And we ask that he respond to his institutional responsibilities and not to his dreams, and that he thus stop the social suffering, the economic bleeding and the harm to the self-government of Catalonia". These are the words of Meritxell Batet, from the plenary session at the Congress on October 25, 2017. In Catalan. They were addressed to Carles Puigdemont. Two days later, the Parliament promoted a declaration of independence that came to nothing.
Batet, then a PSOE deputy, was recriminated by the president of Congress, at that time Ana Pastor, of the PP. Two years later it would be the socialist who would preside over the Lower House, and the one who would reproach pro-independence deputies for the use of Catalan.
Francina Armengol now occupies the same seat with a different mood. The negotiation with ERC and JxCat by the Table obliges. The new third authority of the State assured on Thursday that from that same session, the constitutive one, it will allow the use of Catalan, Basque and Galician.
But despite the promise of immediacy, the former Balearic president qualified her words the next day, on TVE. She will have to "seek agreements" with the groups and "technical issues" will have to be addressed, she acknowledged. Issues that go beyond the use, for example, of earpieces or the hiring of translators. There is a regulation in Congress that in all probability will have to be modified.
This is what Manuel Fernández-Fontecha, a lawyer for Congress, believes. The commitment contracted by the PSOE with Esquerra and Junts presents difficulties. "What the president expressed has no legal effect, it is not an agreement itself, but a statement that anyone can make and does not have the status to validate the use of the other official languages" in addition to Spanish, he assures when consulted by this newspaper.
For Fernández-Fontecha, if simultaneous translation measures are not adopted, "there could be very big problems." Which is it? “It is not trivial. Anyone who does not understand what is being said could challenge the procedure of a law, a motion, whatever, and declare themselves null. "It is a typical case of conflict of rights: that of a deputy to express himself in the language he wishes against that of the rest to understand it."
In the regulations of the Congress it is not specified anywhere which is the language of use. However, according to the lawyer, there is an unwritten rule or "a convention or a custom" for it to be Spanish, and as a convention of years ago and established "a regulatory instrument with the capacity to surpass it is required."
Here there are three options: a reform of the regulations of the Congress of Deputies, promote a supplementary interpretative resolution or an organic law.
In the first case, Fernández-Fontecha believes that specifications should be introduced in article 70 of the regulation, referring to the use of the word, to include the ability to speak in Catalan, Basque or Galician. A complete procedure is needed, with plenary session and an absolute majority. Political parties like Sumar, on the other hand, point to article six.
The second option, the supplementary interpretative resolution, is a power assigned to the presidency of Congress, thanks to article 32 of the regulations. It establishes that "it is the responsibility of the president to comply with and enforce the regulations, interpreting them in cases of doubt and replacing them in cases of omission." Apart from being a possibility linked to subjectivity and, therefore, unstable, "it has a limit: it has to have the approval of the Board and the Board of Spokespersons", the lawyer explains.
Of the three, the organic law that the PSOE has agreed with ERC "is the most protective and guarantor."
Even so, the next question would be whether, despite the measures that could be taken from the legislature to include Catalan, Basque and Galician, there would be a clash with the Constitution. “It is debatable and problems would arise”, affirms the professor of Constitutional Law and professor at the Carlos III University of Madrid, Elviro Aranda. He believes that "with almost all security" the issue would end up in the Constitutional Court for a final decision.
“Castilian is the official language throughout the State. Article three of the Constitution. Therefore, since Congress is a State institution, the language that must be used is Spanish”, he reasons. However, he sees possibilities for the three languages to be accepted, not only from a legislative point of view, but also legally: "Making a loose interpretation, it could also be said that article three does not prevent the use of other official languages in the State... And you could resort to comparative law or to other parliaments in other countries, where other languages are spoken that have a lower level of official status than that of Catalan, Basque and Galician in Spain”.
The professor also recalls that the three languages in question have been allowed in the Senate since 2010. Aranda was a former deputy of the PSOE during the IX legislature (2008-2011). Then there was an attempt to incorporate them into Congress, but it did not materialize. Yes, in the Senate, despite the fact that it is only for motions, based on article 69 of the Magna Carta, where it is said that it is a Chamber of territorial representation. A loophole was found. "The Congress does not have this aspect, but if in article 66 it is said that "The General Corts [the two Chambers] represent the Spanish people" and in the Senate you can speak Catalan, why not in Congress".
However, Aranda points out that although "formally if the Congress regulations do not prevent or say anything about which languages must be used, it is because it assumes that the official language is Spanish."
In any case, the professor agrees with Fernández-Fontecha: "Without a doubt, the regulations of the Lower House should be reformed", as a first step, and that the inclusion of these three languages as official "cannot be resolved solely with a decision of the presidency or with a parliamentary resolution”.
After these considerations, it would be necessary to think about all the logistics –earpieces, translators, stenographers– and their cost. There are no calculations made for Congress, but the Senate accounts give an idea. There are 355,000 euros in the budget for expenses only for interpreters for the introduction of the three languages in plenary sessions with motions. Junts presented a proposal in 2021 that, to extend its use to all sessions and introduce texts in the registry in these languages, 950,000 euros would be needed per year. The expense in Congress would be multiplied by the large amount of activity and all the administrative process of written translation that would follow.
