independent Cornish news and comment

Government seeks 'easy way out' in promotion of Cornish language

Talks between the Cornish campaigning group CharterWatch and representitives of the UK Government has ended in an uneasy compromise.



On 10 March 2005, eight members of CharterWatch held three hours of talks with representatives of the UK Government.

Our main objective was to remind the government that international agreements place legal obligations on government and, in respect of the provisions of the Council of Europe Charter for Regional and Minority Languages [ECRML], it is for government to ensure that the commitments are met.

The most important provision of the Charter is that the government must "take resolute action to promote the Cornish language" [Article 7(1)c].

Examples of what the Council of Europe Committee of Experts classify as 'resolute action' are as follows:

The Committee of Experts has stated that establishing Non Departmental Public Bodies [Quango's] to promote the culture of the Irish Gaels and Ulster-Scots is "a form of recognition of the need to take resolute action". [Article 55 of the Committee of Experts report on the 1st UK Monitoring Report published March 2004]

A further example is that of the Finnish Government which has promoted and developed the Sami language [3000 speakers in Finland]. On this occasion the Committee of Experts stated ,"A number of recent events have underlined the resolute action taken by the Finnish authorities in respect of Sami". These events included the Finnish Government passing an Act of Parliament to safeguard the Sami language, the making available of substantial amounts of direct government funding to promote the language, and the curriculum being altered to take account of Sami language, history and culture. [See Comment 36 of the Committee of Experts opinion on the Finnish Government's 2nd monitoring report 5 Nov 2004]

In regard to the above precedents, the main points to note are:

1. The taking of resolute action involved inter alia, the host government establishing and funding a tailor-made Non-Department Public Body, or quango [in our case a Cornish Language Agency], facilitating an appropriate Act of Parliament, establishing a cross-departmental language policy, making changes to the curriculum to reflect the history, language and culture of the group and committing substantial amounts of central government funding to the task.

2. In the case of the newly formed 'Ulster-Scots Agency', direct UK government funding for 2001/2 amounted to: £567,000 for the language, £262,000 for culture, £432,000 for education and £187,000 for general promotional work. The curriculum is now being altered to take account of the Ulster-Scots experience.

3. All the above happened by the third year of the host government deciding to recognise and promote the minority language/culture.

Although we are now into the third year of government recognising the Cornish language, it has yet to do anything to meet its Charter commitments.

It must be emphasised that the Cornish Language Strategy Document [CLSD] is not the work of government. On 20 October last year Tony Steele of GOSW told CORNWALL 2000 "The CLSD is not a requirement of the Charter, it was entirely a local initiative by volunteers and any complaints about that process should be pursued locally".

During our 10 March 2005 meeting we set out sensible proposals that would, in our view, meet public expectation, fulfil government obligations and satisfy the Committee of Experts request that government take resolute action.

We provided Government with examples of what the Committee of Experts describe as being resolute action, and suggested that, if Government is still in doubt as to what is required of it by the time of the UK 2nd Monitoring Report due in July 2005, it should email the ECRML Secretariat direct as a matter of urgency.

We also pointed out that, in the absence of any cross departmental Government inspired Cornish language policy, government owned professionally devised development strategy, centrally driven administrative structure, chain of implementation responsibility and core funding, the government backed CLSD proposal that funding be sought for a local authority to hire a 'dedicated officer' smacks of tokenism.

Such an appointment would be equivalent to a hospital hiring a doctor whilst at the same time withholding from him or her the legislative support, administrative capability, policies, funding, equipment and infrastructure necessary to do the job.

What did emerge from the meeting was that government is moving to a situation whereby Charter implementation in Cornwall would be reliant on volunteers making bids for funding to charity. We stressed that this would be inappropriate, unworkable and effectively obstructionist.

It is inappropriate because international agreements place legal obligations on government, and it is for government, with all its vast experience, expertise and resources, to ensure that these legal obligations are met. Government meeting its legal obligations cannot be dependent upon volunteers making bids to charity.

It is unworkable because volunteers do not have the time, funding, experience or expertise to put together professional bids that are competitively acceptable. In fact, Richard Bayly's [GOSW] comparison at the meeting between the proposed method of Charter implementation and the ongoing EU Structural Funding [Objective 1 Cornwall] bidding pattern is instructional.

In this instance millions of pounds worth of Priority Five Cornish distinctiveness funds are being re-allocated to tourism projects [Trebah Gardens, King Harry Ferry, Marconi Centre] because, as Mr Bayly so generously reminded us, very few Cornish cultural bids are deemed acceptable [I submitted 20 project suggestions myself - all were rejected without explanation].

It is effectively obstructionist because of the reasons given above. It is effectively obstructionist because it creates a means by which those opposed to promoting Cornish culture can veto projects with impunity and it is effectively obstructionist because government are required to take resolute action, and could so easily act speedily, effectively and decisively in the direction that we suggested if it was minded to.

The meeting ended with government agreeing to both answer our detailed questionnaire and report back to us on our suggestions.

However, it now emerges that the day after our meeting a GOSW officer who was present at the meeting, one Tony Steele, began ringing around individuals canvassing support for the CLSD and asking Cornish language groups to hurry up and adopt the document.

The reason for this new sense of urgency is simple. The CLSD makes no reference to government taking resolute action, and does not require any public authority to do anything. However, because government have, like some dodgy used car salesman, been caught selling a sub-standard product, they are now desperate to 'close the deal'. Government can then revert to the usual line of "most people are happy with the proposed [voluntary/charity] arrangement".

As it stands, if Cornish language groups, Councils and others simply adopt the CLSD, they are effectively telling the Council of Europe that Cornish people do not want their government to take resolute action to promote and develop the Cornish language in the same way it has done for other linguistic groups.

Because government have not fully explained the situation, and no alternative implementation scenario has been considered, groups and organisations may wish to adopt the CLSD as it is effectively the only thing on offer.

If this is the case, please do not adopt the CLSD without adding the following caveat:

"Whilst we are willing to adopt the CLSD, this does not obviate the need for government to take what the Committee of Experts deem to be 'resolute action' in order to fulfill its legal obligations to us and the Council of Europe. Moreover, we anticipate that government will clearly indicate what form this resolute action will take by the time of the UK's 2nd Monitoring Report, due in July 2005."

If bodies have already endorsed this document, we suggest that they urgently submit a request to government [ODPM/GOSW] along similar lines.

Unless we act before July 2005, the opportunity to be accorded the same treatment as other groups will be lost. The next UK Monitoring Report is not due until 2008 i.e. six years after government first committed itself to taking resolute action to promote and develop the Cornish language.

John Angarrack
Director
CORNWALL 2000