MR HUW LEWIS, MR IWAN STANLEY and MR DAFYDD LEWIS,

CYMDEITHAS YR IAITH (WELSH LANGUAGE SOCIETY)

  held at

County Hall, Haverfordwest, Pembrokeshire

on

Thursday 10 April 2003 

LORD RICHARD: Good afternoon. Thank you for coming. I will ask you to introduce yourselves for the sake of the record and then open up the session with five or ten minutes’ opening. I can see that we are going to have a presentation.

HUW LEWIS: Os ydy pawb yn barod, Huw Lewis yw fy enw i. Y fi yw Cadeirydd Cymdeithas yr Iaith Gymraeg. Yn rhinwedd y swydd honno rwyf yma heddiw. Ar fy naill ochr y mae Iwan Stanley. Mae’n aelod o’r Grwp Ymgyrchu dros ddeddf iaith newydd a bydd yn gyfrifol am y cyflwyniad Powerpoint gewch chi. Ar fy ochr arall y mae Dafydd Lewis, Swyddog Ymgyrchoedd y Gymdeithas. Mae’n weithiwr llawn amser i’r Gymdeithas ers sawl blwyddyn bellach. Fy mwriad nawr yw rhoi cyflwyniad byr ichi am ein neges ni yma heddiw. Yr hyn sydd wedi dod â ni yma yw’r angen am ddeddf iaith newydd, a’r drafodaeth gyffredinol am roi pwerau deddfwriaethol dros y Gymraeg i’r Cynulliad.

O ran y Gymraeg, yr hyn a ddaeth â ni ger bron y Comisiwn oedd un o argymhellion y Pwyllgor Diwylliant llynedd y dylai’r Comisiwn ystyried yr angen am roi pwerau i’r Cynulliad allu diwygio Deddf yr Iaith Gymraeg 1993. Nid yw’r Ddeddf hon, yn ein barn ni, yn gweithio, ac rydym wedi ceisio ei chryfhau ers sawl blwyddyn bellach. Roeddem yn gweld sefydlu’r Cynulliad Cenedlaethol yn gyfle gwych i wneud hynny.

I roi ychydig o gefndir ichi. Cafodd Deddf Iaith 1993 ei phasio gan fwyafrif ond ni wnaeth mwyafrif ASau Cymru ei chefnogi. Yn wir, ni fyddai wedi llwyddo oni bai am gefnogaeth Torïaid o Loegr. Yn y nawdegau, cyfeiriwyd ati fel enghraifft glasurol pam yr oedd angen datganoli a Chynulliad i Gymru. Mae’n berthnasol felly ein bod yn cyfeirio at y ddeddf wrth gyflwyno’n tystiolaeth heddiw.

Yn ein barn ni, ddeng mlynedd wedi iddi ddod i rym, mae’r ddeddf wedi methu. Nid yw wedi normaleiddio defnyddio’r Gymraeg. Gall unrhyw un sydd wedi ceisio defnyddio’r Gymraeg o ddydd i ddydd ddweud wrthych eich bod chi’n dal yn gorfod mynnu’r hawl i ddefnyddio’r iaith, ac nad yw’r Ddeddf mewn gwirionedd wedi rhoi hawliau i siaradwyr y Gymraeg.

Hefyd, gyda phreifateiddio, mae’r ffiniau rhwng y sectorau preifat a chyhoeddus yn anelwig iawn. Mewn cyfnod o’r fath, mae’r Ddeddf, sy’n ymdrin yn unig â’r sector cyhoeddus, hyd yn oed yn fwy amherthnasol.

Dyna’r cefndir i’n cyflwyniad ni yma heddiw. Rwyf am ofyn i Iwan ymhelaethu ar y pwyntiau rwyf wedi’u codi, wedyn cewch grynodeb gennyf ar y diwedd a chyfle i ofyn unrhyw gwestiynau fydd gennych.

Interpretation:

If everyone is ready, Huw Lewis is my name. I am the Chair of the Welsh Language Society. That is my job here today. On one side is Iwan Stanley. He is a member of the Campaign’s Group for a new language act, and he will be responsible for the Powerpoint presentation you will see. On the other side is Dafydd Lewis, the Campaign Officer for the Society; and he has worked full-time for the Society for some years now. I will give a brief introduction about our message here today. What brings us here mainly is the need for a new Welsh language act, and also the general debate for giving legislative powers for the Welsh language to the Assembly.

In relation to a Welsh language, what brought us to the Commission was one of the recommendations of the Culture Committee last year that the Commission should consider the need to give power to the Assembly to amend the 1993 Welsh Language Act. This Act, in our opinion does not work, and we have tried to strengthen this Act for some years now. We see the establishment of the National Assembly as a great opportunity to get to grips with this task.

To give you some background, the Welsh Language Act 1993 was passed by a majority. It failed to gain the support of the majority of Welsh MPs and was in fact passed by a majority of Tories from England. During the nineties, it was referred to as one of the classic examples of the need for devolution, and for an Assembly for Wales; so it is relevant that we refer to this Act when we give evidence to you today.

Our conclusion about the situation of the Act ten years after its inception is that it has failed in normalising use of the Welsh language. Anyone who has the experience of trying to use the Welsh language day to day knows you still have to ask, and the Act has not really given rights to Welsh speakers.

Also, with privatisation, the limits between public and private sector are very unclear. In such an age, the Act, which is limited to the public sector, is even more irrelevant.

That is the background to our presentation here today. I will ask Iwan to explain the points I have raised, then I will summarise at the end and open the floor to any questions you may have.

IWAN STANLEY: Y cyfan sydd gen i yw ychydig o gefndir i ddangos y Ddeddf Iaith fel y mae hi a threfn pethau heddiw, o ran y Gymraeg a phwerau’r Cynulliad; yna, sut, yn ein barn ni, nad yw’r ddeddf yn normaleiddio’r Gymraeg, a’i methiant i ddod â bywyd dwyieithog i Gymru.

Mae Deddf Iaith 1993 yn agor gyda’r geiriau "An Act to establish a board". Ei phrif bwrpas yw creu corff biwrocrataidd, yn hytrach na rhoi hawliau i neb. Dywed fod y Gymraeg a’r Saesneg yn gyfartal pan fo hynny’n rhesymol ymarferol, sy’n golygu y cewch chi optio allan pa bryd bynnag y teimlwch chi fel gwneud hynny, a dyw hi ddim ond yn delio â’r sector cyhoeddus. Nid yw’n cael unrhyw effaith ar y sector preifat o gwbl. Ers 1993, ac yn y blynyddoedd yn union cyn hynny, cafodd nifer o gyrff a oedd yn gyrff cyhoeddus cyn hynny eu preifateiddio. Os gwnewch chi feddwl am ddwr, trydan, y rheilffyrdd – byddent i gyd wedi dod o dan y Ddeddf Iaith, ond maent bellach wedi’u heithrio ac nid oes gofyn arnynt i ddarparu gwasanaethau trwy gyfrwng y Gymraeg.

Yn Neddf Llywodraeth Cymru 1998, mae yna gymal rhyfedd, cymal 32(c): "the Assembly may do anything it considers appropriate to support the Welsh language". Does neb wedi esbonio beth mae hynny’n ei olygu. Mae rhai pobl yn dweud ei fod yn golygu un peth, mae’r farn gyfreithiol yn dweud rhywbeth arall; felly dydyn ni ddim yn hollol siwr beth yw pwerau’r Cynulliad yn hyn o beth. Fel ag y mae’r Cynulliad neu’r Llywodraeth bresennol yn gweld pethau, mae’n golygu gwneud dim. Dywed pobl eraill bod y cymal yn rhoi’r grym inni wneud pethau mawr, ond mae’r cyfan yn aneglur iawn.

O ran sut ydym yn dehongli ddiffygion y Ddeddf Iaith, mae yna dri phrif beth. Mae cyrff cyhoeddus yn dod o dan y Ddeddf i fod, ond i raddau helaeth, maen nhw’n rhydd i’w hanwybyddu. Mae cyrff preifat wedi’u heithrio, felly does dim gorfodaeth arnyn nhw i wneud unrhyw beth; ac er taw dim ond deng mlynedd sydd wedi mynd heibio ers pasio’r ddeddf, mae deng mlynedd yn amser hir ac mae yna ddatblygiadau fel y Rhyngrwyd a gwasanaethau a siopa ar-lein wedi dod ers hynny. Er y dylent mewn egwyddor ddod o dan y Ddeddf Iaith os mai cyrff cyhoeddus sy’n gyfrifol amdanyn nhw, mae llawer o’r cynlluniau iaith yn rhyw ddeng mlwydd oed erbyn hyn, felly nid oes cyfeiriadau ynddyn nhw at ddarparu gwasanaethau ar-lein trwy’r Gymraeg. Gwelwn hynny gyda sawl corff cyhoeddus. Dim ond ichi ofyn i Gyllid y Wlad, fe gewch chi’ch ffurflen dreth yn Gymraeg. Roedd yna adeg pan gaech chi £100 oddi ar eich bil am lenwi’r ffurflen ar-lein, ond dim ond ffurflenni uniaith Saesneg oedd yn bod. Roedd hynny’n esgor ar annhegwch.

Fe drown yn awr at gyrff cyhoeddus. Os ydych chi am eu gweld, mae gennym gypyrddau ffeilio’n llawn o gwynion am adrannau’r llywodraeth, cynghorau, asiantaethau, cwangos sydd naill ai’n anwybyddu’u cyfrifoldebau neu’n methu â’u hysgwyddo. Mae Ms Wyn-Jones yn aelod o’r Gymdeithas ac fe wnaeth hithau gwyno. Ysgrifennodd at y DVLA i ofyn a gai yrru ar ôl llawdriniaeth. Cafodd ateb yn Saesneg nad oedd yn berthnasol i’w llythyr o gwbl. Doedden nhw ddim hyd yn oed wedi trïo deall na chyfieithu’i llythyr. Cwynodd wrth Fwrdd yr Iaith a gafodd sgwrs, mae’n debyg, gyda’r DVLA, ac yna fisoedd yn ddiweddarach, cafodd ateb i’w llythyr ond unwaith eto, yn uniaith Saesneg. Er i aelodau’r Pwyllgor Diwylliant fynd at Fwrdd yr Iaith a’r DVLA, dyw pethau ddim wedi newid ac maen nhw’n dal i anwybyddu gofynion Deddf yr Iaith Gymraeg.

Problem arall wrth gwrs yw bod nifer o gyrff cyhoeddus yn contractio gwaith allan i gyrff preifat. Mae hyn eto yn creu amwysedd. Mewn theori, daw’r cwmnïau hyn o dan Ddeddf yr Iaith am fod y cynlluniau Iaith yn dweud fod cwmnïau preifat sy’n ennill contract gan gorff cyhoeddus yn gorfod cadw at gynllun Iaith y corff cyhoeddus hwnnw; ond wrth gwrs, mae’r cwmnïau preifat yn gweld pethau’n wahanol. I roi enghreifftiau i chi, mae profion gyrru theori yn cael eu contractio i gwmni preifat, ac rydym wedi clywed gan nifer o aelodau eu bod nhw’n ei chael hi’n anodd iawn cael profion theori. Naill ai eu bod nhw’n gorfod aros lawer hirach amdanyn nhw na’r rheini sy’n gwneud profion Saesneg, neu mae lleoliad yn broblem. Cawsom gwyn arall echddoe am gasglu dirwyon. Mae llysoedd y De wedi contractio’r gwaith i gwmni preifat. Cafodd aelod o’r gymdeithas a oedd yn rhan o Ymgyrch yr Iaith ei restio a’i ddirwyo am fod yn rhan o’r ymgyrch. Mae e’ wedi gwrthod talu’r ddirwy am fod y cwmni sy’n casglu’r ddirwy wedi gwrthod gohebu ag e’ trwy’r Gymraeg. Meddai’r cwmni: "we do not correspond bilingually, and we must advise you that payment is due, and failure to make a payment could result in further action being taken by us and our clients." Mae’n sefyllfa ryfedd iawn: mae rhywun sydd wedi torri’r gyfraith dros ddeddf iaith newydd yn wynebu carchar os na fydd yn talu dirwy am fod y corff cyhoeddus wedi contractio gwaith i gwmni preifat sy’n gwrthod cydnabod yr iaith Gymraeg.

Mae hyn yn mynd â fi at fy mhwynt nesaf. Gall y person hyn’na wynebu carchar am beidio â thalu dirwy. Beth sy’n digwydd i’r cwmni preifat? Er ei fod yn torri’r gyfraith, ddaw dim ohono. Does gan Ddeddf yr iaith ddim grym.

Nid oes gan Fwrdd yr Iaith rym o dan y Ddeddf Iaith bresennol i ddweud beth ddylai ddigwydd pe bai yna gwyn, na beth sy’n digwydd. Ar hyn o bryd, caiff Bwrdd yr Iaith baratoi adroddiad os mynnant, ond nid oes gorfodaeth arnynt i’w gyhoeddi – gallant ei gadw’n breifat. Maen nhw’n cael gosod cwynion ger bron y corff cyhoeddus.

Y cam olaf yw cyflwyno’r mater i’r Ysgrifennydd Gwladol neu’r Cynulliad am gyfarwyddyd. Dydy hynny erioed wedi digwydd. Nid oes cwyn erioed wedi’i roi ger bron y Cynulliad, er gwaetha’r holl gwynion sydd gennym am gwmnïau cyhoeddus yn anwybyddu gofynion y ddeddf.

Yn y sector preifat y mae cnewyllyn y drwg yn ein barn ni. Mae’r sector cyhoeddus wedi crebachu gymaint, fel bod y sector preifat yn chwarae rhan fwyfwy canolog yn ein bywydau. Nid cwmnïau masnachol yn unig, ond hefyd cwmnïau sy’n darparu gwasanaethau cyhoeddus fel trydan, nwy, dwr, banciau, cymdeithasau adeiladu a rheilffyrdd; ac oherwydd eu statws fel cwmnïau preifat, dydyn nhw ddim yn dod o dan y ddeddf. Dyma rai enghreifftiau: Tesco: "We do not have a specific Welsh language policy, although we recently won awards for our delicatessen service …" Dyna’u hagwedd. Iceland: "The lack of Welsh signs in our store is so as not to confuse customers." Gallwch weld y gweddill. Marks & Spencer – stori drist: "The past two years have been difficult for the company." Cawsom lawer o’r esgusodion hyn. Ni fyddai’r un cwmni yn defnyddio’r fath iaith i esgusodi’u hunain rhag cadw at ofynion y ddeddf cyflogau cyfartal na chadw at yr oriau gwaith statudol na rhoi amser i famau newydd o’r gwaith a gofynion deddfau eraill. Nid yw i gwmni ddweud nad oes ganddo ddigon o arian yn ddigon da. Orange – a dyma ni’n gweld yr iaith Gymraeg fel iaith swyddogol yn dod i mewn iddi. "It is standard practice for us to conduct all business dealings and correspondence in English, in common with all English-based corporations and companies." Yn y bôn felly, maen nhw wedi penderfynu anwybyddu’r Gymraeg yn llwyr.

Dyma rai o’r esboniadau neu’r atebion y mae rhai pobl, gan gynnwys Llywodraeth y Cynulliad, wedi’u cynnig. Yr hyn y dylid ei wneud yw esbonio y gall y Cynulliad, o dan Ddeddf Iaith Gymraeg 1993, ddiffinio bod unrhyw gorff sy’n darparu gwasanaeth cyhoeddus yn gorff cyhoeddus. Felly, gallai Gweinidog â chyfrifoldeb am y Gymraeg benderfynu y gallai unrhyw gorff, boed gyhoeddus neu breifat, fod yn gorff cyhoeddus o safbwynt Deddf Iaith 1993, ond mae’r cyfan yn anelwig iawn gan nad oes neb yn gwybod yn union beth mae’n ei olygu. Rydym wedi cael cyngor cyfreithiol sy’n dweud bod pethau fel nwy, trydan, rheilffyrdd, banciau a chymdeithasau adeiladu i gyd, wrth reswm, yn wasanaethau cyhoeddus a’u bod felly yn dod o dan Ddeddf 1993. Mae Llywodraeth y Cynulliad ar y llaw arall wedi cael cyngor cyfreithiol rhyfedd. O gymryd y rheilffyrdd er enghraifft, gellid ystyried bod Railrack neu Network Rail fel ag y mae bellach, yn gorff cyhoeddus am fod ganddo gyfrifoldebau am iechyd a diogelwch; fodd bynnag, nid yw cwmnïau trên sy’n rhedeg y trênau yn wasanaethau cyhoeddus yn ôl y Ddeddf er bod y cyhoedd yn dod i gysylltiad â nhw, yn hytrach na Network Rail, yn ddyddiol. Mae’r cyngor cyfreithiol yn amrywio. Nid yw’r sefyllfa‘n eglur i ni, na chwaith i’r Llywodraeth na’r Cynulliad.

Mae Iaith Pawb, dogfen Llywodraeth y Cynulliad, yn dweud ei bod am ei gwneud hi’n bosibl i bawb yng Nghymru fyw ei fywyd trwy gyfrwng ei ddewis iaith. Ni fydd modd gwireddu’r amcan hwnnw heb ddeddfwriaeth. Os yw Tesco, Marks & Spencer, Iceland, y banciau a’r cwmnïau rheilffyrdd yn gwrthod defnyddio’r Gymraeg, yr unig ateb sydd gennych yw deddfu i’w gorfodi i wneud hynny. Dyna’r unig ffordd i gael yr hyn mae’r Llywodraeth wedi dweud ei bod hi ei hun am ei weld. Nid mater o ‘eithafiaeth’ Cymdeithas yr Iaith yw hyn felly. Mae Llywodraeth y Cynulliad wedi dweud ei bod am wneud, ond nad oes ganddi’r pwer i wneud hynny ar hyn o bryd.

I chi gael gweld pa mor amhosib yw’r sefyllfa, y cyfan sydd eisiau i Vodafone a’u tebyg ei ddweud yw "Na wnawn, wnawn ni ddim darparu gwasanaethau Cymraeg oni fydd y ddeddfwriaeth yn newid." Gewch chi siarad faint a fynnoch am hyrwyddo gyda Bwrdd yr Iaith neu Lywodraeth y Cynulliad neu wleidyddion eraill, mae yna nifer o gwmnïau mawrion wedi dweud wrthym yn blwmp ac yn blaen nad ydyn nhw’n mynd i newid eu ffyrdd na gwneud unrhywbeth yn y Gymraeg os na fydd deddfwriaeth yn eu gorfodi i wneud hynny.

Dyna’n dadl: y dylai deddf iaith newydd roi’r hawl i’r Cynulliad wneud y penderfyniad hwnnw a deddfu ar y Gymraeg fel pwnc sy’n unigryw i Gymru ac felly i’r Cynulliad.

Interpretation:

All I have to say is just a bit of background showing what the Language Act is as it is at present, and the order of things now, in terms of the Welsh language and powers of the Assembly; then, as we see it, how the Act does not normalise the use of the Welsh language, and its failure to introduce bilingual life into Wales.

The Language Act 1993 opens with the words, "An Act to establish a border". The main purpose is to establish bureaucracy, rather than give rights to anyone. It says that the Welsh and English languages are equal when that is reasonably practicable, so you can basically opt out whenever you feel like it, and it only deals with the public sector. There is no implication for the private sector at all. Since 1993, and in the years leading up to that year, a number of bodies that had been public bodies before then became private bodies. If you think about water, electricity, railways – they would all have come under the Welsh Language Act, but they are now exceptions and they do not need to provide any services through the medium of Welsh.

In the Government of Wales Act 1998 there is a strange clause, clause 32(c): the Assembly can do anything they consider appropriate to support the Welsh language. Nobody has explained what that means. Several people have said that it means one thing; legal advice says that it means another thing; so we are not really sure what the powers of the Assembly are. As the Assembly or the present Government see it, it means doing nothing. Others argue that a lot can be done under that clause, but it is very unclear.

In terms of how we see the present Language Act’s failures, there are three main things. Public bodies were supposed to come under the Act, but they can ignore that to a great extent. Private bodies are exceptions, so they do not have to do anything; and although it is only ten years ago, ten years ago is a long time, and there have been developments such as the Internet, on-line services and shopping. Although in principle they should come under the Welsh Language Act if they are provided by public bodies, the Welsh language schemes quite often come from about ten years ago, so there is no provision for on-line provision through the medium of Welsh. We see that, for example, with a number of public bodies. If you ask the Inland Revenue, you will get your tax forms in Welsh. At one time, you got £100 off your bill if you did it on-line, but those forms were only available in English. There are some unfair situations arising.

Turning to public bodies: if you wanted to see them, we have a roomful of filing cabinets of complaints about government departments, councils, agencies, quangos that either avoid or do not achieve their responsibilities. Ms Wyn-Jones is a member of the Society and has been complaining. She wrote to DVLA and asked if she could still drive after an operation. She had the response in English, which was not relevant to her letter at all. They had not even tried to understand or translate it. She complained to the Welsh language board, who had a chat with the DVLA, it seems, and then some months later she had a response to her letter, but once again only in English. Despite the fact that members of the Culture Committee had gone to the Welsh Language Board and to the DVLA, nothing has changed still, and they are still ignoring the requirements of the Welsh Language Act.

Another problem of course is that a number of public bodies contract their work out to private bodies. This is another ambiguity. In theory, those companies come under the Welsh Language Act because the Welsh language schemes say that private companies that get a contract from a public body must adhere to the Welsh language scheme for a public body; but, of course, the private companies see it quite differently. To give you some examples, theory driving tests are contracted out to a private company, and we have heard from a number of members that they have great difficulties in getting theory tests. They either have to wait a lot longer time than their contemporaries who do their tests in English, or the location is a problem. Another one, the day before yesterday, related to collecting fines. The South Wales courts contract their work out to a private company. A member of the society who was part of the Welsh Language Campaign was arrested and fined for being part of that Campaign. At present, he refuses to pay the fine because the company that was collecting the fine refused to correspond with him through the medium of Welsh. The company has said, "we do not correspond bilingually, and we must advise you that payment is due, and failure to make a payment could result in further action being taken by us and our clients." It is a very strange situation: someone who has broken the law for a new Welsh language act facing gaol tomorrow if he does not pay a fine because the public body that has contracted the work to a private company refused to acknowledge the Welsh language.

That leads me to the next point. That person could face gaol for not paying the fine. What happens to the private company? Even though they are breaking the law, nothing happens. The Language Act has no power.

The Welsh Language Board has no power under the present Welsh Language Act to say what happens if there is a complaint, and what happens if the present situation is that the Welsh Language Board can prepare a report if they want, but they do not have to publish that report – it can be private. They can make representations to the public body.

The final step is to present the matter to the Secretary of State or the Assembly for direction. That has never happened. No complaint, despite all the examples we have of public companies ignoring the requirements of the Act, has yet been directed by the Assembly.

The private sector is where we see the main problem. The public sector has shrunk so much that the private sector is playing a central role in our lives now, not only commercial companies but also companies which provide public services such as electricity, gas, water, banks, building societies and railways; and because of their status as private companies they do not come under the Act. Here are some examples: Tesco: "We do not have a specific Welsh language policy, although we recently won awards for our delicatessen …" This is the attitude. Iceland: "The lack of Welsh signs in our store is so as not to confuse customers." You can see the rest. Marks & Spencer – sob story: "The past two years have been difficult for the company." We see a lot of these excuses. No other company would use language to excuse themselves from equal pay acts or their working hours, or time off for new mothers and similar kinds of legislation that you could look at. To say that the company has not got enough money is not good enough. Orange – and here we see the Welsh language as an official language coming in: "It is standard practice for us to conduct all business dealings and correspondence in English, in common with all English-based corporations and companies." Basically, they have chosen to ignore it completely.

Some of the responses or solutions that people have offered, and that the present Government has offered in the Assembly – the thing is to explain that under the 1993 Welsh Language Act the Assembly can define anybody providing a public service as a public body in terms of the Act. So the present Minister for the Welsh language can decide that any body that is a private or public body could be a public body in terms of the Welsh Language Act 1993, but there is a great ambiguity there because nobody knows exactly what that means. We have had legal advice saying that things like gas, electricity, railways, banks and building societies are all obviously public services and they could be drawn into the 1993 Act. The legal advice that the Assembly Government has received has been strange. Taking railways as an example, Railtrack or Network Rail as it is now, could be defined as a public body because there are health and safety responsibilities there so that as public bodies the train companies that run the trains are not public services, even though the public do come into contact with the train companies not really Network Rail – almost never, I would think. The train companies can be exempt, and there is no way to draw them into the Welsh Language Act. There is differing legal advice on what is the meaning. It is not clear to us, nor, obviously, the members of the Government or the Assembly at present.

Iaith Pawb, the present document of the Welsh Assembly Government states that they want to make it possible for everybody in Wales to live their life through their choice of language. If you think about the end of that, that cannot be done without legislation. If Tesco, Marks & Spencer and Iceland, the banks and the railway companies refuse to use the Welsh language, then the only way you can do that is through a new Welsh language act that forces them to do that. That is the only way you can do what the Government itself said they wanted to do, so it is not just a case of the Welsh Language Society being extreme here. The Welsh Assembly Government has said it wants to do the same thing, but it does not have the power to do it at present.

To show you how impossible it would be, Vodafone and other companies would just say: "No, we will not provide services in Welsh unless the legislative environment changes." It does not matter how much talk of promotion there is with the Welsh Language Board or the Welsh Assembly Government or other politicians, there are a number of companies we have spoken to that have just said that they are not going to change their ways or do anything in Welsh unless there are legislative changes enforcing that.

That is our argument; that a new Welsh language act should give the Assembly the right to make that decision and to legislate on the Welsh language as a subject that is unique to Wales and therefore to the Assembly.

HUW LEWIS: Carwn gynnig y sylwadau canlynol i gloi, ac wedyn byddaf yn crynhoi’r hyn ddywedodd Iwan. Rydym yn gweld bod angen amlwg i ymestyn y Ddeddf i’r sector preifat a newid yn sylfaenol y ffordd y mae’r Ddeddf yn gweithio. Trafodaeth wleidyddol yw hi yn ei hanfod, ac mae’n fater o ddwyn perswâd ar wleidyddion yn y Cynulliad i ddod o’n plaid; ond efallai’n bwysicach i chi yw bod angen rhoi’r hawl i’r Cynulliad allu gwneud hynny pe bai’n dymuno gwneud hynny. Mae’n fater o gydnabod hawl moesol y Cynulliad i ddeddfu ar y Gymraeg oherwydd os oes yna’r fath beth ag agenda unigryw Gymreig o gwbl, y Gymraeg yn naturiol yw’r maes hwnnw.

At hynny efallai, dywedir bod y Gymraeg yn faes trawsbynciol yn y Cynulliad. O’r herwydd mae disgwyl i bob adran, yn sgil Iaith Pawb, ystyried y Gymraeg wrth lunio polisïau. Gellid dadlau bod agenda Gymreig glir ym mhob maes a bod yn rhaid rhoi ystyriaeth lawn iddi ym mhob maes.

Rwyf am gloi trwy ddweud y dylid disgwyl i’r Cynulliad allu deddfu ar y Gymraeg. A mynd â’r ddadl gam ymhellach, dylai’r Cynulliad feddu ar bwerau deddfu p’run bynnag.

Interpretation:

I have some closing comments and then I will summarise what Iwan has said. Clearly, we see the need to extend the resent Act to the private sector and to amend the way the Act works in quite a fundamental way. It is a political debate really, and it is a matter of persuading politicians in the Assembly of our cause; but perhaps more relevant to you is the need for the Assembly to have the right to be able to do that if it wished to do so. It is a question of acknowledging the moral right of the Assembly to legislate on the Welsh language because if somebody asks whether there is a clear Welsh agenda, what other area is there than the Welsh language? How else can this be shown?

Beyond that perhaps, it could be said that as the Welsh language is now a mainstream subject in the Assembly, that every department as a result of Iaith Pawb is expected to consider the Welsh language and form policies considering the Welsh language. You could argue that there is a clear Welsh agenda in every field because full consideration must be given to language in all areas.

I close by saying that the Assembly should be expected to legislate on the Welsh language, but beyond that, the Assembly must have the right to legislate as a body in general.

LORD RICHARD: You are basically making one point, however you wrap it up: the Assembly should have the power to legislate in respect of the Welsh language, how it is used, how it is promulgated and how it is encouraged in Wales. That is the real point you are making.

HUW LEWIS: Pe bai rhywun yn gofyn a fyddai yna gefnogaeth i ddeddf iaith newydd, a fyddai gwleidyddion yn barod i gymeradwyo deddf newydd – byddai cwestiwn o’r fath yn dibynnu ar ystyriaethau gwleidyddol – ar etholiad ac yn y blaen.

Y pwynt sylfaenol yw nid a ydych yn cytuno gyda Chymdeithas yr Iaith bod angen deddf iaith newydd arnom nawr neu a ydych yn cytuno â Jenny Randerson nad oes angen deddf iaith arnom efallai ond y dylem edrych arni o’r newydd. Y cwestiwn sylfaenol yw a ddylai fod gan y Cynulliad yr hawl moesol i benderfynu ar y mater. Mae’n hurt meddwl mai San Steffan yw’r unig le y mae’n bosibl pasio deddf ar yr iaith Gymraeg.

Interpretation:

Really, if someone asked whether there would be support for a new language act, whether politicians in the Assembly would pass a new act – in reality that kind of question depends on political considerations – election and so on.

The fundamental point is whether you agree with the Welsh Language Society, which says we need a Welsh language act now, or whether you take Jenny Randerson’s viewpoint that maybe we do not need a language act, but we need to look at it, whichever view you take. The fundamental point is the moral right of the Assembly to decide on such an issue. It is really quite stupid that the only place where an act in relation to the Welsh language can be passed is in Westminster.

LORD RICHARD: I think that is a strong argument, and it is an argument that we have heard from other people. It seems to me, speaking personally – and the Commission may take a different view on it – that if anything should be subject to Welsh legislative power, it ought to be the Welsh language, and it is absurd that it is left in England. That is either the beginning of the argument, or the end of it.

TED ROWLANDS: Section 1 extends its argument more generally to say that it is essential to become a Welsh parliament. Would the Society also support the principle of tax powers as well? There is no mention of it.

HUW LEWIS: Yes, in principle we certainly would support that kind of measure.

Ein teimlad fel cymdeithas am y ffordd y mae’r Cynulliad yn gweithio fel corff – ac rwy’n siwr eich bod wedi clywed sylwadau tebyg o’r blaen – yw bod y trefniadau presennol yn ddryslyd iawn. Mae pwerau mewn rhai sectorau mewn rhai meysydd wedi’u trosglwyddo i’r Cynulliad. Mae’n rhyw fath o ddatganoli llorweddol, yn hytrach na throsglwyddo meysydd cyfan i’r Cynulliad. Mae hynny’n golygu ei bod hi’n dipyn o gamp i unigolion a chyrff weithio allan sut mae’r Cynulliad yn llunio polisïau yn y maes hwn, a chan eu bod mor ddibynnol ar natur yr is-ddeddfwriaeth, mae’r pwerau hynny’n gallu amrywio. Y pwynt yw, nid yw datganoli heddiw yn union fel y bydd yfory. Mae’n dibynnu ar y ffordd y caiff y ddeddfwriaeth ei drafftio. Gallai pwerau’r Cynulliad newid, a gallai hynny arwain at sefyllfa gymhleth iawn yn y dyfodol. I roi un enghraifft i chi, ym maes addysg, yn ein hymgyrch, rydym wedi bod yn pwyso am yr angen am gwricwlwm cenedlaethol i Gymru. Mae hi wedi dod i’r amlwg y gallai hynny fod yn bosibl trwy bwerau presennol y Cynulliad trwy’r mesurau amrywiol sy’n rhan o’r Ddeddf Addysg. Yr hyn rydym yn ei ddweud yw, pe bai gan y Cynulliad bwerau dros y sector addysg yn gyfan, byddai’n haws o lawer i wleidyddion a grwpiau pwyso lunio polisïau ystyrlon yn y meysydd hyn, yn hytrach na gorfod dibynnu bob amser ar y pwerau sydd wedi’u trosglwyddo trwy is-ddeddfwriaeth. Dyma un enghraifft yn unig rydym wedi dod ar ei thraws. Rwy’n siwr bod yna enghreifftiau eraill mewn meysydd eraill. Rwy’n siwr eich bod wedi clywed eisoes i’r Cynulliad dybio y gallai fynd i’r afael â thâl yn seiliedig ar berfformiad i athrawon, ond bod yna beth ansicrwydd wedi codi am bwerau’r Cynulliad yn y maes. Maes arall yw cnydau GM. Rwyf wedi cyfeirio at addysg am iddo godi sawl gwaith fel pwnc yn ystod ein hymgyrch.

Interpretation:

Our feeling as a society about the way the Assembly works in general – and I am sure you have heard these comments from many other people – is that the current arrangements are very confused. The Assembly’s powers were transferred in some sectors of some areas. It is a sort of horizontal devolution rather than transferring whole areas of responsibility to the Assembly, which means that the task of individuals and various bodies in working out how the Assembly forms policies in this area is very difficult, and the fact that it is so dependent on the nature of subordinate legislation means those powers can vary. The point is that devolution today is not exactly as it will be tomorrow, depending on the way the legislation is drafted. The powers of the Assembly could change, and that could be extremely complex in the future. To give you one example, in the field of education, in our campaigning we have been trying to press the need to consider a national curriculum for Wales. It has just become apparent that that may be possible through the Assembly’s powers through the various bills that could be passed within the Education Act. We are saying that if the Assembly had power for education as a whole, it would be far easier for politicians and pressure groups to formulate considered policies in these areas, rather than having to depend all the time on the powers transferred through secondary legislation. That is just one example we have come across in our campaigning. I am sure there are other examples in other areas. I am sure people have mentioned the Assembly believing that it could take action in terms of teachers’ performance-related pay but there being some uncertainty about the Assembly’s powers in relation to that area. Another area is GM crops. I was referring to education in particular as one that has become apparent as a result of our campaigning.

IWAN STANLEY: Hoffwn bwysleisio unwaith eto gymhlethdod y system fel ag y mae. Dywed rhai cynghorwyr cyfreithiol y gall y Cynulliad ddiffinio rhai cyrff sy’n darparu gwasanaeth cyhoeddus fel cyrff cyhoeddus. Mae eraill yn anghytuno. Dylid trosglwyddo’r maes yn gyfan, ynghyd â phwerau deddfu llawn, i’r Cynulliad. Wedyn, ni fyddai unrhyw ddryswch.

Interpretation:

I would once again emphasise the complexity of the system as it stands. Legal advice tells us that the Assembly can define some public bodies that are offering a public service, but other legal advice says "no". The whole of that area would have to be transferred with legislative powers, and that uncertainty would not then arise.

LAURA McALLISTER: A lot has been made over the last two or three years particularly about the new context of goodwill, so that language has ceased to become a political football. When Iaith Pawb came out, the Minister and various other people across the parties said that this was an example of the new climate; that there was not the need to have a new language act because there was this goodwill. You make a very interesting point in the paper, that depending on goodwill generally is not a measure of success because success means not having to depend on it, for fairly obvious reasons. Can you set before us the argument for establishing change or legislation change as opposed to depending on an improved climate of goodwill? Can you try and convince us, as a commission, that that is an important dimension?

HUW LEWIS: Y pwynt rwy’n ceisio ei wneud yw nad yw ewyllys da yn gyfystyr â hawl sylfaenol. Wrth ddibynnu ar ewyllys da, rydych chi wastad yn gorfod dibynnu ar ofyn, dro ar ôl tro; ac mewn ffordd, rydych yn gorfod brwydro’r un frwydr dro ar ôl tro, a chyfiawnhau’ch gweithredoedd dro ar ôl tro i ennill eich hawliau.

I roi enghraifft i chi, a all ymddangos yn wamal ond mae’n cyfleu fy mhwynt yn dda iawn. Fel rhan o’n hymgyrch dros ddeddf iaith, buom ni’n trafod â chwmnïau amrywiol, ar lefel leol a mwy canolog. Mewn un drafodaeth â banc yn y Gorllewin, roeddem am weld sut oedd eu gwasanaethau Cymraeg yn datblygu. Eu dadl oedd eu bod yn torri ar wasanaethau Cymraeg ac yn ailddiffinio’u gwasanaethau heb ddefnyddio’r Gymraeg am nad oedd pobl yn protestio gymaint yn eu herbyn nawr â chynt.

Dyna syniad ichi o hyd a lled yr ewyllys da. Mae’n rhaid ichi gyfiawnhau eich hunan bob tro a thro ar ôl tro. Nid yw grwpiau ymgyrchu eraill, grwpiau hawliau’r anabl er enghraifft, yn dal yn gorfod cyfiawnau eu hunain. Mae’n hawl sylfaenol; a dylai fod yna fframwaith i sicrhau bod yr hawliau hynny ar gael i bawb.

Mae meddu ar yr hawl i wneud rhywbeth yn mynd ymhellach na’r hyn a geir yn Iaith Pawb, er gwaetha’i amcanion canmoladwy, na feiddiwn anghytuno â nhw. Ceir ynddo hefyd syniadau positif iawn am wneud y Gymraeg yn bwnc canolog ym mhob peth. Mae’r Gymdeithas ei hun wedi bod yn pwyso am hynny. Mae’n sôn hefyd am fentrau newydd i annog teuluoedd a chymunedau i ddefnyddio’r Gymraeg. Mae’r rhain i gyd yn syniadau adeiladol iawn. Ond mae’n rhaid cydnabod pwysigrwydd deddfwriaeth a hawliau ieithyddol sylfaenol fel sail i’r cyfan. Yna dylai Iaith Pawb, fel cynllun gweithredu, weithio o fewn y fframwaith hwnnw.

Mae pobl yn sôn am bwysigrwydd addysg cyfrwng Cymraeg a’r gwaith sy’n cael ei wneud i hybu defnyddio’r Gymraeg. Mae’n bwysig hefyd ei fod yn gweithio o fewn fframwaith o hawliau go-iawn sy’n ei gwneud hi’n bosibl i bobl allu defnyddio’r Gymraeg, fel nad oes gofyn iddynt frwydro am gael ei defnyddio bob tro. Heb yr hawliau sylfaenol hyn, rydych yn mynd i gorddi’r lleiafrif sy’n ddigon penderfynol i fynnu eu hawliau – pobl fel ni, sy’n ddigon penstiff i fod yn barod i fod yn boen. Nid yw pawb yn ddigon hyderus i ofyn dro ar ôl tro; mae’n fater felly o wneud y Gymraeg yn iaith i bawb.

Interpretation:

The point I am trying to make is that goodwill does not correspond to a fundamental right. In depending on goodwill, you are constantly dependent on going to ask, time and time again; and, in a way, you have to battle that same battle over and over gain and justify your actions over and over again to attain your rights.

To give an example, which may seem flippant but it conveys it very well, as part of our campaign for a Welsh language act, we discussed with various companies on a local and more central level. In one local discussion we had with a bank in West Wales, we wanted to see what the development was in terms of the provision of Welsh language services with them. Their argument was that the company was cutting down on Welsh language services and re-defining their services without the use of the Welsh language because people were not protesting against them as much as they used to.

That gives you an idea of the length and breadth of goodwill. You always have to justify yourself, time and time again, whereas in other campaigning groups, such as disability rights, you should not have to justify yourself over and over again. That is not a fundamental right; but a framework should be in place to ensure that those rights are there fore each and every one of us.

Having rights to do something does extent further because Iaith Pawb is full of very laudable aims, and I would not disagree with those. However, it also includes some very positive ideas on setting Welsh as a mainstream issue. That is something that the Society has been pressing for from outside. It is also talking of new initiatives to promote use of the Welsh language within the family and the community. Those are very positive ideas. In reality, we need to acknowledge the importance of legislation and real linguistic rights as a basis to all of that. Then Iaith Pawb as an action plan should work within that framework.

People talk about the importance of education through the medium of Welsh and the work done in promoting the use of the language. It is also important that it works within the framework of very real rights that enable people to use the Welsh language, and so that they do not have to be determined to use it all the time. Without those fundamental rights, one is giving succour to a minority who are determined enough to constantly insist on their rights – people like us, who are awkward enough to continue to be awkward. Some people may not be confident enough to constantly ask; so it is not a question of making the Welsh language a language for all.

IWAN STANLEY : Mae’n rhaid imi ddweud fy mod wedi dod ar draws gwahanol fathau o ewyllys da – o ran y cyhoedd yn gyffredinol. Ond defnyddir ewyllys da i gyfiawnhau hefyd peidio â phasio deddfwriaeth. Dadleuir bod yna ewyllys da o blaid yr iaith yn y sector preifat, ac felly y gallwn fynd a gofyn iddynt ddarparu gwasanaethau trwy’r Gymraeg. Mae hynny’n bod i ryw raddau, ond fe ddywedodd Vodafone, "we are not going to do anything through the medium of Welsh unless compelled to do so by legislation". Nid yw’r ewyllys da i’w gael ym mhob rhan o’r sector preifat

Mae’r Gweinidog wedi dweud wrthym ei bod yn credu y bydd cwmnïau preifat yn defnyddio’r Gymraeg am resymau masnachol; o gael un cwmni’n defnyddio’r Gymraeg, bydd cwmnïau eraill am wneud yr un peth. Nid dyna sut mae pethau’n gweithio. Y rheswm pam fod cwmnïau’n defnyddio’r Gymraeg yw nad ydynt am gael y cyhoeddusrwydd drwg a ddaw o beidio â’i defnyddio. Dydyn nhw ddim am weld pobl yn picedu ac yn protestio y tu allan i’w canghennau.

Cawsom gyfarfod eitha’ rhyfedd gyda Jenny Randerson: wnaeth hi ddim defnyddio’r union eiriau hyn, ond roedd hi fel pe bai’n dweud: "ie, ewch yn eich blaen i brotestio. Mae hynny wedi llwyddo i droi cwmnïau yn y gorffennol." Dyma’r Gweinidog a’r Llywodraeth cystal â dweud wrth grwp ymgyrchu i barhau i brotestio.

Mae’n sefyllfa ryfedd iawn lle gallwn gael rhai gwasanaethau trwy’r Gymraeg – fel delicatessen dwyieithog – dim ond ichi ysgrifennu digon o lythyrau. Dyna natur yr ewyllys da yn y cyd-destun hwn yn y sector preifat.

Gwaetha’r modd, nid yw hyn yn cyfateb i hawl sylfaenol i gael gwasanaeth yn y Gymraeg.

Interpretation:

I would say that there are different kinds of goodwill that I have come across, certainly in terms of the public in general, but goodwill is also used to justify not passing legislation, saying that there is goodwill towards the Welsh language within the private sector, and therefore we could just approach them and ask them to provide services through the medium of Welsh. That exists to some extent, but, as Vodafone said, "we are not going to do anything through the medium of Welsh unless compelled to by legislation". The goodwill in the private sector fails to a great extent.

The Minister has told us that she believes that private companies will use the Welsh language because of the commercial concerns; that if one company uses the medium of Welsh, the other company will want to follow suit. That is not the way it works. The reason companies use the Welsh language is because they do not want the bad publicity from not using it. They do not want people picketing outside of their branches and protesting.

We had quite a strange meting with Jenny Randerson: she did not put it in these very words, but she was almost saying, "yes, carry on protesting". That has succeeded in bringing private companies and has worked. You have the Minister and the Government telling the pressure group to carry on protesting.

It is a very strange situation where we can have some services through the medium of Welsh – you can have a bilingual delicatessen – if you write enough letters. That is the nature of goodwill in this context in the private sector.

Unfortunately, it is not akin to fundamental rights to have services

LORD RICHARD: How do you define the private sector that you wish to be treated as if it was in the public sector? Second, what specific obligations do you want to be put on the private sector different than those that are participation the public sector – either greater or lesser? Third, do you recognise that it would need primary legislation to do it?

IWAN STANLEY: Biwrocrataidd yn ei hanfod yn ein golwg ni yw system gyfan y Ddeddf Iaith ar hyn o bryd. Mae’n wastraffus ac yn aneffeithiol. Ar hyn o bryd, rhaid i bob corff cyhoeddus greu cynllun iaith. Dywedant er enghraifft, yr atebir llythyr Cymraeg yn Gymraeg. Ac mae’n hurt ailadrodd y broses hon dro ar ôl tro – ni fyddem am i hynny gael ei ymestyn i’r sector preifat am y byddai’n dasg ddiddiwedd ac ofer.

Rydym wedi cynnig trywydd arall yn ein dogfen Deddf Iaith Newydd ar gyfer Canrif Newydd. Byddai’r system newydd yn addas i’r sector preifat, gan ei fod yn bolisi ar gyfer y sector preifat. Mae’n fatrics fydd yn cymryd nifer o ffactorau gwahanol iawn i ystyriaeth. Yr ystyriaeth bwysicaf fydd natur y gwasanaeth fydd yn cael ei roi – pa mor gyhoeddus fyddai’r gwasanaeth hwnnw?

Interpretation:

We see the whole system of the current Welsh Language Act as being bureaucratic, which is very wasteful and ineffectual. At the moment, every public body must create a language scheme. They are saying that, for example, they will answer a letter through the medium of Welsh but that it is stupid to do that time and time again for every public body – "we would not want to see that extended to the private sector because it would be an endless task and we would never get anywhere."

We have set out a possible alternative in this document in A New Welsh Language Act for a New Century. The new system would be appropriate for the public sector, as it is a policy for the private sector. It is a matrix taking into account a number of very different factors. Most importantly, the nature of the service provided by a public service – how public is that service?

LORD RICHARD: How do you define it?

IWAN STANLEY: Mae yna rai gwasanaethau cyhoeddus sy’n amlwg yn wasanaethau cyhoeddus, wrth gwrs, fel cynghorau sir. Mae rhai eraill nad ydynt mor amlwg. Ac wedyn mae gennych y lefel isaf, fel y ffatri bôl-berings yn y cymoedd – yr un rydym wastad yn clywed amdani. Does dim gwasanaeth cyhoeddus yn y ffatri honno – maen nhw’n cynhyrchu partiau ceir a dydy’r cyhoedd byth yn dod i gysylltiad â nhw. Mae’n dibynnu ar faint y berthynas â’r cyhoedd, natur y cwmni, maint y cwmni a nifer y siaradwyr Cymraeg yn yr ardal. Dyna elfen arall y gellid ei chymryd i ystyriaeth. Gall yr holl elfennau hyn gyfrannu at greu proffil. Gellid rhoi contractau amrywiol a chanddynt amserlenni gwahanol, fel ag sy’n digwydd gyda’r Ddeddf Hawliau Pobl Anabl heddiw. Mae honno’n cael ei chyflwyno fesul cam dros nifer o flynyddoedd, gan ddibynnu ar faint y cwmni.

Interpretation:

There are some public services, obviously, public such as county councils. There are others where there would be less emphasis. Then you get the lower level such as the ball-bearing factory in the valleys – the one we are always hearing reference to. There is no public service in that factory – they are producing car parts and the public does not come into contact with them. It is important as to how much relationship there is with the public in general, the nature of the company, the size of the company, and the number of Welsh speakers in any particular area. That is another element that could be taken into account. They could all build a profile with various contracts, in terms of timetables, as happens with other acts such as the Disability Rights Act. That is being phased in over a period of many years, depending on the size of the company.

LAURA McALLISTER: A sort of matrix, where you pinpoint people or companies on the matrix.

HUW LEWIS: Y syniad cyffredinol yw y bydd yn sicrhau bod yna ddilyniant tuag un cyfeiriad. Mae’n gosod safonau cenedlaethol. Byddai disgwyl i gwmni o Wynedd er enghraifft, gyrraedd y safonau uchaf mewn amser byr, ond byddai disgwyl i siop fach yn Ngwent gyrraedd safon lawer is, ond fe fyddai’n dal ar y matrics ac yn dal i symud i’r cyfeiriad iawn. Dyna’r pwynt hanfodol.

Interpretation:

The general idea is that this is a means of ensuring there is a general progression in one direction. It sets national standards. Therefore, it would be expected that a company existing in Gwynedd, for example, would be expected to achieve the highest standard in a very short period of time, whereas a small shop in Gwent would reach a very much lower level but would still be part of this matrix and still be moving in the right direction. That is the fundamental point.

EIRA DAVIES: Ydych chi’n cynnwys y sector gwirfoddol ar y matrics?

Do you include the voluntary sector policy in this matrix?

IWAN STANLEY: Yn gyntaf i gyd, mae angen cofio bod nifer o fudiadau gwirfoddol yn gwneud gwaith i wasanaethau cyhoeddus ac yn aml iawn i’r Llywodraeth. Fe fyddem yn bendant yn disgwyl eu cynnwys ar y matrics. Os ydych yn elusen sy’n gweithio gyda’r henoed yng Ngwynedd, byddem yn disgwyl ichi fod yn barod i ddarparu gwasanaeth cyfrwng Cymraeg i bobl fyddai’n ei chael yn anodd cyfathrebu mewn iaith arall.

Interpretation:

First of all, the point needs to be made that a number of voluntary bodies carry out public services on behalf of the Government in very many cases. Certainly, we would expect them to be included in the matrix. Once again, that would be part of the matrix that we outlined in this document. If you are a charity working with elderly people in Gwynedd, I would expect there should be a willingness to provide a service through the medium of Welsh to people who would have difficulty in operating through any other language.

TOM JONES: Fe ddywedsoch fod gan y Cynulliad y pwer i ddiffinio gwaith a oedd yn cael ei wneud gan fudiadau gwirfoddol a chyrff cyhoeddus ar ran cyrff yn y sector cyhoeddus fel gwasanaeth cyhoeddus. Ai diffyg ymrwymiad neu frwdfrydedd yn y Cynulliad yw’r ffaith nad yw’n defnyddio’i bwerau’n effeithiol?

Interpretation:

You said the Assembly had the power to define work which was carried out by voluntary bodies and private bodies on behalf of public sector bodies – could be defined as public services if the power is there. Is it a lack of commitment, or enthusiasm in the Assembly to use their existing powers effectively?

IWAN STANLEY: Mae llawer o amwysedd ynghylch pa pa gyrff y gallech eu rhoi o dan y cymal hwnnw. Fel y dywedais, mae’n cyngor cyfreithiol ni yn dweud un peth ac mae cyngor cyfreithiol y Cynulliad yn dweud peth arall. Maent yn edrych ar y funud ar y cyfleustodau. Rwy’n meddwl eu bod nhw wedi penderfynu nad oes modd eu diffinio nhw’n gyrff cyhoeddus, neu os ydynt, y byddant yn ceisio gwneud ymhen ychydig flynyddoedd. Dyna’r diweddaraf rwyf wedi’i glywed. Ac eto, maent yn dod â’r cwmnïau hynny o dan system y cynlluniau iaith, sy’n system aneffeithiol.

Interpretation:

There is great ambiguity about the meaning of that, and which bodies you bring in under that clause. As I said, we have had legal advice of one sort and the Assembly has received different legal advice. They are looking at the moment at the utilities. I think they have decided that it cannot be done, or they will try to do so in a few years. That is the latest we have heard. Once again, they are bringing those companies into the current system of the language schemes, which is an ineffectual system.

TOM JONES: There is no real monitoring afterwards. That is another weakness with the current system. We need to get to the bottom of this. There are the railway and electricity companies, but there are also regulatory bodies – Ofcom, Oftel and so on. One would expect them, before giving contracts or franchises, to put into their terms and conditions that there would be an expectation in Wales that those bodies would work bilingually. Do those bodies have that power? Do we need to change the Language Act to enable that to happen?

IWAN STANLEY: Rydym wedi awgrymu hynny wrth y Cynulliad. Nid ydym wedi cael ymateb un ffordd na’r llall a bod yn onest.

Mae cyrff preifat yn darparu gwasanaethau trwy gytundeb â’r Llywodraeth ac fe allech ddweud bod contract â chwmni ffôn symudol yn gontract o’r fath a byddai’r cwmni hwnnw’n gorfod darparu gwasanaeth Cymraeg; ond unwaith eto, mae’r cyfan yn aneglur. Nid ydym yn gallu cael ateb pendant. Dyna pam ein bod wedi dweud bod angen yr holl waith yma arnom ni i grisialu’r sefyllfa.

Interpretation:

That is something that we have suggested to the Assembly. We have not received a response one way or the other, to be honest.

Private bodies provide services in agreement with the Government, and you could say that a contract for a mobile phone company would be a contract of one sort and that would mean that that company would have to provide Welsh language services; but, once again, it is a completely ambiguous area. We cannot get a definitive answer. That is why we have said that we need all this work done to make it clear.

TOM JONES: Pan gyfeirioch chi at Vodafone ac Orange, wnaethoch chi ddim sôn am BT. Ydy BT yn ymateb yn wahanol i Vodafone ac Orange? Nid wyf am wneud sylw masnachol yn y fan yma, ond meddwl oeddwn i, a oes gan BT agwedd wahanol, o gofio y bu’n gorff cyhoeddus yn y gorffennol.

Interpretation:

When you mentioned Vodafone and Orange, you did not mention BT. Have you found a difference in the response of BT as compared to Vodafone and Orange? I am not making a commercial comment here, but I am just wondering if BT has a different attitude, given that it was a public body in the past.

IWAN STANLEY: Mae’n wir i ryw raddau, a hefyd mewn meysydd eraill. Mae Nwy Prydain, er enghraifft, yn barotach i ddarparu gwasanaethau Cymraeg na chwmnïau eraill yn y maes. Ond maent wedi’u ffosileiddio fel ag yr oeddynt pan gawsant eu preifateiddio. Er enghraifft, fe gewch chi’r ymholiadau 192 yn Gymraeg, ond nid oes gobaith ordro llinell band llydan ADSL yn Gymraeg, am nad oes ganddynt y staff. Rydym yn gofyn i BT am wasanaeth cynhwysfawr, ond dydy hwnnw ddim ar gael. Y cyfan sydd yn Gymraeg yw’r pethau oedd yn Gymraeg cyn preifateiddio, fel talu biliau. Hefyd, mae siaradwyr Cymraeg o dan anfantais fasnachol. Er enghraifft, mae yna ryw ddeg gwasanaeth ymholiadau gyda rhifau gwahanol ar gyfer pob un, yn hytrach na bod o dan ymbarel 192. Mae BT yn cynnig gwasanaeth Cymraeg. Ond mae deg gwasanaeth arall sy’n ceisio tanseilio BT. Dydyn nhw ddim yn darparu gwasanaethau Cymraeg, felly gallech chi gael eich hun yn talu dwbwl am wasanaethau sydd ar gael yn rhatach yn Saesneg. Mae sefyllfa debyg gyda Nwy Prydain. Fe gewch chi filiau Cymraeg dim ond ichi ofyn digon ond nid yw’r cwmnïau nwy eraill yn darparu dim yn y Gymraeg. Gallech ddewis Nwy Prydain sydd yn aml yn ddrutach, neu ddewis prynu gan gwmni rhatach sydd ddim yn cynnig darpariaeth Gymraeg; dyna enghraifft o’r anghydraddoldeb rwy’n sôn amdano i chi.

Interpretation:

It is true to some extent, and also in other areas. British Gas, for example, is more willing to provide services through the medium of Welsh than other companies in this area. Once again, they were fossilised and set in stone when they were privatised. For example, you get the 192 directory inquiry service through the medium of Welsh, but if you try and order a broadband ADSL line, you have no hope of doing it through the medium of Welsh because the staff just are not in place. We are looking for a global service through BT that is not available. It is just the things there before they were privatised such as paying bills. Then you have a situation of financial unfairness to Welsh speakers. For example, with BT 192, there are about ten directory inquiry services with different numbers rather than all being under the 192 umbrella. BT have Welsh language services, but there are ten other services because they are trying to undermine BT. Obviously, they are not providing the services through the medium of Welsh so you can pay double getting it through the medium of Welsh, and it is cheaper in the medium of English. It is the same with British companies. They provide Welsh language bills if you ask often enough, but others do not. You are in a situation where you choose British Gas, which is often more expensive, or you go for the cheaper option where you will not get the Welsh language service; so there is an inequality there.

TOM JONES: Rydych yn gofyn am bwerau deddfu sylfaenol i’r Cynulliad, yn enwedig ym meysydd iechyd, addysg ac ati sydd eisoes wedi’u datganoli. Beth am yr adrannau hynny sydd heb eu datganoli – fel y Swyddfa Gartref, y Trysorlys, Defra? Beth sydd gennych i’w ddweud am y rheini?

Interpretation:

You are asking for primary legislative powers for the Assembly, particularly in the current devolved areas of health, education and so on. What about those departments that remain undevolved – the Home Office, the Treasury, Defra? Do you have any comment to make on those?

IWAN STANLEY: Fel y dywedwyd eisoes, mae’r Ddeddf Iaith yn un maes sy’n benodol iawn i Gymru, ond mae Llywodraeth y Cynulliad wedi cytuno bod y Gymraeg yn thema drawsbynciol, sy’n gorgyffwrdd â phob maes arall. Felly, fe ddywedwn i ei bod yn berthnasol i bob maes ac i’r meysydd sydd ar y funud heb eu datganoli, fel y cyfryngau, sef enghraifft amlwg iawn o faes sydd heb ei ddatganoli. Cafwyd anawsterau i gael cynrychiolydd o Gymru ar Ofcom.

Mae’r cod rheoli newydd yn enghraifft amlwg arall o rywbeth sy’n fawr ei effaith ar y Gymraeg ac sydd heb ei ddatganoli.

Interpretation:

As we have said, the Language Act is one area that is specific to Wales, but the Assembly Government has agreed that the Welsh language is cost-cutting theme, which overlaps with every other area. So I would say it is relevant to all areas. I would say it is relevant to the areas which are currently not devolved, such as the media, which is a very obvious example of an area that is currently not devolved. There have been difficulties there in trying to get a Welsh representative on Ofcom.

The new management code is an obvious example of something that has a great effect on Welsh language, which is an undevolved issue.

LORD RICHARD: Coming back to the question of definition, you are saying that the test for whether a company should be covered by your new act, is not the nature of the body but the service that it provides; in other words, if it provides a "public service" – it will actually take the courts a very long time to decide what a public service is – but if it provides a public service, then it ought to be covered. If it does not provide a public service, then it does not apply. That is the gist of it.

IWAN STANLEY: Rwy’n meddwl mai’r hyn rydym yn ei ddweud yn ei hanfod yw y byddai deddf yn cwmpasu pawb, ond gyda’r martics yma ... byddai’r cynghorau iaith yr ydym yn galw amdanynt, yn ystyried natur y gwasanaeth ac yn penderfynu beth ddylai’r ffatri bôl-bering ei wneud. Felly, rwy’n meddwl y byddai’n rhaid i bethau fod yn eithaf hyblyg o safbwynt y ddeddf ei hun. Nid yw hyn yn y ddeddf ar hyn o bryd, ond gellid rhoi’r pwer i ddiffinio fel bod modd ystyried newidiadau.

Gallai rhai cwmnïau ddadlau – siop dsips er enghraifft – nad ydyn nhw’n wasanaeth cyhoeddus, ond fe fyddem ni’n dal am ei chynnwys yn y matrics; ond fe fydden nhw ar lefel gwbl wahanol ac fe fyddai yna help a chefnogaeth, a grantiau efallai, yn hytrach na gorfodaeth.

Mae yna rai pethau wrth gwrs, sydd ond yn berthnasol i un iaith.

Interpretation:

I think we are saying fundamentally that the new language act covers everyone, but that this matrix – the language councils we have called would consider the nature of the service and then, obviously, the council would then ask the ball-bearing factory to do anything, so I would think it would have to be quite flexible in terms of nothing in the act itself. It is not in the act, but then power is given to define out of the act, so that changes could be considered.

Some companies you could argue - a chip shop or whatever – perhaps it is not a public service, but we would still include it in that matrix; but they would be on a totally different level and there would be support or help rather than enforcement, and maybe grants.

There are some things, of course, which are directly relevant to one language.

LORD RICHARD: You could not ask for the Western Mail to be published bilingually, for example. You can ask for more Welsh in it – that is another issue – but what is the policy as far as the newspapers are concerned?

IWAN STANLEY: Polisi Cymdeithas yr Iaith yw y dylai fod yna arian ar gyfer papur dyddiol Cymraeg – ond mater arall yw hynny.

Interpretation:

The policy of the Welsh Language Society is that there should be funding for a daily Welsh language paper – so that is another matter.

TED ROWLANDS: You want to remove from the existing legislation the phrase "appropriate under the circumstances and is reasonable and practicable". Are there any circumstances or situations where it would be inappropriate or impractical to expect the language to be used?

HUW LEWIS: Mae hyn yn mynd â ni ‘nôl i’r trefniadau y gwnaeth Iwan eu hegluro o ran y matrics. Byddai’n dibynnu ar natur y gwasanaeth a natur a maint y cyrff dan sylw. Hynny fyddai’n penderfynu ar y gofynion ieithyddol a’r amserlen ar gyfer eu darparu. Y broblem gyda’r geiriad ‘rhesymol ac ymarferol’ yw ei fod yn aml yn rhoi’r rhyddid i’r corff neu’r unigolion dan sylw ei ddehongli fel a fynno. Mae’n fater o farn unigolyn yn aml. A dyna sut rydym ni’n ei weld yn aml. Bum ym Mhrifysgol Aberystwyth yn ddiweddar a gwelais wendid y cymal ddydd ar ôl dydd, oherwydd roedd eich hawl i siarad Cymraeg yn dibynnu a oedd unigolyn o’r farn ei bod hi’n rhesymol ac ymarferol ichi gael siarad Cymraeg. Nid yw’n ddigon clir ac mae angen geiriad cryfach arnom i wneud yn siwr bod gan bawb yr hawl i ddefnyddio’r Gymraeg.

Interpretation:

Really, it comes back to the arrangements that Iwan explained in terms of the matrix we are talking about. It would consider the nature of the service and the nature and size of the bodies covered. That would then place the requirement in terms of language and would set the timetable to be followed. The problem with this wording of "reasonable and practicable" is that it leaves it quite often to the opinion of individual bodies or even individuals, and it does depend on the opinion of individuals. We quite often see it. I have been in the University of Aberystwyth recently and saw the weakness of that clause, day after day, because their right to speak Welsh in a situation depended on the opinion of an individual whether it was reasonable or practicable. It is not clear enough and we need stronger wording to ensure that somebody really has the right to use the Welsh language.

IWAN STANLEY: Un o’r pwyntiau a wnawn yw bod angen Comisiwn y Gymraeg arnom, neu ryw gorff tebyg i blismona’r peth. Un o’r problemau ar y funud yw nid yn unig bod Bwrdd yr Iaith yn farnwr, rheithgor a dienyddwr, ond ef hefyd sy’n gwneud y rheolau. Nid oes unrhyw bwer y tu ôl i unrhyw benderfyniad maen nhw’n ei wneud. Mae cyrff cyhoeddus yn rhydd i ddweud beth sy’n ymarferol iddyn nhw.

Byddai comisiwn iaith neu rywbeth tebyg yn gallu monitro’r sefyllfa a mynd ar ôl cwmnïau sy’n osgoi’u cyfrifoldebau. Efallai y gallai fod iawndal mewn rhai achosion ond mae angen sefydlu corff o’r fath, gyda rhywun i ymchwilio a yw rhywbeth yn rhesymol neu beidio. Fel y dywedsoch chi, yn eithaf aml, mater i’r unigolyn yw e.

Interpretation:

One of the points we make is that we need a Welsh language commission or whatever to police the thing. One of the present problems is that the Welsh Language Board not only is judge, jury and executioner, but it also makes the rules at the same time. There is no power behind any decisions they make. Public bodies can really just choose for themselves what is practical.

Having a language commission or someone to monitor the situation and follow up companies that are avoiding their responsibilities, perhaps there could be financial compensation in some cases; but that needs to be done, with somebody researching to see if something is reasonable or not. Quite often, as you said, it is just up to the individual at the moment.

LORD RICHARD: The phrase "reasonable in all the circumstances" is pretty well known to the courts, and in different Acts over the years they have refined the concept down so that everybody is very clear now what it means. It is through a process of legislation that you could get a pretty clear definition. I do not think it is fair to say that it is just an individual decision.

IWAN STANLEY: Wel, fel ag y mae’n cael ei weithredu ar hyn o bryd, mae pobl yn gallu cyfiawnhau pethau fel a fynnant o dan y cymal hwn. Efallai bod y cymal yn deg a chyfreithlon, ond does neb yn herio diffiniad pobl o beth sy’n rhesymol ac ymarferol. Dyw’r Bwrdd ddim yn mynd ar ôl pobl a herio’u dehongliad o’r hyn sy’n rhesymol ac ymarferol. Mae rhai’n dweud y byddai gwasanaeth Cymraeg yn costio gormod, neu fod neb ar gael i’w wneud. Drwy hynny, maen nhw’n yn dweud ei fod yn anymarferol. Mae’n rhaid wrth ryw fath o safonau cydnabyddedig a llinellau sylfaen, gyda rhywun i ddweud, "rhaid ichi wneud hyn, rhaid ichi wneud y llall".

Interpretation:

Well, as it is implemented at present, people can justify all kinds of things under that clause. Perhaps the clause is fair and legal, but nobody actually challenges people’s definitions of what is reasonable and practical. The Welsh Language Board does not follow up anyone to say whether it is reasonable or not. We have had some people saying it would cost too much, or that there is nobody to do it, therefore saying it is impracticable. There is a need for some kind of acknowledged standards and fundamental baselines, and somebody then says, "you must do this, you must do that".

TED ROWLANDS: In the same section you draw our specific attention to the Catalan, Basque and Galician experience, where the language has the status that you wish to establish. In each of those cases, does the right of the language apply right through the private sector? Has it got this matrix type of approach that you are suggesting? Does a retail store in Catalonia or Galicia have to fulfil the official language policy?

IWAN STANLEY: Yng Nghatalonia, o’r hyn y medraf ei gofio, mae’r sectror preifat yn rhan ohono, ond mae hi’n dibynnu ar yr ardal ac ati. Mae’r Ynysoedd Baleares er enghraifft yn eithaf llym ar y mater, ac maen nhw’n mynd o gwmpas i newid yr arwyddion i Gatalaneg yn unig gan fwyaf. Un o’r pethau pwysica’ yn hyn o beth yw statws swyddogol y diffiniad o’r brif iaith. Rydym ninnau’n gofyn am statws swyddogol. Mae pobl yn gofyn inni beth mae hynny’n ei olygu ac rydym yn clywed yn eithaf aml, "does dim eisiau inni ddweud bod y Gymraeg yn iaith swyddogol am nad oes neb wedi dweud bod y Saesneg yn iaith swyddogol’. Mae hynny’n dod o’r traddodiad Prydeinig o fod heb gyfansoddiad ysgrifenedig. Rydym jest yn derbyn y pethau hyn.

Fodd bynnag, y tu allan i Brydain y mae’n cael effaith. Mae’r Gymraeg yn anomali yn yr ystyr nad yw’n iaith swyddogol, a therm yng nghyfraith Ewrop yw’r diffiniad hwn o brif iaith mewn gwirionedd – iaith sy’n gysylltiedig â darn o dir. Felly byddai’r Gymraeg yn gysylltiedig â Chymru ac unman arall. Mae pethau eraill yn codi o hyn, fel cael grantiau strwythurol Ewropeaidd, a allai fod o help mawr. Byddai dweud bod y Gymraeg a’r Saesneg yn ieithoedd swyddogol yng Nghymru yn hwb symbolaidd, dim ond i ddangos ein bod o ddifri ynghylch y peth. Dywedodd Huw bod rhai cynghorau’n dweud ei bod yn anghyfreithlon siarad Cymraeg mewn cyfarfod o’r cyngor am mai’r Saesneg yw’r iaith swyddogol. Byddai datganiad clir felly gan y Cynulliad yn help yn hynny o beth, o ran troi agweddau pobl at y Gymraeg.

Interpretation:

In Catalonia, from what I recall, the private sector is part of it but it does not depend on area and so on. The Balearic Islands, for example, are quite strict on the matter, and I think they go round to change their signs to be mainly Catalonian only. One of the important things coming out of that is the official status of the definition of the main language. We are asking for official status. People ask us what that means and we quite often hear, "we do not need to say that the Welsh language is the official language because nobody said English is the official language", and that comes from the British tradition of not having a written constitution. We just accept these things.

However, outside Britain it does have an effect. The Welsh language is an anomaly language because it is not an official language, and this definition of the main language used is a European term really in law – a language which is related to a piece of land, so related to Wales and nowhere else. Things arise from this such as getting grants from European structural funds, for example, which would be a great help. Saying that, the Welsh and the English are official languages in Wales would be helpful symbolically just to show that we are serious about this matter. Huw referred to the fact that councils say it is illegal to speak Welsh in a council meeting because English is the official language. Well, just a clear statement from the Assembly would be of help, just in terms of people’s attitudes to the Welsh language.

HUW LEWIS: Dyna oedd ein prif bwynt wrth gyfeirio at Gatalonia a Gwlad y Basg. Mae yna ddatganiad clir ynghylch statws swyddogol eu hieithoedd yn y gwledydd hynny, ac maen nhw’n cael eu cydnabod fel y brif iaith. Cyfieithiad o hynny fyddai’r iaith gynhenid neu’r iaith genedlaethol. Yn symbolaidd, fel y dywedodd Iwan, byddai’n rhoi gwerth i’r iaith. Yn ymarferol, mae’n golygu y bydd modd rhoi mwy o ystyriaeth i’r ieithoedd hyn wrth ymdrin â rhaglenni gwariant Ewropeaidd. Mae’r Gymraeg yn aml yn cael ei chau allan neu’n ei chael yn anodd cystadlu am y rhaglenni hyn.

Interpretation:

That was the main point when making a comparison with the Basque country and Catalonia. There is a clear statement of the official status of those languages, and they are acknowledged as the main language. Translation would be the indigenous or national language. What it means symbolically, as Iwan said, is that there is a clear value to that language. Practically, it means that those languages can be considered much more when it comes to European expenditure programmes. The Welsh language is quite often closed out or has difficulty competing for such programmes.

LORD RICHARD: What programmes?

HUW LEWIS: Rhaglenni Ewropeaidd.

Interpretation:

European programmes

LORD RICHARD: They are a minority language, some of the programmes, but most of them are minority language.

HUW LEWIS: Yn ôl y cyngor rydym wedi’i gael, mae’r Gymraeg yn colli allan ar raglenni Ewropeaidd am nad oes ganddi’r un statws cyfreithiol yn Ewrop. Maen nhw’n pwysleisio’r math hyn o beth.

Interpretation:

The advice we have had about this is that the Welsh language would be closed out from European programmes because it does not have the same legal status in Europe because there is an emphasis on this kind of thing.

LORD RICHARD: I have never heard of that. You may be right, but I just do not know about it.

EIRA DAVIES: Mae yna wahaniaeth rhwng iaith leiafrifol ac iaith llai ei defnydd. Mae yna ddiffiniadau gwahanol sy’n effeithio ar y ffaith nad yw’r Gymraeg yn cael ei chydnabod yn Ewrop.

Interpretation:

The difference between minority and lesser-used languages – there are different definitions perhaps which affect the fact that perhaps the Welsh language does not get input into Europe.

IWAN STANLEY: Mae yna ddiffiniad uwchlaw hwnnw eto. Rwy’n trio meddwl am enghraifft. Iaith leiafrifol yw’r Swedeg yn y Ffindir.

Interpretation:

The definition above them again. I am trying to think of an example. Swedish in Finland is a minority language.

LORD RICHARD: What about Breton?

IWAN STANLEY: Na, mae hynny’n wahanol eto. Llydaweg yw iaith gynhenid Llydaw, ond nid Swedeg yw iaith gynhenid y Ffindir. Mae’r term yn Ewrop yn dangos bod yr iaith yn dod o le penodol. Mae’n rhan o siarter yr ieithoedd llai eu defnydd, siarter UNESCO.

Interpretation:

No, that is different again. Breton is the indigenous language in Brittany, but Swedish is not the indigenous language in Finland but in Sweden. That is the term Europe uses to note that a language comes from somewhere in particular. It is part of the lesser-used languages charter, the UNESCO Charter.

TOM JONES: Ar gyfer y cofnod, allwch chi ddweud o ble cawsoch chi’r wybodaeth yma a beth sy’n rhwystro’r Gymraeg rhag cael statws Ewropeaidd?

Interpretation:

For the record, can you summarise where you have that advice from and what stops the Welsh language from getting European status?

LORD RICHARD: It is not only that; it is what effect Welsh not having an official status has on access to European funds.

SIR MICHAEL WHEELER BOOTH: A small point taken from your paper: in paragraph 012 you make reference to what is set out in section 66.4 of the Government of Wales Act. That section refers specifically to subordinate legislation. There are over 900 instruments a year in subordinate legislation, many of which are entirely ephemeral and of no real interest. They are closing a road or something for a few weeks, for example. If you translate them all, it costs something. Is there not a case for saying that it would be better to spend the money on, shall we say, better teaching of Welsh or provision of further education in Welsh, rather than translating every single piece of subordinate legislation into Welsh?

IWAN STANLEY: Rwy’n meddwl bod hyn yn fater o egwyddor. Mae yna ofyn tebyg o dan ddarnau amrywiol o ddeddfwriaeth, ac rwy’n trio meddwl am yr union enw. Ni chaiff corff cyhoeddus beidio â chodi ramp i adeilad am nad oes unrhyw un yn yr adeilad hwnnw sy’n defnyddio cadair olwyn, er enghraifft. Mae’r ffaith nad oes neb yn eu darllen nhw – a does neb yn eu darllen nhw yn Saesneg chwaith â bod yn onest – yn amherthnasol. Mae’n fater o egwyddor.

Interpretation:

I think there is an issue of principle involved here. There is a demand under various pieces of legislation, and I am trying to think of the exact words. A public body would not be allowed not to put a ramp into a building because no-one in that building was using a wheelchair, for example. The fact that nobody reads these things – and nobody reads them in English either, to be honest – but it is a matter of principle.

SIR MICHAEL WHEELER BOOTH: That is a fair point. There have to be choices, and the point I am trying to put to you, very gently, is that spending a lot of money on translating a lot of Welsh stuff, which we both agree could be virtually worthless, does seem to be an odd choice for reasons of pure principle when there is a lot that needs to be done to improve the teaching of Welsh.

IWAN STANLEY: I ryw raddau, mae’n debyg i’r ddadl am y ffatri bôl-berings. Rwy’n dod ‘nôl i hwn oherwydd yno, nid yw’n wasanaeth cyhoeddus a dylai yna fod felly lai o ymrwymiad iddyn nhw ddarparu eu gwasanaethau trwy gyfrwng y Gymraeg. Rydym ni’n dweud y gallai Cyngor yr Iaith edrych ar hyn a phenderfynu’n union beth yw’r blaenoriaethau. Os nad yw’r cyhoedd yn cael eu gwasanaethu, mae yna gyfiawnhad efallai i beidio â chyfieithu rhywbeth. Rwy’n meddwl y gallai deddf benderfynu ar y materion hyn. Dylai’r ddeddf sefydlu corff statudol i edrych beth fyddai a beth fyddai ddim yn addas o dan pob amgylchiad.

Interpretation:

To some extent it is the same kind of argument about the ball-bearing factory. I am returning to this because there, there is no public service involved; and then there should be less of a commitment by them to carry out their services through the medium of Welsh. We are saying that the Welsh Language Council could look at this and decide exactly what the priorities are. If there is no public service involved, there might be justification for not doing that translation. I think that an act can decide on those issues. The legislation should establish a statutory body to look at what is and is not appropriate in those circumstances.

EIRA DAVIES: Rwy’n gallu meddwl am lawer o enghreifftiau o gyrff a chwmnïau sy’n defnyddio llai o’r Gymraeg ers dyfodiad Deddf yr Iaith yn hytrach nag ymestyn yr hyn a ddarperir ganddynt. Ydych chi’n gwybod am enghreifftiau?

Interpretation:

I can think of a great many examples where bodies or companies have decreased their use of the Welsh language since the inception of the Welsh Language Act rather than extending the provision. Are there many examples that you know of?

HUW LEWIS: Mae dyn yn dod ar draws enghreifftiau’n aml iawn. Rhoddais un enghraifft gynnau. Mae’n rhywbeth sy’n newid mor aml. Stori arall yw Tesco, a gyhoeddodd wrth Fwrdd yr Iaith ar ddechrau un wythnos eu bod yn mynd i ddefnyddio mwy o’r Gymraeg, ond yn yr un wythnos, dyma nhw’n adeiladu siop fawr arall yng Nghaerdydd heb air o Gymraeg ar ei harwyddion. Mae’n batrwm anghyson ac mae pobl yn gorfod ymdrechu i gael hyd i’r iaith os yw’n cael ei chadw o’r golwg o dan y cownter.

Interpretation:

You come across examples very often. I gave one example earlier. It is something that changes so often. Another story is that we saw a company such as Tesco at the start of one week make an announcement with the Welsh Language Board that they were increasing the use of the Welsh language in business, and in the same week you see Tesco building a new store in Cardiff not using a word of Welsh on their signage; so it is a pattern of inconsistency, and people have to make an effort to find the Welsh language, when it is kept under the counter.

EIRA DAVIES: Fe sonioch chi am y cwmnïau trydan sy’n darparu biliau dwyieithog. A oes yna rai cwmnïau sydd wedi rhoi’r gorau i wneud hynny?

Interpretation:

You mentioned the electricity companies that provided bilingual bills. Are there examples where they have stopped doing so?

IWAN STANLEY : Oes, mae yna nifer o enghreifftiau. Rai misoedd yn ôl, cafodd National Rail wared ar eu llinell gymorth Gymraeg. Mae yna ddigonedd o enghreifftiau o grebachu gwasanaethau Cymraeg, ond hefyd, mae gwasanaethau newydd wedi’u cyflwyno nad oeddynt yn bod ym 1993 – Banc Barclays er enghraifft. Rai blynyddoedd yn ôl, caeon nhw nifer o ganghennau yng Nghymru, gan ddweud wrth eu cwsmeriaid, "Peidiwch â becso, gallwch we-fancio." Gwasanaeth uniaith Saesneg oedd hwnnw, er y bydden nhw wedi gallu darparu gwasanaeth Cymraeg yn eu cangen leol. Dyna un maes pwysig iawn. Mae’r rhan fwyaf o’r datblygiadau newydd ers 1993, bron iawn yn ddiwahân, ar gael yn Saesneg yn unig.

Interpretation:

There are a number of examples of that. A few months ago National Rail got rid of their Welsh language helpline, and you cannot access that any more. There are plenty of examples of shrinkage in the use of the Welsh language; but also new services that are introduced that did not exist in 1993 – Barclays Bank, for example – a few years ago it closed a number of branches in Wales, and they told their customers, "don’t worry; you can use web banking." That was only available in English, whereas they could have got a Welsh service in their local branch. That is one area that is very important. Most of the new developments since 1993, almost without exception, are only available through the medium of English.

LAURA McALLISTER: You have been very critical of the Welsh Language Board and its role. Can you elaborate on why you see it as being unaccountable and to some extent illegitimate in terms of the debate you are bringing to our attention? In your paper, you referred to its replacement by a Welsh language council. Can you explain to us how that would differ?

IWAN STANLEY: Gallaf, heb fawr o drafferth. Cwango yw Bwrdd yr Iaith, ac mae aelodau’n cael eu penodi gan y Gweinidog sy’n gyfrifol am y Gymraeg. Mae dwy swyddogaeth ganddo; goruchwylio’r cynlluniau iaith sy’n cael eu darparu gan gyrff cyhoeddus ar y naill law a rhoi cyngor i adrannau’r Llywodraeth ar faterion yn ymwneud â’r Gymraeg ar y llall. Fel y gwelwn ni bethau, gan nad oes yna ddemocratiaeth o ran y penodiadau i’r bwrdd gan eu bod oll yn cael eu penodi gan y Llywodraeth, anaml iawn y mae dyn yn cael clywed barn annibynnol arno. Mae’n canu cân y Llywodraeth ac fel yna y bydd hi, gan na fydd e’ byth am wneud unrhyw beth allai ypsetio’r bobl sy’n ei benodi. Dro ar ôl tro, rydym wedi gweld eu hamharodrwydd i wneud datganiadau eithaf amlwg, hynny am nad ydynt am ddamsang ar gyrn eu meistri gwleidyddol. Bydd cwango wastad yn dweud yr hyn y mae’r gweinidog am ei glywed. Dyna natur cwango.

Dywedwn y byddai cyngor iaith, yn ei hanfod, yn fwy democrataidd. Byddai’n cynrychioli nifer o gyrff sy’n ymwneud â’r Gymraeg, amrywiaeth o gyrff ledled Cymru, a byddai yna elfen o greu fforwm ynddo lle gellid trafod y Gymraeg; ac fe allwn wedyn, trwy’r fforwm, gynghori adrannau’r Llywodraeth. Byddai’r cyngor hwnnw yn cynnwys barn pawb yng Nghymru sy’n gweithio yn y maes.

Rhan arall o swyddogaeth Bwrdd yr Iaith yw eu bod i fod monitro’r cynlluniau iaith, ond mewn gwirionedd wedi creu’r cynlluniau, maen nhw’n cael eu gadael ar y silff am ddeng mlynedd, ac yna’n cael eu hadolygu. Nid oes unrhyw waith plismona’n cael ei wneud gan nad oes ombwdsom annibynnol. Carem weld y pethau hyn yn cael eu gwneud.

Interpretation:

Very simply, the Welsh Language Board is a quango, and members are appointed by the Minister responsible for the Welsh language. It has a dual role in overseeing the process of the language schemes for public bodies, but also gives advice to Government departments on issues related to the Welsh language. As we see it, as there is no democracy, in terms of the appointment of the board, since they are all directly appointed by the Government, then there is no independent opinion represented there very often. It is a Government mouthpiece and nothing else because they are never going to do anything to upset those people who have just appointed them. We have seen, time and time again, that they are unwilling to make quite obvious statements because they do not want to upset their political masters. A quango is always going to say what their minister wants to hear. That is the nature of the quango.

Fundamentally, I would say that the language council would be more democratic in nature. It would represent various organisations involved with the Welsh language, various bodies throughout Wales, and there is then an element of creating a forum where the Welsh language can be discussed; and then we can, through that forum, give advice to Government departments. That advice would include the opinion of all the people of Wales working in that area.

The other side of the Welsh Language Board’s role is that it is supposed to be monitoring these language schemes, but in reality they create the schemes and then just leave them on the shelf for ten years; and then they are reviewed after that period. There is no policing going on because there is no independent ombudsman. We would like to see these things made to happen.

LAURA McALLISTER: In the absence of a language council at this time, has Cymdeithas yr Iaith Gymraeg considered putting names forward for the Welsh Language Board or is your opposition so stringent that you feel that that would be compromising your principles on quangos? Obviously, there is political debate about trying to change things from within and so on, and the Language Board will be there for some time in a critical period in the history of the Welsh language. Is that a policy decision; that in the new climate of quango appointments as well, that you would not consider that?

IWAN STANLEY: Na, rwy’n meddwl bod y Gymdeithas wastad wedi gweithio o’r tu allan. Mae yna aelodau ohoni sydd wedi’u penodi ar Fwrdd yr Iaith ac sydd wedi mynegi eu safbwyntiau a chwilio am glust i wrando arnynt, ond sydd wedi ymddiswyddo am eu bod wedi cael llond bol. Nid yw’n gorff cynrychioliadol.

Interpretation:

No, I think the Society has always worked from the outside, as it were. There are members who have been appointed to the Language Board and have tried to make their opinions known and spoken out, and have had to resign because they have just had enough. It is not a body that is representative.

HUW LEWIS: Mae pwynt pwysig yn cael ei wneud yn y fan yma. Cafodd Cymdeithas yr Iaith a chymdeithasau eraill brofiad o hyn yn ddiweddar iawn. Mae’n dweud cyfrolau am agwedd Bwrdd yr Iaith a’i berthynas gyda’r Llywodraeth a chyrff eraill sy’n gweithio ym maes yr iaith. Roedd y Cyngor Ewropeaidd yn ymweld â Chymru i weld sut oedd y Llywodraeth a’r Cynulliad a Llywodraeth y DU yn gweithio i gyflawni’r ymrwymiadau a wnaed yn sgil arwyddo Siarter Ewrop ar ieithoedd lleiafrifol. Arwyddwyd y siarter rai blynyddoedd yn ôl, gyda rhai aelod-wladwriaethau’n ymrwymo i gyrraedd rhai targedau o ran eu polisïau ar ieithoedd lleiafrifol neu lai eu defnydd. Ymwelodd panel o arbenigwyr â Chymru ym mis Chwefror eleni i weld faint yr oedd Cymru wedi’i wneud i gyflawni’r hyn yr oedd wedi ymrwymo ei wneud. Roedd y panel am glywed barn Gweinidogion y Llywodraeth a Bwrdd yr Iaith ond yr oedd hefyd am glywed sylwadau grwpiau ymgyrchu a chyrff eraill sy’n gweithio yn y maes, fel rhan o’r broses o baratoi polisïau. Gwnaeth Bwrdd yr Iaith roi’r argraff eu bod yn gorff a oedd yn gweithio i’r Llywodraeth ond ei fod hefyd yn atebol ar ran y cyrff eraill hyn ac yn gallu cynrychioli’r cyrff hynny. Trwy ddamwain, roedd aelod o’r panel o arbenigwyr yn digwydd gwybod am rywun oedd yn weithgar yn yr ymgyrch dros Addysg Gymraeg a dyna sut y daeth y grwpiau perthnasol i glywed am yr ymweliad. Roedd hwn yn gyfle unigryw i grwpiau ymgyrchu fynegi barn, ond doedd Bwrdd yr Iaith ddim wedi’u gwahodd i gymryd rhan yn y drafodaeth. Mae hyn yn dweud cyfrolau am y ffordd y maen nhw’n cadw’r drafodaeth honno rhyngddyn nhw eu hunain a’r Llywodraeth. Roedd cysylltiad anuniongyrchol rhwng hynny a’r adolygiad o’r iaith Gymraeg. Ar gwestiynau anodd, barn Bwrdd yr Iaith oedd yn cyfrif

Wrth ystyried yr adroddiad y gwnaeth Bwrdd yr Iaith ei baratoi i banel yr arbenigwyr ar i ba raddau roeddent yn cyrraedd eu targedau, daeth yn amlwg bod yr adroddiad yn gamarweiniol iawn, nid yn unig o’n safbwynt ni ond hefyd o safbwynt yr holl gyrff eraill oedd wedi rhoi tystiolaeth. Dyna un enghraifft. Fe allem roi manylion, ond mae’n dweud llawer am berthynas y Bwrdd â’r Llywodraeth a’r ffordd y mae’n cynrychioli ac yn atebol i farn y bobl hynny sydd am weld y Gymraeg yn ffynnu yn y dyfodol.

Interpretation:

There is a very important point here. The Welsh Language Society and other societies had a very recent experience. It speaks volumes about the attitude of the Language Board and its relationship with the Government and those other organisations active in the area of the Welsh language. The European Council were visiting Wales to look at the way that the Government and the Assembly and the UK Government were achieving those commitments they made through signing the European Charter on minority languages. They signed that charter some years ago and various nation states committed to achieving certain targets in relation to their policies on lesser-used or minority languages. A panel of experts visited Wales in February of this year, and they wanted to see to what extent they were achieving what they had committed to. The panel was expecting to hear viewpoints from Government Ministers and from the Welsh Language Board but they also wanted to hear comments and meet pressure groups and other organisations working in this area, as part of the process of preparing policies. The Welsh Language Board conveyed themselves as a body that was working for the Government but was also accountable on behalf of these other organisations and could represent these organisations. It was only by accident that a member of the panel of experts happened to know someone who was very active with a movement for Welsh Education and the various organisations, which is the only way those Welsh people get to make their views known. It happened to be that someone had given them that message; it had not come from the Welsh Language Board. That speaks volumes about the way they keep this discussion between themselves and the Government, which was indirectly linked to the review of the Welsh language. When it came to the difficult issues, it was the Welsh Language Board’s opinion that mattered.

In considering the report prepared by the Welsh Language Board for the panel of experts, and to what extent they were achieving their targets, it became quite obvious not only from our own perspective but from all the other organisations that gave evidence, that the report presented was extremely misleading. I think that is one example. We could give you details, but it does say a lot about the Board’s relationships with Government and the way it represents and is accountable to the views of those people who do want to see the future of the Welsh language prosper.

PETER PRICE: You have had a lot of dealings with the Culture Committee of the Assembly. If you put on one side the policy outcome vis-a-vis policies generally and in relation to the Welsh Language Board, in dealing with the Culture Committee what are your observations about the strengths and weaknesses of that committee in the way that it sets about its work and in its dealings with outside bodies?

HUW LEWIS: O ran y broses ymgynghori a’r cyfle i roi tystiolaeth ac ati, dywedwn i y byddai’n deg dweud ei fod yn ffordd adeiladol iawn, ar y cyfan, o fynd ati. O safbwynt y Gymraeg, ni fu erioed y fath ymgynghori o’r blaen – lle cafwyd fforwm i drafod pynciau a chyfle i amrywiaeth o gyrff ddweud eu dweud. Byddai’n deg dweud iddo fod yn bositif. Dwy ddim yn siwr a ydw i’n rhy feirniadol, ond y teimlad gefais i am y ffordd yr oedd pethau’n symud yn eu blaen oedd nad oedd yna lawer o ffocws o ran yr hyn yr oeddent yn trio ei wneud. Roedd pethau’n siang-di-fang i ryw raddau. Roedd yr adolygiad yn dameidiog iawn ac yn ceisio gwneud tipyn o bob peth yn hytrach na mynd i’r afael â’r hanfodion. Roedd hynny, am wn i, yn anorfod o gofio nifer y bobl oedd yn rhoi tystiolaeth. Cynhaliwyd yr adolygiad dros gyfnod o fwy na blwyddyn, felly roedd hynny wrth reswm yn mynd i gael rhyw effaith ar natur y dystiolaeth.

Interpretation:

In terms of the consultation process and the opportunity to give evidence and so on, I would say that it would be fair enough to say that on the whole that is a very positive way of going about it. Certainly in terms of the Welsh language that kind of consultation had never happened before – where there was a forum to discuss issues and an opportunity for various organisations to make their views known. It would be fair to say that it was a very positive thing. I am not sure if I am being too critical, but the feeling that I got in terms of the way things were moving forward was that there was not much focus in terms of what they were trying to achieve. Things were all over the place to some extent, and various reports produced within the review were summarising that things were very patchy and bitty and that the review was trying to do a little bit of everything rather than dealing with the fundamental specific issues. I suppose that was inevitable in terms of the number of people who were giving evidence. It is a review that took place over a period of more than a year, so obviously that was going to have an effect on the nature of the evidence given.

IWAN STANLEY: Mae yna beth dryswch am statws y pwyllgorau’n gyffredinol. Pan gafodd y Cynulliad ei sefydlu, y bwriad oedd y byddai’r Cynulliad yn gorff corfforaethol. Ond fe ddatblygodd ar lun San Steffan, gyda chabinet a llywodraeth ar wahân i’r Cynulliad. Felly caech sefyllfa lle byddai’r Pwyllgor yn dod i benderfyniad a byddai’r Gweinidog yn dweud, "fe wna’i wrando ar eu cyngor fel pe bawn yn gwrando ar gyngor unrhyw un arall yng Nghymru", yn hytrach na bod y Pwyllgor yn rhan o broses creu’r polisi a gwneud penderfyniadau, yn unol â’r bwriad gwreiddiol.

Mae’r ffin wedi tyfu’n fwy niwlog ac mae ffin newydd wedi codi rhwng y Llywodraeth a’r Cynulliad nad oedd yn bod pan gafodd y Cynulliad ei greu.

Interpretation:

There is some confusion as to the status of the committees in general. When the Assembly was established the intention was that the Assembly as a body would be a corporate body, and it developed more into the Westminster model, with a cabinet and government separate from the Assembly, rather than it being the body corporate as was first intended. So you had situations arising where the Committee would come to a decision and the Minister would then say, "I will listen to their advice as I would listen to anyone else’s advice in Wales", rather than the Committee being there as part of the policy creation process, making decisions as was originally intended.

That boundary has been blurred and a new boundary has been put in place between the Government and the Assembly, which did not exist when the Assembly was established.

HUW LEWIS: Mae pobl wedi cyfeirio gryn dipyn at y tensiynau rhwng gweinidogion a phwyllgorau’n gyffredinol, ac mae’r syniad ar led bod y Llywodraeth yn cuddio y tu ôl i’r Pwyllgor neu’r Cynulliad pan mae pethau’n mynd o’i le. Pan geir datblygiadau mwy positif, maen nhw’n barod i dderbyn y clod am hynny – mae hynny wedi bod yn y papurau newydd hyd yn oed. Rydym wedi gweld yr un peth yn digwydd gyda’n hymgyrch dros ysgolion gwledig.

Rydym wedi gweld y Gweinidog Addysg yn cuddio tu ôl i’r Pwyllgor pan fo ganddi benderfyniad dadleuol i gau ysgol i’w wneud, ac mae’r awgrym hwnnw wedi’i wneud.

Interpretation:

People have made many references to tensions between ministers and committees in general, and this idea that the Government can hide behind the Committee or the Assembly when something bad happens; and when there are more positive developments they take the plaudit from that discussion – that has been in the newspapers even. We have seen that happening in relation to our campaign in terms of rural schemes. Some of the groups have been working with rural schools rather than seeing them close.

There are elements there where we see the Education Minister hiding behind the Committee when she makes a contentious decision to close a school, and that suggestion has been made.

LORD RICHARD: Gentlemen, thank you very much indeed. That was extremely useful from my point of view.

HUW LEWIS: Diolch yn fawr iawn i chi am y cyfle hwn i roi tystiolaeth.