PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT GENERAL COMMITTEES

Public Bill Committee

PUBLIC BODIES BILL [LORDS]

Fifth Sitting Thursday 15 September 2011 (Morning)

CONTENTS Written evidence reported to the House. SCHEDULE 1 agreed to, with amendments. CLAUSE 2 agreed to. SCHEDULE 2 agreed to, with an amendment. CLAUSE 3 under consideration when the Committee adjourned till this day at One o’clock.

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS LONDON – THE STATIONERY OFFICE LIMITED £4·00 PBC (Bill 188) 2010 - 2012 Members who wish to have copies of the Official Report of Proceedings in General Committees sent to them are requested to give notice to that effect at the Vote Office.

No proofs can be supplied. Corrigenda slips may be published with Bound Volume editions. Corrigenda that Members suggest should be clearly marked in a copy of the report—not telephoned—and must be received in the Editor’s Room, House of Commons,

not later than

Monday 19 September 2011

STRICT ADHERENCE TO THIS ARRANGEMENT WILL GREATLY FACILITATE THE PROMPT PUBLICATION OF THE BOUND VOLUMES OF PROCEEDINGS IN GENERAL COMMITTEES

© Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2011 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Parliamentary Click-Use Licence, available online through The National Archives website at www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/our-services/parliamentary-licence-information.htm Enquiries to The National Archives, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 4DU; e-mail: [email protected] 149 Public Bill Committee15 SEPTEMBER 2011 Public Bodies Bill [Lords] 150

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: †MR DAVID AMESS,JOHN ROBERTSON

† Ashworth, Jonathan (Leicester South) (Lab) † Jones, Susan Elan (Clwyd South) (Lab) † Blackman-Woods, Roberta (City of Durham) (Lab) † Mosley, Stephen (City of Chester) (Con) † Bray, Angie (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con) † Nandy, Lisa (Wigan) (Lab) † Crabb, Stephen (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con) † Raab, Mr Dominic (Esher and Walton) (Con) † Davies, Glyn (Montgomeryshire) (Con) † Trickett, Jon (Hemsworth) (Lab) † Elphicke, Charlie (Dover) (Con) † Vaz, Valerie (Walsall South) (Lab) † Williams, Hywel (Arfon) (PC) † Gyimah, Mr Sam (East Surrey) (Con) † Williams, Mr Mark (Ceredigion) (LD) † Harrington, Richard (Watford) (Con) † Wright, David (Telford) (Lab) † Heath, Mr David (Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons) Mr James Rhys, Committee Clerk † Hurd, Mr Nick (Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office) † attended the Committee 151 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Public Bodies Bill [Lords] 152

to the most detailed scrutiny, and there is careful engagement Public Bill Committee with the wider public. Although I cannot say that such legislation is, as a result, always perfect—no one would Thursday 15 September 2011 imagine that that is so—the parliamentary process is robust and searching. Ministers who come to the House and into Committee know they have to be sharp and (Morning) clear in their arguments, and that the legislation needs to be at least reasonably robust.

[MR DAVID AMESS in the Chair] The Bill’s first five clauses allow the Minister or the Executive to abolish or amend all the bodies named in Public Bodies Bill [Lords] the various schedules by order—by secondary legislation. The problem with secondary legislation is that, even in the form in which it has emerged from the other place, it Written evidence to be reported to the is not as rigorous or as searching, and does not hold the House Executive to account as robustly, as the process of PB 10 Equality and Human Rights Commission primary legislation. One has to worry that what the Minister might present as mere administrative changes PB 11 David Frank DeVere to save money—perhaps by merging personnel functions, as I mentioned the other day—are in fact giving the 9am Executive far more powers. In some cases we are talking The Chair: Good morning everyone. As I understand about institutions that deal with our liberty. We talked from my colleague who was chairing the proceedings the other day about the Youth Justice Board, and there earlier this week, there has been a full debate on are other examples. For instance, today we will discuss schedule 1. under schedule 2 the certification officer dealing with Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to. trade unions. One has to worry that the process of secondary legislation is simply weighted slightly in favour of the Executive and, I would argue, substantially less Clause 2 in favour of the legislature. We know there always has to be a balance between the two. When we talk about POWER TO MERGE institutions such as those that guarantee human rights Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the to individual citizens—as we shall do in some detail—almost Bill. all experts agree that it is not right for such measures to be made through secondary legislation. Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab): Thank you, Mr Amess. When we tested the arguments regarding the bodies I welcome you here on this beautiful, sunny morning. It being included the schedules, the two Ministers, who is very good of you to join us again; we always look are decent people, frequently said that they were not yet forward to your being in the Chair. Your presence in a position to give the Committee the details. I imagine makes us all feel more secure and safe, and that we will that will be the case with clause 2 and schedule 2, and I not blunder into areas where we ought not to go. I have understand that, because the process of government is to say that the porridge was slightly stodgy in the complex and obviously, life moves on. The details cannot Members’ Tea Room this morning, but I know you will be finally resolved because the legislation is not yet in rule me out of order if we discuss porridge. From time place. The problem is, therefore, that the detail of what to time the Bill feels slightly stodgy, too, but it does raise will happen to the various institutions in schedule 2 and matters of profound importance. the other schedules will not be properly scrutinised by the legislature until the orders are laid. Mr Amess, you said that there should not be a stand part debate on clause 1, no doubt because I ranged The Bill is better now: the orders referred to in quite widely across the piece during my contribution to clause 2 are better than the Government originally that discussion. However, I want to use this opportunity envisaged, and to be fair to them, they acknowledged to mention our worries about the first five clauses, that in the debates in the other place. However, given which are not exclusive to the Opposition: they have that we are talking about constitutional arrangements been expressed in another place, and outside the Houses rather than administrative functions, surely it would be of Parliament by constitutional experts and others. better not to deal with this issue through the process Constitutional experts and others are not necessarily envisaged in the orders in the schedules and clause 2. always the people one ought to listen to on such matters, As I said, I do not want to delay the Committee as but they have raised grave concerns about the Bill. I will there is a lot of business to deal with and we want to see try to address them as briefly as possible and to ensure the Bill complete its passage in Committee. However, it that they are on the record. would be wholly wrong to allow the Committee to The Bill proposes to change the character of a series proceed without raising these questions. I put it to the of institutions and, in some cases, abolish them. In Minister that some of the institutions we are empowering many other cases, it gives the Minister wide-ranging him to deal with in the way he envisages are central to powers in relation to their future. I imagine—I do not the way the British constitution works, others less so. know if this is a fact—that every single one of those We have not sought to oppose the detail of these institutions has been created by primary legislation. measures; we have accepted those, but asked questions. Certainly, all the most important ones have been created Can it be right that some of those major institutions, by primary legislation, and no doubt we will talk about created after months of detailed debate of highly contested one or two of them today. Primary legislation is subject issues, in Committee in both Houses, should be subjected 153 Public Bill Committee15 SEPTEMBER 2011 Public Bodies Bill [Lords] 154 to the secondary legislation process? As we know, that well attended by members of the public who take a process is simply not as rigorous as the one we are great concern in that matter. I do not think the Government currently undertaking. are hiding anywhere in terms of our need to debate With those thoughts, which I hope will cause us all to these reforms and to respond to some of the understandable reflect, I wait to hear what Ministers have to say. We will concerns raised by the Opposition. reflect on the orders when we reach the precise details As the hon. Gentleman suggested, the Bill triggers a later in the Bill. process whereby Ministers are required, once they are clear about what they want to do, to consult properly The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Nick on their proposals. He did not mention, and he should Hurd): Good morning, Mr Amess. The hon. Member have done, that in that process the parliamentary Select for Hemsworth was listening when you said previously Committees are entirely free and encouraged to scrutinise that you were susceptible to flattery. It flowed over you those proposals, hold Ministers to account and publish like the honey that I trickled over my porridge—which their own conclusions. Suitable orders have to be laid was indeed very stodgy—this morning. I will start with and debated. Where changes are more substantial or a few opening remarks about the purpose of clause 2, contentious, Parliament can opt for the enhanced affirmative and why we consider it to be so important. I will procedure, which builds in greater parliamentary scrutiny subsequently address the hon. Gentleman’s important to the order-making process. Given the complexity and concerns. scale of what the Government are trying to achieve and the practical difficulties of seeking opportunities through Clause 2 gives a Minister the power to make provision primary legislation to take through every single reform, by order to merge any group of bodies or offices listed this enabling Bill—innovative as it is, with the appropriate in schedule 2. Such provision might involve the safeguards that have been put in place and what we establishment of a new body or office—including provision believe is a robust secondary process—taken in the for constitutional arrangements—to replace the bodies round, is certainly a constitutionally proper and sensible being merged, or the abolition of all but one body or way of proceeding. office in a group, which would be the recipient of the remaining functions that were previously undertaken 9.15 am by the group. An order under this clause may also The Government envisage that the power to merge include a transfer of functions to an “eligible person”, bodies in clause 2 will be used to simplify the public as defined in clause 1(3), who is not included in the bodies landscape in the UK, improving efficiency and group of bodies or offices involved in the merger. As effectiveness by combining the assets and expertise of with all the principal order-making powers in the Bill, bodies with complementary functions. For example, the the use of clause 2 is restricted by the safeguards proposal to merge the pensions ombudsman and the described in clause 7 and elsewhere, and it is subject to Pension Protection Fund ombudsman would combine the requirement to consult in accordance with clause 10 in statute two bodies that already work together to and the parliamentary procedure set out in clause 11. provide a coherent service. Our intent is underpinned by Perhaps I can take this opportunity to address the clause 8, which provides that a Minister can bring hon. Gentleman’s central concern: the constitutional forward an order only if he or she considers it will serve propriety of the Bill and the opportunity it affords this the purpose of improving the exercise of public functions. place to scrutinise substantial reforms to several public By removing clause 2, the types of change I have bodies. He and the Committee will be aware that that discussed would be reliant on primary legislation. As I issue was of great concern to the other place, and it was have argued before, that would slow the much-needed the subject of extensive debate and an extremely constructive and widely supported reform of public bodies to which Government response. A very material change was made the Government are committed, and would impose to the Bill by dropping the original clause 7 and introducing costs on the public purse by delaying the efficiencies other safeguards into the scrutiny process. We feel that that will result from some of the mergers. Accordingly, I the debate has been fully aired in the other place and contend that the power in clause 2 is both required and that the Government responded in a way that satisfied subject to appropriate restrictions, and I ask that the the other place. clause stand part of the Bill. It is also worth noting a practical point, which the Question put and agreed to. hon. Gentleman did not refer to, although I do not Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. blame him for that. This is an enabling Bill that creates a framework for reforming a large number of bodies, and there is simply not enough parliamentary time or Schedule 2 suitable legislative vehicles available to make all these POWER TO MERGE: BODIES AND OFFICES changes in primary legislation. Doing so would frustrate Government priority and trigger a process that would The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of be disproportionate, given some of the changes being the House of Commons (Mr David Heath): I beg to proposed. That is why we have created an enabling Bill, move amendment 6, in schedule 2, page 20, leave out but one that triggers a clear and transparent process lines 18 to 20. that must flow for the vast majority of these reforms to be actioned. The Chair: With this it will be convenient to take The hon. Gentleman perhaps under-weights the debate Government amendments 7, 9 and 12. that is allowed in Committee. We have had good debates already on some of the most contentious reforms. I Mr Heath: Thank you, Mr Amess. I welcome you to suspect there will be a vigorous debate later today when the Committee this morning and apply any flattery we discuss the Welsh question, which will be extremely required to proceed. 155 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Public Bodies Bill [Lords] 156

[Mr Heath] tribunal sessions, or 11,650 cases. The Civil Justice Council’s budget for 2010-11 was relatively modest at Before we debate the group, it might be helpful to £312,000. It has unpaid members and little in the way of the Committee to make it absolutely clear what the secretariat support, compared with the AJTC. With Government’s intentions are. We intend to abolish the that and taking into account the technical emphasis of Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council outright its work, we concluded that the CJC should remain. because its functions are either no longer required or Although I accept that the Civil Justice Council’s are more properly performed by Government. The other functions are similar to those of the AJTC, in practical side of the coin in the context of the schedule, which is terms the CJC is still of value to the civil justice system about mergers, is to restate that the Government seek to because it directly supports the courts by providing remove the Civil Justice Council from the Bill because I advice on the technical aspects of civil costs and do not believe that there is a genuine desire in this policy, as well as on pre-action protocols. The AJTC House or in the other place to reform it using the does not have a similar direct impact on the operation powers in the Bill. It was added solely as a stratagem to of tribunals. make the Government rethink their proposal to abolish The proposed abolition also takes into account what the AJTC and I know that its removal, which we changes have taken place since the AJTC was set up, the propose through the amendments, has the support of most significant being the establishment of the unified the senior judiciary. tribunals service, which is now part of Her Majesty’s It might be helpful to first set out the issues on Courts and Tribunals Service. That service provides a amendment 6, the effect of which would be to remove coherent system of tribunals administration and judiciary the AJTC and the CJC from schedule 2. Hon. Members for the tribunals within it, rendering obsolete the AJTC’s will recall that clause 2 enables Ministers, by order, to tribunals oversight function. merge any of the bodies listed in schedule 2. Both I acknowledge concerns that in the absence of the bodies were added to the schedule by a non-Government AJTC, the responsibility for administrative justice policy amendment in the other place. The Government have might be spread across several Departments, but the no intention of using the powers, which would either Ministry of Justice is committed to maintaining an replace both bodies with a single new entity or abolish overview of the end-to-end administrative justice system one with the remaining one taking some of the other’s and not just tribunals. As part of that, the MOJ is functions. working with other Departments that have an interest In jurisdictional terms, the CJC’s remit is confined to in this area, and it has built close links with the Cabinet England and Wales, while the AJTC has functions in Office, which leads on ombudsmen policy. Scotland. The remits of both bodies are wide-ranging, I now turn to amendments 7, 9 and 12, which would and any merged body would be unwieldy, despite a remove the Civil Justice Council from schedules 3 to 5. small overlap in their work. Their focus is also The proposals would take away the following: the CJC’s fundamentally different: the administrative justice system powers to modify its constitutional arrangements under includes not only appellate courts, but complaints handlers, clause 3; its powers to modify its funding arrangements mediators, ombudsman and tribunals, which are distinctive under clause 4; or its powers to modify or transfer its in character from the courts. The remit and workload of functions under clause 5. The Government see no a merged body would therefore not be manageable. compelling case to utilise any such powers in relation to There are also constitutional differences between the the Civil Justice Council. two bodies. AJTC members are paid, but Civil Justice The Civil Justice Council is sponsored by the Judicial Council members are not. Further, the secretariat that Office, giving it a degree of independence from the supports the CJC is not in a position to take on more Executive. The Government would not consider altering work without an increase in resources, which cannot be that arrangement, for example, by modifying the extent done without jeopardising other areas of work in the to which it is accountable to Ministers under clause 3. Department. As I have said, the senior judiciary would Additionally, the CJC’s constitution is one that represents not support a merger, which is a particularly important extremely good value for the taxpayer. It has unpaid point, given that the Master of the Rolls is the chair of members drawn from the senior judiciary and the legal the CJC and that there are judicial members in that profession, as well as from commercial organisations body. and academia. It has only two full-time staff, and there Before setting out the Government’s rationale for is one other staff member, who is shared with the abolishing the AJTC outright and retaining the CJC, I Family Justice Council. I therefore see no good reason want to be clear that the AJTC is not a tribunal, nor is it to modify its funding arrangements using the powers in any other form of judicial body. Its abolition would clause 4. therefore have no direct impact on judicial independence For similar reasons of efficiency, economy and or judicial decision making. effectiveness, the Government do not now seek to modify In reviewing all arm’s length bodies, we considered or transfer the CJC’s functions using the powers in their costs and relative value for money, as well as clause 5. There is no other public body that could easily changes that have taken place since they were set up. take on those functions, and we would not wish to Our concern, which I hope is shared by all Committee abolish any of them without a replacement. members, was to establish which functions were no longer vital and where we could avoid duplication of Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab): The clause that we activity. are debating is very serious, because an important judicial In terms of cost, the AJTC’s budget for the 2010-11 body is being toyed with. Will the Minister enlighten financial year was £1.3 million. Such a sum could buy the Committee about why the body was included in the approximately 2,900 social security and child support schedule in the first place? 157 Public Bill Committee15 SEPTEMBER 2011 Public Bodies Bill [Lords] 158

Mr Heath: I presume that the hon. Lady refers to the public bodies. Those arguments perhaps had an excess Civil Justice Council. The answer is that it was put in by of partisan zeal, but the hon. Gentleman is taking a a non-Government amendment in another place. It was level-headed approach to our amendments, for which I a ruse. The theory was to protect the AJTC by putting am grateful. the two together, knowing that the Government had no I hope that the Committee will now support the intention of abolishing the Civil Justice Council. It was amendment. felt that, by some strange osmotic effect, the clearly Amendment 6 agreed to. valuable, useful and continuing body would protect the other. It is not for me to second-guess the motives of Question proposed, That the schedule, as amended, be others, but it was almost explicitly clear that that was the second schedule to the Bill. the case. That is why the amendment will separate the 9.30 am two bodies. I assure the hon. Lady that it is not through the Government’s agency that we seek to meddle with Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab): I am the Civil Justice Council, which we think is a valuable absolutely delighted to serve under your chairmanship, body. The hon. Lady clearly shares that view. Mr Amess. As a new Member elected four months ago and serving on my first Bill Committee, I hope the Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab): Committee will forgive and indulge me if my mastery of What impact will abolishing the AJTC have on the Civil parliamentary etiquette has not reached the right level Justice Council, particularly if it will add to the Civil yet. I am sure you will guide me. Incidentally, as a Justice Council’s work load without additional resources? 13-year-old interested in politics, I remember watching the general election of 1992 and I can still remember my Mr Heath: The abolition will have no impact on the disappointment at seeing your grin when the Basildon Civil Justice Council. The two are separate. The AJTC’s result was declared. [Laughter.] functions will be absorbed into the Department, partly as a result of the changes to the structure of the Courts The Chair: Order. That certainly does not come into and Tribunals Service effected by the previous Government, my definition of flattery. of which the hon. Lady was a member. There is no impact. If the Committee is minded to accept the Jonathan Ashworth: Little did I know that my amendments, the Civil Justice Council will remain exactly disappointment would change to sheer delight at serving as it is. It will not take on additional functions because under your chairmanship. it does not have the resources to do so, even if it were I do not intend to take up too much of the Committee’s desirable. In the present economic situation, I honestly time, but I want to press the Minister a little further on do not think it is likely that new resources will become the proposed merger of the Central Arbitration Committee available. The Government’s view is that we should let and the Certification Officer. I understand why merging this valuable body carry on doing its work in the way these two bodies is attractive to the Minister. They both that it is doing it and that we should not try to interfere. operate in similar fields: industrial relations. They are That is a widely held view within the judiciary and the both relatively small bodies. They share the same building. legal profession. They are both serviced by staff from ACAS. Given all In summary, the Government remain committed to that, I suspect that the cost savings of the merger do not abolishing the AJTC, because its essential functions amount to very much, although I shall be interested to should be performed by Government, and to removing hear what the Minister says. However, their roles are the Civil Justice Council from the Bill because there is very different. no good reason to subject that body to reform using the The Certification Officer is a regulatory body. It Bill’s powers. regulates trade unions and employee societies. It regulates political fund ballots. Crucially, it determines whether a Jon Trickett: The Minister is correct on how the trade union is independent; a trade union needs a grouping was put together in the other place. Their certificate of independence in order to operate and the lordships had no intention, as far as I can determine Certification Officer decides that. So it regulates the from their debate, to impair, impede or in some way internal affairs of trade unions and employee associations. damage the work of the Civil Justice Council. Their The Central Arbitration Committee arbitrates between debate was on the AJTC, and the grouping may have unions and employees. In effect it adjudicates on been a rearguard action to protect the AJTC’s future. I applications relating to statutory recognition and reread those debates, and a case was made, although it de-recognition of trade unions for collective bargaining was perhaps not the most powerful case, for continuing purposes. There are occasions when proceedings taking some of the AJTC’s functions in a relatively autonomous place in front of the Central Arbitration Committee body. I did not find those arguments overwhelmingly cannot continue until the Certification Officer has ruled convincing. that the union or employee association has a certificate We have heard that the Minister will protect the of independence. To be fair, the Central Arbitration complete independence and integrity of the Civil Justice Committee is generally seen as successful and impartial, Council, but we will reserve our position. which is very important. It has dealt with around 45 cases in the last year. Mr Heath: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s The two functions are very distinct. One is a regulator. response. One of the features of the debates on the Bill The other is an arbitrator. I am not a lawyer, but I in another place is that there was a ready supply of believe there are legitimate concerns that merging bodies noble peers who either had served or were serving as with two different types of function could create conflicts chair of bodies, or were responsible for setting them up. of interest. It would not be desirable to have the same There were strong arguments in favour of all sorts of members of staff dealing with an internal dispute in a 159 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Public Bodies Bill [Lords] 160

[Jonathan Ashworth] serve the purpose of improving the exercise of public functions. The Government do not believe in reform for trade union, between a member of a union and the reform’s sake, but are seeking to create a more effective, union leadership perhaps, and also dealing with that accountable and efficient system for the delivery of union and an employer. There are probably ways in public functions. The removal of schedule 2 from the which those differences could be ironed out. Bill would, in effect, amount to a blanket removal of the Does the Minister accept that the bodies have two power to merge, regardless of the policy intent behind distinct functions? What safeguards are in place to it, denying the opportunity for the Government to ensure that these conflicts of interests do not arise? I remove duplication and increase efficiency. understand that Business, Innovation and Skills Ministers have been in consultation with both the CBI and the David Wright (Telford) (Lab): Can the Minister give TUC. Are they satisfied with the arrangements and that us some assurance? He has talked about a five-year these conflicts of interests would not arise? Can he also sunset period, but clearly the Government will want to confirm that because these bodies are so small, the introduce orders. My experience as a Whip, both savings would be negligible? Indeed, perhaps there could Government and Opposition, is that orders appear even be costs involved, because presumably there would quickly and are considered quickly. Can he confirm that be a new name, new stationery, new branding and so on. he will ensure that Parliament gets good notice of when At least during the start-up phase, there would probably orders will be laid? These are important matters, and be costs involved, not savings. I would be keen to hear the people involved will want to have some notice of the Minister’s response to those few questions. what is happening in relation to this schedule and the rest of the Bill. Mr Hurd: I am sure that Government Members are very grateful to the hon. Member for Leicester South Mr Hurd: I certainly can give the hon. Gentleman for taking us back to that glorious moment in 1992. I that assurance. As we have shown, the Bill sets out a can assure you, Mr Amess, that the Hurd household, at process that requires consultation, and in that process least, was letting out a mighty cheer at that moment adequate notice should be given of procedure. I certainly when your face first graced our screens. take on board the point about advance notice of orders. I shall briefly respond to the hon. Gentleman, who I ask him to bear in mind that, for the more substantive raised some specific concerns about what he considers and controversial reforms, the legislation also enables potential conflicts of interest, and about necessary Parliament to insist on an enhanced procedure. safeguards. I undertake to ensure that the relevant Finally, removing the schedule would not be a Minister is aware of those concerns, and to respond to proportionate response, particularly in light of the the hon. Gentleman directly in writing. I will obviously safeguards attached to use of the power and the duration share that letter with the Committee once I have had a of listings within the schedule. I therefore ask that response from the relevant Department. We will place schedule 2 stand part of the Bill. the letter in the Library to reassure the Committee. Question put and agreed to. Schedule 2 is an important element of the Government’s proposed reforms to public bodies and it exists to give Schedule 2, as amended, accordingly agreed to. certainty to Parliament about the intended scope and application of the Bill’s powers, specifically in relation Clause 3 to mergers. Clause 2, which gives Ministers the power to make provision by order to merge a group of bodies or POWER TO MODIFY CONSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS offices, applies only to those bodies listed in schedule 2. I remind the Committee that, as is the case for each of the Bill’s schedules, a group of bodies can appear in Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD): I beg to move schedule 2 only following the approval of Parliament amendment 55, in clause 3, page 2, line 34, at end through the primary legislative process. When a group insert— of bodies has been listed in schedule 2, it is subject to ‘(4) No order shall be made under this section which will or the power in clause 2 for a period of five years. If may compromise the editorial or operational independence of Departments do not bring forward an order under Sianel Pedwar Cymru.’. clause 2 in that period, the listing of a group of bodies ceases to have effect, in accordance with the sunset The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss provision created by clause 12. the following: amendment 38, in schedule 3, page 21, line 11, I hope the Committee will be reassured by that important leave out ‘Sianel Pedwar Cymru (“S4C”)’. limitation on the scope and duration of the powers that Amendment 54, in clause 4, page 2, line 42, at end the Bill will provide to Ministers. The use of those insert— powers is further limited, as I have described in previous ‘(3) In determining or prescribing any amount to be paid to debates, by the requirements to meet the safeguards and Sianel Pedwar Cymru under section 61 of the Broadcasting procedures set out in the Bill’s later clauses. The powers Act 1990 the Secretary of State shall ensure that the amount is are thus subject to the requirement for consultation sufficient to enable the Authority to fulfil its public service remit under clause 10 and the parliamentary procedure set in respect of S4C Digital under section 204(3) of, and out in clause 11. paragraph 3(3) of Schedule 12 to, the Communications Act 2003 On mergers, I hope the Committee will be particularly throughout the period to which the amount relates.’. reassured by the application of clause 8, which makes it Government amendment 10. clear that a Minister cannot bring forward an order to Amendment 57, in clause 9, page 5, line 3, at end merge bodies unless they believe that the merger will insert ‘or would relate to Sianel Pedwar Cymru.’. 161 Public Bill Committee15 SEPTEMBER 2011 Public Bodies Bill [Lords] 162

Amendment 56, in clause 10, page 5, line 31, at end the e-mails look remarkably similar, perhaps reflecting insert— a well-orchestrated campaign to hoist the flag of S4C in ‘(ea) the National Assembly of Wales, if the proposal the Committee. At times, attempts are made to denigrate relates to Sianel Pedwar Cymru,’. well-organised campaigns in the House, but I assure the Government new clause 2—Sianel Pedwar Cymru. Committee about the great strength of feeling on this New clause 5—Welsh Authority— issue, and the fact that the e-mails are similar does not undermine the importance of this debate to Wales and ‘For section 61 of the Broadcasting Act 1990 (funding of Sianel Pedwar Cymru) there is substituted— to civic society in Wales. “61 Funding of Welsh Authority The issue has been buttressed by the report on S4C (1) In 2012 and thereafter at intervals of five years the by the Welsh Affairs Committee, of which I and the Secretary of State shall pay, or shall secure the payment to the hon. Member for Clwyd South are members. There was Welsh Authority of, such amount as may be agreed between them a robust debate in the other place, and I commend to cover the cost to the Authority during the five year period of— House of Lords Hansard to hon. Members. The former (a) providing the Authority’s public services (within the Chancellor, Lord Howe of Aberavon stated: meaning of section 207 of the Communications Act “I seriously urge my noble friend and the Government to 2003), and refrain from including S4C in any part of this legislation. It is (b) arranging for the broadcasting or distribution of those manifest from the quality and nature of this debate that S4C is services. something more significant than a mere instrument.” (2) If the Secretary of State and the Welsh Authority cannot He went on to suggest that the late Lord Whitelaw reach agreement for the purposes of subsection (1) by the end of August in the year preceding that in respect of which a payment “created S4C and would be turning and revolving in his grave, to the Authority must be made, the Secretary of State shall by whether speaking Latin or English, in his denunciation of this order prescribe an amount which is sufficient to cover the cost of proposal.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 March 2011; the Authority referred to in subsection (1). Vol. 725, c. 1634.] (3) In determining or prescribing an amount for the purpose of We must be confident that the Welsh language television this section the Secretary of State shall ensure that the amount is channel has the resources to provide a unique service sufficient to enable the Welsh Authority to fulfil the public for the community, the editorial and operational service remit in respect of S4C Digital under section 204(5) of, independence required to provide plurality, and the and paragraph 3(3) of Schedule 12 to, the Communications Act ability to take bold decisions to provide interesting and 2003 throughout the period to which the amount relates. diverse programming for the future and meet the challenges (4) The Secretary of State shall not prescribe an amount less of the multi-media age. My concern is that we have no than the amount paid to the Welsh Authority in the preceding year or preceding three year period, as the case may be. plans before us that provide confidence in a strong future for S4C, which is why we should remove it from (5) An order shall not be made under subsection (2) unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the provisions in the Bill. each House of Parliament. We have few guarantees. The Government have (6) If a resolution required under subsection (5) is not acknowledged through an amendment that sufficient approved, the Secretary of State shall secure that the Welsh resources will be provided, but there are no criteria to Authority is paid an amount which is not less than the amount define “sufficient”. There are many sentiments about paid to the Authority in the preceding year or preceding period, the preservation of editorial independence but no as the case may be. guarantees, and therefore amendment 55 seeks to ensure (7) The Secretary of State may discharge the duty in the operational, as well as editorial, independence of subsection (1) by making payments himself or entering into an S4C, which is crucial if we are to maintain a focus on agreement with another person for that person to do so (or both). the provision of Welsh-language television. (8) In discharging his duties under this section, the Secretary We cannot be content with S4C providing a bare of State shall have regard to the Welsh Authority’s operational minimum of Welsh-language content to satisfy statutory and editorial independence. remits. It must continue as a quality broadcaster. In the (9) Any sums required by the Secretary of State under this Welsh Affairs Committee, we heard much about quality, section shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament.’. particularly that of children’s programming and drama. Government amendment 23. Of course, S4C is not only a broadcaster but a vital tool for furthering the Welsh Government’s policies on the Mr Mark Williams: It gives me great pleasure to Welsh language. move the amendments tabled in my name and that of the hon. Member for Arfon. Let me say at the outset 9.45 am that I do not intend to divide the Committee on them, For many Welsh learners—myself included—S4C is in the expectation—hope, perhaps—that the hon. Member an invaluable tool for learning the language. It plays an for Clwyd South will request a Division on amendment 38. integral part in a truly bilingual Wales, to which all four At this stage, mine are probing amendments on fundamental parties in Wales subscribe, and the holistic approach issues that have perplexed and worried many people in adopted by three Assembly Governments of different Wales over the past few months. political persuasions. This is not a peripheral side issue I am sure that members of the Committee who do about a broadcaster; it is increasingly relevant to anglicised not represent Wales did not expect the volume of Wales as it is to y fro Gymraeg—the Welsh heartland. correspondence that they have received on S4C and, if While broadcasting is not devolved—although some of they were not familiar with the arguments, they will at us may look forward to a move in that direction—and least be aware of the strength of feeling provoked by while Westminster exerts a huge influence on Wales Welsh language broadcasting. Should they scroll through through broadcasting policy, it is wholly reasonable to the Welsh to the English translation at the bottom, they anticipate a meaningful dialogue with the Welsh Assembly will be educated about many issues of concern. Many of Government. 163 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Public Bodies Bill [Lords] 164

Amendments 57 and 56 refer to the need to consult this is the interim chief executive of a major broadcaster Welsh Ministers about any changes to S4C. The Bill sets in our country— out a statutory duty to consult Welsh Ministers in the “travelling in a car to Swansea along the M4. I turn on Radio 4 making of an order under clauses 1 to 5 where they have and listen to the news that S4C is to have a 24.4% cut. That was competence or exercise functions. That leaves a significant the first I heard and I know that it was the first that S4C knew gap, however, in areas where they have a significant about it, despite the fact that we had been having, daily, weekly interest but no legislative competence, and S4C is obviously contact with the civil servants.” in that category. Although I hope that the Government That was completely unacceptable and, sadly, I think it would consult Welsh Ministers on any changes, there is reflects a lot of the so-called dialogue that has taken no statutory obligation, and any assurances that the place with S4C. Minister could provide would be extremely useful. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con): I thank my and Frome shows a great interest in such matters. He hon. Friend—colleague, or ally, I am not sure what the was telling me the other day that he can pick up “Pobol proper term is—for allowing me to intervene. He has y Cwm” in Somerset. I do not mean to be demeaning made an important point about the 24% reduction. with that anecdote, because I know that my hon. Friend Does he agree that every other body funded by DCMS does care. [Interruption.] There seems to be some concern; had a similar cut and that it would have been incredibly “Pobol y Cwm” is a major programme in Welsh strange for that not to have happened? Because of the broadcasting. debate and discussion that had taken place, nearly everyone would have been anticipating and contemplating Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC): If I may just inform that that was the sort of thing to expect. Does the hon. the Committee, I think “Pobol y Cwm” is the longest- Gentleman agree that it cannot have been a great shock running daily soap in the universe. to anybody that that announcement was made?

Mr Mark Williams: I thank my hon. Friend for that. Mr Williams: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who I will say some more about “Pobol y Cwm” in a minute. has made a valid point. I shall turn to funding in a moment, but I think that that recognition existed. Certainly, Mr Heath: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that I in my discussions with S4C management over that used to watch “Pobol y Cwm” occasionally. I hope I will period and in the discussions we had and the evidence not be tested on current storylines, because I last watched we took in the Welsh Affairs Committee, there was it when Ioan Gruffudd—before he became a universal acknowledgment that serious funding issues had to be superstar—was still in it. It was some time ago that I addressed. would regularly watch “Pobol y Cwm”. Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab): The hon. Mr Mark Williams: I thank my hon. Friend for that Member for Montgomeryshire has made the point about clarification. “Pobol y Cwm” came up in the Welsh funding and recognises that it is an important issue. It Affairs Committee discussions because in some quarters is, however, totally misrepresentative of the situation to there has been an attempt to denigrate some of S4C’s suggest that we are discussing comparable cuts. On viewing figures. When a comparison was made, for BBC funding, for example, the proposed cut to the example, between the viewing figures of a soap opera in World Service was 16%, but suddenly it finds itself with Wales and one viewed in England, it was clear that the an extra £2.2 million, so it is a cut of 15.1%. The figures were proportionally much higher in Wales than situation becomes even more serious when one realises those enjoyed by English programmes in the English that, while S4C’s total funding of £90 million for 2011-12 media. will come from DCMS—this is according to the The Government’s proposed new governance Department’s own figures, which many of us contest—by arrangements raise fundamental concerns. BBC Cymru 2014-15, the total funding will be 83%, 7% of which will and S4C are currently the only national Welsh language come from DCMS and 76% from the BBC, although broadcasters, and they are competitors, albeit with some there is no sense in which it will be directly allocated to degree of co-operation—the BBC provides some significant S4C. The BBC’s own funding is being cut by 16%, but it hours of television for S4C. It is hard to see the Government is claimed that, suddenly and miraculously, it will be proposing that the BBC should have seats on the board able to fund S4C to the tune of 76%. Does that not of Channel 4, but that is where we are in the debate cause great concern to the hon. Gentleman? Far from about S4C. There is a case for looking at how S4C is run facing a comparative cut, S4C faces a disproportionate and funded, but it is hard to escape the conclusion of cut and one that could be further affected by the cuts to both the Welsh Affairs Committee and the Culture, the BBC. Media and Sport Committee that the process has been rushed. The Chair: Order. I know that people feel strongly I want to look to the future, which is what the debate about this debate, but I appeal to the Committee that is about, but I have to say that the consultation and interventions should be short. dialogue at the start of the process were lamentable. The interim chief executive, Arwel Ellis Owen, told the Susan Elan Jones: I apologise. Welsh Affairs Committee that, despite discussion with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport in the weeks leading up to the announcement, The Chair: There is plenty of time for speeches to be “come the day, I am”— made. 165 Public Bill Committee15 SEPTEMBER 2011 Public Bodies Bill [Lords] 166

Mr Williams: I concur with many of the sentiments That is, the introduction of the funding formula, which expressed by the hon. Lady. I look forward to an the Government are now seeking to remove— extended analysis of those figures in her speech after “makes S4C’s income more predictable and reliable and so will she has caught your eye, Mr Amess. facilitate planning on a much firmer basis than is possible at present.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 January 1996; Hywel Williams: The pertinent point for this debate is Vol. 568, c. 563.] the one that the hon. Gentleman made earlier about the Later in 1996, he said: cuts being rushed through. The scale of the cuts is “The funding mechanism proposed in the Bill takes as its alarming to say the least, but the point is that they are starting point the payment to be made to S4C at the beginning of being rushed through. The reason why we want S4C 1997 under the current formula, and it will be uprated annually taken out of the Bill is that there has not been full and thereafter by the RPI. That will put S4C’s funding on a similar proper consultation. basis to that of the BBC.” That was the point that the hon. Member for Clwyd Mr Williams: The hon. Gentleman pre-empts a comment South made in her intervention—there is a disparity of that I will make a little later. Funding is clearly a major funding between the BBC and S4C. Lord Inglewood issue. The Broadcasting Act 1996 introduced an increase continued: to S4C’s budget in line with inflation, a link that the “This funding will be guaranteed. It will be free from political Culture Secretary has indicated hastily that he wanted interference.” to break early in the life of the Government. Given the He went on: financial circumstances facing the Government, it was “The order-making power in the Bill simply repeats the position inevitable—this relates to the point made by my hon. in the current funding arrangements in the 1990 Act which enable Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire—that questions the Secretary of State to take into account the costs of transmitting would be asked of S4C. Indeed Alun Ffred Jones, the S4C. The order-making power is extended to digital. It is not then Assembly Government Heritage Minister, said intended to allow the Government to change S4C funding for any other reasons, nor does it in any way compromise S4C’s independence.” when he gave evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee that S4C should not be treated as a He concluded: “sacred cow that couldn’t be touched”. “Our intention is to provide a steady and predictable income stream for S4C to enable both the broadcaster and the Government The funding tail in this case seems to have wagged the to plan properly for the future.”—[Official Report, House of governance dog. The governance arrangements of the Lords, 13 February 1996; Vol. 569, c. 601-3.] BBC were a quid pro quo for taking on the funding. We That is the key—S4C needs that certainty so that it can have heard about the haste with which the agreement plan “for the future”. But Lord Inglewood also made was reached, astonishingly without the knowledge of the point that security is needed to guarantee independence S4C. It was completely unacceptable that an agreement and we should not understate the impact that the changes was reached in that way and that agreement should not proposed in the Bill could have on S4C. form the basis of discussions about the future of S4C. As I have said, I know that my hon. Friend the We now have a new proposal on funding from the Minister, who is speaking for the Government on these Government. I have added my own proposal in the matters, understands the importance of S4C to Wales. form of new clause 5, which I hope the Government will However, he needs to take back to the Government the consider before the Bill returns to the Floor of the message that the unintended consequences of the new House. However, we are still talking about a largely arrangements could have a chilling effect on the undefined system of governance in which the BBC independence of S4C. A long lead-in time is required could assume a dominant position. The Welsh Affairs for the production of programmes and so the decisions Committee’s report expressed our concern that that S4C makes today about commissioning and production “The BBC…will not necessarily have the particular interests of will be reflected in broadcasts possibly a year or two Welsh language programming as its primary focus.” down the line. That focus is the very rationale for S4C. And that is the key message—it is about ensuring that S4C retains its focus and expertise. Given that the Government are 10 am tackling the issue of funding separately, I do not see The independent production sector has been a great why we need to be wedded to the arrangement with the success for Wales. The hon. Member for Arfon will BBC. remember that he highlighted that issue during the last The Government’s new clause may well be an Parliament in the Welsh Affairs Committee’s report on improvement on the lack of any protection in statute, globalisation. It is absolutely critical that S4C’s editorial but it still leaves S4C funding in the gift of the Secretary independence is guaranteed. I know that the Government of State. Any broadcaster needs significant notice about talk in those terms, but it is far from clear that the how much funding it will receive and what the arrangements negotiations as they stand provide for that. It would be will be, and that is what lies behind my new clause. It helpful if the Minister could update us on the latest seeks to provide a floor, so that funding for S4C could talks, because at this stage it is difficult to see a positive not crash into oblivion. It provides what is lacking from conclusion that is acceptable to both parties. That is the Government’s new clause; it provides the certainty why I support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member and stability that S4C needs so that it can operate for Clwyd South. effectively and independently. The Secretary of State set S4C and the BBC the During the passage of the 1996 Act, the then Minister, challenge of working out the detail of the agreement. Lord Inglewood, said something very interesting, which He outlined a number of features that he expects to see gets to the meat of this argument: in the final model. Regrettably, those are not robust “The change in the funding formula”— enough to guarantee independence. There are talks 167 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Public Bodies Bill [Lords] 168 about S4C retaining its brand identity and editorial repetition of the points that my hon. Friend the Member distinctiveness, but I am not convinced that that is the for Ceredigion made, I will, as the Plaid Cymru speaker same as independence. There are talks about there on this matter, make a few points myself. being a BBC and S4C partnership along similar lines to I support the amendments in my name and those that MG ALBA, the Gaelic broadcaster, to begin by 2013-14, are proposed by the hon. Member for Clwyd South. with S4C coming under a BBC Trust service licence or S4C is not just another television channel. Its importance other operating agreement. The Select Committee and I to the Welsh language can scarcely be over-estimated. went to Stornoway and met the operatives of MG S4C is the only TV channel in Welsh and that cannot be ALBA. I praise much of the commendable work it has said often enough. These changes should not be made undertaken there, but the scenario is completely different. without fuller and proper consideration and consultation. When I asked ALBA executives about editorial and The hon. Member for Ceredigion told us about how operational independence, the answer was that it did the temporary head of S4C heard about his funding not apply. There are also talks about there being a formula on the radio. Clearly, in their rush towards combined board of the authority and trust, a joint change, the Government were blinded to the effects of management board. The extent to which the BBC will their behaviour. sit on these bodies causes concern and brings into question the achievable goal of independence. There should be primary legislation on this matter. Forgive me, Mr Amess, but when I mention S4C I will We are due to have a communications Bill next year, sometimes use the Welsh pronunciation. When S4C was including possible changes to broadcasting. This would first established, there was a long-running campaign be an opportune moment for us to look at what we want and a huge public debate about the matter, which is in from S4C as the national Welsh language television contrast to what is happening now. As my hon. Friend station, and how we can best provide that service rather the Member for Clwyd South said, the Government than putting all our eggs in the proverbial basket at this intend to bring forward a broadcasting Bill, which is the stage. appropriate way in which to address the future of S4C. In conclusion, I will once again refer to the Select Everyone accepts that the future of the channel needs Committee report, which called for a wide-ranging, to be reviewed, which is why I support amendment 38. independent review of S4C, encompassing its purpose, funding, services and governance. That was also the Some Members might think that my contribution is position of the four party leaders in our National too wide-ranging. I hope that you will agree, Mr Amess, Assembly in Wales: Liberal, Labour, Plaid Cymru and that it is contextualising. To understand the issues, it is Conservative. That is what we need. These amendments important for hon. Members to have a background give the Government the opportunity to take that course knowledge of S4C’s history. If I overstep the mark, of action. Mr Amess, I will accept your reprimand and try to temper my enthusiasm. Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con): My hon. Friend is making a powerful and stirring argument. Is part of his Valerie Vaz: The Welsh language goes deep into the case that S4C is something that should be treasured? psyche of the Welsh people. I do not know whether Localism and decentralisation are important principles hon. Members remember but some Welsh people used when it comes to Wales and its future. to have to wear the Welsh knot when they spoke the Welsh language. Mr Williams: I thank my hon. Friend for that comment. I look forward to the day when the devolution settlement Hywel Williams: I thank the hon. Lady for that. I will extends to broadcasting. The undercurrent of his remarks refer very briefly to the history of the language as I go is just how important this issue is to Wales. I have the along. S4C is not just another TV channel but a unique privilege of representing a constituency where the language social space for Welsh speakers, Welsh learners and spoken on the streets is predominantly Welsh, and other even for those who do not speak Welsh because some members of the Committee are in the same position. programmes are subtitled. On Sunday, there is an omnibus The Welsh language has been a huge success story in the edition of “Pobol y Cwm”, which is widely watched by anglicised parts of Wales as much as the Welsh speaking people who do not speak Welsh. “Dechrau Canu, Dechrau ones. It is in that spirit that I have moved my amendment Canmol” is “Songs of Praise” in Welsh and is watched and supported others. This issue is of critical importance by very many people, including myself. Some of us to people right across the country. enthusiastically join in with the singing. To conclude, these proposals have been rushed and The point that I am making is that speakers of we need that review. English take for granted these sorts of electronic social spaces. There is a huge output in English, from America, Hywel Williams: I have been looking forward to this the United Kingdom and other countries. A huge amount debate, as have other hon. Members. We have had a of television material, be it films or whatever, is produced large e-mail bag on this, to which the hon. Member for in English because there is such a huge audience. Those Ceredigion referred. He also referred to Lord Whitelaw, sorts of productions are taken for granted. We cannot who famously complained that people were going around do that in respect of Welsh because we have only this the country stirring up apathy. There was no reason for one particular channel. People commonly say that there people to do that for this particular issue. It has quickly are so many channels and absolutely nothing to watch. become a hugely important issue in Wales. Much of the In respect of Wales, there is one channel and quite a lot content of my speech will replicate what happened in to watch and we do not want to lose that. That point the ‘70s and ‘80s when S4C was first established. Although was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion I do not want to indulge in any major or tedious earlier on. It has also been made by many pillars of the 169 Public Bill Committee15 SEPTEMBER 2011 Public Bodies Bill [Lords] 170

Welsh community, including the four political parties, time. It is instructive, especially for new Ministers. Crucially, the Archbishop of Wales Barry Morgan and many it was Lord Roberts’s advice that led to Mrs Thatcher others. changing her mind. I played a part in that campaign, as There has been broadcasting in Welsh since the 1920s, did many of my contemporaries—I was in my 20s but until the establishment of S4C, broadcasting in then—but many of us are now highly respectable and Welsh on both BBC and ITV was somewhat haphazard. prominent people in Wales. Circumstances led them to That was unsatisfactory for English-speaking Welsh take part in the campaign, but it was not only young people and for Welsh speakers alike. The English schedule people who participated. We might face that again. was different for Wales from that in England, and there If you will allow me, Mr Amess, I shall tell a very was no consistent Welsh language schedule. Programmes brief story. One night, the television signal disappeared that were important for democratic accountability, in the Aberystwyth area. When the police investigated specifically news and current affairs, were broadcast the mast at Bleanplwyf, they arrested three middle-aged late at night, and one had to make a point of staying up men, Ned Thomas, Pennar Davies and Meredydd Evans, to watch news about what was going on down the road respectively the editor of the premier English-language whereas one could access news about what was happening literary language magazine in Wales, the principal of a on the other side of the world at prime time. theological college and the former head of light With the prospect of a fourth channel being established entertainment for BBC Wales. Such people were persuaded in the 1970s, there was a determined and intense campaign to break the law, and I would not like to see that for a Welsh language channel in Wales. I remind the returning. Committee about that because it is easy to forget the tumult in Wales at the time, and I sincerely want to 10.15 am avoid going back in that direction. Consensus was There were sit-ins, rallies, disruption of TV programmes, eventually reached that the fourth channel in Wales climbing of TV masts and interruption of parliamentary would indeed be primarily in Welsh. Prime time proceedings—the other day I asked a visiting constituent broadcasting would be in Welsh but, as some hon. whether she had ever been here before, and she sort of Members know, until recently some programmes would coughed and spluttered and said, “Well, the last time I be in English as well. After a lot of campaigning, was here was in the early 1980s and I spent time in the Channel 4 is now available throughout Wales. cell”—which we have below Big Ben, I understand, for Consensus has been reached in 1979, but the newly people who cause a disruption. There were court cases, elected Conservative Government under Mrs Thatcher refusals to pay fines and jailings. There was a clear decided, in their first enthusiastic charge, that there danger at that time of the law being seen to be unjust would not be a Welsh-language fourth channel. There and, I am afraid, held in contempt. I have a real fear was an avalanche of protest. I remember it well. Indeed, that we will go back in that direction. I was part of it. Gwynfor Evans, then president of my The Welsh Language Society is a careful organisation, party, threatened to fast on his tour of Wales to raise and the principle that it employs is that of “dull di-drais”, the profile of the issue. Mrs Thatcher eventually performed the non-violent form of action. We are fortunate in her first U-turn, despite not being for turning, and S4C Wales that that is how we were led at that time. Looking, was eventually established. carefully, over the water, we can see where less principled With your permission, Mr Amess, I want to step back ways of action led the tragic island of Ireland. The briefly and speak about the new mass campaign in method employed by activists was to break the law and favour of S4C. The e-mails that you have received are a immediately give themselves up to the police, admit symptom of that. The campaign of the 1970s and 1980s their responsibility, plead not guilty in court, refuse to eventually led to a consensus that cut across class, pay fines and, often, face prison. Some hon. Members geography, language and political allegiances. It led to will remember the magistrates who refused to find nearly 30 years of successful Welsh language broadcasting against people who were clearly guilty and who paid the with scarcely a hiccup. That was the net effect, despite fines of people they had just fined. We do not want that worries beforehand that there would not be enough state of affairs coming back—the contemporary danger material to fill the channel, that we did not have the is obvious. talent and that we did not have this or that. Importantly, but tragically for some, the politics was taken out of Glyn Davies: I am listening to the hon. Gentleman’s these Welsh language concerns. I believe that it has an speech with great interest, as with other contributions. intensely political aspect, but although it was once I want to express agreement with a lot of what hon. hugely contentious, after 30 years of relative calm people Members are saying, but to compare the Bill with those now see it as being uncontentious. times and to refer to the sort of actions then inflames Some Members will remember the campaigns of the things beyond reason and is certainly not appropriate in 1970s and 1980s, led by Cymdeithas yr Iaith Gymraeg, any way to the position we are in now. There is an the Welsh Language Society. Again, I preface my remarks element of irresponsibility in referring to the riots or by saying that I am a dedicated parliamentarian. By illegal action in the past—that is not how the debate on their actions, the Government risk a return to those the subject should be proceeding. earlier days, but I ardently wish to avoid that. One young man has unfortunately already spent time in jail Hywel Williams: I have not referred to the riots, in as part of the campaign, but I do not want to see that fact, but it is important that we remember what things happen again. were like last time we were in such a position. I make no I refer the Committee to the excellent autobiography apology for doing so. I certainly have no intention of by Lord Roberts, then Sir Wyn Roberts, called “Right inflaming the situation. As the record will show, my from the Start”. In it, he recounts the events of that intention in drawing the attention of the Committee to 171 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Public Bodies Bill [Lords] 172

[Hywel Williams] The location of those Welsh speakers is even more important and interesting for S4C than the numbers such matters is to avoid a situation in which pillars of and the percentage. About 40% of Welsh speakers now the Welsh community describe law-breakers as the finest live in the east and in the cities, where Welsh is not of their generation, which is the situation we were spoken outside the home. It is not socially prominent. in—the law was drawn into that dispute, rightly or In those sorts of circumstances, particularly for young wrongly, and that is the situation we are now in. people who are going through Welsh-medium education, I will make some brief points about public policy on seeing Welsh on TV is incredibly important. That is the the Welsh language in general, which are contextual to social space that they inhabit. Welsh also inhabits, by our debate on S4C. Public policy for many years has the way, social spaces on the web. We even have dating been in favour of the Welsh language. People, including sites in Welsh, and Twitter and Wikipedia—my daughter myself, argue that the proposed move on S4C is contrary would be very proud of me for remembering all those to that longstanding public policy. I will not go through things—so it is all there, except when one looks at the the entire history, you will be glad to hear, Mr Amess, possibilities for S4C with these enormous cuts. That but the situation we had over many centuries was that social space, which is important for the 40% of Welsh of Welsh being kept under hatches, including the penalising speakers who live in the south and east, will disappear. clauses in the Act of Union: My other point about demography is that the age “no Person or Persons that use the Welsh Speech or Language profile of Welsh speakers has changed markedly. When shall have or enjoy any Manner Office or Fees within…the King’s I first looked at the matter in the early 1970s, Welsh dominions”— speakers were largely older people. Out of 100 people in that is, someone who spoke Welsh could not get a job. the street, if one wanted a Welsh speaker, one chose the The language was not banned, but there was an impediment older people. By now, the profile has been entirely to people getting on in the world. reversed. It is young people who speak Welsh, and A long history of Welsh being under the hatches young people who use television and the other electronic lasted until the Welsh Courts Act 1942, which allowed means to live their lives. S4C is doubly, trebly, quadruply the use of Welsh in courts, and the Welsh Language Act important given the nature of our population. 1967, which stated that Welsh had a certain, if not full, I have detained the Committee long on the history equality. The Welsh Language Act 1993, passed under and the context, but I thought that it would be useful. I the Conservative Government, announced the important reiterate that I am in no way advocating a return to the principle that Welsh should be promoted and enabled ’70s and ’80s, but that was the mess that we were in at by the Welsh Language Board. Then the Welsh Assembly the time. I appeal to the Government to change their passed legislation proposed in 2009, I think, setting up a mind on the issue and to take S4C out of the Bill, so language commissioner among other things. that we can have a proper consideration over a year or more to ensure that S4C’s function in providing that The point that I am making is that public policy for social space for Welsh people and contributing to language many years has been in the direction of supporting and planning is safeguarded. enabling the Welsh language. Now we have this proposal, which many would argue—rightly, in my opinion—is contrary to that statement of public policy.Many problems Glyn Davies: There is a convention that when Members remain in respect of the Welsh language, which I will speak under someone’s chairmanship for the first time, not go into now, particularly in education and employment they make very flattering remarks about the Chair. I rights. Crucially, however, television is not one of them. will restrict myself to saying how pleased I was in 1992 For 30 years, television has been excluded from that hot when I saw the results coming through. I hope that that debate in Wales. During that time, television has engendered meets the convention. the prestige for the Welsh language that has been hugely For me, thinking about and dealing with this issue useful in what is little other than its renaissance. has been hugely difficult, and I intend to support the The Welsh language has been in decline for a very Government position. That is difficult, because the long time. During the 20th century, it declined from words of the two hon. Members who have spoken so far being spoken by around 50% of people at its high point could so easily have been part of my own speech. I will to around 18.6% of people at its low point. S4C has not repeat everything that they have said. been instrumental in raising that percentage. When the census results are announced later this year, we will 10.25 am hopefully see the classic hockey stick effect. There will The Chair adjourned the Committee without Question be a reversal—I might term it a Lazarus effect—and the put (Standing Order No. 88). Adjourned till this day at language will be rising from the dead. One o’clock.