Welsh Secretary Jo Stevens has recently come under fire after being labeled a “dinosaur” for her approach to the Welsh language. This criticism came from Cefin Campbell, a Plaid Cymru member of the Welsh Parliament, who accused Stevens of exhibiting a significant lack of respect and a dismissive attitude toward the Welsh language, which is one of the two official languages in Wales. The remark arises from a situation where Stevens, who serves both as a member of the Labour Party and represents Cardiff East in Westminster, stated in response to a constituent’s inquiry that she primarily communicates in English, as it is the language spoken by “almost every single constituent.”
Campbell’s critique, delivered during a session at the Senedd—the Welsh Parliament—underscores the increasing tensions regarding language policy in Wales. He argued that such views showcase a broader negative attitude towards the promotion and preservation of the Welsh language, especially in governmental correspondence. This incident prompted a reaction not just from Campbell but has also drawn attention to the wider responsibilities that elected officials have to represent all of their constituents fairly, particularly in a bilingual nation.
Stevens has defended her stance by implying that there is no legal obligation for MPs to provide bilingual communications and emphasized that her choice hinges on practicality. In an email, she mentioned that due to the dominance of English among her constituents, she felt it justified to prioritize communication in that language. However, this reasoning has been met with resistance, as Campbell and others believe that promoting the Welsh language should be part of a broader commitment by parliamentarians to reflect and serve the language needs of the Welsh public.
As observed during the Senedd session, Campbell’s comments were echoed by First Minister Eluned Morgan, who expressed an eagerness to see the Welsh language promoted by elected officials. She reiterated the Welsh Government’s commitment to reaching one million Welsh speakers by the year 2050—a strategic goal that emphasizes the importance of the Welsh language not merely as a cultural artifact but as an integral part of Welsh identity and pride.
The ongoing debate reflects a desire within Wales to balance the realities of language usage with the need to promote its heritage and cultural diversity. This sentiment is particularly poignant as language advocates call for increased visibility and usage of Welsh in all aspects of life, including official political communications. An independent member of the Welsh Parliament, Rhys ab Owen, also urged Morgan to instruct Stevens to adopt a bilingual approach in her communications. He argued against the outdated notion that “almost everyone speaks English,” stressing that this perspective denies the broader cultural significance of the Welsh language in contemporary society.
Moreover, support mechanisms are in place for MPs who are willing to enhance their communications in Welsh, as reiterated by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. Funding is available for translation services, highlighting the commitment to foster bilingualism within Welsh parliamentary procedures. The UK Parliament has similarly maintained that Welsh can be used in all of its committees, thus affirming the rights of Welsh speakers to engage with their government in their native tongue.
In conclusion, the ongoing dialogue surrounding Jo Stevens’ language use is emblematic of larger conversations within Wales about identity, respect, and representation in a bilingual and multicultural society. As the debate continues, the challenge lies in ensuring that all constituents feel included and that the Welsh language is not only preserved but also celebrated within parliamentary discourse and practice. This moment serves as a critical juncture for Welsh identity, urging leaders and constituents alike to rethink the importance of language in their community’s governance and representation.
