Bilingual Acts of Senedd Cymru: equal status of the Welsh and English texts
An Act of Senedd Cymru which received Royal Assent in 2023 was enacted in both Welsh and English. In a 2026 dispute in Cardiff about a planning duty under the Act, the solicitor for Gwen Prys notices that the Welsh text of one section appears to bear a narrower meaning than the English text, and the narrower meaning favours her client. The other side argues that the English text must prevail.
Which of the following best describes the status of the two texts?
Choose one answer to see the reasoning.
Worked answer
Correct answer A: The Welsh and English texts have equal status for all purposes, so the English text does not prevail just because it is in English.
THE RULE TO REMEMBER
The Welsh and English texts of a bilingual Act of Senedd Cymru have equal status for all purposes, and this rule cannot be displaced by context.
Bilingual Acts of Senedd Cymru: equal status of the Welsh and English texts
Part 2 of the Legislation (Wales) Act 2019 applies to Acts of Senedd Cymru that receive Royal Assent on or after 1 January 2020 (s.3(1)(b)), so it applies to this 2023 Act. Section 5 provides that where an Act of Senedd Cymru is enacted in Welsh and English, the Welsh language text and the English language text have equal status for all purposes. Section 4(2) adds that the usual exception allowing Part 2 to be displaced by express provision or by the context does not apply to section 5. Neither text is a mere translation and neither prevails automatically, so the court must interpret the provision giving equal weight to both texts. Gwen's solicitor is therefore entitled to rely on the Welsh text, and the other side cannot insist that the English version governs. For earlier Senedd legislation the Government of Wales Act 2006, s.156(1), makes similar provision.
Why B is wrong: The language of court proceedings is irrelevant; s.5 gives both texts equal status for all purposes.
Why C is wrong: Neither text has priority; the Welsh text has no greater status than the English text.
Why D is wrong: The Interpretation Act 1978 contains no such rule; this Act is governed by Part 2 of the Legislation (Wales) Act 2019.
Why E is wrong: Section 4(2) of the 2019 Act provides that the 'context requires otherwise' exception does not apply to s.5.
A little more practice done.
Related questions
Using Hansard to interpret a statute: the conditions in Pepper v Hart [1993] AC 593
Which of the following best describes the extent to which the court may consider this Parliamentary material?
Using explanatory notes and Law Commission reports as aids to interpretation (R (O) v SSHD)
Which of the following best describes the use the court may make of these documents?
Purposive interpretation and developments Parliament did not foresee (Quintavalle)
Which of the following best describes how the court is likely to approach the interpretation of section 1?
A GOOD HABIT, DELIVERED
Tomorrow's question.
In your inbox.
One free question a day, with the answer and reasoning.
No course pitches. Just your daily practice.