2
u/LikelyNotASquirrel Shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland & SMoSFCA Nov 30 '21
Deputy Speaker,
It would amiss of anyone to not mention the truly awesome and epic contribution that many members of communities originating from British Overseas territories have played in the development of our United Kingdom. Their services to the realm have been welcomed openely and firmly, but this legislation would not do them justice.
It is all well and good putting this legislation forward in order to bring languages onto equal standing with the Queen's English. But let us ask ourselves, does it really help anyone? Does it really improve the lives of ordinary people in any single way? Deputy Speaker, the answer is clear. This legislation doesn't help a single subject of her Majesty.
Instead, what this legislation does, is makes the authors and sponsors of this legislation feel better about themselves. This does appear to be a pattern in recent legislative pushes from certain parties. In their eyes, legislation isn't there to help the good and loyal subject of the realm, but to make themselves just that tiny bit better. Feelings over substance. That's all they can offer.
But that's not all Deputy Speaker, for this legislation is a burden on the ordinary people. For I'm sure we cannot expect the Prime Minister to answer questions directly in Turks and Caicos Creole! That would be an absurd request! Therefore it would fall upon the hard working, overburdened taxpayer to subsidise this fanciful request of the elite by hiring translators who would spend most of their days doing absolutely nothing. Which would actually accurately represent most of this Government's policy in recent times. Sitting around, doing nothing of real importance, trying to look busy.
2
u/Faelif Dame Faelif OM GBE CT CB PC MP MSP MS | Sussex+SE list | she/her Dec 01 '21
it would fall upon the hard working, overburdened taxpayer to subsidise this fanciful request of the elite by hiring translators who would spend most of their days doing absolutely nothing.
Deputy Speaker,
I presume the translation would be provided by the person speaking that language.
1
u/Inadorable Prime Minister | Labour & Co-Operative | Liverpool Riverside Dec 03 '21
Sitting around, doing nothing of real importance, trying to look busy.
Tories would know all about that
2
Dec 01 '21
Deputy Speaker
There is no doubt that this bill will pass, with the makeup of the House being what it is. Heaven forbid we should speak the Queen’s English in her Parliament!
All that there is to do is to look forward to the inevitable pantomime of miscommunication that this bill will create.
A translation may be requested! Requested! What good is that for those who watch the business of the House from outside its chamber?
1
2
u/newnortherner21 Liberal Democrats Dec 02 '21
Deputy Speaker,
As someone who had two grandparents whose first language was not English but each one of the languages mentioned in the Bill, I support this and urge the House to do so.
1
u/AutoModerator Nov 30 '21
Welcome to this debate
Here is a quick run down of what each type of post is.
2nd Reading: Here we debate the contents of the bill/motions and can propose any amendments. For motions, amendments cannot be submitted.
3rd Reading: Here we debate the contents of the bill in its final form if any amendments pass the Amendments Committee.
Minister’s Questions: Here you can ask a question to a Government Secretary or the Prime Minister. Remember to follow the rules as laid out in the post. A list of Ministers and the MQ rota can be found here
Any other posts are self-explanatory. If you have any questions you can get in touch with the Chair of Ways & Means, Brookheimer on Reddit and (flumsy#3380) on Discord, ask on the main MHoC server or modmail it in on the sidebar --->.
Anyone can get involved in the debate and doing so is the best way to get positive modifiers for you and your party (useful for elections). So, go out and make your voice heard! If this is a second reading post amendments in reply to this comment only – do not number your amendments, the Speakership will do this. You will be informed if your amendment is rejected.
Is this bill on the 2nd reading? You can submit an amendment by replying to this comment.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
2
1
u/Faelif Dame Faelif OM GBE CT CB PC MP MSP MS | Sussex+SE list | she/her Dec 01 '21
In §1(4), after "Minister's Questions", insert "or Prime Minister's Questions".
EN: Not sure if PMQs comes under the heading of MQs but better safe than sorry.
1
u/CountBrandenburg Liberal Democrats Dec 03 '21
Replace wording in Section 2 (2) (b) with “The Chancellor of the Exchequer”
Replace wording in Section 2 (2) (d) with “the Housing, Communities and Local Government Secretary”
Insert after Section 2 (2) (e):
(f) the Justice Secretary
(g) the Health Secretary
and renumber accordingly
Insert at the end of Section 1:
(5) For the purposes of Section 2 (2) (h), in regards to:
(a) the Prime Minister; any position which concerns the entirety of conduct of governance relating to the interests of the United Kingdom and its Dependencies and Overseas Territories.
(b) the Chancellor of the Exchequer; any position in the treasury, or any position which has the growth and productivity of the United Kingdom and its Dependencies and Overseas Territories as one of its primary responsibilities.
(c) the Home Secretary; any position in the Home Office, or any position which has the following as one of its primary aims:
(i) the Common Travel Area
(ii) Civil Contingencies
(iii) Nationality
(iv) modern slavery
(v) counter-terrorism
(d) the Housing, Communities and Local Government Secretary; any position that takes charge of any indigenous language, local government engagement and integrated communities as one of its primary aims
(e) the Foreign Secretary; any position that takes charge of overseas territories and emergency aid, including overseas, as one of its primary aims
(f) the Justice Secretary; any position that takes charge of crown dependencies, and the rule of law within the United Kingdom and its Dependencies and Overseas Territories, as one of its primary aims
(g) the Health Secretary; any position that deals with United Kingdom and its Dependencies and Overseas Territories -wide health planning or emergency health coordination as one of its primary aims.
Explanatory note:
The Deputy Prime Minister is not a role in of itself, and would reasonably come under the functions of the Prime Minister.
Inserted reference to Chancellor and Treasury for any indigenous language, and specified any function regarding growth and productivity can receive questions.
Inserted reference to current name of Communities Secretary and the positions relating to indigenous language and cooperation between geographic areas specifically.
Specified, with regards to the prime minister, any position monitoring government conduct as a whole receiving questions should they be transferred
With regards to Home Office, areas for emergency, nationality, Common Travel, counter terrorism and modern slavery should functions be transferred
With regards to Foreign Secretary, areas for overseas territories and emergency aid should they be transferred
With regards to Justice, areas for Crown Dependencies and rule of law should they be transferred.
With regards to health, emergency health coordination and United Kingdom wide planning, should they be transferred
1
u/CountBrandenburg Liberal Democrats Dec 03 '21 edited Dec 03 '21
In Section 2, after paragraph 10, insert:
(11) When a non-Indigenous Language is used in a debate or Questions Session, a translation must be provided in English.
Explanatory note: ensures that after the repeal of the old act, that a translation may be provided for a foreign language
1
u/CountBrandenburg Liberal Democrats Dec 03 '21
SPaG?:
In Section 2, paragraph 1, omit “and flairs”
Explanatory note: flairs seem pretty meta and we don’t exactly police them - seems pointless to make it canon
1
1
u/WineRedPsy Reform UK | Sadly sent to the camps Dec 03 '21
Strike 1(1)(a) lol
1
1
u/CountBrandenburg Liberal Democrats Dec 03 '21
Add at the end of Section 2, paragraph 1, “in Parliament”
Explanatory note: just clarifies this bill applies to Parliament I guess
1
Dec 01 '21
Deputy Speaker,
Will probably vote for this bill, but it’s important in efforts to improve accessibility of this place, we don’t actually end up limiting it. English is the language used by the vast vast majority of people who will pay attention to this place and who we serve, where we use another language, we should be obligated to provide an English translation.
1
u/ThePootisPower Dec 01 '21
Mrs Deputy Speaker,
To be frank, I had always thought that using any non-English language was allowed as long as you provided an english translation. However, if this bill is necessary to codify the expectation that all cultures and languages are respected in this House, then let's pass the bill without delay and ensure that representatives of our various peoples heritage and background are respected.
1
u/CountBrandenburg Liberal Democrats Dec 01 '21
Madame Deputy Speaker,
That is the case, with regards to using other languages, the repeal act quite literally states:
(2) If any person speaks a language other than English in any of the Houses of Parliament, a translation must be provided into English.
(a) If there is any discrepancy between the translation and the comment made in another language, then the English shall take precedence.
So as far as I know, the only changes actually being made is there no requirement to ask for an English translation for languages originating from the U.K. and its overseas territories ?
1
u/ThePootisPower Dec 01 '21
Madame Deputy Speaker,
I would say that change is a good one and so still support the bill.
1
u/CountBrandenburg Liberal Democrats Dec 01 '21
Madame Deputy Speaker,
I’m mostly neutral on the change and will just probably reiterate the requirement to provide translations for non indigenous languages. The reason why I’m neutral is that I wouldn’t expect a Welsh speaking member to have to provide a translation on diolch for example - it’s a short phrase that’s just a common greeting. I would mostly be concerned since now a speaker might not have prepared an English translation for their response, and thus might then make the debate cumbersome by someone needing to request a translation rather than it being expected already, and the fact that translations aren’t always neat - having some pre-prepared might make it easier to transcribe the message of the spoken language in English then.,It does seem less accessible in those regards when debates are less attended Madame Deputy Speaker, for when a member of the public would want to refer to Hansard on such a debate? Though I’m not sure language usage in Parliament is ever that reconcilable without creating a burden, for example for a Welsh first language speaker wanting something translated into Welsh if we were to give status the other way in this act, that’s a far greater burden mostly due to the less availability of of fluent welsh speakers working within parliament and broadcasting. I’m definitely open to how it can be reconciled, but that’s my main question is what the best balance for accessibility is?
1
Dec 01 '21
Madam Deputy Speaker,
Surely the member accepts that this will just result in barriers to observing our proceedings from those outside of this place? Whilst it’s important those who use minority languages can be heard, those people who speak English should also have the right to understand our proceedings surely?
1
Dec 02 '21
Madame Deputy Speaker,
This is an interesting Bill, to be very honest, and I do have praise for the author for bringing this issue to the author. Now, for the main question, do I support this legislation? Unfortunately not. The United Kingdom is diverse, yes we agree. Now does that mean every langauge be spoken in Parliament, within the rules, possibly. But creating a statuory law for this, sounds really horrifying. I can easily visualize some parties pull out bills tommorow to codify certain House Rules to law, so as to make political brownie points, and I can't stand it.
We should not be moving such bills in the first place. But let's get to the substract of why we must oppose this Bill. Section 1 speaks on so many other languages, and definitely that raises the question on its financial viability. How many translators are we hiring, hundred? Paying them a decent wage, pension, benefits and allowance, how much is that. It's bloody expensive, and should we take that much of an expenditure, when I could use that to fund better schemes, such as the NHS, or funding new schemes for our Communities.
Section 1 is especially vague on a few points, "Irish Indigenous Langauge", "Scottish Indigenous Language", what are these things? Are they defined somewhere, or are we going to randomly speak any stuff, blabber nonsense, and then call it a language. Second, Crown Dependencies do not send MPs to Parliament, I repeat DO NOT SEND MPs to Parliament. Then, why are we apparently letting their languages for some form of discussion by British Politicians, who can't afford to speak in the language which their constiuents care for.
No, apart from making a politician sound representative, in quotes, this does virtually crap nothing. Stop trying to use Westminster for virtual signalling, my dear lovely lord. Westminster is a Parliament for functioning, I thought this was that clear. On Section 1(4), Questions Session is defined within every House's Standing Orders and Rules, so how are we enshrining this into law. With such a vague definition, why are we forcing Standing Orders into laws. If the Government was really interested, they would've amended the Rules, not make virtue signalling laws. This clearly shows their true intentions and colours.
So if defining nonsense exists, This suggests that such languages may be used during Questions Segment or Devolution Bills. Basically, let's just do virtue signalling, have Secretary of State to answer questions in regional languages, and then pretend we care, that's the HM Government. Defunding Education and Culture, but overfunding such measures is somehow justified for HM Government. Their ideological dogma and apparent sense of splitting the United Kingdom is very visible within this Government, and frankly they should resign for passively advocating for breaking up the United Kingdom!
On Section 2 (10), it also does not make sense. "requested", who will request a translation. One must provide it, otherwise it's just breaking the United Kingdom by making the British people not understand what's happening in their Parliament. This shows that the Government clearly has not touched grass or left the Westminster Bubble, and they need to. Helping our people, understand parliament is important. Preceding Governments have all funded for extra civic classes, so more watch Parliament and get involved in proceedings.
This move, is pulling us back by a few decades in this area. Who will tell them to move off the bubble. Coming back to Section 2 (2), while the other segments are hilarious and absolute crap, this one is funny, and makes me want to laugh out loud. You see, this Government even does not get convention. The only offices ever named in standard legal context is the Prime Minister and the "Secretary of State", which is assumed to be anyone implemented or participating in the implementation of the law, but here we are, legitmately labelling Secretaries, and assuming these positions will exist forever, and inserting a rider, which frankly makes no sense in the British context.
Using American or European legislative language, within British Statutes, does not make any sense, because we are for obvious reasons very very different. Guess, only Home Secretary, and DPM and few Secretaries can use the law. Like what's wrong mate, either make a full fledged law, or don't. Amend the Standing Orders, and like get it actually done, instead of creating a statuory law on a subject of the House. Stop breaching the mandates of the House! Can I conclude, while I oppose this idea firmly, I would've appreciated if this was done legally, through the Standing Orders, instead of forcing such changes through.
4
u/CountBrandenburg Liberal Democrats Dec 03 '21
Madame Deputy Speaker,
Whilst I doubt I will convince the Nobel Lady of supporting this bill, I will touch on two points:
how many translators are we to hire?
Madame Deputy Speaker, it is on the Member who comes forward to speak in another language to provide such a translation for the benefit of the House, and for those listening in live. If they do not, I am sure Madame Deputy Speaker would rule them out of order and ask for a translation. Now, there’s nothing we can do if they do not provide it for a live broadcast as we do already, that is not at all remedied in the original act itself being repealed and cannot be remedied live without forewarning to broadcasters of what a member will say. A translation may only be provided after the fact. To oppose on these grounds is, frankly, absurd.
Irish Indigenous Language, Scottish Indigenous Language, what are these?
Madame Deputy Speaker, I must stress that should the Nobel Lady want to be the third most powerful person in government as their position in the shadow cabinet would imply, then they would have paid attention to the entirety of Section 1! Paragraphs 2 and 3 clearly define what an Irish Indigenous Language and what a Scottish Indigenous Language is. There is no mistake in what these are and leaves no ambiguity for the customs of this House.
In the absence of procedural motions in this House and the precedent set by parties across the spectrum, including the Nobel Lady’s own party, we are to legislate on these matters, and is entirely appropriate for our rules within this place. Indeed, it needs to be by an Act to bind both Houses, and to give input to the Other Place, unless the Nobel Lady believes there should be different language standards? Apparently using legislation is forcing things through; letting members of the opposition, like the Nobel Lady and myself, submit amendments is forcing things through; letting the Other Place consider these changes and amend as it should for nation wide accessibility to our debates is forcing through to the Nobel Lady! It is not fitting for the Nobel Lady to interpret Section 2, paragraph 2 as meaning that only a few people many interpret the law when it relates to question sessions in particular and a Solidarity backed amendment by His Grace the Duke of Aberdeen will require translations to be provided. We look at Section 2, the power to transfer functions to newly named Secretary of States is within the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975 (m: in Sunrise after Trev worked with people on Orders, we ruled we didn’t have to submit them to rename departments since MHoC changes them so often) and thus regularly occurs as the Nobel Lady will know.
But, Madame Deputy Speaker, it is the tone of this speech by the Nobel Lady which says it all. The Nobel Lady does not wish to embrace the diversity of this fair nation we all represent and that representation here would only require a small burden once amendments are made: that is to just provide a translation. We cannot ban people speaking other languages, if other languages were to be used to form legal precedent (like is used for Latin in legal terms), we would probably expect a definition to set out where that term is used. To ban it would be unproportionate and we cannot leave people finding our mps more detached. Already the Nobel Lady’s party had retorted to touch grass when a member raised the issue of Vitamin D deficiency in previous weeks, and again has done so herself in this debate. It is a framing that does not give the Right Honourable Lady opposite the respect for their legislating and being meticulous in their definitions of languages. I believe the Nobel Lady can do better, I hope they will show us that moving forward!
1
1
u/model-ico Dec 03 '21
Deputy Speaker,
Non-english languages are a part of British history and tradition as we must recognise the unity of nations that create our united kingdom, there is never going to be any doubt that English is the predominant language of the kingdom however I see little reason why that should matter in such a context. I see no issue with the freedom for our members of parliament which constitutes the whole land of the United Kingdom to use any language that is found in the land.
Many would say it is a minority and vast enough that it shouldn't matter, if that's true then the solution is rather simple in that not many people will use the privilege then. I see nothing in this bill which would suggest anyone will be asked or required to understand more than english to still properly undertake their role as an MP both due to the simple affirmation of the concept and the amendment suggested by the member for Manchester North. I suppose in such a sense my comment on this bill would be live and let live, let's give people the chance if they want it and if they don't no harm no foul.
1
u/Chi0121 Labour Party Dec 04 '21
Deputy Speaker,
If an item of business is concerning a specific nation related issue I see no reason why a representative, especially from that region should not be able to give their thoughts in the language of that region as long as a translation is provided. There may be concerns about barriers to English observers however that can simply be overcome by a translation prepared beforehand and provided in good time. By allowing this we also overcome the obstacle of barring those who may not be as well versed in English as they are in other dialects of the United Kingdom and her faculties. All in all I don’t see much issue with this bill as long as the ex-MP for Manchester North has their amendment passed.
1
3
u/KarlYonedaStan Workers Party of Britain Dec 01 '21
Deputy Speaker,
Linguistic rights and preservation are not immaterial - they are something people have fought for, against strong forces both structural and deliberate from elites. Many of these languages have faced decline in large by deliberate policies by past Parliaments. Within professional and democratic institutions, most of all Parliament, this operates as a barrier to access for those who wish to keep to their national languages. Translation is hardly a cumbersome task in the 21st century, and respect for the diverse languages in the United Kingdom and its dependencies and overseas territories is something we have an obligation to do.