Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru

Diolch. I guess the primary issue that we wanted to address, really, was on Mr Lewis himself. It was clear from everything that had happened over the last couple of weeks that he was under, I guess, an enormous amount of stress, finding himself in a really unique position here. I think it's fair to say that we don't really have a policy for dealing with a Banksy piece of art in Port Talbot.

I don't think anybody does. [Laughter.]

It's never happened before, has it?

No, it certainly hasn't. On behalf of the Minister and the First Minister, I spoke to Mr Lewis earlier this week, and I've spoken to him several times, really to try to provide as much reassurance as we could that we are here to support him in any way that he likes. It's important to frame all of this from his context, I believe. So, what we've offered is—to try and give him as much peace of mind as possible, we've offered to provide security for the artwork immediately. We're in discussion with him around that. There is a security company there at the moment looking after it, and they've been extremely helpful to Mr Lewis. So, he's conscious that he wants to be able to help them as much as possible as well.

We have an avenue through Cadw and through a facilities maintenance contract that we've got so that we can put our security provider down there immediately, really. We've offered that to Mr Lewis. We're working with him. I've had a really long chat with people who he trusts, as well, to work on his behalf, so I think he feels reassured by all of that. We want to do everything that we can and keep all options on the table for the artwork itself. Ultimately, it's a private piece of art now that he owns. He's come about this in a strange set of circumstances. 

It's clear to me that he wants to keep this in Wales, and, of course, ideally, Port Talbot. So, we want to do everything that we can to support him, basically. All options are on the table. My officials in the museums, archives and libraries division, plus in the arts branch, have been down to meet Mr Lewis yesterday, as have colleagues from Cadw, who are in charge of security—really positive discussions. So, all options are on the table, and I understand things will pick up pace over the next couple of days when these offers that he seems to have received are worked through, I guess.

I guess it's just to get on the record—I'm aware of some offers, but would you be keeping on the table potentially trying to see whether the Government could, if some of those offers didn't come through, play a role in keeping that piece of art in Wales?

All options are on the table. As I've explained to Mr Lewis myself, I think for the Welsh Government there's an important precedent that could be set here if we start intervening in purchasing private artwork. So, I think one potential outcome of this that would be preferred would be if somebody were to purchase it and loan it back—that could be a really good option for us. All options remain on the table, though. I think it would be a shame if this was lost to Port Talbot, actually. Like I say, the main concern is to help him through managing what's become a rather large visitor attraction, which we do have expertise in, so we're offering that.

Dai, did you want to come in quickly?

Peter, would you like to explain what’s been going on in our discussions at official level?

Yes. We are continuing to have discussions with the BBC. In fact, we're planning to meet with the BBC and the national library within the next couple of weeks to discuss this very point about whether additional support could be provided by the BBC. I think that, on the point about whether this amazing cultural resource could be lost, I think it's obviously important to bear in mind that the entire collection has been digitised, so that collection will not be lost. I think there is an issue then about how far the physical collection—the old tapes, the old archive material—should be kept for. And, clearly, there is still an element of doubt about digital technology. So, it would not be sensible to literally throw away the original material at this point. But I think that question will have to be asked in the future: does it make sense to retain for all time the entire BBC Cymru Wales physical archive? But, certainly, yes, the short answer to the question is that those discussions are continuing and that we very much hope that the BBC will be willing to provide additional support in the way that the Minister describes.

On a more general point, if we are expecting the National Library of Wales, say, to accept some valuable piece of whatever is relevant to our history as a nation, it surely depends then, by this way of argument that, that whoever is donating said piece of valuable Welsh history or whatever would be expected to make a financial donation as well. So, you're asking the library not just to be in a position just to accept things but to accept a financial contribution from those donating it to it as well. I mean, is that the principle we are establishing here, or is it just because the BBC is involved?

Well, because the BBC is involved obviously, for the reasons I set out earlier, because we are talking about a non-devolved function, and the BBC has already invested in England and there's a kind of Barnett in reverse here. The Welsh Government is expected to pay for a facility that the BBC has paid for itself in Perivale, and nobody's answered that question to my satisfaction so far.

Can I come in on that? I do think that it's not that precedent because, if you use the analogy of somebody giving a donation, they're invariably giving a donation of something that is one of a kind. In this instance—and I think Peter's point is very relevant here and I think it's sometimes been misunderstood—the entire archive has already been digitised. So, they won't be giving something that is one of—it's already been digitised. And Peter's point is right about whether we should keep the physical archive for a certain amount of time until we can be sure that further digitisation is going to last forever. But the whole thing has been digitised already, and I think, sometimes, that's been lost in the debate around this.

That's great that it's been digitised, but it's got to be made available to the public to be of any use, and it seems to me that, unless we can secure that, all that time spent on digitising it just to shove it into an archive somewhere is really the main issue. Surely, just like all our wonderful books, we need this archive to be available to the people of Wales.

Yes. We are not convinced that the scheme for the clip centres is at all viable at the cost that's being proposed at the moment. I notice that the HLF themselves have suggested that there should be a pause and a review after that's been operating because they too are clearly not convinced that it's a viable—

Well, then we'll lose all the money because the deadline—. You know, at the end of this financial year, the Heritage Lottery Fund will no longer be providing the sort of resources that are currently on the table, so it'll be dead in the water at that point.

Yes, well, we haven't got there yet. We're still in discussion is the important point in relation to the HLF, but I haven't spoken to them directly, although, clearly, officials have been part of the discussion. But the principle here is that it's not part of my responsibility as the Minister to use Welsh public funds in a way that is not sustainable for the future, and I'm not convinced that this whole scheme is financially viable or, indeed, is likely to be viable in the take-up of people going to Carmarthen or going to wherever to visit a clip centre, when it is, I would have thought, quite possible with digitised material, provided you can get through any encryption on that material—and that is the issue for the BBC, obviously, of copyright and so on—

We seem to be quibbling about £250,000 going forward in 2024—

Yes, annually.

—when the current budget of the library is £9.85 million. Any senior leadership team worth their salt would be able to find that sort of money.

Well, have you looked at the deficit projected for the library in the next two financial years? It's £900,000.

But, surely, more resources coming in will enable them to act more efficiently, because you said earlier something that I find rather surprising: 'What are these staff doing at the moment?'. Well, no staff, none of our staff are going to be doing the same thing that they're doing today in five years' time; everybody has to change. So, no change is not an option given (a) austerity and (b) automation. There are huge changes in the way we deliver services, so I can't see how that is a substantive point.

Dai, quickly.

David Melding.

I can see how the position of the BBC as a public body and the action it's taking in England is quite material to decision making over the archive in Wales. But, having read the correspondence, and up until today, actually—your latest paper—this is not mentioned explicitly and I just wonder—. You do say things about the financial arrangements and the contributions partners, I accept that. But it's not mentioned as a specific issue that the magnitude of funding is grossly inappropriate from the BBC. And, behind the scenes, going back to this time last year when your correspondence first started and you raised major issues about this project, was it at the forefront of the information you were giving to the library at that stage? Because, until this morning, I had not heard in these terms that it's roughly £9 million in England; that would be nearly £0.5 million here, which is a huge issue, I agree, that we need to consider. So, why has it emerged so late, or has it always been there in your discussions with the library?

It's always been in my view of this project, and because of my general knowledge of broadcasting policy and my long-term involvement with the BBC and what they get up to. I mean, they will look for funding from any source that they can get it, I suppose. If they think they can get away with taking money out of the Welsh block, they will try that on, and I'm surprised that this project ever really emerged. If I'd known about it at the time, I would've been equally vehemently against this kind of way of putting together a development for Wales, which should've been structured in partnership with equal responsibility and equal funding to compare resource with resource. And, of course, since then, I have investigated what the BBC have done in England more closely. I haven't yet visited Perivale, but I look forward to seeing the facility at some time. And I think we have to have regard for the use of the Welsh block in a way that benefits devolved services first, and I don't apologise for that at all.

I agree with you as well that we need robust information of a comparable project in England. But, from what you've just said there, it sounds very much as if that's work in progress rather than your actual considered position. We don't have a paper on it, for instance, you've not confirmed whether you raised it with the library a year ago in the terms that you are now discussing it, and I just wonder is this a fairly new factor, although a significant one, or has it always been there in terms of your attitude to the project?

Well, I made it quite clear that my attitude to the project has been consistent all along. I believe that the BBC should contribute substantially to take care of its own archive. Indeed, I believe that it should do exactly the same thing in Wales as it has done in England.

So, does that mean that—and this is quite clear in the correspondence, in fairness to you—your concerns about the structure of the project, particularly the condition of the materials that would be archived whilst we work out whether digitalisation is an appropriate vehicle for preservation—? The condition of the archive needs restorative work, which you'd expect, you know, on the old technology that was used to record those programmes. That's a big issue. You've mentioned staffing. And then a very significant one, and I do agree with you on this: the access arrangements and the robustness of the clip centres, whether in the modern world they would be needed or are appropriate, and the whole fact that we have an archive but only 1,000 items of it will be available at any one time. Now, I appreciate all that, but would all that be removed if the BBC paid up? This is what I'm now in utter confusion about. Where's your principal objection?

Well, I think the BBC should also have considered at the start of this whether the location in the national library at Aberystwyth is the ideal location for the archive. After all, we have a wonderful archive, the Glamorgan Archives, a building I love dearly, just along the road here, and I'm sure they still have capacity. Now, I'm not suggesting that the BBC should put everything there, but there is a question of whether there should be—. The idea of a national archive, to me, and this applies to all national institutions in my portfolio, is not necessarily centralised in one place. The important thing is the issue you've described, which is access by the Welsh public, whether digitally or whether directly, to the material.

So, to conclude—this is the final question I'll put to you, then—there remain two substantial strands at the moment in terms of what you need to be reassured about for this project to be regarded as robust. And it's meant to be there forever, isn't it, as long as the library's there, so I think thorough due diligence is certainly required. The one strand you still have real problems about—the structure of the project, the issues we've just talked about—and then the second strand is on the financial viability after 2024, because of the BBC's contribution. So, those two things now come together in more or less equal weight. Is that your current position?

Definitely. Yes.

Thank you.

Rhianon Passmore.

Thank you. And you've partially addressed what I was going to underscore or seek reassurance on. So, in terms of your positioning around this, is it then the case that you think that this project could, on the face of it, after 2024, present significant financial risk in terms of deficit to the library in terms of ongoing maintenance? 

Yes.

And, in regard to the correspondence that I've looked through in regard to what you've asked of the library in terms of substantiating their sort of business case outline, you have not received reassurances around either the bodies that will be dispersing to the public in terms of the clips—. I mean, what has been missing in that regard in terms of your ask from them in terms of that business planning?

Well, if you look at the correspondence, as I'm sure you've done, carefully, you will find that we issued a question in January, and it was much later in the year—four months, I think—when we got a response, and that response does not amount to what we asked for.

And has there been anything further from the library in that regard?

On that, I think that where we are now is a better position than where we were 12 months ago. In the original business case that was submitted to us from the library, in their own words, there was a revenue deficit in the region of £450,000 in 2024. And, exactly as the Minister says, we've got to take the broader view of the viability of the library for the long term. It addresses the earlier question about, 'Well, surely, £250,000 is manageable in a budget of £9.8 million.' We have to be satisfied of that, and we haven't been to date. Where we are now is that that figure and the revenue deficit of the project have come down to £250,000, so it's definitely going in the right direction, and all the other points are irrelevant, because, to a certain extent, where the match funding can come into this project is potentially irrelevant, really; it's about making sure that the project itself is viable. All options are on the table, and we are discussing this constantly with the library and project partners to try and bring this deficit down, because we want to get to a situation where, you know, the whole thing is viable, really. So, it's moving towards a better place. Like I say, it's come from £450,000 down to £250,000, and we remain in live discussions with them about whether that can come down further.

Do you know how that's been arrived at, because I'm not 100 per cent myself as to how they've been able to change that figure?

From the £450,000 down to the £250,000—

A very good question. I wish I knew the answer.

Well, we will approach them, but I was wondering—just if you've had deliberations with them, you may know.

Do you want to come in on this, Peter?

To some extent, I think, as I understand it, it's because the clip centre partners have agreed to make more agreed to make more of a financial contribution. And I guess, in relation to the clip centres, even though we have concerns about them, as to whether they will really work as a concept and will receive the number of visits that the library projects, there is at least I think now, in the new proposals the library put forward, a break clause. So, in effect, if, at the end of the project period, the clip centres aren't seen to be working, they can be mothballed or closed without the whole project being compromised. So, I think that, whilst we still have some concerns about them as a concept, in terms of our overall attitude towards the scheme, it is much more about the revenue pressure that it will cause, because, as we've always said, there are large elements of this proposal that we do think are excellent—you know, the public engagement. And, obviously, the other that thing hasn't been mentioned is the cataloguing. Yes, the whole archive has been digitised, but it hasn't been catalogued and the metadata analysed in such a way that you can actually bring together and search in a meaningful way. So, as I say, there are many very positive aspects about the scheme, but we still haven't had the answers to those fundamental questions that the Minister and Jason have outlined.

Okay. Mick Antoniw.

I'm quite new to this, so it's a bit of an eye-opener for me to read some of these papers. But, in terms of the position with regard to the BBC, of course there is a very fundamental principle there in terms of, as you say, using the Welsh block grant to actually fund non-devolved matters. It arises in other areas as well, so it is very, very important. Would you say that that is a red line for the Government in this area?

Well, it's certainly a red line for me as the Minister with overall oversight of broadcasting policy. Now, we would be in a different situation if there was a devolution of other forms of communication as well as broadcasting. I'm very clear on this: as a principle, I don't argue for the devolution of broadcasting because broadcasting really doesn't exist any more as a stand-alone activity; it is part of the whole digital economy. Now, if there was further discussion in the next round of devolution about what would happen in relation to the digital economy, then, clearly, if Welsh Government were to become a stronger partner across the board in communications and cultural communication sectors, then there could be a role for us investing. But for us to invest this amount of money alone, virtually, with the small contribution that has been offered by the BBC so far in discussion—and we've requested £200,000 as a realistic partnership share; they've offered £20,000, if I'm right—

And some in-kind support.

—and some in-kind support, which would bring it up to about £160,000, something like that?

No, that would be over the three years. It would be more like £60,000 a year.

Three years, sorry—£60,000 a year; £60,000 a year is what they're currently offering. So, those discussions are still going on and, obviously, anything I say should not prejudice any discussions that are going ahead because I want this to happen, but I want it to happen on terms that are fair, considering the size and resource of the partner that we're dealing with as a non-devolved partner.

Can I say that the issue of inequality in terms of the way the BBC as a public institution is operating is again something of quite serious concern? Just in order that I can get a better understanding of this, have they applied the same approach in respect of Scotland or Northern Ireland?

As far as I'm aware, Scotland and Northern Ireland are watching with interest as to what the BBC will get away with here. I haven't discussed this, actually, with colleagues in those two Governments, but I have to say that my understanding is that there is not a great deal of surprise in the BBC. There may be a bit of surprise in BBC Wales, but there's no surprise in the BBC centrally that I'm currently homing in on Perivale and saying, 'Where's the Welsh Perivale?'

Thank you.

Jenny Rathbone.

I'm not convinced of these arguments, simply because just because we don't have full devolved powers over all means of communication doesn't seem to me a reason why we can't take a different approach. We don't fail to take policy decisions around fiscal and economic matters even though we don't have the full levers of powers over those issues. So, I'm a little bit disturbed that this is being used as the reason for putting at risk £6 million in resources and in kind going into the national library. 

When you decided to withhold the £1 million—

That's not—. I didn't 'withhold'. There was nothing on offer. No decision has been made to offer—

Okay. But you can understand, looking at this from the perspective of the national heritage lottery, if the Welsh Government is not supportive of such a significant and large grant, then why would the national heritage lottery wish to give the money to this project rather than some other project in Canterbury or somewhere else?

Well, that is a matter for the National Lottery. I haven't been discussing this directly with them.

No, absolutely. That's not the point I'm making. Without evidence of Welsh Government support, the lottery is unlikely to want to support this project.

Well, since you raise this issue, I might well make it quite clear that I have an oversight of lottery spending in Wales, and I'm not happy with the way that the lottery generally views Wales and views particularly the spending of Welsh Government. I don't think it's appropriate that the lottery should determine how the money that we have in the Welsh block is spent. And it shouldn't—

But that's not—. This is not particular to Wales. They would expect government or local government, in another context, support for a very significant project of this nature.

Yes, but that support should be developed on the basis of negotiation so that the budgetary priorities of the Welsh block aren't determined by the decisions of the lottery. There should be a proper partnership. 

Well, the pace of the negotiations seems to have been going at the pace of a snail. Could you explain to us why, when the president of the national library asked for a meeting with you in July, that didn't happen?

I've met the president of the national library many times since I've been Minister. I don't think it's appropriate for me to be involved directly in negotiations about funding. My role is to decide and sign off the funding when there has been agreement, and that's the approach I've adopted throughout all my decisions, because I think that means there's a clear, arm's-length relationship that exists between me and the bodies I fund. Negotiations about funding always take place at officials level, and that's my understanding of how it is best to carry out the ministerial function.

So, you rely completely on your officers to provide you with the detail of any concerns you may have about any of the policy issues you're responsible for.

Well, clearly, if I have concerns, I would express those to the officials taking part in discussion, and, when it comes to taking the final decision about any level of spending, that's a decision that I will take on the basis of the policy and the principles that we are developing within my work, within that which is now the ministry for international relations and the Welsh Language as well as culture, tourism, sport.

The previous post holder used to have regular six-monthly meetings with the national library. Have you had any?

Yes, I have them every three months.

Every three months. Okay.

And with the BBC, and with ITV, and with S4C. I speak to all these people regularly.

Okay. But we are struggling to understand why, then, all the detailed issues that you have concerns about haven't been ironed out, and the board now meets in February and this is the last chance for them to submit the detailed application that the national heritage lottery requires. So, could you outline to us how you now plan to resolve this situation before that deadline is passed?

I have informally and privately requested the officials of the national library, as well as the president, and my officials—and obviously I've mentioned this to senior management in the BBC as well—to continue the discussions to come to a satisfactory conclusion within that timescale.

We understand that a meeting of officials was due to take place on 19 December. Did that meeting take place?

Sorry?

We understand that a meeting was due to take place on 19 December between your officials and officials of the national library.

Yes. These discussions are continuing, and I'm meeting—Peter was reminding me now—the president of the national library formally next month, in February. 

You're meeting the national library formally. 

Yes, and by then I hope this issue will have been concluded. 

Okay. So, that'll be prior to the board meeting. 

Yes, that's the whole point. 

Okay. So, how do you think you're going to—? What is your timeline for resolving this situation, given the importance of this funding and, indeed, the availability of this archive certainly to my constituents, and I'm sure everybody else's? 

Well, my intention is that this matter should be resolved before the spring of this year. 

It has to be before the February board meeting, practically speaking. 

Well, that will be for the—. That's a decision for the national library to take at that board meeting. By then I hope that negotiations will have been successful—discussions between officials will have been successful. 

So, you're unable to give us any sort of detailed timeline about how this matter is going to be resolved. We're just going to wait for this meeting in February, are we? 

No, I've just given you—. No, no. What I've said is that I've asked informally—. I think this is the most effective way to function, which is to allow the organisations responsible to come to a more satisfactory understanding if they can do so, and that's what officials have been doing constantly since I made this request in the late autumn of last year.  

So, are you able to say that progress was made on the queries that you had at this meeting on 19 December? 

Perhaps on the Minister's behalf, I can say that progress was made at that meeting on 19 December, and it's partly reflected, obviously, in the fact that the revenue gap, if we can call it that, has now reduced to a figure more like £250,000. We are aware that the clock is ticking. We are in almost daily contact with the national library on this project. So, I don't think committee members should be under the impression that we are not doing anything on this. This is, basically, very high on our agenda and we're working on it constantly. 

Yes, the issues that the Minister has raised in relation to the BBC are very important, and I think we are saying that we are looking for some movement on that in the very near future. That is very important, but— 

So, you're meeting with the BBC as well. 

Yes, that is our intention to meet with them very shortly. 

Intention—but that's not going to—

We've been—. There's a discussion going on about dates, but we are trying to make sure that happens and, clearly, it's a matter of such importance that people will make themselves available. So, I'm confident that we'll be meeting them, certainly within the next two weeks. 

But the— 

We have met with the BBC. I've met with the senior lead in the BBC on this, and we're in regular discussions over this. That has happened and is continuing to happen. 

But fundamentally we're talking about tying down £250,000 as of 2020-4 being a condition for obtaining £6 million extra resources into the national library. Is that right? 

I think, in effect, you can present it like that. It's something I think—

I am. 

—the impression has been given earlier on that the Heritage Lottery Fund would not consider any bid here after April in relation to this scheme. And certainly, the discussions we've had with HLF haven't indicated that's necessarily the case. Whilst we're not seeking for the project to be delayed until the next financial year, if for any reason an agreement can't be reached and an acceptable proposal can't be brought forward before the deadlines that are looming, then we would certainly be keen to carry on those discussions to make sure that a project, albeit in perhaps a slightly different form, could be taken forward. It's not what we want, but we are willing to do that. 

Yes, but what the president of the library told us was that the HLF strategy of grant funding was changing, and this is the last round of very large grant giving. In future, all the grants they'll be considering are for much smaller sums.  

We're aware of the pressures on the lottery fund—all the lottery distributors—and, yes, there's certainly an indication that that might well be one of the effects of this, that there will be fewer larger grants. But it's not our understanding that there would be no potential at all for a project of this scale to come forward. 

So, what you're saying is the president is ill-informed.

I'm not saying he's ill-informed, I'm saying that it's a matter of debate as to whether or not the HLF would never consider a project of this size.

It's very unusual for us to even be in the running for such a large sum of money. Do you acknowledge that?

Jason Thomas.

I would acknowledge that. This is obviously a significant potential amount of grant to come from the HLF into Wales and there are absolutely no grey areas around that. We totally recognise that. But that does not remove the fundamental concern, which is the project has to be viable in its entirety. Our contribution to that takes into account all these broader factors we've talked about, about the viability for the library over the long term. It wouldn't be incumbent upon us to say, 'Because you can get £5 million from the HLF, we have to give you this £250,000', because it unravels so many other things. We've got to look at it in the broadest possible terms. Obviously, we want £5 million of HLF money to come into Wales, but it has to come into a project that totally stacks up. We will remain around the table with them to make sure that it does stack up. But we don't have—where we are today, we still don't have enough evidence to justify that it does, but we are confident that we will work with partners over the next few weeks to get to a point where it does. That's where we are. 

Okay, but surely this should have been recognised back in July? Why are we now talking about resolving these issues?

There is so much clarity in the correspondence of us asking the same questions consistently over 12 months. I do not accept that this is a latest development. The correspondence is clear on it. 

Okay, I think this is correspondence that some of us may have seen but not all of us. 

It's been shared with the committee. 

Okay.

Rhianon Passmore. 

Thank you very much. My previous questioning was around whether you've received the answers to your January letter in terms of the stacking up of the business case. I take it from what you've said that, from the library's perspective and their communication to you, it's still a work in progress. I also hear what you say in terms of willingness to be able to work with them in terms of perhaps a different model of a project. But, fundamentally, hearing this conversation today, I do sense an almost ideological issue here, based on principle in terms of the devolved functionality that you mentioned earlier in terms of the BBC and the English situation and obviously our regional partners. So, how much of that is weighted in terms of your perspective on this project and how much of that is also weighted on the fact that there seems to be a fundamental difficulty in terms of assessing the long-term viability in terms of the deficit of the library itself without this project on board, bearing in mind its scale? I'm sorry—that's a long question with two strands.

You're in danger of putting words in my mouth that I hadn't intended using. One could argue the other way. Did the library wish to have this project in order to address the question of its financial management? I will not answer that question myself.

I'm asking it. 

But it's a question—. Because I don't think it would be fair on—

I'm asking for a perspective to understand where you're coming from, in terms of what on the surface seems to be a fantastical, transformational initiative for Wales, but the more I look at it the more I'm concerned about financial management and viability, and also whether this could destabilise the whole library's sustainability moving forward.

Well, that's been the basis of our questioning in those letters, which you have read, all along.

But you've not received satisfactory answers.

No.

So, your position would be—and if I'm putting words into your mouth you need to disagree with me—your position would then be that they need to come up with satisfactory answers over the next period of time, but to date you've not received them. Is that correct?

Yes, but that does include also a request in the discussions that the BBC also should consider what is equitable between England and Wales. 

Okay. So, between those two strands, do you feel, then, that there is possibility for this project still to get off the ground in whatever model or guise in the limited amount of time that's available? That's the simple question.

I wish we were not having to sit here early in January to still be discussing this project. I would have hoped that the way that we conducted this discussion directly with the library and informally and privately as well with the BBC and with the library would have brought a more positive result. In that sense, I'm very grateful to the committee for this opportunity to discuss this matter publicly, because obviously it is a matter of concern. It would be very helpful if you could report, when you've considered the evidence from the people that you wish to speak to, on a timescale that could influence the result, because clearly we have failed so far to convince partners that there is a need for a more clear-sighted and better balance of contributions to this project to enable it to happen, in our view.

Okay. With regard to my final question, then, obviously with regard to the austerity agenda, the block grant situation to Wales over the last 10 years, the fact that libraries across Wales are facing huge challenges in terms of their fundamental sustainability—and if we look at England we can see what's happening over there—and with regard to the 23 per cent reduction to the library's overall financial envelope, how much of that do you think is responsible for their current £1 million projected deficit, without this project? And how much of that, in your view, is due to financial management of the organisation itself? 

I would say entirely due to austerity. I think the library have worked with us extremely well over a number of years, and we have every confidence in the leadership there to address these things. This is, I would say, entirely a consequence of austerity and the pressure that has been put on their core funding. We'd obviously like to be able to provide more and to be in a position where we're not talking about deficits of £900,000 in 2024, we'd be talking about a position where all our public bodies have adequate funding and are able to deliver the services that we all want them to do. But austerity has meant that we've had to make difficult decisions, difficult choices. So, I would say it's entirely that. 

Okay, thank you. 

If I could just add to that? Part of my concern has always been that the level of funding that I'm able to make available from Welsh Government block to the national botanic garden, the national museums and galleries, the national library and, of course, the whole issue with the development of a national archive—those issues have to be balanced and that has been part of my concern with the £1 million project. 

On that, I want to be fair to you because I do think the principle of making a contribution out of the block grant to something that you could read as being the responsibility of a non-devolved body, though they are obviously very active in Wales—we'll discuss this in private session later, no doubt, but that this is now the front and centre objection has come very late, certainly in public. I don't think any of us knew about it; that's a concern to me. The other thing is that the Welsh Government does make commitments from the block to major matters of Welsh interest that actually do rest with UK bodies. I mean, the Swansea barrage is an obvious one where a £200 million capital liability was extended by the Welsh Government. So, you have to talk about orders of magnitude to achieve a large public interest in Wales. So, I'm not quite sure it's the trump card that you are saying, and that card is certainly being played late, Minister. 

No, it's not been played late. It's been part of the whole discussion that's taken place, and I'm expecting the BBC to respond more positively than of the order of £20,000. 

I would agree entirely with Teresa's comments. I think the strengthening of the rights of Welsh speakers is a very important step. I think it's helped our communities where we do have fluent Welsh speakers, and we see them as very positive. We hope that the impact will continue to be positive for our patients and communities—the communities that we serve.

Diolch, thank you. I would agree again with the comments made by my colleague. I think that the positives of the Measure are the consistency that she referred to—our ability to be able to both plan and provide services through the medium of Welsh wherever we can.

In reference to the all-Wales NHS Wales staff survey, one of the questions is about whether or not staff understand that they can offer services to patients and clients through the medium of Welsh. Our response rates were such that our staff knew that they could do that but, actually, their ability to do that was very limited. That's really based on the number of Welsh speakers that we have within our health board—that it's much lower than in some other areas across Wales.

I think that one of the things that we felt was positive, despite the low numbers—and we were the lowest in Wales in response to that particular question—was that staff knew how to access services for patients and clients that wanted the provision of their care through the medium of Welsh. So, they knew where to go and who to ask, and I think that's as a result of the work that we've been doing over the last couple of years, as all other health boards and trusts have, in terms of promoting the Welsh language and promoting the importance of being able to offer patients and clients a service through their first language.  

Diolch, and, again, I would agree with Teresa's comments. I think that unless we take our staff with us, the challenge will be even greater than it is currently. We know that we haven't had the opportunity to test the standards yet, but we will do, and that the way in which we support our staff to both improve their language skills but also to improve their confidence—Teresa mentioned confidence—. And I think that we have many staff that we believe are able to offer things like words of comfort, and perhaps level 1-type language skills with patients and clients, and often it's about confidence rather than competence. I think that the work that we do in terms of engagement and promoting language skills and promoting the ability for staff to improve those skills, and perhaps be in more of a bilingual environment—. I think I mentioned the last time I came to the committee about the Welsh language centre that we've opened in Abergavenny, and part of the purpose of that is to have a fully bilingual environment where staff, patients and the public can come and learn together and talk together through the medium of Welsh. And we've got a number of initiatives that support that—supporting the loneliness agenda—and we've got things like a bilingual scrabble club, which has been very positive. So, I think the more we promote those types of things, the more likely staff are to be positive about using the language skills that they have, however advanced or limited those might be.

Diolch. Thank you. Well, absolutely, we're committed to ensuring that we provide a truly bilingual service for our patients and clients wherever we possibly can. As Teresa has mentioned, our IMTP has a specific section on Welsh language and our ability to both plan and provide services, now and in the future, through the medium of Welsh, is a really important part of our planning process. Therefore, how we support our staff to be able to provide those services through the medium of Welsh is extremely important.

Like Teresa, we've done a lot of work over the last couple of years, particularly in relation to the work we did around the active offer and the Welsh language Measure, which has raised awareness and, hopefully, the continuity of that—. So, since we've—. The last three to six months, we've done much more awareness raising and engagement with staff around the standards themselves and what impact they will have and what staff might expect and what we might expect of them. So, making it clear what's expected is really helpful for staff and for patients. So, I think that active offer is essential. One of the things we've been doing in the last two or three months is, as part of our awareness sessions, we've been undertaking some work around what it means for individuals to be Welsh. So, what are the cultural things? What are the things that you connect with? Is that rugby? Is it the Eisteddfod? Is it the environment and the mountains? So, a whole range of different things that we've done in order for staff, in different ways, to think, 'Actually, that is what it means for me to be Welsh' and we've seen a very, very positive impact on that, which I think is really helpful.

We are part of one of the primary care pilots in north Monmouthshire supporting six GP practices specifically, and we've seen some very positive outcomes from that in terms of—. So, when we go in, a bit like Teresa was describing around the tutor, when you go in and you're visible, and talk to the practice staff about the impact of being able to provide bilingual services and a bilingual environment in terms of just straightforward things like the notices and the things on the—. If our patients see those in Welsh, then they know that we're taking their bilingual, or their ability to use the medium of Welsh, much more seriously, which is what we want.

I would agree, absolutely. I think the balance—. Consistency is extremely important, but that balance between challenge and support for us as an organisation, particularly where we have a very limited number of Welsh-speaking staff. Even though we're doing all we can to improve that, we're working in an environment where there are national and international recruitment challenges for us, so, on top of that, recruiting bilingual staff is a challenge. We have, obviously, made efforts towards that, but it is difficult.

Okay. Diolch. Jenny Rathbone.

Could you just give us an oversight of the benefits and weaknesses of the Welsh language standards and how they compare with—you know, how they all fit together, really, in terms of your strategy?

Okay. Shall I take this one first? 

Because you come from quite different areas, really. 

We do. 

Betsi Cadwaladr, obviously, there's huge numbers of Welsh-speaking communities; Aneurin Bevan is a rather different area, so—.

It is, it is. I think we've alluded to many of the positives around the standards, particularly around consistency and ensuring that our patients and clients know what to expect and know what they can ask for, and us making that active offer is an extremely important part of that. I think it is a journey, because I think without that our patients and clients aren't necessarily—. They perhaps don't—. Perhaps even they, as fluent Welsh speakers, are not confident to ask for services in Welsh, and I think the more we promote that the more likely that is to be the case. So, that's perhaps part of the confederation's reference to an organic change. I think that would be part of that. I think the concerns for us—. We know that we haven't had the opportunity to test the standards, as I've already said, but the concern around the potential for them being overly bureaucratic in terms of their application or monitoring would be something that we would want to perhaps help to influence. I think that would be helpful. 

So, would you like to see them amended or revised, so that the—you know, fewer words, more impact? 

I think that's a difficult question, actually, because there are a lot of standards, and that's—. But many of them were part of our Welsh language Measure and our plans anyway. So, there are an awful lot of them that are things that we have already got in place, albeit that in some areas we need to do more work in terms of ensuring a consistency of things like the active offer, the bilingual greetings, all of those sorts of things. I think some of the challenges for us around service provision are that we have an ageing population with patients and clients who have what we would describe as co-morbidities, which means they have a number of things wrong with them and therefore they're accessing services in a number of different parts of the system. So, that ability to ask once and know that the individual, their language choice is Welsh, and for another part of the system to know that is quite challenging for us in some areas. So, I think that would be an area that would be more difficult. It's not insurmountable, but it is a challenge. 

So, when looking at your strategic plans, where does 'More than just words' sit within the framework of compliance? Is this the bible you go to or is there something else? I'll bring Teresa in in a minute, but if you just answer that, then I'll—. 

Okay. Well, 'More than just words' has obviously been the foundation and we're building on that, and I think the standards build on that so that the standards will become the bible, if you like, once they come into play in the spring of this year. But the work that we've been doing already has built—. It's almost like pieces of the jigsaw, isn't it? There have been a number of pieces of the jigsaw over the years that have led us to the standards and, as we've already said, we welcome the standards, albeit that some of them will be more challenging for different parts of the—. The parts of the standards that will be challenging for us may not be challenging for places, for health boards, and organisations in the north or the west of the country, so—. 

Okay. So, Teresa, 'More than just words' identifies four priority areas for the importance of Welsh language speaking: children and young people, elderly people, people with learning difficulties, and mental health. I just wondered if you could tell us whether you've been able to mainstream bilingualism in all those four priority areas. 

Could I just ask you, Teresa, to tell us a little bit about how this work in progress is interfacing with the complaints process? Obviously, I'm aware, from work on another committee, that there's been quite a significant rise in NHS complaints that have been going to the ombudsman. What proportion of your complaints relate to the inadequacy of accessing services in Welsh, and how do you deal with them?

Okay. I appreciate that it's not yet statutory, but, obviously, that doesn't stop the patients complaining. So, you deal with it by obviously responding orally and in writing when people raise this.

Okay. I would agree with the comments that Teresa has made. We have very similar types of processes. With Welsh language complaints, wherever possible, we meet with the complainant as early as possible and work with them about what the issues are, and we've found that that's been very positive. We've had extremely positive outcomes as a result of that, both for the complainant, but also with the staff in the area where the issue arose.

And do you have a mechanism for logging these complaints so that you can see progress over time?

Yes, absolutely.

Okay, thank you.

David Melding.

Diolch yn fawr, Cadeirydd. I just wanted to ask you about the link between regulation and promotion of the language. I'm particularly interested because I sense a slight difference of emphasis, with the NHS Confederation saying reasonable enforcement

'supports the use and promotion of the language',

and then Betsi emphasising that the balance in terms of regulation and promotion is 'key'. So, it seems—my initial view, I have to say, would be that through regulation you do get better promotion. It seems to me there's inevitably a linkage there. So, perhaps you can give me some evidence of that working in practice, and then for Betsi to say—well, what do you mean, really, by a balance in terms of regulation and promotion? If you're doing regulation, you surely are also promoting the language. It doesn't limit that. Shall we start with the NHS Confederation? Sorry, have I got that slightly wrong? I thought that—

No, I'm not from the confederation. I'm from the health board.

I beg your pardon.

I mentioned earlier that I think it's that balance between regulation and enforcement. It is a balance between challenge and support, where we would want and expect to be challenged, but we would also want some support, both internally and from the commission in order to be able to continue to improve services for the people of the community we serve.

Teresa.

Okay, that's fine.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. What do you think are the risks and/or benefits of introducing new legislation at this moment in time? For example, Betsi Cadwaladr, you have a long-term plan between 2016 and 2019. What sort of impact do you think this would have on that plan? So, I'd like to know your views on that at the moment.

Diolch. I would agree with Teresa: we have a very similar process. We have a committee that is a sub-committee of our board. So, in terms of our governance structure, it fits with the other sub-committees of the board. It's chaired by my director, the director of workforce and organisational development, who's the executive lead for the Welsh language, and has representation from across the organisation in terms of our divisions and primary care. That's where we will monitor the impact and the application of the standards.

Thank you. Can I ask what you think of having a single regulatory body that not only sets out and enforces standards, but is also responsible for the promotion of the Welsh language. What do you think are the pluses and minuses of having a single regulatory body? Either person—I don't mind.

Teresa.

I would agree. I think the most important thing is that we're able to provide services that are delivering high-quality and safe care, wherever that is delivered, through whichever is the most appropriate language for that individual patient or client.

And my final question: could I ask what sort of relationship there is between the commissioner and the health sector? Thank you.

I would absolutely agree. I think our relationship is very positive. I think that the commissioner's office has been very supported, and they're very helpful in terms of—. I think the relationship is such that I'm certainly aware that our Welsh language officer, quite regularly, will just pick up the phone and have a conversation with a member of the commissioner's team in order to just seek advice, get some clarification and support, really. So, we would hope that that would continue, and I would see no reason for it not to.

So, Sue, with the health boards being asked to consult on draft compliance, issued by the commissioner, how has that been received, could you tell me?

The compliance with the standards?

Yes.

I think the challenge for us has been some of the timescales. I think there are—. I can't think of any that we would be saying—. There are a couple that we felt we really couldn't meet, and we haven't had those as part of our compliance notice. I think the challenge for us will be other timescales, and we've worked with the commissioner and her office in terms of extending some of those, and have provided what I assume is a compelling rationale, because some of those timescales were extended, which has been really helpful. As I've already said, I think the community in which we work is very different in terms of south-east Wales and the number of fluent Welsh speakers we have, and therefore the number of staff that we have that are able to provide those services.

Thank you very much.

Before I ask in regard to the international perspective, and Canada is a good example that keeps cropping up continually for good reason—but in regard to the emphasis, particularly to Aneurin Bevan health board, and I have an interest as a patient within the board, we are dealing with hugely, as we know, different constituencies across Wales in terms of our communities, but within those we do have pockets, in particular Aneurin Bevan in terms of my question here. I'm also wanting to understand—you've outlined some of the challenges in rolling out the standards, and the concerted drive to roll out the standards across Aneurin Bevan, but is there, from your perspective, any concern from those professionals who are maybe foundation-level Welsh, or have a competency in Welsh, but may not be feeling that they are of an able-enough standard to deal professionally in Welsh, but feel that they have to because they are in that position of being one of the few in number of competent Welsh speakers? So, from my perspective, would there be any unintended consequences in terms of health outcomes potentially for those wanting to use Welsh, and having a very small pool of Welsh-speaking health professionals who would be, in a sense, directed to deal with them?

I think there are—. I've already talked a little bit about some of our staff who have perhaps level 1, or limited, GCSE-type level Welsh language skills, who are concerned in terms of confidence when they use their Welsh language skills with patients and clients. I think they are increasingly doing that with more confidence, the more support that we are able to give them. I think there's another end of that spectrum where we do have bilingual members of staff who are able to converse fully bilingually with patients and clients when they're talking about the issues that face them, but even those members of staff will often describe their preference to speak to a patient in English when they're talking about the technical aspects of the delivery of their care, or their options around a treatment plan. And I think it's important that we support those members of staff when they're saying—. So, where we have consultants who are fluent Welsh speakers, however, they will still say, 'My preference would be to speak to the patient on this aspect of their care around their options, particularly on treatment options, through the medium of English.' But they have that conversation with the patient at the time and come to an agreement about the rationale for that, particularly around some of the technical language issues and the technical terms.

Okay, I'm not going to ask that question again. So, in regard, then, to specific aspects to language planning and legislation from other countries, is there any knowledge, potentially, from other nations that you think may be of use to us in Wales in terms of applying standards on wider language planning, or is that really not something that you are heavily involved in?

It's certainly not something that we've—[Interruption.] Sorry. It's certainly not something that we've looked into at this stage, but we would be interested to learn from other countries how they have helped, particularly helped their staff to provide bilingual services.

Sorry, Teresa.

You're okay, Sue.

Chair, if I may, just very, very briefly, because I know we're out of time, but in that regard, would you like to see more coming out from Welsh Government in that particular international research guidance manner? Or do you feel there's already enough out there coming to you?  

Short answers, please. [Laughter.]

Thank you very much for the invitation to be here today. I'm delighted to be here to give you an outline of the work we do in Ireland. I'm the Irish language commissioner. I was appointed in 2014, and I'm also chair of the International Association of Language Commissioners. 

[Inaudible.]—first, it, I think, moves away from the rather vaguer commitments that are often found in the schemes mechanism, and maybe Rónán will be discussing some of the experience in Ireland with regard to schemes.

I think that the standards certainly move us towards rights. I think the key things here are the relative clarity in how duties are expressed. I think one of the drawbacks that we see in Scotland, as well as perhaps in Ireland, is that many of the language schemes, or plans as we have in Scotland, are rather vague and filled with qualifications, exculpatory language and so forth. Whereas, although they're very complex—I'll come back to the negative aspects—I think that the standards, particularly the service delivery standards, are providing much more detail and clarity and are beginning to look like rights, although we're very early in the process. And from my perspective, I think that's a positive, not only for the public who, arguably, have a better and clearer understanding of precisely what they can expect in terms of services, but for the regulated bodies themselves. It also makes, I think, compliance, measuring compliance and enforcing compliance somewhat easier. So, I think that's a positive.

I was also struck by some of the other standards, particularly the policy-making standards. I've just finished a year of research on the language legislation in the Celtic countries. One thing that is quite clear in a broader minority language context is that, of course, the legislation is usually directed at trying to revitalise a minoritised language and, obviously, in addition to the services that are provided by the public sector, there are a number of other things that can affect the vitality of language communities. The policy-making standards begin to require—again, we're at a very early stage—but I think they're very important, because they, potentially, require policy makers to consider what the impact of decisions in other areas that are not obviously directly related to the language, such as transport policy or housing policy et cetera, et cetera, may be on the language, and I think this is a very important innovation that will be followed very closely in other jurisdictions. I think this is a really innovative aspect, as are the record-keeping standards.

I think that some of the work that the commissioner has done has been very innovative. We'll talk, no doubt, about the commissioner, and commissioner versus commission, but I think things like the assurance reports are quite interesting innovations, because they try to convey a real sense of what's going on, and, obviously, that evidence has been useful to the Government as well.

Finally, just a couple of comments about negative aspects that have been highlighted already, highlighted by the Welsh Assembly Government. The complexity, particularly in respect of standard setting, is something that is quite striking—the complexity of the legislation. I acted as an adviser to the committee scrutinising the Bill that lead to the Measure back in 2010, and I was struck by the complexity there. And also the range of duties that the commissioner now has, which are potentially very wide-ranging, and these are, no doubt, issues that we'll come back to.

Professor Dunbar there mentioned the system of language schemes, which is what we have in operation in Ireland at present. The Government has taken a decision, as of May 2017, to disband that system upon my recommendation, following a commentary that I did on the workings of the language Act. I suppose what it shows is that if changes of such substance are to be made, they should be done based on evidence and research, and when a system is given a fair amount of time to bed in and to see how it works. So, in Ireland, the system of language schemes was brought in in 2004 with the Act. We did a commentary on the Act where we looked, basically, at every single scheme that was agreed over a period of two years, which encompassed 40 language schemes.

We had an idea when we undertook the work that the system of language schemes wasn't working, but even the figures for ourselves were surprising to us—about how bad the findings were. They showed, for example, that, in two thirds of the time when my office had made a formal investigation or findings against a public body regarding a commitment in a language scheme, in the subsequent language scheme that commitment had been removed. So, for example, one local council didn't have a traffic warden who spoke Irish in the Gaeltacht area. An investigation was undertaken and found against the council. In the next language scheme, that requirement had been removed. Another local council with a website, for example, had a commitment to have a website through Irish. An investigation was conducted as to that. In the subsequent language scheme, that commitment was removed, and that happened two thirds of the time. In half of second and third language schemes, there was a regression in general in commitments.

So, the point I'm making, essentially, is that the system was given enough time to see whether it worked, and evidence was produced to show that it didn't work. I think, when those two things combine, it's safe and it's fair to say, 'We have to look at something else'. But, without that, I think difficulties could arise as well. 

Thank you, Chair. I'm interested in your opinion—all three of you—on the balance between the language duties and regulation versus the voluntary language schemes. Do you think that we've got the balance right there? Can you expand and explain briefly why?

I'm happy to jump in from an international perspective; I don't know enough about the situation in Wales to comment specifically on that. To put it bluntly, in my experience, voluntary language schemes don't work, and they offer a second-grade service to citizens who want to do their business in the language of their choice, if it's a language spoken by a minority.

The way to get public bodies to provide services of a similar standard to people is to do it by regulation. If it's left up to public bodies, in my experience in Ireland, to agree schemes on their own voluntarily, then it doesn't happen—they don't recruit people with Irish, they don't provide services that are of a similar standard, and if we're serious about providing services of a similar standard to people, that needs to be done by regulation, not voluntarily.

But in your experience in Ireland, even the regulatory framework hasn't worked to date, has it?

That's the problem with it, because the schemes—. Essentially, it's like a game of cards; all the good cards are in the hands of the public body, because the Minister or the Government department can say, 'We would like this in our scheme', but it's left up, ultimately, to the public body to voluntarily say, 'These are the issues we're going to put into our language scheme.' If a system of standards is brought in in Ireland, which is expected to happen—you know, direct regulations—after consultation of course, and after an assessment of what provision is there and what amount of staff are available to provide services—. If regulations are laid down directly, it will provide, and should provide, a higher level of service than voluntarily expecting public bodies to provide services, or even volunteering to put services into a statutory language scheme.

Robert Dunbar.

I'll be very brief. I think that most voluntary schemes in Wales apply to organisations firstly in the private and voluntary sector, which are not subject to the regulatory system. So, I think one of the key issues is if you were to impose something more binding than a voluntary scheme—and I would generally go along with what the Irish commissioner has said about voluntary schemes—the question is: do you want to bring private sector organisations and third sector organisations within the legislative framework? Of course, right now, there is limited regulation possible under the measure, and some discussion in the White Paper as well. In other jurisdictions generally, the regulation only applies to the public sector, but in the province of Quebec, for example, and in Catalonia, there is now regulation of the private and third sectors. So, that really is the question: do you want to statutorily, or through statutory mechanisms, regulate those sectors?

Thank you. My final question is on the complaints process, and whether you think that the current system of dealing with complaints about Welsh language services is appropriate and robust, and Rónán, in your context, then, if there are any lessons that we can learn from Ireland on that.

In our context, we receive around 700 complaints a year, and the vast majority of those are resolved informally. The Act,  the Official Languages Act 2003, basically gives the power to the commissioner to decide whatever form of investigation he wishes to undertake to do so. So, it doesn't necessarily have to be a formal investigation from the word 'go'. So, of those 700 complaints approximately, we end up with around five or six—maybe seven or eight—formal investigations a year. The rest of them then can be divided into two camps—the rest of them are resolved informally. It might be something like a road sign where you could write to the public body informally. They say, 'We'll take it down, we'll fix it', and it's closed. The big issue we have, really, is that almost half or approximately half of the complaints we receive we can't really investigate formally or informally because the statutory obligation isn't there. So, people are looking for a form in Irish or a person-to-person service through Irish that isn't agreed in a language scheme and isn't provided by direct provision. So, that's the main issue we have, really. We end up going back to people a lot saying, 'We understand the difficulty you've experienced. It should be available but it's not'. 

I suppose that the main issue that we would like to adopt—. We do look to Wales as a good example of how to get things done, especially within the International Association of Language Commissioners. The Welsh Language Commissioner has been a huge part of that organisation, a former chair of the organisation, and they've had groups from Nunavut and from Kosovo and from Canada over to view the workings of the office. The main success, I suppose, as I would see it from an outside view looking in, is that they have moved to a system of standards, and it has been relatively successful as far as I'm aware, from speaking to people. It of course is going to take time to bed in. I've yet to meet a public body that has openly and wholeheartedly agreed with further regulations imposed upon them, That's not the way that these things work in my experience. 

So, from an Irish perspective, the system of standards is something that I would like to see brought in to Ireland, and the Government have committed to doing that in the heads of a new Bill, which is due to be published shortly. We hope they intend to move from the system of language schemes to a system of standards. So, I think that's something, certainly, that we would hope to learn from from here. 

Diolch yn fawr, Cadeirydd. I'd like to talk about the relation between regulation and promotion, and whether those functions sit naturally together in the same organisation or, in the case we're considering, the commissioner, and also how they interplay. I mean, a more regulatory approach—does that reduce the more, sort of, visionary expansionist role of promotion because you're out there trying to get organisations to adopt a more wide-ranging language policy? But if they then get tightly regulated, they may be, you know, unresponsive or unconfident about where they should be going. So, I'd just like to talk about whether, through good enforcement and regulation, we actually achieve promotion—or is it a more complicated relationship? I don't mind who starts, but Professor Mac Giolla Chriost, you've talked about this, I think, and written about where those functions should lie, for instance. 

Robert Dunbar. 

I'd agree that there's no good reason why the two functions couldn't be located in the same institution, but I think it is important to keep in mind that the two functions—that is, promotion on the one hand and compliance, or overseeing compliance, on the other hand—are quite distinct functions. To a certain extent, the Welsh Assembly Government has recognised that itself in its general requirements section of Part 2. They recognise that the Government should be able to give the body directions, except in relation to how it ensures bodies comply with standards or how it protects people's freedom to use Welsh. So, there's a recognition there that, functionally, there's a difference between the promotion function and the compliance function. So, I think that the two functions need to be kept separate.

As Professor Mac Giolla Chriost has noted, there is an element of overlap in the sense that the experience that an ombudsman or somebody who is looking at compliance will have a sense of patterns of behaviour and what constitutes good practices as opposed to bad practices, and therefore can promote practices that are effective in implementing the regulatory framework. So, I think it's possible to locate the two functions but it has to be borne in mind that they are quite distinct functions and you might have to think about how the organisation is organised with quite clear lines of accountability and working set up within the organisation. 

I don't know, Rònàn, if any thought has been given to this in terms of the Irish experience, especially if you move to a more standards-based approach.

I suppose it's delicate politically in Ireland in the sense that there is a north-south cross-border body, Foras na Gaeilge, that deals with the promotion of the Irish language in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland. So, my role then as language commissioner—even though the Official Languages Act, one of its stated aims is to promote the use of Irish in the public service—my role essentially is to investigate complaints, to offer advice to the public and advice to public bodies and to monitor the implementation of the Act. Through all those measures, you are, in my view, promoting the use of Irish anyway. So, I think, from my point of view, that's how we do our promotion work and the amount of advice we have offered public bodies has increased significantly over the past three or four years. That's probably the way that we envisage it continuing as well with the north, our body there, at the moment, to do the promotion work.

It's interesting, there have been different views within the IALC, the International Association of Language Commissioners, about this issue, about the promotion role and about the investigatory role and where should different things lie. I suppose, in Canada, the Commissioner of Official Languages—that office was established in 1968—that has an investigatory role and a promotion role and it's one commissioner that undertakes that. 

Can I go on to the other area then, if we have time? That's how this impacts on the public services, but perhaps even more importantly, and I think it is clouding some of the decisions that are being made in Wales at the moment, the larger private sector bodies, particularly those that are involved in any sort of utility or monopoly-type service, and how this sort of structure will affect—how comprehensive, then, a total Welsh language policy can be, in our instance, obviously, or a language policy elsewhere. I mean, I suppose 'looser' can be more comprehensive, perhaps, can it, and cover large parts of the private sector as well—or is that a false dichotomy? Have I still not made myself clear? Sorry. 

When is a right a right—? Should it extend to the private sector as well as the public sector? 

Just to say briefly, I mentioned this earlier, that regulation in the private sector is comparatively uncommon internationally. Professor Mac Giolla Chriost has mentioned Quebec and Catalonia as two places, which I also mentioned earlier, and I think he puts his finger on it: ultimately, it's a political question. Does the Government want to impose obligations on the private and on the voluntary sector? In Quebec, for a long time, there's been consensus—political consensus—that this was desirable, but the context, of course, is, as Professor Mac Giolla Chriost said, that the majority of the population, a large majority, is French speaking and a significant number of those French speakers are, effectively, unilingual francophones. In Catalonia, most people are bilingual in Catalan and Castilian Spanish, but, again, a significant majority speak Catalan and there's, sort of, political consensus that the regulation of the private sector is possible. Where those conditions don't exist, it's, from my perspective, wholly a political question, but the political realities make them more difficult to regulate, and Wales is, in spite of this, taking steps in that direction. 

Diolch, Cadeirydd. Could I ask, generally, what your views are on the Welsh Government's proposal to bring forward a Welsh language Bill, and what do you think are the risks or benefits of this and the consequences of introducing legislation now, at this moment in time?

From an Irish point of view and an international point of view, essentially, rather than specifically the Welsh Measure—because I'm not an expert on it—it gets back to my original answer, that any changes that are made should be based on a system that has been operated for a sustained period of time and based on strong evidence. Without that, I don't think dramatic, substantial changes should be made, unless there is strong evidence to back it up over time.

Okay, Robert.

I would take that same view. Care went into the preparation of the Measure; many of the same considerations that would be involved at this point are ones that people are generally familiar with, so it's just a question of when is it an appropriate time. I think it's always a good idea to review the effectiveness of legislation, but, in conducting that review, I think the two principles that the Irish language commissioner just expressed are very good ones.

Thank you. Caroline.

My next question could I ask Rónán, if I may, please? Could you tell me, briefly, what the background was in the decision when the proposal to merge the commission and the ombudsman was not supported?

So, this was—. Briefly, in 2011, the Government of the day announced a decision to review the Official Languages Act 2003. Following that review, they announced a decision, separate to the review, without consulting initially, a plan, as part of a wider merging of Government and public independent agencies, to merge the office of the official languages commissioner with the office of the ombudsman. It was greeted with uproar—that's the only way I can describe it—in Ireland. We value the office of having one single independent language commissioner very, very highly and take that very seriously in Ireland. It culminated in a march in the street of 10,000 people—up to 10,000 people marching against it. Essentially, I think, when the Government published the initial heads of the Bill in 2014, in those heads they said they were withdrawing the proposal to amalgamate the two offices, based, essentially, on the dissatisfaction expressed by the public, and also there were no savings identified as part of the move either. But the idea of—. Language is such a delicate issue, and people had spent generations fighting language cases in the courts. They've fought tooth and nail to get an independent language commissioner's office, and the thought that a Government of the day would attempt to take that off them by any measure, by amalgamating it and devolving functions back, or whatever measure, was not acceptable to them at all.

So, with such a passionate public response, was this why you said it would be a retrograde step to do away with, to abolish, the commissioner's role?

In Wales?

Yes, in any area, really.

Absolutely, yes. I mentioned earlier about different views within the international community about promotion and regulation and whether they go hand in hand. Despite that, what was quite clear from all members of the International Association of Language Commissioners, all 11 commissioners and ombudsmen—the strong view from all of them was that one single independent language commissioner is what's needed, that it offers a focal point for people and it has been shown to be cost effective and a success generally, worldwide.

Thank you.

Just very quickly on that, there's a little bit of confusion in terms of roles. You've got Government involved, you've got the commission involved, and you're possibly talking about the role of a commissioner as well. The one area that seems to be agreed is that everyone seems to agree that the commissioner has to be independent, but independent of what? Clearly, a commissioner has to be accountable. Is it the collective view that the accountability should be to the parliamentary body rather than to Government?

'Yes', I think is the answer to that question in general. The commissioner in Ireland is appointed by the President upon recommendation of the Government and voted by the Parliament. Everyone has to be accountable. There's no question of not having governance structures in place and not being accountable. In our instance, we have our audit committee. We're before Government committees at least three or four times a year, we have the Comptroller and Auditor General auditing accounts. That's not the issue, the governance and the—. That isn't the issue. The issue is that there's one language commissioner that is viewed by a public who are very often having to fight for their language rights against the state—that they have a view that at least there's one person there, there's one office there, that is independent of Government, that is not told by Government what strategies they must do, that is not told by Government, 'You must do this and you must do that', that, at the very least, when they're trying their best to speak a language that is under pressure, the very least they can have is one language commissioner that is independent and that doesn't report to Government, that doesn't have the eye of big brother watching over them, and that reports to Parliament and that is appointed by the head of state. 

Robert Dunbar.

There are four or five different functions in relation to regulation more generally. First of all there's setting the regulatory framework, there's overseeing compliance, there's promotion of various sorts, and then another area that has emerged and is becoming quite important, I think, in the Welsh context is overseeing the effectiveness of policy more generally, and policy making and so forth. So, there are at least four different functions, but I tend to agree with the Irish language commissioner. The question of compliance is of absolute importance. Once the regulatory framework is set, it has to be capable of being enforced and overseen, otherwise a frustration emerges amongst speakers, frustration emerges amongst the regulated bodies, because they're unclear as to what their duties are and what the consequences are. That's an element of accountability as well. And therefore I think it's very important that, in terms of accountability for this oversight and compliance function, there be accountability to the elected Assembly as a whole. They, ultimately, are the custodians of the public interest, as it were.