Proceeding contribution from Cheryl Gillan (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 15 December 2009. It occurred during Legislative debate on Constitutional Law.
Constitutional Law
I am just raising some queries which I hope the Minister will address. I think the voluntary approach has worked rather well in Wales. I have just given an example of one of the submissions to the Secretary of State, and I am asking the Minister whether he thinks we should continue to promote such schemes, rather than take the legislative route that will be available under the LCO. Imposing a stringent language scheme on bodies, regardless of whether they already have some form of language scheme, would clearly result in additional cost. The consequences are clear: either the cost will be passed on to the consumer in the form of higher bills, or companies may choose not to operate in Wales at all. As a result, Welsh consumers may be deprived of choice and competition. The Mobile Broadband Group has expressed the concern that resources are limited in the current economic climate, and said that priority should be given to extending coverage across Wales of a service that is consistently in demand by Welsh consumers. BT has called for action to encourage uptake of existing services, rather than have new legislation that could be planned by the Assembly Government. It does not want to supply Welsh language services by law and compulsion, but is happy to continue to do so voluntarily. I hope that the Minister will address that in his winding-up speech. Companies supplying liquid propane to rural areas, such as Calor Gas Ltd, have also raised the objection that their main competitors—suppliers of oil and coal—are exempt from the order. Any additional costs put on companies such as Calor would have to be absorbed into the cost of the liquefied petroleum gas they supply, forcing up prices, which would hit Welsh families, especially in rural areas, at a time when the fuel poverty rate in Wales stands at 340,000 households. Furthermore, the order applies not only to multinationals but to some small companies, and as the Secretary of State has said, it must be ensured that the extra cost does not risk crippling otherwise successful and growing organisations. For that reason, I welcome the test of reasonableness and proportionality that has been inserted in the order in its final form. The order specifies that before a duty can be imposed on any organisation, there must be a clear right to appeal. I agree with that sentiment, but there are implications to the proposal. First, it sounds as though a significant bureaucracy will be necessary not only to enforce Welsh language legislation, but to deal with any appeals. I wonder where the finance is coming from to fund the appeals process, because I believe the order attracts no accompanying extra funding—perhaps the Minister could confirm that. Secondly, small organisations might feel that the process of appeal is simply too arduous to consider even operating in Wales. I am not aware of any impact assessment having been carried out, so could the Minister reassure me that such an impact assessment will be carried out, as this issue has been raised by more than one company? The Welsh Language Act has consistently encouraged participation in Welsh language schemes on a voluntary basis, and over the years much good will has been engendered towards the language. I pay tribute to Lord Wyn Roberts, because he really is the champion of the Welsh language; I am proud to say that it is a Conservative who has protected, promoted and advanced the language with such sensitivity and wisdom. There are many people in Wales who are not Welsh speaking but who, nevertheless, feel an affinity with the language, and it will be a sad day if that sentiment and good will is damaged by higher bills or a reduction in choice and fewer services, and by a resentment that could come from compulsion I should also mention, once again, the £400,000 threshold on public money received in consecutive years. I do so, first, because the figure seems to be merely the original arbitrary figure, just doubled. Will the Minister confirm what consultation took place over where to set the threshold, either in the original order or in the version before us, and where the figure has come from? Has it been plucked out of the air?
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 502 c912-3
- Session
- 2009-10
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Appeals Costs Business Devolution Bank of England Energy Exemptions Legislative competence Languages Fuels Public bodies National Assembly for Wales Wales Welsh language Welsh Language Board
- Legislation
- National Assembly for Wales (Legislative Competence) (Welsh Language) Order 2010
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-11 09:59:07 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_602496
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_602496
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_602496