Nghymru hefyd, o ran bod yn fwy positif a pheidio dechrau gyda ‘nothing’ ac ymddangos yn negyddol. Gellir dehongli—rydym yn siarad dipyn am ddehongli yma—y frawddeg honno yn wahanol yn dibynnu ar y person. Mae’n rhy amwys i sicrhau bod Cofnod dwyieithog yn cael ei baratoi.

 

Ms Gruffudd: I do not see why the wording should be different and why that wording could not work for what is happening in Wales also, in terms of being more positive and not starting with ‘nothing’ and appearing negative. That sentence could be interpreted differently—we are talking a lot about interpretation here—according to the person. It is too ambiguous to ensure that a bilingual Record is prepared.

 

10.30 a.m.

 

 

 

[118]       Bethan Jenkins: Beth yw eich barn ar ddarparu ymrwymiad ar wyneb y Bil at gael Cofnod cwbl ddwyieithog?

 

Bethan Jenkins: What is your opinion of providing a commitment on the face of the Bill to a fully bilingual Record?

 

[119]       Mr Thomas: Mae’r Cofnod yn rhywbeth sydd mor bwysig. Rydym yn symud at sefyllfa lle mae dwy iaith swyddogol yng Nghymru. Y Cofnod yw cofnod deddfwriaethol y wlad, felly mae’n ddogfen mor bwysig roeddem yn credu y byddai ei nodi ar wyneb y Bil yn rhoi statws iddo i ddangos pa mor bwysig y mae i bawb yng Nghymru, boed hwy’n siaradwyr Saesneg neu’n siaradwyr Cymraeg.

 

Mr Thomas: The Record is so important. We are moving toward a situation where there are two official languages in Wales. The Record is the legislative record for the country, so it is such an important document that we felt that noting it on the face of the Bill would give it a status that would demonstrate how important it is to everyone in Wales, be they English speakers or Welsh speakers.

 

[120]       Ms Gruffudd: Rwy’n cytuno. Y Cofnod yw cofnod swyddogol y Cynulliad. O ran dangos arweiniad i weddill Cymru, mae’n hanfodol bod y Cofnod yn ddwyieithog. Ar lefel ymarferol, pan newidiodd y Cofnod i fod yn Saesneg yn unig, cafodd hynny effaith ofnadwy arnom fel swyddogion iaith, yn enwedig pan crybwyllwyd mai’r rheswm bod y Cofnod yn mynd i fod yn Saesneg yn unig oedd oherwydd y gost. Rydym wedi treulio degawd yr un yn darbwyllo ein cynghorau sir nad y gost sydd wrth wraidd gweithredu’n ddwyieithog, ac na ddylid sôn am gostau pan rydym yn siarad am weithredu Deddfau; nid yw hynny’n dod i mewn i Ddeddfau eraill yn gyffredinol.

 

Ms Gruffudd: I agree. The Record is the official record of Assembly proceedings. In terms of demonstrating leadership to the rest of Wales, it is crucial that the Record is bilingual. On a practical level, when the Record changed to being in English only, that had a terrible effect on us as language officers, especially when it was mentioned that the reason that the Record was to be prepared in English only was because of cost. We have each spent a decade convincing our respective county councils that cost is not at the heart of operating bilingually, and that costs should not be mentioned when we are talking about implementing legislation; that is not generally a consideration in other legislation.

 

 

[121]       Yng Nghyngor Caerdydd, er enghraifft, rwyf wedi bod yn dweud wrth reolwyr, ‘Os nad ydych wedi sicrhau bod cyllid ar gael yn eich coffrau i weithredu’n ddwyieithog, eich gwendid chi fel rheolwyr yw hynny, oherwydd nid ydych wedi blaengynllunio’n ddigonol i sicrhau bod yr arian hwnnw yn y coffrau’. Rwyf wedi bod yn taflu’r mater yn ôl atynt o ran diffyg blaengynllunio oherwydd bod Deddf yr Iaith Gymraeg 1993 wedi bod ar waith ers cyhyd. O’r diwedd, rydym wedi llwyddo i gyrraedd sefyllfa lle mae’r cynghorau’n ymwneud â gweithredu’n ddwyieithog heb feddwl, heb gwestiynu a heb sôn am y gost, wedyn mae’r Cynulliad yn dweud bod y gost o weithredu’n ddwyieithog a sicrhau Cofnod dwyieithog yn ormodol. Mae hynny’n cael gwared ar ddegawd o waith da gan y swyddogion iaith, ac yn cael gwared ar bob peth rydym wedi ymdrechu i’w wneud. Ni allwch gredu’r effaith negyddol ar lawr gwlad o gael Cofnod uniaith Saesneg mewn sefydliad sy’n cael ei gydnabod gan awdurdodau lleol cymharol Saesneg ar y cyfan fel prif sefydliad dwyieithog Cymru.

 

In Cardiff Council, for example, I have been saying to managers, ‘If you have not ensured that there is funding available in your coffers to operate bilingually, that is due to your weaknesses as managers, because you have not undertaken enough forward planning to ensure that that money is available’. I have been throwing this matter back at them in terms of a lack of forward planning, because the Welsh Language Act 1993 has been in place for so long. At last, we have managed to reach a point where councils are engaged in operating bilingually without thinking about it, without questioning it and without any mention of cost, and the Assembly then says that the cost of operating bilingually and providing a bilingual Record is too onerous. That overturns a decade of good work by language officers, and overturns everything that we have put such effort into achieving. You would not believe the negative effect at a grass-roots level of having a monolingual English Record at an institution that is recognised by local authorities, which are mainly English-speaking themselves, as the main bilingual institution of Wales. 

 

[122]       Bethan Jenkins: Mae’r neges yn glir; diolch. [Chwerthin.]

 

Bethan Jenkins: The message is clear; thank you. [Laughter.]

 

[123]       Dywedodd prif gynghorydd cyfreithiol y Cynulliad y byddai rhoi’r Cofnod ar wyneb y Bil yn rhoi statws uwch iddo. A ydych yn cytuno â hynny neu, oherwydd yr hyn rydych wedi’i ddweud o ran ei statws, a ydych yn credu bod rhesymeg digon clir i gyfiawnhau rhoi’r Cofnod ar wyneb y Bil?

 

The chief legal adviser of the Assembly said that placing the Record on the face of the Bill would give it a higher status. Do you agree with that or, because of what you have said about its status, do you believe that there is a sufficient logical basis for placing the Record on the face of the Bill?

 

[124]       Ms Gruffudd: Byddwn i’n dweud bod y rhesymeg yn glir. Cofnodion ein Cynulliad ni, fel gwlad, yw’r un peth pwysicaf. Byddai rhoi’r Cofnod ar wyneb y Bil yn dangos arweiniad.

 

Ms Gruffudd: I would say that the logic is clear. The Record of our Assembly, as a country, is the single most important thing. Placing the Record on the face of the Bill would show leadership.

 

[125]       Janet Finch-Saunders: You state in your evidence that you believe that the scheme should be revised more often than every five years. What do you think are the benefits of reviewing language schemes every three years? What are the dangers of allowing five years to pass between the reviews of these schemes?

 

 

[126]       Mr Thomas: O brofiad gyda chynlluniau iaith, gwn eu bod fel arfer yn cael eu diwygio pob tair blynedd. Nid yw rhai sefydliadau yn diwygio eu cynlluniau mor aml â hynny. Fodd bynnag, mae’r ddeddfwriaeth newydd o ran cydraddoldeb hefyd yn rhoi hyd at bedair blynedd i sefydliadau cyhoeddus ddiwygio’u cynlluniau cydraddoldeb strategol. Mae’r byd yn gallu newid yn fawr iawn o fewn pum mlynedd. Mae’n anodd, gyda dogfennau sydd mor bwysig â chynlluniau iaith neu gynlluniau cydraddoldeb, er enghraifft, i ddal lan gyda chymaint o newidiadau os mai unwaith pob pum mlynedd yn unig y mae’r dogfennau hynny’n cael eu diwygio. Mae pob math o newidiadau deddfwriaethol eraill yn effeithio ar gynlluniau iaith. Mae pob math o reoliadau a Biliau newydd yn cael eu creu; er enghraifft, bydd elfen o ran gweithredu’n ddwyieithog yn rhan o’r Mesur gofalwyr a fydd yn dod allan cyn hir. Os nad yw’r cynlluniau iaith yn cael eu diwygio i ddal lan gyda phethau fel hynny, bydd wastad rhyw fath o catch-up yn digwydd gyda’r iaith Gymraeg. Mae perygl bydd y Gymraeg yn colli allan os na fydd cynlluniau yn cael eu diwygio yr un mor aml â nifer o bethau eraill. Rydym o’r farn bod pum mlynedd yn rhy hir.

 

Mr Thomas: From experience with language schemes, I know that they are usually revised every three years. Some institutions do not revise their schemes that often. However, the new legislation on equalities also allows up to four years for public institutions to revise their strategic equalities schemes. The world can change a great deal in five years. It is difficult, with documents as important as language schemes and equalities schemes, for example, to catch up with so many changes if those documents are only revised every five years. All kinds of other legislative changes affect language schemes. All kinds of new regulations and Bills can be created; for example, an element in terms of operating bilingually will be part of the carers Measure that is coming out soon. If language schemes are not revised so that they are kept in line with things like that, there will always be a kind of catch-up taking place with the Welsh language. The danger is that the Welsh language will lose out if schemes are not revised as often as many other things. We believe that five years is too long.

 

 

[127]       Janet Finch-Saunders: Am I correct in thinking that, across north Wales, most local authority language schemes are reviewed every three years?

 

 

[128]       Ms Gruffudd: Ydych.

Ms Gruffudd: Yes.

 

 

[129]       Janet Finch-Saunders: You also stated:

 

 

[130]       ‘If there is to be a new Scheme or revision, it should be more strongly in favour of the Welsh language than was the case previously’.

 

 

[131]       What do you mean by that?

 

 

[132]       Ms Gruffudd: Rydym yn dweud bod rhaid iddo fod yn gryfach na fuodd gynt. Dylai pob cynllun iaith fod yn sylfaen a phob tro mae’n cael ei ddiwygio dylai adeiladu ar yr hyn sydd yno eisoes yn hytrach na mynd am yn ôl. Mae esiamplau yng Nghymru o gynlluniau iaith yn gwanhau wrth gael eu diwygio. Nid oes nifer o esiamplau, ond mae rhai esiamplau lle maent wedi mynd yn wannach. Mae swyddogion iaith yn gweld hynny fel cam yn ôl. Dylai pob cynllun iaith—yn enwedig yr un cyntaf—fod yn sylfaen ar gyfer adeiladu arno yn y dyfodol hyd nes cyrraedd, yn y pen draw, cydraddoldeb llwyr rhwng y ddwy iaith.

 

Ms Gruffudd: We say that it must be more robust than it was previously. Every language scheme should be a foundation and each time it is revised it should build on what is already there, rather than taking retrograde steps. There are examples of language schemes in Wales that have been diluted when they were revised. There are not many examples, but there are some examples where they have been diluted. Welsh language officers see that as a retrograde step. Each language scheme—the first one in particular—should be a foundation to be built on in future until we eventually reach total equality between both languages.

 

 

[133]       Mr Thomas: Mae cymalau rhai cynlluniau iaith yn aros yr un peth, ond nid yw hynny’n eu gwanhau, mae’n cadw’r safon—hyd yn oed os yw am chwe blynedd, nid yw hynny’n gam yn ôl. Weithiau, y gorau gallwch ei gael yw aros lle rydych chi. Mae nifer ohonom wedi brwydro’n galed i beidio â gwanhau a chamu yn ôl, ond mewn rhai achosion mae hynny wedi digwydd. Mae’n dal i ddigwydd gyda rhai sefydliadau. Weithiau, oherwydd amgylchiadau gwahanol sefydliadau, rhaid cyfaddef mai aros lle rydym ni yw’r gorau y gallwn ei ddisgwyl. Ond, nid yw hynny’n gam yn ôl. Mae gwahaniaeth rhwng camu yn ôl, aros lle rydych chi, a chryfhau. Rydym o’r farn y dylid sicrhau mai’r isafswm o ran diwygio cynlluniau yw aros lle rydych chi—am wahanol resymau—ac y dylech geisio symud ymlaen a brwydro i’w gryfhau.

 

Mr Thomas: Clauses in some language schemes remain the same, but that does not dilute them, it maintains the standard—even if it is for six years, it is not a retrograde step. Sometimes, the best that you can hope for is to maintain the status quo. Many of us have worked hard to not dilute and take retrograde steps, but in some cases that has happened. It still happens with some organisations. Sometimes, because of different organisations’ circumstances, you must admit that to stay where you are is the best that can be expected. However, that is not a retrograde step. There is a difference between a retrograde step, staying where you are, and consolidating. We believe that we must ensure that the minimum when revising schemes should be to stay where you are—for different reasons—and that you should try to move forward and fight to consolidate.

 

 

[134]       Joyce Watson: On adopting a new official languages scheme, you state in your written evidence that new sub-paragraph (10)(b) of the Bill should be amended so as to require the Assembly Commission to consult with every organisation encompassed by the Welsh Language (Wales) Measure 2011. Why do you feel that that is necessary and how could it be achieved in practice?

 

 

[135]       Mr Thomas: Mae’r rhestr o sefydliadau sy’n dod o dan y Mesur eisoes yn bodoli. Am fod y sefydliadau hynny o dan orfodaeth ddeddfwriaethol i gydymffurfio â’r Mesur ac unrhyw safonau sy’n deillio ohono, roedd yn amlwg i ni y byddai gan y sefydliadau hynny, sy’n gorfod gweithredu’n ddwyieithog, farn a phrofiad o weithio’n ddwyieithog a allai fod o fudd mewn cyfnod ymgynghori ar y cynllun hwn. O ran yr ochr ymarferol, adeg unrhyw ymgynghoriad rydych yn anfon llawer mwy o ddogfennau ymgynghori allan nac yr ydych yn derbyn o ymatebion. Pe baech yn cysylltu â phawb sydd ar y rhestr, o leiaf byddant wedi cael eu cynnwys. Does neb am eiliad yn meddwl y byddwch yn cael ymateb gan bob un. Yn ddiweddar, rwyf wedi gorffen diwygio cynllun iaith a chynllun cydraddoldeb cyngor Caerffili. Anfonais gannoedd o gopïau electronig a chaled allan a chael 54 ymateb yn unig. Er hynny, roedd y 54 ymateb gan sefydliadau ac unigolion yn cynnwys sylwadau defnyddiol iawn. Am fod y sefydliadau yn dod o dan y Mesur a’u bod wedi’u henwi’n benodol, byddai’n clymu’r ddwy ochr at ei gilydd petaent yn cael eu cynnwys yn yr ymgynghoriad.

 

Mr Thomas: The list of organisations that are covered by the Measure already exists. Due to the fact that those organisations have a legislative obligation to conform with the Measure and any standards derived from it, it was obvious to us that those organisations, which have to operate bilingually, would have an opinion and experience of working bilingually that could be beneficial in a consultation on this scheme. On the practical side, in any consultation you will send out many more consultation documents than you will receive of responses. If you were to contact everyone on the list, at least they will have been included. Nobody believes for a second that you will get a response from everyone. Recently, I have finished revising Caerphilly council’s language scheme and equality scheme. I sent hundreds of electronic and hard copies out, but received only 54 responses. However, those 54 responses from organisations and individuals contained very useful comments. The organisations that are covered by the Measure have been specified and, therefore, it would tie the two sides together if they were included in the consultation.

 

 

[136]       Joyce Watson: You also state in your evidence that there is not enough connection between this Bill and the Welsh Language (Wales) 2011 Measure and that

 

 

[137]       ‘the Measure needs to be implemented effectively by other organisations in order for the Bill to work in the Assembly and vice versa’.

 

 

[138]       You have touched on that already. What exactly do you mean by this and how could the Bill or the draft scheme be amended to achieve this aim? That, ultimately, is what we want from you this morning.

 

 

[139]       Mr Thomas: Fy nheimlad wrth ddarllen y cynllun drafft oedd ei fod fel petai’n bodoli ar wahân i’r Mesur a’r cysyniad o safonau a fydd yn cael eu gosod i’r gweddill ohonom yng Nghymru cyn bo hir, ac felly bod angen mwy o groesgyswllt, o bosibl, rhwng y ddau beth fel bod unrhyw beth sy’n digwydd o dan y safonau yn cael ei adlewyrchu yn y Bil ac i’r gwrthwyneb. Roedd bron fel gofyn cwestiwn yn ôl i chi mewn ffordd, gan ein bod ni’n teimlo eu bod yn darllen fel dau ddarn o ddeddfwriaeth hollol ar wahân ar y Gymraeg, yn hytrach na’u bod wedi cael eu datblygu ar y cyd.

 

Mr Thomas: My feeling in reading the draft scheme was as though it almost existed separate to the Measure and the concept of standards that will be imposed on the rest of us in Wales in due course, and that there should, therefore, be more of an interconnection between the two things so that anything that happens under the standards should be reflected in the Bill and vice versa. It was almost as if we were asking you a question in a way, given that they appear as two separate pieces of legislation on the Welsh language, rather than being developed jointly.

 

 

[140]       Mark Isherwood: In your earlier answer, you referred to debates about costs being irrelevant in the context of what you refer to as the Welsh Language Act, but which is actually the Welsh Language (Wales) 2011 Measure. Noting that all legislation is subject to regulatory impact assessment, including cost assessments, and that the Assembly Commission has a fixed and diminishing budget, which means that funding would have to come from something else, why do you think that that is irrelevant? Will you expand on that?

 

 

[141]       Ms Gruffudd: Mae’n amherthnasol achos y Cynulliad hwn sydd wedi gwneud y ddwy iaith yn ieithoedd swyddogol yng Nghymru. Os ydych yn gwneud y datganiad hwnnw, ni ddylid trin y ddwy iaith yn wahanol. Mae’r ddwy iaith yn gyfartal ac felly dylid edrych ar y ddeddfwriaeth o safbwynt y ffaith bod y ddwy iaith yn gyfartal, gan beidio â nodi costau ychwanegol yn ymwneud â’r iaith Gymraeg pan fo’r costau hynny’n bodoli’n barod o ran yr iaith Saesneg. Mae darparu unrhyw wasanaeth yn Saesneg yn costio arian, ond nid yw costau’r Cynulliad wrth weithredu yn Saesneg wedi’u nodi unrhyw le yn y memorandwm esboniadol. Felly, er bod costau, nid oes sôn am y rheini o gwbl. Os yw’r ddwy iaith yn swyddogol ac yn gyfartal, pam sôn am y costau sydd ynghlwm wrth weithredu yn Gymraeg? Yr un cwestiwn ydyw yn y pen draw. Yn amlwg, mae costau yn bodoli wrth weithredu yn Saesneg, yn yr un modd â bod costau gweithredu’n Gymraeg, ond nid oes sôn am y costau o weithredu’n Saesneg. Dyna lle mae’r anghyfartaledd, a dyna lle nad yw’r ddwy iaith yn cael eu trin yn gyfartal.

 

Ms Gruffudd: It is irrelevant because it is this Assembly that has made both languages official languages in Wales. If you make that statement, the two languages should not be treated differently. Both languages are equal and therefore we should look at the legislation from the perspective that both languages are equal, and not note the additional costs relating to the Welsh languages when those costs already exist in relation to the English language. Providing any service through the medium of English costs money, but the explanatory memorandum does not refer to the costs incurred by operating through the medium of English in the Assembly. Therefore, even though there are costs, they are not mentioned. If both languages are official and equal, why talk about the costs attached to operating through the medium of Welsh? It is the same question at the end of the day. Obviously, there are costs in terms of operating through the medium of English, just as there are costs of operating through the medium of Welsh, but there is no mention of the cost of providing services through the medium of English. That is where the inequality comes in, and that is where the languages are not treated on the basis of equality.

 

 

[142]       Mark Isherwood: In terms of other equality issues under the single equality Act and things that preceded that at UK level, there is always the measure of reasonableness, which is an ambiguous term but, nonetheless, used by all organisations to consider whether their duties are being met. Do you think that that should apply in these circumstances, as you are referring to equality as the basis of this?

 

 

[143]       Ms Gruffudd: Na, nid wyf yn credu hynny achos mae’r maes cydraddoldeb yn wahanol ers i’r Mesur iaith wneud y ddwy iaith yn ieithoedd swyddogol. Os yw’r ddwy iaith â statws cyfreithiol swyddogol yng Nghymru, dylid trin y ddwy iaith yn union yr un ffordd â’i gilydd. Nid yw geiriad yr hen Ddeddf iaith yn berthnasol mwyach o ran yr hyn sy’n rhesymol ymarferol. Os yw’r ddwy iaith bellach yn swyddogol, dylid eu trin yn yr un ffordd yn union a dylid rhoi’r un statws i’r ddwy iaith. Os ydych yn mynnu dweud bod costau penodol wrth weithredu’n ddwyieithog neu’n Gymraeg, dylid nodi faint yw’r gost gymharol o weithredu’n Saesneg hefyd.

 

Ms Gruffudd: No, I do not believe that because equality is different since the Welsh language Measure made both languages official. If they both have official legal status in Wales, both languages should be treated in exactly the same way. The wording in the previous Welsh language Act is no longer relevant in terms of what is reasonably practicable. If both languages now have official status, they should be treated in exactly the same way and the same status should be given to both. If you will insist on saying that there are certain costs in operating bilingually or through the medium of Welsh, you should also note the comparative cost of operating through the medium of English.

 

 

[144]       Mr Thomas: Nid wyf yn credu y byddwn i, er enghraifft, yn mynd at fy nghyngor ac yn dweud fy mod i, gan fod y ddwy iaith yn gyfartal, eisiau hanner cyllideb y cyngor i weithredu’n Gymraeg, oherwydd rwy’n gwybod beth fyddai’r ymateb i hynny. Mae’n arwain at ddadleuon dwl o ran y defnydd a wneir ar yr iaith. Os oes cyllid ar gael ar gyfer y ddwy iaith swyddogol, rydych yn gweithredu’n ddwyieithog mewn pa bynnag ffordd sy’n addas i’r sefydliad hwnnw. Nid yw’r ddadl ynglŷn â’r gost, fel y dywedais, yn berthnasol yn yr un modd ag yr ydoedd.

 

Mr Thomas: I do not think that I, for example, would go to my council and say that, as both languages are equal, I want half of the council’s budget to operate through the medium of Welsh, because I know what the response would be. It comes down to the silly arguments regarding the use of the language. If funding is available for both official languages, you operate bilingually in whatever way that best suits that institution. The argument in relation to the cost, as I said, does not apply in the same way as it used to.

 

10.45 a.m.

 

 

 

[145]       Ms Gruffudd: Mae hefyd yn cael ei weld fel rhywbeth negyddol. Mae sôn am y gost drwy’r amser—‘Beth yw’r gost o wneud y pethau hyn yn ddwyieithog?’—yn golygu y caiff ei weld fel rhywbeth negyddol. Rydym yn cael llythyrau yn ein cynghorau a’n sefydliadau am y gost o wneud pethau’n ddwyieithog, ond er bod canran lai o siaradwyr Cymraeg, nid yw’r ganran o siaradwyr Cymraeg sy’n talu trethi fel arfer yn adlewyrchu’r ganran sy’n cael ei gwario ar y Gymraeg, yn sicr ddim yng Nghyngor Caerdydd. Rydym wedi cael digon o geisiadau yn gofyn faint sy’n cael ei wario ar y Gymraeg, ac, o’i gymharu â chyllid y cyngor cyfan, mae’n ganran fach iawn; nid yw’n dod yn agos at ganran y siaradwyr Cymraeg sy’n talu trethi yn y gymuned. Mae’n amlwg bod sôn am gostau drwy’r amser yn cael effaith andwyol ar allu swyddogion iaith ac eraill i weithio’n ddwyieithog a chefnogi’r Mesur iaith y mae’r Cynulliad wedi ei gymeradwyo.

 

Ms Gruffudd: It is also seen as a negative. Talking about the cost all the time—‘How much does it cost to do these things bilingually?’—means that it is seen as a negative. We receive correspondence in our councils and institutions about the costs of doing things bilingually, but although there is a smaller percentage of Welsh speakers, that percentage of Welsh-speaking taxpayers does not usually reflect the percentage spent on the Welsh language, certainly not in Cardiff Council. We have received plenty of requests asking how much is spent on the Welsh language, and, compared with the funding for the whole council, it is a tiny percentage; it does not come close to the percentage of Welsh-speaking taxpayers in the community. I see how talking about costs all the time has a detrimental effect on the ability of Welsh language officers and others to work bilingually and support the Welsh language Measure that the Assembly approved.

 

[146]       Rwyf hefyd yn teimlo bod yr iaith yn cael ei gweld fel iaith cyfieithu. ‘Ble mae’r cyfieithiad Cymraeg am hwn?’ yw’r cwestiwn sy’n cael ei ofyn, yn hytrach na ‘Ble mae’r Gymraeg?’ Os ydym yn wirioneddol yn mynd i edrych ar Gymru fel gwlad ddwyieithog lle mae’r ddwy iaith yn cyd-fyw, ni ddylid edrych bob amser ar y Gymraeg fel iaith y cyfieithir iddi. Dylid gweld y Gymraeg a’r Saesneg fel ieithoedd swyddogol a’u trin felly. Mae hynny’n golygu peidio â nodi cost gweithredu yn Gymraeg os nad ydych yn nodi cost gweithredu yn Saesneg.

 

I also feel that the Welsh language is seen as the language of translation. It is always a question of asking, ‘Where is the Welsh translation of this?’ and not ‘Where is it in Welsh?’ If we are serious about looking at Wales as a bilingual nation where both languages coexist, we should not always view the Welsh language as the language of translation. Welsh and English should be seen as official languages and treated as such. That means not highlighting the cost of operating through the medium of Welsh if you do not highlight the cost of operating in English.

 

 

[147]       Mark Isherwood: Moving on, why do you think that some of the terms and words used in the draft scheme should be changed? Why do you consider that your proposed alternatives are better?

 

 

[148]       Ms Baldwin: Ein teimlad oedd bod y gair ‘uchelgais’ yn arbennig yn awgrymu uchelgais yn yr ystyr o gael uchelgais i fod yn feddyg. Ni fydd hynny byth yn digwydd gan fy mod i’n anobeithiol o ran astudio cemeg, ffiseg a bioleg, ond mae dal gennyf yr uchelgais hwnnw. Mae’n annhebyg iawn y bydd yr uchelgais hwnnw yn dod yn wir. Byddai defnyddio’r gair ‘bwriad’, sy’n air cryfach na ‘dymuniad’ neu ‘uchelgais’, yn awgrymu ei fod yn rhywbeth y mae’r Cynulliad yn wir yn teimlo’n gryf yn ei gylch ac yn mynd i weithio i’w gyflawni. Dyna’r unig reswm. Nid oes dim byd yn bod â’r gair, ond mae cyfle yn y fan hon i ddefnyddio geiriau sydd yn rhoi ychydig yn fwy o synnwyr o fod yn realistig ac y bydd y pethau hyn yn digwydd, yn hytrach na bod yn ddymuniad neu yn freuddwyd hyfryd am y dyfodol.

 

Ms Baldwin: Our feeling was that the word ‘ambition’ particularly gave the sense of having an ambition to be a doctor, for example. That is never going to happen, because I am hopeless at chemistry, physics and biology, but I still hold on to that ambition. It is highly unlikely that that ambition will turn into reality. Another word could be used, ‘intention’. Using the word ‘intention’, which is a stronger word than ‘aspiration’ or ‘ambition’, would suggest that it is truly something that the Assembly feels strongly about and will work hard to achieve. That is the only reason. There is nothing wrong with the word, but there is an opportunity here to use words that convey a greater sense of being realistic and that these things will happen rather than their being aspirations or just a lovely vision for the future.

 

 

[149]       Ms Gruffudd: Rwy’n credu fy mod yn siarad ar ran grŵp cyfan swyddogion iaith de Cymru wrth ddweud ein bod wedi gweithio ym maes amwyster am lawer yn rhy hir o ran geiriad amryw o gynlluniau iaith cynnar yn enwedig. Ein profiad ni yw ei bod yn rhoi ffordd i bobl i beidio â gweithredu’r hyn y maent i fod i’w weithredu. Os ydych yn mynd i baratoi cynllun, pam nad ydych yn ei weithredu a’i fonitro a sicrhau ei fod yn cael ei wireddu? Mae geiriau fel hyn, os rhywbeth, yn gweithio yn erbyn holl bwrpas creu cynllun yn y lle cyntaf.

 

Ms Gruffudd: I think that I am speaking on behalf of all the south Wales Welsh language officers when I say that we have worked with ambiguity for far too long in terms of the wording of the various early Welsh language schemes in particular. Our experience is that it provides a way for people not to implement what they are supposed to implement. If you are going to prepare a scheme, why not implement it, monitor it and ensure that it is achieved? Words like this, if anything, militate against the whole purpose of drawing up a scheme in the first place.

 

 

[150]       Gwyn R. Price: Why do you believe that correspondence between Assembly Members and the public should be covered within the scope of the scheme?

 

 

[151]       Mr Thomas: Mae hynny’n dod at bwynt o ran cyfathrebu’n gyffredinol. Pe bai etholwr yn ysgrifennu at Aelod Cynulliad yn Gymraeg, byddent yn disgwyl cael ymateb yn Gymraeg. Dyna sy’n digwydd gydag unrhyw sefydliad cyhoeddus yng Nghymru ar hyn o bryd, felly dylai’r un egwyddor gael ei chynnwys yn y fan hon. Nid oes yn rhaid i bopeth gael ei gyfieithu i bawb, ond pe bai llythyr Cymraeg oddi wrth etholwr at ei Aelod Cynulliad yn cyrraedd, byddent yn disgwyl ymateb Cymraeg oddi wrth yr Aelod hwnnw, gan mai dyna oedd iaith wreiddiol y cyfathrebu.

 

Mr Thomas: That brings us to a point related to communication in general. If a constituent were to write to an Assembly Member in Welsh, they would expect to receive a response in Welsh. That is the case with any public institution in Wales at present, so the same principle should be included here. Everything does not have to be translated for everyone, but were a letter to arrive in Welsh from a constituent to their Assembly Member, they would expect that Member to respond in Welsh, because that was the original language of communication.

 

 

[152]       Gwyn R. Price: Does that happen in Caerphilly?

 

 

[153]       Mr Thomas: Os oes un o’r cynghorwyr yn cael llythyr yn y Gymraeg, maent fel arfer yn dod atom ni am gyfieithiad neu i ofyn beth oedd ynddo. Nid yw’n digwydd mor aml â hynny oherwydd canran siaradwyr y Gymraeg sydd gennym yn y de-ddwyrain, ond pan fydd yn digwydd, rydym yn sicrhau bod cyfieithiad ar gael.

 

Mr Thomas: If one of the councillors receives a letter in Welsh, they usually come to us for a translation or to ask what it is about. It does not happen very often because of the percentage of Welsh speakers we have in the south-east, but when it does happen, we make sure that there is a translation.

 

[154]       Ann Jones: If both languages have equal status, is there not the choice to respond in either language?

 

 

[155]       Ms Gruffudd: Na. Drwy ysgrifennu at eich Aelod Cynulliad neu at gynghorydd, rydych yn dewis iaith. Eich dewis iaith chi wedyn yw’r Gymraeg. Mae ein cynlluniau iaith i gyd yn dweud y dylai cyngor ymateb yn yr un iaith ag iaith yr ohebiaeth wreiddiol. Mae’r Ddeddf iaith flaenorol yn ymwneud â dewis iaith, gan ddibynnu ar yr amgylchiadau. Unwaith y mae’r iaith honno wedi cael ei dewis gennych chi fel aelod o’r cyhoedd, cyfrifoldeb y cyngor, fel sefydliad sector cyhoeddus, yw ymateb yn yr iaith honno.

 

Ms Gruffudd: No. In writing to your Assembly Member or councillor, you choose a language. Your language of choice, then, is Welsh. Our language schemes all say that a council should respond in the same language as that of the original correspondence. The previous language Act deals with the issue of language of choice, depending on the circumstances. Once you as a member of the public have chosen that language, it is the council’s responsibility, as a public sector organisation, to respond in that language.

 

[156]       Mr Thomas: Rydym yn sôn am gyfathrebu rhwng unigolion gyda phethau fel hyn. Nid yw’n meddwl, er enghraifft, y byddai’r un cyngor yn gorfod cyhoeddi popeth y mae’n ei wneud ymhob iaith y mae unrhyw un erioed wedi cysylltu ag ef ynddi. Rydym yn sôn am negeseuon e-bost unigol neu lythyrau unigol gan unigolion. Nid y Gymraeg yn unig sydd dan sylw ychwaith. Mae darnau eraill o ddeddfwriaeth yn cynnwys Braille ac ieithoedd eraill, ac mae’r un peth yn wir am y Gymraeg: ym mha iaith bynnag y mae unigolyn—yr etholwr—yn cyfathrebu ynddi, dyna’r iaith y mae’r cyngor yn ymateb ynddi. Mae’n dangos parch a dealltwriaeth o ran dewis iaith yr unigolyn. Nid ydym yn sôn am gyfieithu popeth i bawb yn yr ieithoedd hynny; dim ond cyfathrebu un wrth un yr oeddwn yn ei ystyried wrth nodi’r pwynt hwn.

 

Mr Thomas: We are talking about communication between individuals with things like this. I do not think, for example, that a single council would have to publish everything it does in every language anybody has ever used to contact it. We are talking about individual e-mails or individual letters from individuals. This is not confined to the Welsh language, either. Other pieces of legislation include Braille and other languages, and Welsh is the same: whatever the language an individual—a constituent—corresponds in, the council responds in the same language. It shows respect and an understanding with regard to that individual’s language of choice. We are not talking about translating everything for everyone in those languages; all we were considering, in making that point, was one-to-one communication.

 

[157]       Mike Hedges: I am a councillor in Morriston—at least, for the next seven weeks I am. I do not know if you know Morriston at all, but I am sure that at least one of you does. It has a substantial Welsh-speaking population of around 2,000. At the council, I probably get correspondence in Welsh once a month, and I have always replied to it in Welsh. I did not know that there was a duty to respond to it in Welsh. Could you tell me where that duty is laid down?

 

 

[158]       Something I quite often do when I respond is to copy in the reply that I have had from the council. So, if somebody says that their streetlight is out, I will reply in Welsh to say that I have reported it to the council and include the council’s reply, but I tend to give the council’s reply as I have received it, unaltered, as I do not believe that changing it is fair on the people receiving it.

 

 

[159]       I am asking two questions. First, am I allowed to do that as a councillor? Secondly, where does the duty on a councillor to respond through the medium of Welsh come from? Is it a local decision, or is it something that has been decided in primary or secondary legislation?

 

 

[160]       Mr Thomas: Byddai’n dibynnu ar gynllun iaith eich cyngor. Mae cynlluniau iaith yr awdurdodau lleol yn wahanol. Nid oes un cynllun ar gyfer y 22 awdurdod lleol; maent i gyd wedi cael eu geirio’n wahanol i adlewyrchu sefyllfa’r ardaloedd hynny. Felly, os yw eich cynllun chi’n dweud bod yn rhaid i gyfathrebu ddilyn y patrwm hwnnw, sef eich bod yn ysgrifennu yn ôl yn Gymraeg os cewch chi ohebiaeth yn Gymraeg yn y lle cyntaf, y cynllun iaith lleol sy’n rheoli hynny.

 

Mr Thomas: It would depend on your council’s language scheme. Each local authority’s language scheme is different. There is not one scheme for the 22 local authorities; they all have been worded differently to reflect the position of those areas. So, if your scheme states that correspondence is to follow that pattern, in that you respond in Welsh to any correspondence in Welsh that you receive in the first place, then it is the local language scheme that dictates matters.

 

 

[161]       O ran cynnwys copïau o bethau oddi wrth y cyngor, eto, mae’n dibynnu ar yr hyn y mae’r cynllun iaith yn ei ddweud. Os caf, defnyddiaf enghraifft Deddf Rhyddid Gwybodaeth 2000 a’r ffordd y mae’n cyngor ni’n delio â hi. Mae’n dweud yn hollol glir y bydd rhywun sy’n ysgrifennu atom yn Gymraeg yn cael ymateb yn Gymraeg, a bydd unrhyw ddogfennau atodol, fel cofnodion cyfarfod, ar gael yn iaith y cyfarfod hwnnw, a byddent ddim ond yn cael eu cyfieithu ar gais yr unigolyn. Nid ydym yn cyfieithu popeth. Felly, byddai eich enghraifft chi yn berffaith iawn o dan ein cynllun ni, ond mae’n dibynnu ar yr hyn sydd yn eich cynllun iaith lleol chi.

 

In terms of enclosing copies of things from the council, again, it depends on what the language scheme says. If I may, I will use the example of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and how our council deals with it. It clearly states that if someone writes to us in Welsh, they will receive a response in Welsh, and that any supplementary documents such as the minutes of a meeting will only be available in the language of that meeting, and that these will only be translated should a translation be requested by the individual concerned. We do not translate everything automatically. So, your example would be perfectly acceptable under our scheme, but it all depends on what is in your local language scheme.

 

 

[162]       Ms Gruffudd: Rwy’n credu bod y rhan fwyaf o gynlluniau iaith erbyn hyn yn dweud bod disgwyl i etholwr neu ddinesydd gael ymateb yn iaith yr ohebiaeth wreiddiol. Felly, mae dyletswydd ar bawb sy’n gweithio i’r cyngor, gan gynnwys aelodau, ymateb i unigolion yn Gymraeg. Mae’r dyletswydd i wneud hynny yn y cynllun iaith sy’n cael ei gymeradwyo gan y cynghorau a’r sefydliadau unigol. Fodd bynnag, fel yr oeddet yn ei ddweud, mae’n dibynnu ar y cynlluniau unigol o ran faint o’r wybodaeth ychwanegol sydd ynghlwm wrth y cais hwnnw sy’n ddwyieithog. Yng Nghyngor Caerdydd, byddai i gyd yn ddwyieithog, er enghraifft.

 

Ms Gruffudd: I think that the majority of language schemes now say that the expectation is that a constituent or citizen should receive a response in the language of the original correspondence. Therefore, there is a duty on all those who work for the council, including members, to respond to individuals in Welsh. There is a duty to do so in the language scheme that is approved by the individual councils and institutions. However, as you said, it depends upon the individual schemes how much of the additional information attached to that application is bilingual. In Cardiff Council, for example, it would all be bilingual. 

 

[163]       Mr Thomas: Un peth arall i’w gofio yw yr hyn sydd o fewn cyfansoddiad y cyngor. Mae rhai ohonynt yn cyfeirio at gyfathrebu a delio gydag etholwyr, ond mae’r 22 o gyfansoddiadau cynghorau Cymru yn mynd i fod ychydig yn wahanol i’w gilydd. Felly, nid oes un ateb i bawb ar gyfer llywodraeth lleol yng Nghymru; bydd 22 ateb ychydig yn wahanol i’w gilydd.

 

Mr Thomas: Another thing to bear in mind is what is in the constitution of the council. Some of them refer to communicating and dealing with the electorate, but the 22 constitutions of councils in Wales will all be slightly different from each other. So, there is no one-size-fits-all solution for local government in Wales; there will be 22 solutions that will all be slightly different from each other.

 

 

[164]       Ms Gruffudd: Mewn ffordd, mae’r Bil hwn yn rhoi cyfle i sicrhau nad oes amwysedd o ran sut bydd y Cynulliad yn mynd o gwmpas ymateb i’r cyhoedd.

 

Ms Gruffudd: In a sense, this Bill provides an opportunity to ensure that there is no ambiguity in how the Assembly responds to the public.

 

[165]       Ms Baldwin: Mae hefyd yn gyfle i wneud rhyw fath o groesgysylltiad, fel y soniodd Dai yn gynharach, rhwng y Bil a safonau. Os bydd safonau yn rhoi dyletswydd ar sefydliadau cyhoeddus i ymateb yn iaith wreiddiol yr ohebiaeth, mae’n beth da wedyn fod hynny’n cael ei adlewyrchu yn y Bil.

 

Ms Baldwin: It is also an opportunity to make some kind of interconnection, as Dai mentioned earlier, between the Bill and standards. If standards will place a duty on public bodies to respond in the original language of the correspondence, it is would be good for that to be reflected in the Bill. 

 

[166]       Eluned Parrott: You state in your written evidence that the Assembly Commission should promote the use of Welsh among Assembly staff through co-working and communicating with Welsh-speaking members of staff in other public bodies. What do you believe the benefits of that would be?

 

 

[167]       Ms Baldwin: Mae cymaint o fuddion mae’n amhosibl i’w rhestru i gyd. Mae’n bwysig cofio yn y fan hyn ein bod yn sôn am werth am arian i’r holl gynghorau yng Nghymru sydd wedi buddsoddi yn y system addysg gyfrwng Cymraeg, yn enwedig yn y de ddwyrain, lle mae’n tyfu’n aruthrol. Rydym wedi buddsoddi arian cyhoeddus mewn creu siaradwyr Cymraeg drwy’r system addysg honno. Pa gyfleoedd wedyn sydd ar gael iddynt ar ôl gadael yr ysgol o ran defnyddio’r Gymraeg yn y gweithle? Ar hyn o bryd, mae’n anodd iawn ffeindio cyfleoedd, gan mai Saesneg yw iaith busnes bron bob sefydliad cyhoeddus yng Nghymru. Mae’n anodd iawn i’r bobl hynny ddefnyddio’r iaith ar ôl gadael ysgol, ac, o ganlyniad, maent yn colli sgiliau iaith a hyder. Pan fo cwmnïau, sefydliadau cyhoeddus neu’r sector gwirfoddol yn gofyn am siaradwyr Cymraeg i ymgeisio am swyddi, nid oes gan y bobl ifanc hyn yr hyder i ymgeisio gan eu bod yn credu nad yw eu Cymraeg o’r safon angenrheidiol i weithio yn y meysydd hynny. Felly, rydym yn sôn, mewn ffordd, am wneud y mwyaf o’r buddsoddiad a wnaed yn y bobl hyn.

 

Ms Baldwin: There are so many benefits that it is impossible to list them all. It is important to remember in this context that we are talking about value for money for all the councils in Wales that have invested in the Welsh-medium education system, especially in south-east Wales, where it is growing tremendously. We have invested public money in creating Welsh speakers through that education system. What opportunities do they then have after leaving school in terms of using Welsh in the workplace? At the moment, it is very difficult to find such opportunities, as English is the language of business of virtually every public body in Wales. It is very difficult for those people to use the language after leaving school, and, consequently, they lose their language skills and confidence. When companies, public bodies or the voluntary sector ask for Welsh speakers to apply for jobs, these young people do not have the confidence to apply because they believe that their Welsh is not of the standard necessary to work in those areas. Therefore, we are talking, in a sense, about optimising the investment made in these people. 

 

 

[168]       Hefyd, unwaith maent yn y gweithle, y math o beth rydym yn ei wneud i’w cefnogi ar draws bob sefydliad cyhoeddus yng Nghymru yw rhoi meddalwedd, sef Cysgliad, i’r bobl hynny sydd ei eisiau ac i’r rheini mae’n dweud yn eu swydd ddisgrifiad eu bod yn gorfod defnyddio’r Gymraeg. Maent hefyd yn cael geiriaduron, a chyrsiau gloywi yn achos y rhai sydd wedi ymuno â’r staff ac wedi cael addysg Gymraeg, ac, o bosibl, yn siarad Cymraeg yn anffurfiol gyda ffrindiau ond nid ydynt wedi ysgrifennu yn Gymraeg ers blynyddoedd. Mae’r cyrsiau gloywi hyn yn gallu bod o help mawr er mwyn gloywi eu hiaith fel ei bod yn addas ar gyfer y gweithle. Felly, mae pethau fel hynny yn bodoli’n barod.

 

Also, once they are at the workplace, the kind of thing that we do to support them across every public body in Wales includes providing software—Cysgliad—to those who need it and to those whose job description states that they must use Welsh. They are also provided with dictionaries, and language improvement courses in the case of those who have joined the staff and have had a Welsh-medium education, and who perhaps speak Welsh informally with friends, but have not written in Welsh for years. These language improvement courses can be of great help in improving their language skills to a level appropriate for the workplace. So, such things as that already exist.

 

[169]       Rydym hefyd yn gwneud pethau eraill yn y sector cyhoeddus i godi ymwybyddiaeth am sgiliau iaith. Yn y gwasanaeth tân, mae pob aelod newydd o staff yn mynychu sesiwn codi ymwybyddiaeth am iaith. Rwyf yn mynychu’r sesiwn honno i esbonio ein bod angen sgiliau Cymraeg yn y gweithle ac rwyf wedyn yn annog y bobl hynny i ddefnyddio’r Gymraeg. Mae pobl yn ymateb yn bositif iawn i’r cyfleoedd hynny. Fodd bynnag, yr hyn sy’n digwydd wedyn yw eu bod wedi cael Cysgliad, geiriaduron a’r cyrsiau gloywi ac maent yn ysu i ddefnyddio’r iaith, ond nid oes cyfle ganddynt i wneud hynny. Unwaith eto, rydym yn ôl yn yr un sefyllfa, sef bod y bobl yn colli hyder, nad ydynt yn defnyddio’r iaith ac mae’r buddsoddiad wedi ei wastraffu.

 

We are also doing other things in the public sector to raise awareness of language skills. In the fire service, every new member of staff attends a language awareness session. I attend that session to explain that we need Welsh-language skills in the workplace, and I then encourage those people to use Welsh. People respond very positively to those opportunities. However, what then happens is that they have been given Cysgliad, dictionaries and the language improvement courses and they are eager to use the language, but they do not have the opportunity to do so. Again, we are back in the same situation, that is, they lose confidence, do not use the language and the investment is wasted.   

 

11.00 a.m.

 

 

 

[170]       Felly, yn y bôn, yr hyn mae’r swyddogion iaith yn ei awgrymu yw ein bod yn rhoi cymaint o gyfleoedd â phosibl i bobl ddefnyddio’r iaith Gymraeg. Ar hyn o bryd, nid oes dim byd yn dweud bod hawl gennyf i fel swyddog iaith yn y gwasanaeth tân i ddefnyddio’r iaith Gymraeg os wyf yn cysylltu â’r Cynulliad, er enghraifft. Efallai y gallai rhywun yma fy helpu yn yr iaith Gymraeg ac a fyddai eisiau defnyddio ei Gymraeg, ond nid yw’r prosesau neu strwythurau gwaith yn eu lle ar hyn o bryd i alluogi hynny i ddigwydd. Felly, pan ydym yn sôn am ddefnyddio’r Gymraeg ac am ddwyieithrwydd yn y gweithle, dyna’r math o faterion yr ydym yn cyfeirio atynt.

 

So, fundamentally, the language officers are suggesting that we provide as many opportunities as possible for people to use the Welsh language. Currently, there is nothing to say that I have a right as a language officer in the fire service to use the Welsh language if I contact the Assembly, for example. Perhaps someone here could help me in the Welsh language and would want to use that language, but the work processes or structures are not in place at present to enable that to happen. So, when we talk about using the Welsh language and about bilingualism in the workplace, these are the kinds of issues that we are discussing.

 

 

[171]       Mae gennyf enghraifft dda o’m gweithle i. Roedd un o’r rheolwyr mewn adran weinyddol yn y gwasanaeth tân wedi dod i sesiwn codi ymwybyddiaeth iaith. Roedd wedi clywed pa mor bwysig yw defnyddio sgiliau iaith Gymraeg yn y gweithle, er enghraifft, i greu dogfennau yn yr iaith Gymraeg yn hytrach nag eu bod yn gorfod cael eu cyfieithu o’r Saesneg. Roedd ganddi dri aelod o staff a oedd yn siarad Cymraeg yn rhugl. Roedd hi wedi strwythuro’r adran yn y fath fodd fel eu bod yn eistedd yn agos at ei gilydd. Roedd hi wedi dweud wrthynt y byddai’n braf eu clywed yn siarad Cymraeg yn y gwaith bob dydd ac wedi eu hannog i’w siarad.

 

I have a good example from my workplace. One of the managers in an administrative department in the fire service came to a language awareness-raising session. She had heard how important it is to use Welsh-language skills in the workplace, for example, to create documents originally in the Welsh language rather than have to translate them from English. She had three members of staff, who spoke fluent Welsh. She had structured the department in such a way as to enable them to sit near one another. She had told them that it would be great to hear them speaking Welsh at work every day and had encouraged them to speak it.

 

[172]       Fodd bynnag, nid oeddent wedi bod yn defnyddio’r iaith Gymraeg gyda’i gilydd. Gofynnodd i mi pam nad oeddent yn ei defnyddio a dweud ei bod wedi gwneud popeth y gallai i annog dwyieithrwydd yn y gweithle. Y rheswm oedd eu bod wedi dysgu holl jargon y gweithle yn Saesneg. Nid oedd neb wedi dweud wrthynt beth oedd y termau hynny yn Gymraeg. Nid oeddent wedi eu dysgu yn yr ysgol. Os ydych yn meddwl am y peth, rydym wedi dysgu y jargon a ddefnyddiwn bob dydd yn y gweithle fel oedolion. Nid oeddent wedi cael cyfle i ddysgu’r geiriau hyn yn y Gymraeg a dyna pam yr oeddent yn ei chael yn anodd i ddefnyddio’r iaith Gymraeg yn y gweithle. Mae hwnnw o ganlyniad i ddiffyg hyder a diffyg gwybodaeth am dermau arbenigol. Mae honno’n wers bwysig ac yn dangos pa mor bwysig yw i gydio yn y bobl hyn sy’n gadael ysgol â’r sgiliau iaith hyn. Unwaith y maent yn ymuno â sefydliadau cyhoeddus, dylem roi cymaint o gyfleoedd iddynt â phosibl er mwyn iddynt dal ar y sgiliau iaith sydd ganddynt.

 

However, they had not been using the Welsh language with each other. She asked me why they were not using it and said that she had done everything that she could to encourage bilingualism in the workplace. The reason was that they had learned all of the workplace jargon in English. No-one had told them what those terms were in Welsh. They had not learned them at school. If you think about it, we have learned the jargon that we use every day in the workplace as adults. They had not had the opportunity to learn those words in Welsh and that is why they found it difficult to use the Welsh language in the workplace. That is down to a lack of confidence and a lack of information about specialist terms. That is an important lesson and shows how important it is to grab hold of these people who leave school with these language skills. Once they join public institutions, we should give them as many opportunities as possible so that they retain the language skills that they have.

 

[173]       Ms Gruffudd: Nid oes llawer o bwynt buddsoddi mewn pobl ifanc yn yr ysgol oni bai bod buddsoddi yn y Gymraeg wedi hynny. Mae angen dilyniant. Mae hynny’n clymu i mewn i’r ddadl am gostau. Fodd bynnag, pe bai pawb yn cyrraedd y nod o allu gweithio’n ddwyieithog a dysgu jargon y gweithle a phopeth arall—Cymraeg fusnes, os hoffech—a phe byddent yn teimlo’n ddigon hyderus, yna ni fyddai angen cyfieithu neu gynnwys y costau cyfieithu yn y memorandwm gan y byddai pobl yn gallu gweithio’n ddwyieithog. Mewn gwlad ddwyieithog, yn ddelfrydol, dyna y byddech eisiau, sef bod pobl yn gallu gweithio’n ddwyieithog.

 

Ms Gruffudd: There is not much point investing in young people in school unless there is an investment in the Welsh language afterwards. You need a continuum. That ties into the whole debate about cost. However, if everyone were able to work bilingually and to learn the workplace jargon and so on—business Welsh, if you like—and if they felt confident enough, then you would not need to translate or to include translation costs in the memorandum because people would be able to work bilingually. In a bilingual nation, ideally, that is what you would want, that is, for people to be able to work bilingually.

 

 

[174]       Pan oedd Dai yn trafod ein hymateb ag unigolyn ar y ffôn, yr oedd yr unigolyn hwnnw’n siarad Cymraeg ac yn cyfieithu ein hymateb o’r Saesneg oherwydd bod ein hymateb ni wedi cael ei gyfieithu. Roedd hynny’n dangos mantais y ffaith ei fod ef yn gallu gweithio’n ddwyieithog oherwydd yr oedd ganddo’r holl wybodaeth yn Saesneg, ond yr oedd yn gallu siarad â Dai yn Gymraeg. Mae esiamplau o’r fath yn cryfhau ein dadl bod angen sicrhau buddsoddiad yn ein hieuenctid er mwyn sicrhau a chynyddu lefel y dwyieithrwydd mewn sefydliadau cyhoeddus ac, yn sicr, yn y Cynulliad.

 

When Dai was discussing our response with an individual on the phone, that individual spoke Welsh and was translating our response from English, because our response had been translated. That showed the benefit of him being able to work bilingually, because he had all of the information in English, but he could speak to Dai in Welsh. Such examples strengthen our argument that we need to ensure that we invest in our youth in order to maintain and increase the level of bilingualism in public institutions and, certainly, in the Assembly.

 

 

[175]       Eluned Parrott: We may have moved away a little from what I was trying to explore. I had imagined, from your evidence, that you were envisaging either a physical or a virtual networking opportunity allowing staff from different public bodies to be able to interact. Does such a network already exist?

 

 

[176]       Ms Baldwin: Mae cyfleoedd i ni gydweithio yn y Gymraeg, yn enwedig lle rydym wedi gwneud cysylltiadau personol â phobl mewn sefydliadau gwahanol yr ydym yn gwybod eu bod yn siarad Cymraeg. Rydym hefyd yn rhyngweithio ar lefel genedlaethol fel swyddogion iaith trwy gyfrwng yr iaith Gymraeg. Felly, mae cyfleoedd swyddogol. Mae hyn i gyd yn rhan o’r llun cyfan, ond bydd y pethau mwyaf pwysig a fydd yn arwain at y rhwydweithio hwnnw’n dod o’r sylfeini o allu defnyddio’r iaith yn syth ar ôl i chi ymuno â gweithle. Mae cyswllt cryf rhwng y ddau beth.

 

Ms Baldwin: There are opportunities for us to collaborate in Welsh, particularly where we have made personal contacts with people in different bodies whom we know speak Welsh. We also interact on a national level as language officers through the medium of Welsh. Therefore, there are official opportunities. This is all part of the bigger picture, but the most important things that will lead to that networking will emerge from the foundations of being able to use the language immediately after you join the workplace. There is a strong link between the two.

 

 

[177]       Eluned Parrott: As a Welsh leaner, I recognise some of the barriers that you described to building confidence, because there is a lack of opportunity to talk to people at the same language level as you. However, the networking that you have described is at that professional officer level rather than at the promotion of language and learner level. Does that latter network exist?

 

 

[178]       Ms Baldwin: Yn y gwasanaeth tân, er enghraifft, pan fydd pobl mewn iwnifform yn cael dyrchafiad maent yn gorfod mynd drwy nifer o brosesau—profion a chyfweliadau ac ati. Rydym wedi newid ein prosesau fel ein bod yn gallu cynnal rhai o’r profion a’r cyfweliadau trwy gyfrwng y Gymraeg ar gyfer dyrchafiadau i lefel swyddog. Rydym yn annog pobl i ddefnyddio Cymraeg yn y gweithle lle bo modd. Mae uwch swyddog yn ein hadran adnoddau dynol sy’n rhugl yn y Gymraeg—cafodd addysg gyfrwng Cymraeg—ac mae rhywun yn yr un adran sydd wedi dysgu Cymraeg. Bellach, maent yn siarad Cymraeg â’i gilydd yn y gwaith, ond digwyddodd hynny’n anffurfiol. Rhan o waith swyddog iaith yw hybu dysgwyr i siarad Cymraeg. Mae gennym systemau mentora a siopau siarad. Rydym yn gwneud llawer o bethau i hybu’r Gymraeg yn anffurfiol. Nid hynny yw’r broblem; y broblem yw bod pobl mor brysur yn eu swyddi gyda’u gwaith bob dydd mae’n anodd iddynt ddod o hyd i amser. Dyna pam ei bod yn bwysig edrych am ffyrdd i gynnwys y Gymraeg ym mhrosesau busnes fel ei bod yn dod yn rhan o weithgareddau bob dydd, yn hytrach na bod pobl yn gorfod dod o hyd i amser ar wahân i gymdeithasu yn y Gymraeg.

 

Ms Baldwin: In the fire service, for example, when people in uniform get promoted they have to go through several processes—tests and interviews and so on. We have changed our processes so that we can hold some of the tests and interviews in Welsh for promotions to officer level. We encourage people to use Welsh in the workplace wherever possible. A senior officer in our human resources department is fluent in Welsh—she had her education through the medium of Welsh—and another person in the department has learned Welsh. They now speak Welsh with each other at work, but that came about informally. Part of language officers’ work is to encourage learners to speak Welsh. We have mentoring systems and talking shops. We do a great deal to promote speaking Welsh informally. That is not the problem; the problem is that people are so busy in their jobs with their daily work that it is difficult to find the time. That is why it is important to look for ways to include Welsh in business processes so that it becomes part of daily activities, rather than people having to find time to socialise in Welsh.

 

 

[179]       Mr Thomas: Yn rhanbarth y de-ddwyrain, mae nifer ohonom yn rhedeg cyrsiau blasu Cymraeg bob gwanwyn. Mae’n gwrs deuddydd sy’n rhoi cyfle i bobl ddysgu ychydig o Gymraeg a gweld a ydynt am fynd ymlaen i wneud cwrs 30 wythnos ym mis Medi. Mae wyth neu naw sefydliad yn rhedeg sesiwn yr un, sy’n agored i staff pob un o’r sefydliadau sy’n cymryd rhan, felly, gall aelod o staff cyngor Caerffili sy’n byw yng Nghaerdydd, er enghraifft, fynd i’r cwrs deuddydd yng Nghaerdydd yn hytrach na Chaerffili, am ei fod yn agosach i’w cartref. Maent yn cwrdd â phobl sy’n dysgu Cymraeg o’r sefydliadau eraill maent yn gweithio mewn partneriaeth â hwy yn swyddogol. Mae rhwydweithiau yn cael eu datblygu wrth i ddysgwyr o’r gwahanol sefydliadau gwrdd â’i gilydd ac yna yn cwrdd eto mewn rhai misoedd mewn cyfarfod ac yn cofio ei gilydd o wers Gymraeg. Mae rhwydweithio yn digwydd ar y lefel honno.

 

Mr Thomas: In the south-east region, a number of us run Welsh taster courses every spring. It is a two-day course that gives people the opportunity to learn a little Welsh and to see whether they want to continue and complete a 30-week course in September. Eight or nine organisations run a session each and they are open to the staff of all the participating organisations, therefore, a Caerphilly council member of staff who lives in Cardiff, for example, can take the two-day course in Cardiff rather than Caerphilly, because it is closer to home. They meet Welsh learners from other organisations that they work in partnership with officially. Networks are developed when learners from different organisations meet and then meet again in a few months in a meeting and remember each other from a Welsh lesson. Networking occurs at that level.

 

 

[180]       Ann Jones: My understanding was that the fire service has always been a good talking shop, in Welsh or English. I speak from great experience of that.

 

 

[181]       Alun Ffred Jones: I fynd yn ôl at y ddeddfwriaeth, mae’r cynllun yn cynnwys cyfeiriad at strategaeth sgiliau dwyieithog. Beth yw eich barn am y strategaeth honno?

 

Alun Ffred Jones: To go back to the legislation, the scheme includes a reference to a bilingual skills strategy. What is your opinion of that strategy?

 

 

[182]       Ms Gruffudd: Mae gennym oll strategaeth sgiliau iaith yn ein gweithleoedd. Heb strategaeth o’r fath mae bron yn amhosibl sicrhau bod gennych y bobl iawn yn y swyddi iawn i ddarparu gwasanaethau dwyieithog.

 

Ms Gruffudd: We all have a language skills strategy in our workplaces. Without such a strategy it is impossible to ensure that you have the right people in the right posts to provide bilingual services.

 

 

[183]       Alun Ffred Jones: Beth yw eich barn am y strategaeth hon?

 

Alun Ffred Jones: What is your opinion of this strategy?

 

 

[184]       Ms Gruffudd: A yw’r strategaeth iaith eisoes yn bodoli?

 

Ms Gruffudd: Does the language strategy exist already?

 

 

[185]       Alun Ffred Jones: Rwyf yn sôn am y strategaeth sgiliau dwyieithog, sydd yn rhan o’r cynllun.

 

Alun Ffred Jones: I am talking about the bilingual skills strategy, which is part of the scheme.

 

 

[186]       Ms Gruffudd: Nid oeddwn yn gallu dod o hyd iddi.

 

Ms Gruffudd: I could not find it.

 

 

[187]       Ms Baldwin: Nid oedd yn rhan o’r hyn a gawsom.

 

Ms Baldwin: It was not part of what we had.

 

 

[188]       Alun Ffred Jones: Iawn, symudaf ymlaen. Rydych yn nodi yn eich tystiolaeth ysgrifenedig y dylid cynnwys paragraff ychwanegol yn y cynllun drafft i sicrhau bod unrhyw wasanaethau neu gynhyrchion a gynhyrchir gan y Cynulliad mewn partneriaeth yn cael eu darparu’n ddwyieithog. A allech esbonio pam y credwch fod hyn yn bwysig ac a oes gennych enghreifftiau o’r math o bartneriaethau rydych yn cyfeirio atynt?

 

Alun Ffred Jones: Okay, I will move on. You state in your written evidence that an additional paragraph should be included in the draft scheme to ensure that any services or products produced by the Assembly in partnership should be delivered bilingually. Could you explain why you think that is important and do you have examples of the kind of partnerships you are referring to?

 

 

[189]       Ms Baldwin: O ran partneriaethau, mae’r gwasanaeth tân ac achub yng Nghymru yn gweithio’n frwd iawn mewn nifer o bartneriaethau gyda’r nod o gadw’r gymuned yn ddiogel. Mae partneriaethau diogelwch cymunedol yn cael arian i weithredu yn enw’r grŵp, yn hytrach nag yn enwau’r sefydliadau unigol. Mae gennyf enghraifft dda. Roedd y gwasanaeth tân yn rhan o grŵp cymunedol o’r fath lle’r oedd nifer o sefydliadau cyhoeddus a gwirfoddol yn gweithio gyda’i gilydd i gynhyrchu adnoddau ar gyfer ymgyrch i gadw’n ddiogel rhag tân. Roedd yr ymgyrch wedi’i lleoli ym Mlaenau Gwent, tua chwech neu saith mlynedd yn ôl.

 

Ms Baldwin: In terms of partnerships, the fire and rescue service in Wales works enthusiastically in a number of partnerships with the aim of keeping the community safe. Community safety partnerships receive funding to operate in the name of the group, rather than in the names of the individual organisations. I have a good example. The fire service was part of such a community group where a number of public and voluntary organisations worked together to produce resources for a fire safety campaign. The campaign was based in Blaenau Gwent, about six or seven years ago.

 

 

[190]       Roedd bws enfawr yno, gyda lluniau a geiriau arno yn cyfleu neges diogelwch tân. Cafodd yr ymgyrch ei lansio y tu allan i orsaf dân, ac roedd ymladdwyr tân yn sefyll o flaen yr orsaf dân honno yn gwisgo crysau-t. Roedd popeth yn y digwyddiad hwnnw wedi cael ei wneud yn uniaith Saesneg oherwydd nad oedd y partneriaid yn teimlo eu bod yn gallu gweithredu’n ddwyieithog. Nid oeddent yn deall pwysigrwydd gwneud hynny. Er bod gweithredu’n ddwyieithog wedi’i nodi yn ein cynllun iaith ar y pryd, ni fu’n rhan o’r drafodaeth rhwng y partneriaid, ac nid oedd cytundeb swyddogol wedi bod ar hynny. O ganlyniad, gan mai enw’r gwasanaeth tân oedd yn flaenllaw yn yr ymgyrch honno, ni gafodd y rhan fwyaf o’r cwynion. Roedd pawb yn cysylltu â’r gwasanaeth tân i ofyn pam nad oeddem yn gweithredu ein cynllun iaith gan eu bod wedi gweld y digwyddiad ar y teledu gyda phopeth ar ei gyfer yn uniaith Saesneg. Dyna pam mae’n bwysig bod y partneriaethau’n sylweddoli bod gweithio’n uniaith Saesneg yn gallu tanseilio cynlluniau iaith sefydliadau unigol, ac mae’n bwysig cael rhywbeth ysgrifenedig lle mae hynny’n glir i bawb.

 

There was a big bus covered with pictures and words conveying a fire safety message. The campaign was launched outside a fire station, with firefighters standing in front of that station wearing t-shirts. All of the materials had been produced in English only because the partners did not feel that they could operate bilingually. They did not understand the importance of doing so. Even though operating bilingually was included in the language scheme at the time, it had not been part of the discussion between the partners, and there was no official agreement on the issue. As a result, because the name of the fire service was most prominent in the campaign, we received the majority of the complaints. Everyone was contacting the fire service to ask why we were not implementing our language scheme, because they had seen the event on television with everything in English only. That is why it is important that the partnerships understand that operating in English only can undermine the language schemes of individual institutions, and it is important that something is written down where that is clear to everyone.

 

[191]       Bethan Jenkins: A yw eich cynlluniau iaith yn cynnwys targedau a strategaethau? O fewn y cynllun hwn, fel y dywedodd Alun Ffred Jones, nid oes manylion ynghylch y strategaeth sgiliau, dim ond yr hyn y gellid ei gynnwys o fewn strategaeth sgiliau dwyieithog. A fyddech yn dymuno gweld mwy o fanylder fel rhan o’r cynllun o’r cychwyn, yn hytrach na’r hyn sydd gennym o’n blaenau yn awr?

 

Bethan Jenkins: Do your language schemes contain targets and strategies? As Alun Ffred Jones said, this scheme does not contain details in relation to the skills strategy; rather, it contains only what could be included in a bilingual skills strategy. Would you wish to see more detail as part of the scheme from the outset, rather than what we have before us now?

 

 

[192]       Ms Gruffudd: A ydych yn sôn am y strategaeth sgiliau iaith?

 

Ms Gruffudd: Are you referring to the language skills strategy?

 

[193]       Bethan Jenkins: Nac wyf; rwy’n sôn am y cynllun cyffredinol. Mae Cymdeithas yr Iaith Gymraeg, er enghraifft, ac eraill wedi dweud bod angen mwy o amcanion o fewn y cynllun ei hun fel nad yw mor eang ei natur.

 

Bethan Jenkins: No; I am referring to the scheme in general. The Welsh Language Society, for example, and others have said that more objectives are needed in the scheme itself so that it is not so broad.

 

 

[194]       Ms Gruffudd: Mae gennych gynllun ond dim cynllun gweithredu. Fel arfer, yn y rhan fwyaf o sefydliadau, rydym yn edrych ar y cynllun gweithredu yn gyntaf yn hytrach na’r cynllun. Yn anaml mae pobl yn darllen cynllun o glawr i glawr; y cynllun gweithredu ar y diwedd yw’r hyn rydych mewn gwirionedd yn rhoi sylw iddo. Y cynllun gweithredu hwnnw sy’n cael ei fonitro a’i weithredu, a dyna beth sydd bwysicaf yn y pen draw. Nid oes cynllun gweithredu ynghlwm â’r cynllun hwn ar hyn o bryd. Yn amlwg, byddem yn croesawu gweld y cynllun gweithredu hwnnw, a byddem wedyn yn gallu sicrhau ei fod yn adlewyrchu’r hyn sydd eisoes yn y cynllun, gyda thargedau penodol o ran cyflawni’r amcanion sydd ynddo.

 

Ms Gruffudd: You have a scheme but not an action plan. Usually, in the majority of institutions, we look at the action plan first, rather than the scheme. People seldom read the scheme from cover to cover; the action plan at the end is what you really look at. That action plan is what is monitored and implemented, and that is what is ultimately most important. No action plan is attached to this scheme at present. We would obviously welcome seeing such an action plan, and we would then be able to ensure that it reflected what is already included in the scheme, with specific targets for achieving the scheme’s objectives.  

 

[195]       Bethan Jenkins: A fyddech am weld y cynllun gweithredu’n cael ei ryddhau ar yr un pryd â’r cynllun?

 

Bethan Jenkins: Would you want to see the action plan being released at the same time as the scheme?

 

[196]       Ms Gruffudd: Byddem, yn sicr.

 

Ms Gruffudd: Yes; certainly.

 

[197]       Ann Jones: We have run out of time again. I thank all three of you for coming to give evidence today. You will receive a copy of the transcript to check for accuracy. Thank you for helping us to steer this Bill through. 

 

 

[198]       Ms Gruffudd: Diolch am y cyfle i roi tystiolaeth.

 

Ms Gruffudd: Thank you for the opportunity to give evidence.

 

11.13 a.m.

 

 

Cynnig Gweithdrefnol
Procedural Motion

 

 

[199]       Ann Jones: I move that

 

 

the committee resolves to exclude the public from the remainder of the meeting in accordance with Standing Order No. 17.42.

 

 

[200]       I see that the committee is in agreement.

 

 

Derbyniwyd y cynnig.
Motion agreed.

 

 

Daeth rhan gyhoeddus y cyfarfod i ben am 11.13 a.m.
The public part of the meeting ended at 11.13 a.m.