The proceedings are
reported in the language in which they were spoken in the
committee. In addition, a transcription of the simultaneous
interpretation is included. Where contributors have supplied
corrections to their evidence, these are noted in the
transcript.
|
[7]
Ann Jones: Thank you very much, and thanks very much for
introducing us. We’ve tried to take the Welsh
Government’s approach to reducing poverty, which is quite a
wide-ranging subject, as we all know, and we’ve tried to
break it down into some sort of areas. The first of sort of
area—well, the areas we’ll be looking at are the
strategic direction, and then we’re going to move into
accountability, then onto poverty in work, evidence and evaluation,
and then some of the local barriers and local issues that may
affect how it all, how your poverty strategies, will work. So,
Members have got a number of questions, but I was wondering whether
John Griffiths, as Chair of the Equality, Local Government and
Communities Committee—I think that’s what your
committee is, and I know that you’re looking at a
report—. Perhaps you would like to start with the first set
of questioning, and then we’ll move on from there.
|
|
[8]
John Griffiths: Diolch yn fawr, Chair. Yes. First Minister,
Wales faces many challenges in terms of socioeconomic issues. In
fact, our briefing for today tells us that Wales has the joint
highest poverty levels in the UK outside of London. So, I wonder if
we could begin with you outlining the Welsh Government’s new
approach to tackling poverty and what you think will be the
practical effects of that new approach.
|
|
[9]
The First Minister: Well, first of all, the issue of
tackling poverty is not entirely within the portfolio of any one
Minister, but there’s a lead Minister and that’s the
Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure. But it is
something that we want to tackle across Government. The issue we
have in Wales today is not so much an issue of
unemployment—unemployment’s low—but it’s
gross domestic product and improving people’s skill levels
and, therefore, their employability. At the end of the day, poverty
is caused by people not having enough money in their pockets. That
means making sure that (a) people have the jobs, but, secondly,
that people, once they are in jobs, don’t suffer from in-work
poverty. The way that we are approaching that is to look at schemes
that deal with people’s employability, to promote them, to
help people reconnect with the labour market, and, ultimately, of
course, to make sure that people are able to access jobs that pay
more, because, by doing that, of course, they will be able to
escape the in-work poverty that so many people in Wales still have
to deal with.
|
|
[10]
In terms of what our approach is, in ‘Taking Wales
Forward’, Members will be aware that we have focused on
increasing prosperity and reducing inequalities. We have outlined
how we intend to deliver better jobs closer to home and also reduce
inequalities not just within society but between communities. What
we’re seeing now is a situation where, if we take the Valleys
as an example, some communities are creating lots of
jobs—Merthyr is one example of that—yet other
communities are not doing as well. We need to take steps to avoid
communities perhaps that are quite close to each other feeling that
they are left out compared to communities that are doing
proportionately better.
|
|
[11]
There are four strategies that underpin ‘Taking Wales
Forward’: ambitious and learning, healthy and active, united
and connected, and prosperous and secure. I wanted to get away,
ultimately, from the idea that tackling poverty was within the
portfolio of one Minister and ensure that tackling poverty is
something that requires a cross-Government approach and is
therefore the interest of all Ministers.
|
|
[12]
John Griffiths:
Okay. In terms of the new approach, then,
First Minister, I wonder if you could tell this committee what
balance there will be in terms of tackling poverty wherever it
exists across Wales and having a particular geographical focus. I
think we know there are problems with poverty across Wales, but
there are particular problems concentrated in certain geographical
areas, and, obviously, Communities First was a programme that took
that geographical basis for its operation. So, with the decision to
end Communities First and a transition through to that ending, what
will be the balance of the new approach in terms of recognising
there are still geographical areas where socioeconomic problems are
concentrated and life is more difficult for people living there
than other areas of Wales?
|
|
[13]
The First Minister:
I think we have to be smarter when it
comes to targeting poverty. I know that others will have had the
experience of people saying to them, ‘Well, if I lived in the
next street, I would have all these things’. There are many,
many people living in poverty who are outside of Communities First
areas.
|
|
[14]
So, what we’re looking to do is
to—. For example, take employability. If we look at the
employability grant, the intention is to provide support for people
in all communities, because we know there are some communities
where poverty exists but not on the level that attracted the
funding via Communities First. Some counties like Powys, like
Monmouthshire, are pretty much untouched, yet we know that there is
poverty in those counties.
|
|
[15]
So, the approach that we want to take can
be summarised like this: we want to make sure that the best
practice that was put in place through Communities First continues.
There were some good projects that Communities First supported, but
there was some inconsistency across Wales. The fundamental
difficulty with Communities First was that those people who are
living in poverty outside of the Communities First areas did not
have the same level of support. The objective of Government now is
to make sure that level of support is available to people according
to their needs, rather than simply according to where they
live.
|
|
[16]
John Griffiths:
First Minister, could I ask you a little
bit then about the process around that and the leadership role of
Welsh Government, because now we have a transition period and then
a period beyond Communities First when Communities First will no
longer operate? How will the Welsh Government take a leadership
role to work with local authorities, to work with communities, to
work with the voluntary sector, to make sure that those aspects of
Communities First that are valuable, that have been working, are
not lost, that they are retained—particularly in the light of
some of the funding for Communities First perhaps going to local
authorities on an unhypothecated basis, potentially? How can we be
sure that those valuable aspects of Communities First will not be
lost as we move forward?
|
|
[17]
The First Minister:
It is something that we have discussed a
great deal. We don’t want to lose those projects. It will be
important for us to discuss these issues with local authorities and
with the third sector to make sure that there is not a cliff edge
that people meet when projects come to an end. So, funding has been
made available to make sure that there is a smoothing of the
transitional period.
|
|
[18]
John Griffiths: Could I,
just finally, Chair, if I might?
|
|
[19]
Ann Jones: Yes.
|
|
[20]
John Griffiths: Just as part of that, First Minister,
community centres, because there are community centres that are
particularly dependent on Communities First funding that have
received investment from the Welsh Government and other sources.
So, they’re high-quality buildings, and they are delivering
valuable services. But, given the reduction of funding for
Communities First, their sustainability, I think, is called into
question, or might be called into question. So, how can the Welsh
Government ensure that the investment that’s been made in
those communities’ facilities, and the value that they have
for local communities, again, isn’t lost as we move through
the transition?
|
|
[21]
The First Minister: That’s something that we’re
working with local authorities on, with the third sector, to see
the different uses that buildings can be used for, how they can
look to generate their own income. Even in areas where money is
scarce, there are opportunities there, and this is all part of what
we’ll be doing in the future to make sure that the buildings
that are there are not lost for the community in the future.
|
|
[22]
Ann Jones: Okay. I’ve got a number of Members around
the points that have just been drawn out from John
Griffiths’s question, so I’ll take Russell George
next.
|
|
[23]
Russell George: Thank you, Chair. Well, First Minister, I
welcome your approach in this regard because I certainly do think
that there were inconsistencies with Communities First, and I
welcome what you say in that regard. In regard to Communities First
and staffing costs, I’ve got some figures in front of me that
suggest that a large proportion of the funding was spent on
salaries. I’ve got some figures here on Merthyr Tydfil, a
£1.5 million budget, with £1.3 million spent on
staffing costs, with £250,000 for other projects. In years
following that, it’s the same kind of proportion. So,
I’m tempted to say well, there’s a lot going into
staffing costs, not going to the front-line projects, but I accept
totally that staffing costs are part of the project. I accept that.
But it does seem disproportionate, so I’m asking: would you
agree? And in terms of any new schemes going forward, would you
look to change that balance?
|
|
[24]
The First Minister: Well, I think we have to be careful in
suggesting that staffing costs are somehow divorced from
delivery.
|
|
[25]
Russell George: I agree, yes.
|
|
[26]
The First Minister: I mean, the vast majority of the costs
within the NHS are staffing costs. Why? Well, they’re doctors
and nurses; they deliver the service. It’s the same, of
course, with Communities First. We have many, many people who are
paid to help others. It’s not so much a question of providing
money for grants for buildings; when we provide money for grants
for schemes in terms of employability, we do employ people to be
able to take those schemes forward. Of course, it’s important
that there is a balance struck between ensuring that there’s
money available to pay for facilities, if I can put it that way, as
against, of course, paying for members of staff, but, inevitably,
where you have a scheme that delivers a service, staffing costs are
going to make up most of those costs, because you need those people
to deliver that service.
|
|
[27]
Ann Jones: Okay?
|
|
[28]
Russell George:
That’s fine.
|
|
[29]
Ann Jones: David Rees.
|
|
[30]
David Rees: Thank you, Chair. First Minister, you’ve
highlighted employability and jobs as one of the targets now in the
strategy. I think the Cabinet Secretary for Communities and
Children highlighted the fact that they’re trying to target
those furthest from employment, and that is literally sometimes
physically furthest from employment as well as position of status.
That means that some of our valleys and our communities are going
to struggle perhaps finding employment, because they might become
employment-ready but there may be difficulties to get into it. So,
what’s your Government looking to do to ensure that those who
are furthest from employment in all senses are able to benefit from
the strategy? I’ve now raised it with you, but the valleys
and communities in my area feel left out and abandoned, to an
extent, because of the impact upon public services, because of the
austerity measures that do come down from Westminster. How do we
help them? Because Communities First did help build those
communities, and were integral with those communities. The loss of
that, and not to replace it with anything that matches that type of
approach, is going to hit those, and perhaps they’ll feel
even more abandoned and left out. So, how can we undo and deal with
that?
|
|
[31]
The First Minister: You and I have discussed this about the
upper Afan valley and the feeling there that people feel that
facilities are disappearing, and the geographical distance from
employment and the difficulties of accessing that employment
through transport. Historically, of course, for many, many years,
the emphasis was on bringing investment to communities. That works
to an extent, but it doesn’t work for every single community.
So, the next step is to make sure that it’s as easy as
possible for people to travel to work.
|
|
[32]
Now, this is where, for example, schemes like the metro come in.
The metro isn’t just about railway lines. It’s hugely
important that communities like the Afan valley, where the railway
disappeared in 1970, are connected via high-quality bus services.
Now, buses are not devolved; they will be next year. That gives us
the opportunity to develop, across Wales, a network of both
national and local bus routes—routes that can better serve
communities and can link in, in an integrated way, with other
transport systems and can provide people with the means to access
work regularly. The reality is that there are many, many people
whose shift patters are very, very irregular and public transport
doesn’t work for them. We have to look at the way society is
now, not the way society was 50 years ago.
|
|
[33]
There is a huge opportunity via the metro—and it’s not
just confined to the southern part of Wales—but to look at
how we can integrate transport across the whole of Wales to make it
easier for people to actually get to work and, of course, to get to
work at a price that’s reasonable and affordable.
|
|
[34]
David Rees: I’ll just remind you the metro is not in
my area.
|
|
[35]
The First Minister: Yes, but the bus links that connect in
to it—. We talk about the metro; it is in a defined
geographical area, that much is true, but there’s no reason
why the Afan valley, for example, as we look at bus devolution,
can’t be part of a wider transport network that links into
the towns further down the valley. In an ideal world, we would look
to get investment to those communities, that much is true. When
that’s not possible, we have to make sure that people
don’t feel that they are too isolated to access work, even if
they have the skills. That’s the challenge for us in the
future.
|
|
[36]
David Rees: Another question is: how do we ensure that
communities don’t feel abandoned in the sense of the loss of
public services? As John Griffiths highlighted, the community
centres—those are the things that seem to be disappearing
from many of those communities, and libraries. Miners funded the
libraries because they knew education was a way out. They funded
the miners’ halls and facilities because they knew that was a
way of supporting communities. These are being lost in those
valleys and communities.
|
|
11:15
|
|
[37]
The First Minister: That’s local authority funding
more than anything else, of course, but I take the point
that’s being made and I know there have been issues in the
upper Afan valley where people have felt that they are losing
facilities. I think it’s hugely important that local
authorities look very carefully—this is a general point,
rather than specifically about the Afan valley—at what they
provide in order to make sure that they’re not seen as
removing facilities from communities that already feel isolated. I
think some authorities have taken different approaches to others
but, if we’re truly serious about making sure that
communities don’t feel that things are disappearing slowly
from their communities and that they’re forgotten about, we
have to make sure that those communities have those facilities.
Yes, Communities First has provided some, but most have
historically been provided by local government.
|
|
[38]
David Rees: How does the Welsh Government monitor that to
ensure that that parity of treatment is there?
|
|
[39]
The First Minister: Ultimately, of course, it’s local
autonomy. At the end of the day, it’s for local authorities
to explain the decisions that they take. Yes, of course, we provide
capital funding for specific projects that are bid for, but local
authorities have to take decisions in terms of the services they
provide and then, of course, explain those decisions on polling
day.
|
|
[40]
Ann Jones: Okay, I’ve got a number of
Members—this list keeps getting added to. Can I remind us all
that we’re still on the very first question? Lynne Neagle.
|
|
[41]
Lynne Neagle: Thanks, Chair. I know that you are well aware of my
concerns about Communities First, so I won’t rehearse those
arguments today. I just wanted to ask about what you said about one
of the problems with Communities First being that there might be
people in, say, the next street who need the help but aren’t
getting it. Of course, there are always anomalies like that, but,
geographical targeting is one way we can effectively ensure that we
help as many people as we need to. So, I wanted to ask how you will
ensure that, going forward, we won’t dilute the impact of our
anti-poverty measures in the neediest part of Wales. Also, in
relation to employability, which is clearly vitally important, how
will this new focus on employability help with people who are
facing in-work poverty?
|
|
[42]
The First Minister:
Historically, of course, it was always
assumed that, if people had work, they wouldn’t be in
poverty. That’s not the case. We know there are many people
who are suffering poverty when they’re in work. There are a
number of reasons for that: cuts to in-work benefits and a slow
reduction, over decades, in the relative incomes that people have.
We saw, in the 1980s, well-paid jobs being replaced by badly paid
jobs. We’re still dealing with the legacy of that, even
though the investment opportunities we pursue now pay much better
than the ones that came here in the early 1990s.
|
|
[43]
What are we looking to do? First of all,
support quality job opportunities and make sure that we are able to
bring job opportunities to communities that are well paid.
We’re seeing some signs of that. We’re seeing it in
Merthyr with General Dynamics; we’re seeing it in Merthyr
with Tenneco; we’re seeing it with Trago Mills; we’re
seeing it in Ebbw Vale with TVR. The challenge always is, of
course, to make sure that prosperity is spread across as many
districts as possible.
|
|
[44]
Secondly, it’s providing those transport connections that
people need so that it’s easier and cheaper for them to
access employment where it’s not available on their doorstep.
Thirdly, of course, to work with businesses to persuade more of
them of the advantages of paying a living wage. The minimum wage
isn’t sufficient to live on. More and more employers
understand this. It’s something we’re building into the
procurement process in terms of the ethics that we expect
businesses to adhere to. If the living wage is paid, that means, of
course, again, that more and more people are taken out of in-work
poverty.
|
|
[45]
And, of course, affordable housing; affordable housing is an issue.
We know that housing costs are significant for many, many people. I
think we have to be careful not to forget those people who are not
in social housing, but nevertheless are in in-work poverty and who
do need help from Government. So, yes, it’s hugely important
that we’re able to provide different modes of housing for
people who are not earning huge amounts of money, who are not, as I
say, living in social housing, but who are still struggling.
That’s exactly what we’re looking to do. Yes, of
course, we need to provide more social housing, we understand that,
but more affordable housing is hugely important, whether it’s
through community land trusts, whether it’s through shared
equity, because we know that it’s very, very difficult for
people to get the accommodation they need at a price that they can
pay. I think it’s hugely important in the future.
|
|
[46]
In terms of employability, if we look at our employability plan, we
do have an opportunity to support those furthest from the labour
market into employment. From April 2018, there will be a new grant
in place to develop that infrastructure, building on the success of
Communities for Work and Lift. We’ll provide support of
£12 million per annum to enable local authorities to enhance
support for employment for those who have barriers that they face
to access that employment. Of course, they will be able to work
outside tightly defined geographical boundaries. So, the intention
is to be more targeted in terms of the approach to help the people
who need that help, regardless of where they live. I do take the
point, of course, that sometimes you could take a community
approach; that’s true. But we do have to make sure that we
have an approach in the future that is smarter in terms of
targeting help for the people who need it the most.
|
|
[47]
Lynne Neagle: Okay, thanks.
|
|
[48]
Ann Jones: We’ve got Nick Ramsay, Mike Hedges and Huw
Irranca-Davies. So, those three and then I’m going to move
on, because I think we’re not going to get—. So,
Nick.
|
|
[49]
Nick Ramsay: Thanks, Chair. Your opening answer seems a long
time ago now, First Minister. But in that answer you mentioned
Monmouthshire, which I was really pleased about, because I think
too often in the past there has been a tendency, in areas that are
in slightly more affluent parts of Wales, to ignore or not to deal
with pockets of poverty in those areas. So, I was really pleased
about the way you answered that first answer.
|
|
[50]
So, can I ask you: in the case of my constituency, where in the
past, Lansdown, one ward of Abergavenny, had a Communities First
outpost, how do you intend, with whatever replaces Community First
and EU funding, to still reach areas like that? On a broader
subject, areas like mine and Russell George’s and those of
Assembly Members from rural areas—how are you going to keep
the focus on dealing with the underlying problems of rural poverty
as well? Because in many ways, those have been more insidious than
urban poverty, which, although terrible and needs to be dealt with,
has often been more visible than some of that secretive rural
poverty, which over the last 10 years as an Assembly Member
I’ve seen some really appalling examples of.
|
|
[51]
First Minister: Yes, we know that rural poverty is often
hidden, because there are some communities where poverty is more
apparent than it is in others. That doesn’t mean, of course,
that there are not families or individuals who do suffer from
in-work poverty or find it difficult to access jobs. That’s
why, of course, in terms of refreshing the approach that
we’ve taken, we’re looking at how we can assist those
people who need that assistance regardless of where they live.
|
|
[52]
Ann Jones: Okay. Mike Hedges.
|
|
[53]
Mike Hedges: Three quick points. The first one is: First
Minister, you’ve talked about wage rates; one of the biggest
problems in my constituency is the number of hours people are
working and variable hours—not the zero-hours contracts that
everybody goes on about, but the fact that people are guaranteed
five or six hours, and they might work five or six hours one week
and 45 hours the next. Is that something—do you
agree—that we need to address?
|
|
[54]
The second point is: you talked, in answer to Lynne Neagle, about boundaries. I’ve
argued for the last six years that the lower super-output areas,
which are only there to collect census data, are not necessarily
defining communities. That’s led to some of the anomalies. It
won’t be for Communities First, but will you look, within
Flying Start, beyond the lower super-output areas? Because one of
the poorest parts of my constituency, because of an accident of
data collection, doesn’t get Flying Start, and some far more
affluent areas, again through an accident of data collection,
do.
|
|
[55]
The third point is: one of the big problems with poor communities
is health. Life expectancy is substantially less in the poorer
areas than the richer areas, and there’s always the talk in
Swansea that it’s 10 years between Mayhill and Mayals in
Julie James’s constituency. Communities First did an awful
lot of good work on things like smoking cessation, diet, exercise
and weight loss. I think you probably would agree that one of the
things we need to do is reduce the number of people having type 2
diabetes, for example, which is putting huge stress on the health
service. So, how are we going to keep on those good schemes, which
are trying to make people healthier? Because healthier people are
more likely to get a job and likely to live longer.
|
|
[56]
The First Minister: In terms of the third point, these are
all schemes that we want to take forward in the future anyway. We
don’t want them to be lost. Clearly, on smoking cessation,
smoking is the No. 1 cause of ill health, more than anything else.
We know that type 2 diabetes has increased because people are
overweight. So, these things will be carried on in the future. We
don’t want to lose them. That’s hugely important.
|
|
[57]
In terms of Flying Start, there are no current plans to change
Flying Start. If there are issues in terms of data collection that
need to be re-examined, then clearly that’s something that we
would look at, but there was a manifesto pledge made at the
election, which we want to keep to, and that is the objective at
this moment in time.
|
|
[58]
In terms of lack of security of employment, if we look at
unemployment figures, we’ve effectively got full employment.
Effectively. But, behind that lies a tale of insecurity in
employment and, quite often, people working hours that are
irregular, and people in jobs without pensions. One of the issues
that was raised—. I’m not going to raise Brexit as an
issue now, but one of the issues I heard on the doorstep was people
saying, ‘Well, hang on a second, I remember the days when
there were jobs that were secure, there were pensions, they were
well paid; now, the jobs are not secure and we don’t know
what hours we’re working from one week to the next and
there’s no pension at the end of it. Something’s gone
wrong’. It wasn’t a cry for free trade agreements; it
was a cry for protectionism, actually, and people wanting to see
more security in their employment.
|
|
[59]
How do we deal with that? First of all, I’m going to say that
one of the reasons why we have that insecurity is the decline of
trade union representation. We know that workplaces where there is
trade union representation deliver jobs that are more secure and
better paid, and that is something that we need to move forward
with. Also, of course, working with businesses so that they
understand that they have a social responsibility to pay a living
wage and to act as good employers within their community. We, as a
Government, have a responsibility to make sure, through our
procurement process, that we encourage that as well. At the end of
the day, I can only recite what was said to me by an Italian
investor in Wales who said that, in Italy, he had manufacturing
plants and he could move them somewhere else where he could produce
more cheaply, but ultimately he’d be putting his own
customers out of work, which I thought was an apt way of putting
it. Businesses need to understand that, of course, by putting more
money in the pockets of their employees, they’re creating,
potentially, more demand for what they produce. That’s what
we’ve got away from over the past 30 years. As I say, there
was a devastating change in the 1990s, where well-paid jobs were
replaced by badly paid jobs simply to keep the unemployment
statistics down. Those jobs went somewhere else as soon as it was
possible to go somewhere else, whether it was eastern Europe when
the iron curtain was lifted, or whether it was towards the far
east. Now, unless we’re prepared to compete on that
basis—and we’re not—we’re not going to get
those jobs back. So, what we have done—and this is why we
have the best inward investment figures we’ve had for the
past 30 years—is focus on getting jobs that are well paid and
secure, with trade union recognition, and, of course, making sure
that our people have the skills that those investors need. More of
that means more people being lifted out of poverty and more
communities that will see more quality jobs being made available to
them within the reach of the people that live within them.
|
|
[60]
Ann Jones: Huw—sorry, I was looking to see whether you
wanted to come back.
|
|
[61]
Mike Hedges: Not now, Chair.
|
|
[62]
Ann Jones: No, okay. Huw Irranca-Davies.
|
|
[63]
Huw Irranca-Davies: Thank you, Chair. First Minister, we had
the forecast from the CITB the other day about construction jobs
based on the infrastructure projects that were in the pipeline, and
it was welcome. They were suggesting we’ll be outstripping
other parts of the UK by four times in terms of construction jobs
over the next five years and so on. I just want to ask you whether
we’re missing one big golden opportunity that will do many of
the things you’re talking about: driving well-paid jobs and
entrepreneurship into not only rural communities but into those
areas of deprivation as well, but also dealing with those issues of
poverty that are to do with homes—and inefficient, cold homes
that people can’t afford. Why don’t we now
move—not overnight—to the idea of having energy
efficiency as part of national infrastructure projects, in the same
way you’re doing with other major infrastructure? The reason
I say that—and I’m sure you’ll say, ‘We are
doing great things with Arbed and Nest’, and so on—is
this would drive those jobs into the very areas you’ve been
talking about and deal with some of those issues of poverty.
|
|
[64]
The First Minister: We do see increasingly that businesses
build buildings that are very good in terms of BREEAM, because they
understand, as businesses, that the more efficient the building,
the less cost there is in running that building in terms of energy
costs. It’s right to say that, through schemes like Arbed and
Nest, we’ve also been able to provide jobs and training,
because, of course, that means that there is work available for
people to access. You took the words right out of my mouth in terms
of how good the schemes have been, and I think that they’ve
been hugely important in terms of dealing with fuel poverty.
We’re investing, in this financial year, £26.5 million
in Welsh Government Warm Homes. That means, of course, through
improving people’s homes, they benefit but it also provides
work.
|
|
11:30
|
|
[65]
Huw Irranca-Davies: You know that and you’re
convinced, so I guess my question is—put the money to one
side for a moment, you’ve chosen certain national
infrastructure ideas, this one could be one that, if we went
further, would hit all of those communities and would get tens of
thousands of people into work because we’ve seen it already
with solar installations and so on, how flexible that workforce is
to say, ‘You tell us what we need to do, we’ll go in
and do it’. So, I’m not saying we do it straight away,
but should you be engineering that into part of your anti-poverty,
rise-in-prosperity plan?
|
|
[66]
The First Minister: Can you give me an example of what you
mean by that exactly? What sort of—
|
|
[67]
Huw Irranca-Davies: So, you would actually not simply have
Arbed and Nest schemes that people could bid into, and local
authorities that are switched on could engineer through their
areas, and others not so much, but you’d actually say,
‘Well, this is going to be our strategy; we are going to deal
with energy efficiency within these homes, deal with fuel poverty,
and we are going to say, right throughout the country, we are going
to focus on this in a major way’. So, you could set targets,
if you want to, and then we’d have to follow them, we’d
have to deliver it.
|
|
[68]
The First Minister: The way to do that is via the building
regulations, of course. And we’ve been doing that in terms of
part L of the building regulations, making sure that homes are more
energy efficient. There’s been a lot of emphasis on the
sprinkler legislation, which I know the Chair is passionate about,
as the person who introduced it into Wales. We have used the
building regulations to make sure that houses are better insulated,
for example, than before. The building industry has done its bit as
well in terms of doing that, but we need to keep on moving when it
comes to making sure that houses are more energy efficient in the
future.
|
|
[69]
One of the blows, of course, was the loss of subsidy for solar
panels. Many people were looking to be interested in solar panels.
The reality is, now, the cost of solar panels means that the
pay-back period is many, many, many years. It’s a shame that
the subsidy went for solar panels because there was great potential
there in the future.
|
|
[70]
Ann Jones: I will talk to you about building regulations
because I spent a whole weekend reading the building regs from
front to back and back to front in order to get the sprinkler
legislation through. So, I can show you where to do that from.
Okay, Huw?
|
|
[71]
Huw Irranca-Davies: There was only one other question, and
it’s my final one. Can I ask you to think ahead a little bit
in terms of where we are with exit negotiations from the EU at the
moment? We have different scenarios on the table. If you go from
one extreme to the other—. There is the soft, considered,
well-tailored, well thought through—where we come out with
something that looks workable. There is another one, which is fast
and rushed and we exit under WTO rules. What are the implications
of those for poverty?
|
|
[72]
The First Minister: I think we should move away from hard
Brexit or soft Brexit and talk about a sensible Brexit. The concern
that I have is that we end up—. It is perfectly possible to
have a Brexit that does not damage the economy. It can be done.
That means no tariffs and no divergence of regulations between the
UK and the EU. It’s also possible to have a Brexit that
fundamentally damages people’s incomes, where it becomes more
expensive to sell UK produced goods in the European market, which
is always going to be the biggest market on our doorstep. The US is
3,500 miles away; the EU shares a land border with the UK. You
can’t substitute one for the other. So, my concern would be
that if it becomes less easy for UK-based manufacturers to sell
into the European market, that they’re integrated with that
market in many circumstances, they will start—not overnight,
but they will start—to disinvest over time, which is
something that we need to avoid.
|
|
[73]
Free trade agreements done badly have the opportunity to strip out
industry from the UK and export it elsewhere. So, they have to be
handled with very great care, because many of the people who voted
Brexit didn’t vote for free trade; they actually voted for
more protectionism. It’s not the way they expressed it, but
that’s what they were looking for—we want to keep
things that we already have, and that’s not a free trade
argument. So, there is the possibility that those at the lowest end
of the income scale will suffer the most if Brexit is done badly.
However, if it’s done sensibly, then those people need not
see an effect on their incomes.
|
|
[74]
Ann Jones: Your final question has now just opened questions
from other Members who want to come in on that, but I will bring
David Rees in on this one, and then I’m conscious I want to
make some progress and move on to Simon Thomas’s
questions.
|
|
[75]
David Rees: Thank you, Chair. First Minister, you came
before my committee and gave us quite a detailed brief on Brexit.
But, we are here in west Wales, and west Wales and the Valleys
receive structural funding as a consequence of the GDA levels
we’ve seen, and that’s a very, very important area to
tackle to poverty, and some projects there. How do you see the
strategic direction of the Welsh Government moving, with the
consequences of losing structural funding? Perhaps we haven’t
yet negotiated what will come from the UK Government to replace
that.
|
|
[76]
The First Minister: Well, European funding is worth
£680 million a year to Wales. Farmers alone benefit from
£260 million-worth of subsidies. From 2020, there’s
nothing; nothing is promised. What we have is a promise of funding
until 2020 and nothing beyond. Now, it’s possible to argue
that, in fact, the level of funding beyond 2020 would not have been
as high as it is now, because we want not to qualify for structural
funds in the future, but there would have been a transition, and
there would have been transitional arrangements in place to deal
with that. At the moment, there’s not even a proposal for
transitional arrangements. We don’t know (a) if the money
will be there, we don’t know how that money will be
distributed in the future, and so we don’t know. I mean, this
is mainly—. A lot of this is capital funding, which will no
longer be available. Some of it has put people in jobs, and Jobs
Growth Wales is an example of that. We do need certainty as to
what’s happening to that funding post 2020. We don’t
have it yet.
|
|
[77]
David Rees: And do we have any indication as to whether
there’s a regional policy direction coming from the UK
Government? Because, clearly, we benefit from the regional policy
of the EU. Is there going be a discussion on regional policy at a
UK level so that we can look at how we can perhaps, benefit from a
needs analysis as a consequence of that?
|
|
[78]
The First Minister: ‘No’ is the answer. There
have been no discussions on that and no thought has been given to
it. There are some fundamental issues here that have not yet been
addressed by the UK Government. First of all, what happens to the
money? Would there be an equivalent pot of money available across
the UK to that pot that’s available at the moment? No answer
has been given to that. The second question is: if such a pot is
available, how would it be distributed? To my mind, (a) it should
be available and (b) it should be distributed along the same lines
as now. Or will we have to beg for it from the Treasury? We just
don’t know, because they haven’t applied their minds to
this yet. So, we don’t know, beyond 2020, what’s going
to happen.
|
|
[79]
When it comes to UK Government regional policy, how would that
work? Would they try to be more interfering in terms of
what’s happening in Wales? Would they try to direct us as a
Government in terms what we are doing here in Wales? There is a
fundamental difference of opinion between ourselves—all the
devolved Governments—and the UK Government as to what happens
when EU competencies return to the UK. They take the view that they
rest in Westminster. We don’t. We take the view that, in
devolved areas, they bypass Westminster completely—they never
rest there. They bypass Westminster and they end up in Wales. So,
with agriculture, the Welsh devolution settlement says that
agriculture is devolved, full stop. It doesn’t say,
‘Except those areas where the EU has competence.’ It
doesn’t say that. So, there’s a fundamental argument
actually taking place at the moment on that.
|
|
[80]
The second question is, and this is important in terms of poverty,
because the UK needs to preserve its internal single market. I
don’t dispute that and I think that’s perfectly
sensible. ‘How’ is the question. The UK Government
takes the view that it will do this through imposing rules on
everybody else. We take the view that that’s fundamentally
undemocratic. If there’s going to be a UK framework, it
should be an agreement between all four Governments agreeing to do
the same thing. They are not in that position. They seem to think
the UK is as it was in 1972—a unitary state without another
three Governments as part of that state. That, clearly, is a
difficulty.
|
|
[81]
There are some in other devolved Governments who take the view
there shouldn’t be any rules at all. So, there
shouldn’t be any state aid rules at all, which means,
effectively, we’d have a trade war between the different
parts of the UK. Again, I don’t think that’s in
anyone’s interest nor is it in the interest of the lowest
paid in our society. If you have an internal single market and you
have agreed rules, you then have to have a mechanism for dispute
resolution. It cannot be the Treasury. At the moment, if
you’re in dispute with the Treasury, ultimately, the dispute
is resolved by the Treasury. That makes no sense at all. You then
have to have either a court or a tribunal whose job it is to
arbitrate disputes where it’s felt the rules are not being
followed. Effectively, it’s setting up the EU, or something
similar to the EU, within the UK in order for the UK’s
internal single market to work.
|
|
[82]
None of these issues has been resolved. They can be resolved.
It’s not difficult. These things can be resolved fairly
easily actually, but the UK Government has not given any thought
yet to how those issues will be resolved in order to preserve the
internal single market of the UK. How is this relevant to those who
suffer in-work poverty? Those who earn less get hit the most when
it comes to uncertainty, when it comes to uncertainty causing a
lack of investment, when it comes to the possibility of a
free-for-all when it comes to a lack of any kind of state aid rules
within the UK. These are fundamental issues that have to be
addressed—can be addressed—but have not yet been
addressed.
|
|
[83]
Ann Jones: Right, I’ve got a number of people now who
want to come in on this, so I will let this part of the discussion
run but please can you remember it is linked to how it will affect
people in poverty. The wider Brexit issue is for another committee
and another, probably, subject. I’ll bring Simon and then
Mark in, and then, if anybody else wants to come in on the EU
stuff, I will come back to Simon for his general question. So, do
you want to do the EU bit first?
|
|
[84]
Simon Thomas:
Diolch yn fawr, Gadeirydd. Tra ein
bod ni yn trafod effaith gadael yr Undeb Ewropeaidd, ac yn benodol
ar ardaloedd mwyaf difreintiedig Cymru, hoffwn i ddeall mwy gan y
Llywodraeth am beth yw eich cynlluniau chi ar gyfer polisi
rhanbarthol tu fewn i Gymru. Rydych chi wedi sôn am y
polisïau y byddech chi’n disgwyl i Lywodraeth San
Steffan eu gwneud, ond mae datblygu economaidd hefyd wedi’i
ddatganoli yn llawn ac, felly, byddwn i’n hoffi clywed mwy am
eich addewid chi i’r ardaloedd fan hyn yn y gorllewin, er
enghraifft—nifer ohonyn nhw yn y rhan yma o sir
Gâr, Ceredigion a Gwynedd—a bleidleisiodd i adael yr
Undeb Ewropeaidd. Ac, felly, beth sydd gennych chi i gynnal a
sicrhau bod yna gymorth datblygu rhanbarthol yn yr ardaloedd hyn,
yn benodol, wrth gwrs, gan edrych ar y cymunedau mwyaf
difreintiedig?
|
Simon Thomas: Thank you very much,
Chair. While we are discussing the effect of leaving the European
Union, and specifically on the most disadvantaged areas of Wales,
I’d like to understand more from the Government about your
plans in relation to the regional policy within Wales. You have
talked about the policies you would expect the Westminster
Government to be making, but economic development has also been
fully devolved, and, therefore, I’d like to hear more about
your promise to those areas here in west Wales, for
example—many of them in this part of Carmarthenshire,
Ceredigion and Gwynedd—that voted to leave the European
Union. And, so, what is it that you have in order to maintain and
make sure that there is regional development support in these
areas, especially, of course, when looking at the most
disadvantaged communities?
|
|
[85]
Y Prif Weinidog:
Wel, yn gyntaf, ynglŷn â
beth rydym ni wedi ei wneud fel Llywodraeth, rydym ni wedi sicrhau
bod swyddi yn gadael Caerdydd. Rydym ni wedi sicrhau, wrth gwrs,
bod swyddfa wedi agor yng Nghyffordd Llandudno ac yn Aberystwyth.
Mae yna bobl, wrth gwrs—200, rwy’n
credu—sy’n gweithio i’r Llywodraeth yng
Nghaerfyrddin, yn y dref. O gymharu hyn gyda beth sydd wedi digwydd
gyda’r Department for Work and Pensions, er enghraifft, yn
Llanelli, mae ymrwymiad gennym ni i gadw swyddi ac i dyfu swyddi
llywodraethol yma yn y gorllewin. Nid felly yw safbwynt Llywodraeth
y Deyrnas Unedig.
|
The First Minister: Well, first of all,
in terms of what we’ve done as a Government, we’ve
ensured that jobs leave Cardiff. We’ve ensured that an office
has been opened in Llandudno Junction and Aberystwyth. There are
people, of course—200, I think—working for the
Government here in Carmarthen, in the town. Compared to what has
happened with the Department for Work and Pensions in Llanelli, for
example, we have a commitment to maintain and develop Government
jobs here in west Wales. That isn’t the view taken by the UK
Government.
|
|
[86]
Ynglŷn â datblygu
economaidd, wel, wrth gwrs, os awn ni i’r gorllewin ac i sir
Benfro sy’n dibynnu’n fawr iawn ar dwristiaeth, rydym
ni wedi sicrhau bod yna gymorth ar gael i fusnesau twristiaeth yn y
sir honno. Rydym ni’n gweithio hefyd gyda Valero, er
enghraifft, sy’n hollbwysig i economi sir Benfro, er mwyn
iddyn nhw allu tyfu a chyflogi mwy o bobl yn y pen draw. Os
edrychwn ni ar sir Gâr, mae yna gynlluniau, er enghraifft, i
greu canolfan iechyd newydd yn Llanelli, sydd yn broject sy’n
mynd i greu nid dim ond gwasanaethau i bobl yn y rhan honno o sir
Gâr, ond hefyd, wrth gwrs, cyflogi pobl yn y pen
draw.
|
In terms of
economic development, well, of course, if we look west and to
Pembrokeshire, which is very dependent on tourism, we have ensured
that there is support available for tourism businesses in that
county. We’ve worked with Valero, for example, which is
crucially important for the Pembrokeshire economy so that they can
grow and employ more people, ultimately. If we look at
Carmarthenshire, there are plans, for example, to create a new
health centre in Llanelli, which is a project that will not only
provide services for people in that part of Carmarthenshire, but
also, of course, ultimately employ people too.
|
|
[87]
Yn y rhan fwyaf o gymunedau gwledig,
wrth gwrs, y pwyslais yw datblygu busnesau bach. Bach iawn o
gymunedau sy’n mynd i gael un cyflogwr mawr. Mae bwyd a diod
yn hollbwysig i economi wledig sir Gâr. Mae 90 y cant
o’r cynnyrch sy’n cael ei allforio yn cael ei allforio
i’r Undeb Ewropeaidd. Felly, mae’n rhaid i ni sicrhau
bod hynny’n gallu parhau ar yr un termau ag yn awr. Rydym ni
wedi gweld twf yn y sector bwyd a diod yn sir Gâr a siroedd
eraill ar draws Cymru dros ddegawd a mwy nawr, ac maen nhw, wrth
gwrs, gyda’i gilydd yn cyflogi llawer o’n pobl
ni.
|
In most rural communities, of course, the
emphasis is on developing small businesses. Very few communities
will have one major employer. Food and drink is crucially important
to the rural economy of Carmarthenshire. Ninety per cent of the
produce exported is exported to the European Union. So, we must
ensure that that can continue on the same terms as those that
currently exist. We’ve seen growth in the food and drink
sector in Carmarthenshire and other counties across Wales over the
past decade and more, and together, of course, they employ very
many people.
|
|
[88]
Simon
Thomas: A fydd Llywodraeth Cymru yn dal i fuddsoddi yn yr ardaloedd
yna ar ôl i ni adael yr Undeb Ewropeaidd? Rydym ni’n
dibynnu ar gronfeydd strategol ar hyn o bryd. A fyddech chi’n
gallu cadw’r addewid i ddal i fuddsoddi yn yr ardaloedd
hynny?
|
Simon
Thomas: Will the Welsh
Government continue to invest in those areas after we’ve left
the European Union? We’re depending on structural funding at
the moment. Will you be able to keep that promise to continue with
the investment?
|
|
[89]
Y Prif
Weinidog: Ynglŷn â faint o arian, ‘na’ yw’r
ateb. Yn blwmp ac yn blaen, nid oes £680 miliwn gyda ni. So,
ni fyddwn i’n onest â phobl petaswn i’n dweud,
‘Wrth gwrs, gallwn ni ffeindio’r arian yna yn rhywle ac
felly buddsoddi’r arian yna.’ Dyna pam mae’n
hollbwysig bod Llywodraeth y Deyrnas Unedig yn dweud wrthym ni beth
yn gwmws yw’r sefyllfa ar ôl 2020. Roedd llawer yn
sôn yn ystod yr ymgyrch na fyddem ni’n colli ceiniog.
Felly, mae’n hollbwysig nawr bod hynny’n dod yn wir, ac
nad ydym yn colli’r arian yna i gyd mewn tair
blynedd.
|
The First Minister: In terms of the
scale of the funding, the answer has to be ‘no’.
Plainly speaking, we don’t have that kind of money
available—that £680 million. It would be dishonest of
me to say to people, ‘Well, of course, we can find that money
from somewhere and invest it in the same way.’ That’s
why it’s crucially important that the UK Government tells us
exactly what the situation is going to be post 2020. Many were
saying during the campaign that we wouldn’t lose a penny.
Well, it’s crucially important now that that is delivered,
and that we shouldn’t lose all of that funding in three
years’ time.
|
|
[90]
Ann Jones: Mark Reckless.
|
|
[91]
Mark Reckless: Some of the money from the EU for agriculture
and rural development does go to people who are in poverty, or to
farmers who are very much at the margin. I think we would both wish
to see a higher proportion, potentially, of that happen if that
money is to continue. I just wondered, though—when you speak
about the UK Government, you said just now that it had a view that
these powers from the EU go to Westminster, and it’s then for
Westminster to decide if they get devolved on. I know there are UK
Ministers who’ve given that impression, or said that at
points in time, but I haven’t heard you previously
characterise that as the formal position of the UK Government.
|
|
[92]
I’d also like to ask you about two issues with how the
discussions with UK Government are going. First, you as First
Minister are taking a strong lead in these post-Brexit
negotiations, and I’d just like to ask: does that involve you
having bilateral discussions with particular Cabinet Ministers at
Westminster, for instance, in the DEFRA area, given that
you’re leading on that for Wales? Second, you’ve
proposed a move to a council of Ministers and a development of the
current JMC, but we have, I think, a much closer integration
between Wales and England, and Scotland surely has a very different
outlook on this. The Government wants to leave the UK—it
wants independence from the UK. Should we limit the bilateral
relation we have on England to agree these things through the UK
Government by reference to what Nicola Sturgeon may want?
|
|
11:45
|
|
[93]
The First Minister: No, I don’t see that Wales’s
voice should be in any way weaker than that of Scotland. The great
danger is that if Scotland is given more leeway, the message is
that if you threaten independence, the UK Government listens to
you. If you believe in the union of the UK, then you get ignored. I
don’t think that’s the message that the UK Government
would, I believe, want to give. I don’t accept in any way,
shape or form that it’s for the UK Government to determine
how farming subsidies are paid in Wales, or who they’re paid
to. I don’t accept in any way, shape or form that it’s
for the UK to determine what we can do in terms of the businesses
that we support.
|
|
[94]
The problem is that the UK Government is also the Government of
England. There is a clear conflict of interest there that has to be
resolved. So, for example, if we were to have a set of state-aid
rules in the UK, and we decided to put a lot of money into Cardiff
Airport, Bristol might object. They would say, ‘Well, the
rules have been broken’—are we then saying that
it’s the Treasury that decides whether they have been or not?
The Treasury’s based in London. I mean, it’s not an
open process.
|
|
[95]
There is a template for this, because when I was rural affairs
Minister back in the early part of the last decade, we would
regularly meet on a monthly basis and agree the UK’s line at
the forthcoming European Council of Ministers. It worked very well.
Everybody felt part of the process, there was no grievance, and
that template, I think, can be applied in the future. I do not
think the UK will manage, will survive constitutionally, if London
takes over from Brussels. It’s that simple. I think there has
to be a co-operative approach between the four Governments in the
devolved areas. Of course, there are some areas that aren’t
devolved. Consumer protection—of course that’s
something for the UK Government. I’m not looking, personally,
for consumer protection to be devolved. But I would be extremely
concerned if the UK Government decided that it should set policy as
far as farming is concerned, because I know that in
Whitehall—and this has been the case regardless of whichever
party’s in power—they see large arable and large dairy
as the future. They do not see hill farms as in any way productive.
I’d be hugely concerned if we were being told, ‘Well,
you can’t support your hill farmers in the way that we would
want’.
|
|
[96]
How do you resolve this? Well, the first thing to do is for the
Treasury to say that the money that’s available now will be
available in the future, and it will be distributed in the same
way. A Barnett share would hit us very hard. We’re not,
obviously, funded on a Barnett consequential as far as farming is
concerned. Then, of course, it would be for each Government to
apply the subsidies in the way that that Government saw fit, but it
would make sense for there to be an agreed framework between the
Governments so that there would be certain rules we’d all
observe. Rules that are imposed would not be respected. I’ll
say that now. Rules that are agreed would have to be respected. I
think the UK will be stronger for that. I don’t think this is
a major undertaking. I think all of this can be done easily within
two years. All we need to do is to replicate the process that once
existed at agricultural level. We need to agree on who the trade
dispute resolution body is. Is it the Supreme Court? Is it another
court? Agree on it—that’s it—move on. Otherwise,
we end up in a situation where there are no rules at all, and that
opens a potential trade war between different nations in the UK, or
we have rules that everyone tries to ignore. I don’t think
that that provides the right stability or structure for the UK in
the future, but I absolutely would not accept that the Scots have a
right to have a greater degree of autonomy than Wales does. Not at
all.
|
|
[97]
Mark Reckless: Very quickly, Chair—I think I saw you,
First Minister, nodding when I was asking whether there was a
willingness for you, personally, to negotiate with individual
Cabinet Ministers, for instance in DEFRA, and whether that was
going to be helpful to arrange in a post-Brexit—?
|
|
[98]
The First Minister: I’ve held bilaterals with the
Prime Minister. She is not wholly forthcoming in terms of what her
view is. Those will continue. I’ve had meetings with David
Davis. They’ve been good meetings. It’s possible to
have a discussion and to understand his position. I found them very
useful meetings. The JMC(EN) is an unhappy occasion. I don’t
go to them; Mark Drakeford does. If David Davis is there and is
chairing the meeting, it makes a difference; but, unfortunately,
he’s not always there and the meetings are not always as
productive as they might be. I’ll put it diplomatically.
There are tensions. The Scottish Government has a particular
journey that it wishes to take, which, as a Government, we
don’t share. Northern Ireland is difficult because of the
tensions that exist within the Northern Ireland administrations and
will continue after 7 March, potentially, regardless of what
happens.
|
|
[99]
One thing I have to say is that we have been sensible in the way
that we’ve approached this. We’ve produced a White
Paper that we thought through and we believed provided a way
forward for the whole of the UK. It’s not the policy,
clearly, of the Welsh Government to advocate independence. There
surely has to be a recognition of that by the UK Government.
Otherwise, as I’ve said, the danger is that the more
unreasonable you appear to be in public, the more you get listened
to. I don’t think that’s good for the UK or for the UK
Government.
|
|
[100] Mark
Reckless: Would you personally sit down with Andrea Leadsom,
for instance, in the DEFRA area and try and hammer out an
understanding, or is that something that—?
|
|
[101] The First
Minister: Well, that would be a matter for Lesley Griffiths as
the Cabinet Secretary. They all have their individual roles that
they pursue, but, of course, the overall discussions I would
lead.
|
|
[102] Mark
Reckless: Thank you.
|
|
[103] Ann
Jones: Okay. I am going to have to make some progress, and
we’re still within the strategic direction. So, I’m
going to come to Simon, who’s got a general question and then
some specifics. I am then going to move on to accountability and
Lynne Neagle. So, Simon.
|
|
[104]
Simon
Thomas: Diolch, Gadeirydd. Fel yr ydych chi’n ei ddweud, rydym
ni newydd fod yn trafod tlodi am dri chwarter awr nawr ond rydw i
dal ddim cweit yn deall, a dweud y gwir, beth yw, bellach,
ddiffiniad y Llywodraeth o dlodi a beth yw amcanion y Llywodraeth
o’r dulliau gorau i fynd i’r afael â thlodi.
Felly, ddeng mlynedd yn ôl—wel, ddim cweit deng mlynedd
yn ôl, ond pan ddaethoch chi yn Brif Weinidog, rwy’n
cofio bod yna dri Gweinidog â gwaith gwrthdlodi fel rhan
o’u cyfrifoldebau nhw. Bellach nid oes un. Rydych chi wedi
esbonio pam, ond nid oes un. Nid oes sôn am dlodi. Nid
yw’r gair ‘tlodi’ yn ymddangos yn y rhaglen
lywodraethu o gwbl. Felly, rydych wedi mynd o sefyllfa lle’r
oedd yna gyfeiriad penodol at y gwaith hwnnw i rywbeth sydd yn llai
penodol ac—fel y byddai rhai yn ei ddadlau—wedi’i
lastwreiddio ac wedi gwanhau yn y Llywodraeth. Felly, yn gyntaf
oll, er mwyn inni ddeall, beth, bellach, yw eich diffiniad chi o
dlodi?
|
Simon Thomas: Thank you, Chair. As you
say, we’ve been talking about poverty for three quarters of
an hour now but I’m still not entirely sure what the
Government’s definition of poverty is, and what the
Government’s objectives are in relation to the best methods
to get to grips with poverty. So, some 10 years ago—or not
quite 10 years ago, but when you became First Minister, I remember
there were three Ministers who had antipoverty work as part of
their responsibilities. By now we don’t have any. You have
explained why, but we don’t have one at all. There’s no
mention of the word ‘poverty’ in the programme for
government at all. So, you’ve gone from a position where
there was specific reference to that work to something that is far
less specific and—some might argue—was rather diluted,
and perhaps now exists on a weaker level within the Government. So,
first of all, in order for us to understand, what is your
definition of poverty by now?
|
|
[105]
Y Prif Weinidog:
Wel, ynglŷn â diffinio
tlodi, mae yna ddiffiniad swyddogol ynglŷn â—.
Mae’r bobl sydd yn byw mewn tlodi yn cael 60 y cant o’r
cyflog arferol ar ôl ystyried costau tai neu lety. Ynglŷn â beth
rŷm ni’n ei wneud fel Llywodraeth, yn gyntaf i gyd, wrth
gwrs, mae’n wir i ddweud taw’r Ysgrifennydd Cabinet
dros yr economi sydd yn arwain ar hyn, o achos y ffaith ein bod
ni’n gwybod bod creu swyddi da a chodi cyflog pobl yn ffordd
allweddol i ddelio â thlodi. Ond mae delio â thlodi yn
eiddo i bawb yn y Cabinet ac i finnau fel Prif Weinidog.
Mae’r gwaith ynglŷn â delio â thlodi yn cael
ei reoli gan Swyddfa’r Cabinet. Nhw sydd â’r
cyfrifoldeb i sicrhau bod y gwaith hwn yn dod at ei gilydd a fi,
wrth gwrs, ar ddiwedd y dydd, fel Prif Weinidog, sydd yn gyfrifol,
ac rwy’n deall hynny.
|
The First Minister: Well, in terms of
defining poverty, there is an official definition. People live in
poverty if they receive 60 per cent or less of the median wage,
having taken into account the costs of accommodation. Now, in terms
of what we’re doing as a Government, first of all, it’s
true to say that the Cabinet Secretary for the economy leads on
this agenda, because we know that the creation of good jobs and
increasing people’s incomes are a key way of dealing with
poverty. But dealing with poverty is a job for everyone in Cabinet,
as well as for me as First Minister. The work of dealing with
poverty is managed by the Cabinet Office. They ensure that
everything is done properly, and I, as First Minister, am
ultimately responsible for that, and I fully understand that.
|
|
[106]
Rŷm ni wedi symud o siarad am
dlodi i siarad mwy am sicrhau bod mwy o gyflog ar gael i bobl a
chymunedau, o ystyried y ffaith taw’r ffordd orau mas o dlodi
yw sicrhau, yn gyntaf, fod swydd gan rywun—a chael gwared ar
y rhwystrau sydd ynglŷn
â hynny—ac, yn ail, fod pobl yn cael mwy o arian
yn y swyddi hynny. Dyna pam, wrth gwrs, mai’r Ysgrifennydd
Cabinet dros yr economi sydd wedi arwain ar hwn.
|
We have moved from speaking of poverty towards
talking about ensuring that people and communities’ incomes
are increased, understanding that the best way out of poverty is to
ensure that people have access to employment, and removing barriers
to employment, and, secondly, ensuring that people receive better
salaries in those jobs. That’s why it’s the Cabinet
Secretary for the economy who has led on this.
|
|
[107]
Ynglŷn ag ym mha ffordd rŷm
ni’n mynd i symud hwn ymlaen, ac ym mha ffordd rydym
ni’n mynd i fesur hwn, wel, mae yna fodd o fesur hwn, wrth
gwrs, yn y Ddeddf a wnaeth ddelio â chenhedloedd y
dyfodol—indicators cenedlaethol sydd yn rhan o hynny.
Wrth ddefnyddio’r ffyrdd hynny o ystyried y ffordd ymlaen ac
ystyried canlyniadau beth ŷm ni’n ei wneud, byddwn
ni’n gallu mesur yn gwmws faint mor effeithiol yw’r
polisïau rŷm ni’n eu datblygu.
|
In terms of how we can progress this and how
we can measure progress, well, we can measure this, of course,
through the well-being of future generations Act. There are
national indicators contained within that Act, and in using those
means of considering the way forward and the outcomes of our
activities, then we can measure exactly how effective the policies
we are developing are.
|
|
[108]
Simon Thomas:
Rydw i’n poeni bod y diffiniad
rydych chi wedi ei roi o dlodi yn seiliedig ar gyflog a
pherthnasedd cyflog gyda chostau byw. Mae’n gwneud dau beth
sydd yn anodd, yn enwedig mewn ardaloedd gwledig. Yn gyntaf oll,
nid yw e’n cydnabod tlodi sydd yn deillio o ddiffyg mynediad
i wasanaethau, diffyg trafnidiaeth—eich bod chi’n styc
yn y tŷ, ddim â char, ddim yn gallu mynd i gyrchu am
swydd neu fynd i’r GP neu fynd at wasanaethau lleol. Nid yw
e’n cydnabod chwaith beth oeddech chi’n ei drafod ryw
hanner awr yn ôl, sef bod yna dlodi mewn gwaith difrifol. Pen
draw’r dynesiad newydd sydd gyda chi yn y rhaglen lywodraethu
sydd yn sôn am greu ffyniant—wel, y ffordd fwyaf hwylus
o greu ffyniant yw, a dweud y gwir, sugno pobl o’r ardaloedd
cefn gwlad lle nad oes modd creu swyddi o’r math yma
a’u hannog nhw i symud i ddinasoedd a threfi mawr ac allan o
gefn gwlad. Felly, yn y cyd-destun yna, sut ydych chi’n gallu
sicrhau wrthym ni fod y gwaith yr ŷch chi nawr yn ei
wneud fel Llywodraeth, sydd yn enw creu ffyniant, ddim yn mynd i
arwain at bobl yn gorfod symud o’u cynefin er mwyn cadw
swyddi? Wrth gwrs, mae yna bethau ymhlyg ynglŷn â
dyfodol yr iaith Gymraeg mewn nifer o ardaloedd ynghlwm wrth
gwestiwn fel yna.
|
Simon Thomas: I am concerned that the
definition you give of poverty is based on salary and how salary
links with living costs. I think that does make two things
difficult, especially in rural areas. Firstly, it doesn’t
recognise poverty that comes from lack of access to services, lack
of transport—maybe you’re stuck at home, you
don’t have a car and can’t go to try for jobs or go to
your GP or access local services. It doesn’t also acknowledge
what you were discussing some half an hour ago, which is that there
is in-work poverty, which is a very serious issue. The new approach
that you have, in the programme for government, which talks about
creating prosperity—well, the easiest way of creating
prosperity is to look at people in those areas where we can’t
create these types of jobs and encourage those people to move to
large towns and cities and out of rural areas. So, in that context,
how can you assure us that the work that you’re now doing as
a Government, which is in the name of creating prosperity, is not
going to lead to people having to move from their local areas in
order to keep their jobs and get jobs? Of course, it’s also
related to the future of the Welsh language in many areas.
|
|
[109]
Y Prif Weinidog:
Dau beth: yn gyntaf i gyd, wrth
ystyried y ffaith bod cymaint o bobl yn byw mewn tlodi er eu bod
nhw’n gweithio, mae hynny’n dangos i fi bod yn rhaid
inni sicrhau bod y sgiliau gyda nhw er mwyn eu bod nhw’n
gallu cael mwy o gyflog yn y pen draw.
|
The First Minister: Two things: first
of all, in considering the fact that so many people live in poverty
despite being in work, that does show me that we have to ensure
that they must have the skills so that they can enhance their
earnings, ultimately.
|
|
[110]
I bobl sy’n byw mewn ardaloedd
gwledig, mae yna gynllun datblygu gwledig, wrth gwrs, a nod hwnnw
yw nid dim ond helpu ffermio ond helpu busnesau bach i dyfu yn y
pen draw a chyflogi pobl yn lleol.
|
For people living in rural areas, there is a
rural development plan, and the aim of that is not just to help
agriculture, but also to help small businesses to grow and to
develop and employ people locally.
|
|
[111]
Simon
Thomas: Ond mae hwnnw’n mynd gyda gadael yr Undeb Ewropeaidd,
onid yw e?
|
Simon Thomas: That goes with Brexit,
doesn’t it?
|
|
[112]
Y Prif
Weinidog: Wel, ynglŷn â’r arian, ond nid yw’r nod yn mynd. Rydym
ni’n moyn sicrhau bod yna gymorth ar gael i fusnesau yn yr
ardaloedd hynny. Busnesau bach, efallai, yw rhai ohonyn nhw, ond
maen nhw’n cyflogi llawer o bobl gyda’i gilydd. I
sicrhau bod cymorth ar gael yn y pen draw, mae’n rhaid
sicrhau bod Llywodraeth y Deyrnas Unedig yn sicrhau bod y cymorth
ariannol yna ar gael yn y dyfodol hefyd.
|
The First Minister: Well, in terms of
funding, but the objective isn’t removed. We want to ensure
that there is assistance available for businesses in those areas.
Some of them are small businesses, perhaps, but if you bring them
all together, they employ a number of people. We need to ensure
that support is ultimately available, and we must ensure that the
UK Government ensures that that financial support is available for
the future, too.
|
|
[113]
Yr ail ffordd i
ddatrys hwn yw sicrhau ei fod yn rhwyddach i bobl deithio i’r
gwaith—ddim yn or-bell—ar gludiant cyhoeddus. Y broblem
sydd gyda ni ar hyn o bryd yw, ynglŷn â’r system
cludiant bysiau—free for all, fwy neu lai, yw hi.
Ocê, mae rhai gwasanaethau yn cael eu sybsideiddio gan
gynghorau lleol, ond y realiti yw ei fod e lan i gwmnïau i
redeg gwasanaethau ac, wrth gwrs, nid oes dim rheolaeth o gwbl.
Mae’n rhaid i hynny newid, ac, ar ôl blwyddyn nesaf, un
o’r pethau rŷm ni’n ystyried yw ym mha ffordd y
gallwn ni sicrhau bod gwasanaethau ar gael i bobl wledig, ac nad
ydyn nhw’n gorfod dibynnu ar system lle nad oes dim rheolaeth
o gwbl. Bydd hynny’n gorfod newid.
|
The second way of resolving this is to ensure
that it is easier for people to travel to work—not too
far—on public transport. The problem we have at the moment
is, in terms of the bus network, it’s a free for all, more or
less. Yes, some services are subsidised by local councils, but the
reality is that it’s up to companies to run those services
and there is no regulation. That has to change, and after next
year, one of the things that we are considering is how we can
ensure that services are available for people in rural communities,
and that they shouldn’t have to rely on a system where there
is no regulation at all. That will have to change.
|
|
[114]
Wrth gwrs, yn sir
Gâr, a hefyd Ceredigion, mae system Bwcabws. Mae hwnnw’n
mynd i gael ei estyn i mewn i sir Benfro hefyd yn y pen
draw. Rwy’n credu bod
hynny’n fwy hyblyg o ran pobl yn gallu mynd i’r gwaith
gyda system sydd yn eu siwtio nhw o ran y ffordd maen nhw’n
gallu teithio i’r gwaith. Felly, bydd yna gyfleoedd mawr, ar
ôl gweld bysiau yn cael eu datganoli y flwyddyn nesaf, i
sicrhau y bydd pobl sydd yn byw mewn ardaloedd gwledig yn cael y
gwasanaeth sydd eu heisiau arnyn nhw er mwyn iddyn nhw allu mynd i
mewn i’r gwaith, ac nid bod mewn sefyllfa lle mae’r bws
cyntaf yn cyrraedd y dref fawr, efallai, am 9.30 a.m., ar ôl
yr amser maen nhw’n gorfod mynd i mewn i’r gwaith. So,
mae yna gyfleoedd mawr fanna, ar ôl blwyddyn nesaf, sydd ddim
wedi bod gyda ni o’r blaen.
|
Of course, in Carmarthenshire, and also in
Ceredigion, the Bwcabws system is available. That is going to
extend into Pembrokeshire, too. I think that that provides more
flexibility in people being able to access employment in a way that
suits them in terms of their travel arrangements. So, there are
major opportunities, once we have seen the devolution of powers
over buses next year, to ensure that people living in rural areas
do have access to the service that they need to actually access
employment, and not be in a situation where the first bus gets to
the town at 9.30 a.m., which is too late for them to get to work.
So, there are major opportunities there, after next year, that we
haven’t had in the past.
|
|
[115] Simon
Thomas: Nid yw’n glir i mi
eich bod chi eto wedi—yn enwedig yng nghyd-destun cefn
gwlad—cymryd i lwyr ystyriaeth cynifer o bobl sydd yn dibynnu
ar fusnesau unigol, y nifer o bobl sy’n hunan-gyflogedig, yn
enwedig ym maes amaeth a thwristiaeth, ac yn fasnachwyr unigol ac
ati. Mae unrhyw raglen economaidd sydd yn edrych o safbwynt
cyflogaeth, sy’n tueddol o droi o gwmpas cyflogaeth gan brif
gyflogwyr y sector cyhoeddus ac ati yn mynd i golli’r agwedd
yna. Nid wyf yn gwybod os ydych chi eisiau ateb jest hwnnw, achos
mae gen i un gwestiwn arall, os caf i, jest yn fwy penodol hefyd.
Diolch.
|
Simon Thomas: It’s clear to me
that you have not yet—especially in the context of rural
areas—fully considered how many people are dependent on
individual businesses that exist there, the number of people who
are self-employed, especially in agriculture and tourism, and who
are sole traders and so on. Any economic programme that looks at
employability, which tends to turn around employability by the big
employers in the public sector, and so on, is going to miss that
aspect. I don’t know if you’d like to just answer that,
because I have one other question, if I may, which is more specific
also. Thank you.
|
|
[116] Y Prif
Weinidog: Wel, mae’n wir i
ddweud na all unrhyw strategaeth sydd yn canolbwyntio’n
hollol ar fuddsoddiad mawr ddim estyn i bob cymuned yng Nghymru.
Rŷm ni’n deall hynny. Rŷm ni wedi gweld y
llwyddiant, wrth gwrs, ynglŷn â thynnu buddsoddiad i
mewn i ardaloedd sydd fwy neu lai yn drefol, ond rŷm ni yn
deall, wrth gwrs, pa mor bwysig yw’r busnesau bach
gyda’i gilydd sy’n cyflogi cymaint o bobl yng nghefn
gwlad. Mae rhai busnesau, wrth gwrs, sydd yn hollbwysig mewn trefi
gwledig hefyd, fel yn y Drenewydd, lle mae yna un cyflogwr
hollbwysig yn y dref honno ac mae’n braf i weld bod dyfodol y
lle hwnnw wedi cael ei sicrhau yn y pen draw. Ond, na, nid ydym
ni’n dweud bod busnesau bach, gwledig, ddim yn
bwysig—maen nhw yn. Maen nhw yn, a’r bobl sy’n
gweithio i’w hunain, er mwyn sicrhau bod yna swyddi ar gael i
bobl sydd yn byw yn yr ardaloedd gwledig.
|
The First Minister: Well, it is true to
say that any strategy that focuses entirely on major investment
can’t reach all communities in Wales, and we understand that.
We have seen some success in attracting investment to areas that
are semi-urban, but we do understand how important the small
businesses are that collectively employ so many people in rural
areas. There are some businesses, of course, that are crucial in
rural towns also, such as in Newtown, where there is one crucial
employer in that town and it’s good to see that the future of
that place has eventually been secured. But, no, we’re not
saying that small, rural businesses are unimportant—they are
very important. They are very important, as well as people who are
self-employed, because they ensure that there are jobs available
for people living in rural areas.
|
|
12:00
|
|
|
[117]
Simon Thomas:
A gaf i droi at rywbeth penodol iawn
ar gyfer cefn gwlad, ac yn y gorllewin, a dweud y gwir? Nid oes
hanes o Gymunedau’n Gyntaf fan hyn, a dweud y gwir, ac yn
sicr ar ôl y tro diwethaf i chi newid Cymunedau’n
Gyntaf, mae’r ardaloedd cefn gwlad—yr ychydig oedd gyda
ni—wedi diflannu. Ac, felly, ers rhai blynyddoedd bellach,
rydym ni wedi dibynnu o ran cynlluniau gwrth-dlodi yn y gorllewin
ar arian gwirfoddol, a dweud y gwir, gydag amser gwirfoddol ac
arian loteri yn bwysig iawn. Gallaf i feddwl am dri chynllun o dop fy mhen
sydd wedi’u hariannu gan y
loteri—ddim gan y Llywodraeth o gwbl—sydd yn hollbwysig
i fynd i’r afael â thlodi yn y cymunedau hynny. Clywsom
ni gan un cyn y cyfarfod yma, gan Plant Dewi a oedd yn ymwneud
â mamau ifanc; mae yna gynllun loteri, JigSo yn Aberteifi,
sy’n ymwneud ag ardaloedd difreintiedig iawn yn y parthau
hynny; ac mae yna un penodol wedi dod i ben y mis diwethaf,
o’r enw Unity, a oedd yn ymwneud â Sipsiwn a Theithwyr
yn sir Benfro. Heb fod cynlluniau loteri o’r fath nid oes
darpariaeth Llywodraeth—dim o gwbl. Yn arbennig yng
nghyd-destun cymunedau fel y Sipsiwn a Theithwyr sydd yn gymunedau
daearyddol—hynny yw, maen nhw wedi ymgartrefi mewn ardaloedd
penodol; a dweud y gwir, nid oes ond dewis ganddyn nhw i ymgartrefi
mewn ardaloedd penodol achos dyna sut mae’r system yn eu
gyrru nhw—a oes gennych chi unrhyw gynllun yn y system newydd
rydych chi wedi’i hamlinellu i fynd i’r afael â
chymunedau penodol megis y Sipsiwn a Theithwyr, a megis hefyd mamau
ifanc mewn trefi bach cefn gwlad lle nid oes modd i rai o’r
rhaglenni cenedlaethol yma fynd i’r afael? Dyna beth yw
gwerth rhai rhaglenni sydd yn ddaearyddol eu natur. Heb fod gennych
chi unrhyw raglenni fel yna, rydych chi’n mynd i amddifadu
rhai sectorau bregus iawn, iawn.
|
Simon Thomas: Can we turn to something
very specific then, in relation to rural Wales, and especially in
west Wales? There is no history of Communities First in this area
and certainly, after the last time you changed the Communities
First scheme, the rural areas—or the few we had—have
disappeared. So, for many years now, we’ve depended in terms
of anti-poverty programmes in west Wales on voluntary money, to be
honest, and the time given by volunteers, with lottery money, of
course, being very important to us. I can think of three schemes
off the top off my head that are lottery funded—not by the
Government at all—that are extremely important in relation to
tackling poverty in those communities. We heard from one before
this meeting, from Plant Dewi, which is related to young mothers;
there is a lottery scheme called JigSo in Cardigan, which is in
relation to very underprivileged communities in that area; and
there is one specifically that came to an end last month, called
Unity, which was involved with Gypsies and Travellers in
Pembrokeshire. Without such lottery schemes there is no provision
from the Government—nothing at all. So, especially in the
context of communities such as Gypsies and Travellers, which are
geographical communities—that is, they have made their homes
in specific areas; to be honest, they don’t have any choice
but to live in specific areas because that is how the system drives
them—do you have any schemes within this new system that
you’ve outlined to tackle specific communities like Gypsies
and Travellers, also maybe young mothers in small rural towns,
where there is no way for some of those national programmes to
tackle the issues? That’s the value of some programmes that
are geographical in nature, and if you don’t have any
programmes like that you are going to make sure that some sectors
miss out.
|
|
[118]
Y Prif Weinidog:
Wel, ein nod ni yw sicrhau bod yna
gymorth ar gael yn eang ar draws Cymru. Os edrychwn ni ar y grant
ynglŷn â chyflogaeth, mae hwnnw, wrth gwrs, yn mynd i
gefnogi—a Ceredigion yn enghraifft arall—pobl
sy’n byw yna yn y siroedd hynny a oedd yn ffaelu cael y
cymorth yna o’r blaen. Ynglŷn â rhai o’r
cymunedau sydd wedi cael eu sôn amdanynt yn fanna, a gaf i
ofyn jest i Jo-Anne i ddod i mewn ar hynny?
|
The First Minister: Well, our aim is to
ensure that there is support available broadly across Wales. If we
look at the employment grant, that is going to support—and
Ceredigion is an example—people who live in those communities
that wouldn’t have had that support in the past. In terms of
some of the communities that have been mentioned, can I ask Jo-Anne
to come in?
|
|
[119] Ms
Daniels: We’ve always acknowledged that there needs to be
a mix of programmes across Wales in terms of those that are
place-specific and those that are available due to the
characteristics of the individuals. It’s fair to say that the
majority of programmes that are aiming to tackle poverty
aren’t area based—so, for example, Families First or
the pupil deprivation grant are needs based and it’s
important that they support people wherever they live. It’s
also worth highlighting that there are a number of programmes that
don’t necessarily automatically come under the tackling
poverty banner that are equally important—so, for example,
the Supporting People programme, which works to address
homelessness and housing needs. Many of those programmes will be
targeting individuals with the kinds of characteristics, and often
protected characteristics, that you are identifying. In terms of
Gypsy and Traveller communities, for example, we have a significant
capital programme where we are looking to ensure that we have
sufficient sites, and there’s the new legal duty on local
authorities to ensure that sufficiency, ensure that there’s
good and decent accommodation for Gypsy and Traveller communities
right across Wales. And we have, I think, a thriving voluntary
sector in Wales that we should be very proud of. We continue to
provide support for county voluntary councils, and through the
Wales Council for Voluntary Action, to strengthen the voluntary
sector and to ensure that they’re able to access a greater
diversity of funding to ensure their sustainability.
|
|
[120] Simon
Thomas: Could I just press on that? Because I don’t
think, to be frank, it really answered my question. I accept what
you’re saying, but what we are talking about here are
communities that are even further removed from accessing those
services. So, if you’re a young mother stuck on an estate
somewhere in the middle of Carmarthenshire, you can’t access
services: you can’t get on the bus; there are no bus services
in the evening; you can’t access childcare; there’s no
Families First and there’s no local crèche. Or, if
you’re stuck on a Gypsy and Traveller site in Pembrokeshire,
down towards Kilgetty, say, again your access to those services is
even further removed: you don’t know about them. We’ve
had projects that have gone in and have worked face to face. You
have to employ people to do it—it’s intense in that
sense. But when those projects are removed, there is no
infrastructure support and I don’t think the ordinary
voluntary sector, if I can put it that way, is designed to do that.
That are superb projects that do it, but my question is: what is
Government going to do? Because your programme seems to be
addressing large-scale kinds of approaches—we haven’t
talked about city deals yet—but large-scale infrastructure
approaches, large-scale employability approaches, and I am very
concerned that you’re not going to be actually going into
some of these very deprived communities, or including these very
isolated and excluded groups of people.
|
|
[121] The First
Minister: Well, if we look at the city deals first of all, here
is the Swansea city deal and that includes Carmarthenshire and
Pembrokeshire. So, perhaps ‘city deal’ is not the
full—
|
|
[122] Simon
Thomas: But, to be frank, it doesn’t include the Gypsies
and Travellers in Pembrokeshire. They’re not going to get
anything out of the city deal. What are you doing as a Government?
Because you’ve got an anti-poverty agenda, what are you doing
directly for those communities?
|
|
[123] The First
Minister: We’ve been working, of course, with the Gypsy
and Traveller communities over the years. We’ve had people
who have worked with them to gain their trust, particularly, over
the years, but two things that were mentioned there: first of all,
transport, and secondly, childcare. With transport, as I’ve
said before, we have an opportunity from next year to provide the
sort of transport services that people need in order for them to
access employment in a way that wasn’t possible before. When
it comes to childcare, one of the main pleasures of this Government
is to take forward a childcare pledge. It’s in relation to a
particular age group, that’s true, but what we would like to
see is that in parts of Wales where there is no provision, what we
will be providing will stimulate that provision, make it
sustainable, and ensure that provision is made available to a wider
age group. So, the childcare pledge is good for families, but
it’s also a way of looking to stimulate the market in areas
where childcare is not yet available.
|
|
[124] Ann
Jones: Okay.
|
|
[125] Simon
Thomas: I’m sure other members want to—
|
|
[126] Ann
Jones: Well, they do, but I am now going to move on. I want to
move on to accountability, and there are other issues around
poverty and work, and local issues, and local barriers that we want
to discuss. I am going to move on, so you’ll have to find
ways of coming in on those subject headings, if you want to.
I’m going to move on: accountability, Lynne Neagle.
|
|
[127]
Lynne Neagle: Thanks, Chair. First Minister, you’ve said that
tackling poverty is a cross-cutting issue, but that you are
ultimately responsible. We have previously had a child poverty
strategy, and a tackling poverty action plan, both of which had
milestones and targets in. Is it your intention to publish one of
those, either a child poverty one or a tackling poverty one, for
the duration of this term?
|
|
[128] The First
Minister: Well, we’ve got no plans to develop a new child
poverty strategy for Wales because the 2015 strategy is underpinned
by a strong evidence base and we’re still delivering on that
strategy. We have developed four cross-cutting strategies. They
will reflect—I mentioned them earlier on—how we can
respond to the needs of our citizens in Wales, including the needs
of those who are living in poverty. What they will do is
they’ll set out in more detail the actions we’ll take
to give everyone in Wales the opportunity to flourish at every
stage of their lives, including, of course, those people who are
living in poverty. It’s too early yet to decide whether there
would be an added benefit of having a separate document that sets
out tackling poverty actions in itself, in a stand-alone way. My
concern with these things is always that if you produce something
that’s separate to the overall strategy, it tends to sit in
silo and I don’t want that. I want to make sure that tackling
poverty is something that sits very firmly at the heart of
Government and isn’t seen as something that sits on the
periphery.
|
|
[129] Lynne
Neagle: So, how will we ensure that we actually make progress
then? You referred to the future generations Act. Are we going to
actually see some robust targets that we’re going to work
to?
|
|
[130] The First
Minister: Well, targets in the area of poverty are difficult
because we don’t have control of all the levers that deal
with poverty. We know that many of the levers sit at the level of
the UK Government. That doesn’t mean, of course, we
shouldn’t be measured and that we shouldn’t measure.
So, the intention is to use the national indicators that are in the
wellbeing of future generations Act to measure progress at an
all-Wales level. For example, those might be indicators on
employment, educational attainment, including, of course, the
attainment of pupils who are eligible for free school meals, and
the number of people who are not in education, employment or
training. So, the Act gives us the opportunity to measure what we
are doing against the indicators that are contained in the Act.
|
|
[131] Lynne
Neagle: Okay. And one of the things that’s happened since
the election is that the tackling poverty expert advisory group has
been disbanded by Ken Skates, whereas his predecessor, Lesley
Griffiths, described it as a key mechanism for engaging with
stakeholders and experts. Are you able to expand on the reasons for
that and how, without that group, Welsh Government will ensure that
we are keeping abreast of the views of people who are on the coal
face with this?
|
|
[132] The First
Minister: Yes. Each individual Minister has a responsibility to
do that, as I do as First Minister. As I say, ‘Taking Wales
Forward’ is a strategy that all Cabinet Ministers have an
input into and are responsible for delivering. Of course, we have a
number of different ways in which we can engage with people to
understand what works and what doesn’t work, but from my
perspective the core of this has been making sure that all
Ministers understand that they are all jointly responsible,
including me, for tackling poverty and there will be measures
through the national indicators to see how well we are doing.
|
|
[133] In terms of the
tackling poverty external advisory group, it did come to an end in
November last year. Obviously, we will continue to seek the views
of key experts and organisations as we move forward. I can say that
the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure is undertaking
a review of the groups across his portfolio, identifying gaps and
duplication. He’s asked other Cabinet Secretaries to do the
same thing. Following that review, then a decision will be taken as
to what the best way is of engaging with those stakeholders who are
able to give us the views that we need to hear.
|
|
[134] Lynne
Neagle: Okay, thank you.
|
|
[135] Ann
Jones: John, you’ve got a supplementary on that.
|
|
[136] John
Griffiths: Yes. As you say, some of the levers are not within
the ambit of Welsh Government and rest with the UK Government, but
there are some practical things that Welsh Government can do. I
think, in terms of accountability and leadership, when you look at
the work of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the Bevan
Foundation, they talk about maximising the income of people in
poverty and reducing their outgoings, and practical ways of doing
that, I think, are very important. So, if you look, for example, at
unclaimed benefits—welfare benefits, pension credit and many
other benefits—there is still this estimate that is often
quoted of £2 billion a year in terms of unclaimed benefits,
plus the economic benefits if those benefits were claimed and spent
in the local economies. So, it’s a huge amount of money. At
the same time, people in poverty are not always on the best energy
deals, they don’t always have their financial affairs in the
best order, and they’re sometimes prone to irresponsible
lending and so on. It does seem to me that there are a lot of
practical steps that can be taken. We’ve got Citizen’s
Advice, we’ve got housing associations employing people to
give this advice to reduce the arrears that exist, as well as
obviously helping the tenant. So, I’m interested really in
what Welsh Government’s leadership role is and accountability
is here, to look right across Wales at who’s delivering what
in these terms and what co-ordination needs to take place to ensure
that we have consistency and quality right across Wales.
|
|
[137] The First
Minister: It’s quite right to say that, for many
people—for most people, I suspect—they don’t
relentlessly pursue the best deals when it comes to their own use
of fuel. For many people, it’s a challenge to organise their
lives from a financial perspective. So, the question is: what are
we doing about it as a Government? We’ve got the financial
inclusion strategy that was published in March of last year. The
delivery plan was published in December. It sets out the actions
and measures that are required to increase financial inclusion
across Wales. It does highlight the need, obviously, to work
closely with partner organisations, those that deliver the services
on the ground—some public sector, some private sector, some
obviously in the third sector—those who are well placed to
deliver financial inclusion and financial capability.
|
|
[138] What the
delivery plan does is capture the important role that financial
inclusion plays in supporting other priorities within
Government—child poverty, the strategy for older people, the
draft employability plan and also the strategic equality plan.
That’s the strategy. That’s the delivery plan. What are
we doing in order to help those on the ground? We have, of course,
the front-line advice services grant and the Better Advice Better
Lives project funded in order to make sure that those who are best
placed to offer the kind of support that people need have the
financial means to offer that support.
|
|
[139]
John Griffiths:
Just particularly on welfare benefits,
First Minister—
|
|
[140]
Ann Jones: You are pushing it now—quick.
|
|
[141]
The First Minister:
Of course, front-line services are able
to signpost people in the right direction. A lot of people who are
in work don’t think they can claim benefits because
they’re in work.
|
|
[142]
John Griffiths:
There’s still that £2 billion
figure floating around.
|
|
12:15
|
|
[143]
The First Minister:
Yes, some people don’t think
they’re eligible. Some people feel too intimidated to apply.
Some people won’t because, for various reasons, they
don’t want to. But they need to be able to know where to
access the advice to signpost them to a position where they can
claim those benefits. For example, the front-line services grant is
one way of ensuring that those organisations that can signpost
people have the means to do so.
|
|
[144]
Ann Jones: Okay, I’m in a fairly good mood, and David Rees
has promised he’s going to be very brief.
|
|
[145]
David Rees: It will be brief, Chair.
|
|
[146]
Ann Jones: Thank you.
|
|
[147]
David Rees: John Griffiths asked the question as to the
accountability of the Welsh Government to ensure that its
strategies and policies are delivered. As you answered earlier on
to one of my questions, some of those are deliverable by local
authorities, and local authorities may face their electorate in
five years. Now, surely it’s the responsibility of the
Government to ensure that you don’t wait five years for an
authority to face its responsibilities? If you’re finding
that authorities are not delivering or there are challenges and
they are creating more challenges for those poor areas, will the
Welsh Government take action, because it is important that—.
The RSG is based upon a needs base but we’re not always
ensuring that the local authorities are also distributing on a
needs base. So, how are you going to ensure that and how will you
take action?
|
|
[148]
The First Minister:
The difficulty is getting the balance
between local autonomy and driving forward Government objectives.
That balance has traditionally been achieved via the RSG providing
the autonomy and specific grants providing the means by which
particular policy objectives can be taken forward. Ultimately, if
we were to start telling local authorities what they should be
providing locally at that level of detail, it does take away that
local autonomy, which councils are responsible for and are
answerable for. I would want to see, obviously, every local
authority in Wales provide the level of services that it can. These
are tough financial times. We all know that— ourselves as a
Government and local authorities—but it is hugely important
that local authorities do look to provide the widest service that
they can across the communities that they represent.
|
|
[149]
Ann Jones: Okay, I’m going to move on to the poverty and
work section. I’ve got Nick Ramsay, Jayne Bryant and Dai
Lloyd in this section, and Mike Hedges now as well. So,
Nick.
|
|
[150] Nick Ramsay: Thanks, Chair. First Minister, in terms of poverty
and work, the Government can’t do everything to reduce
poverty; the private sector has to play a role as well. How are you
working with anchor institutions, particularly in the city region
areas of Wales, to help develop their procurement procedures? And,
leaving aside the role of hospitals and education providers and
other publicly funded areas in terms of medium-sized local
businesses—and I’m thinking of businesses such as
hotels, for instance, in towns in my constituency—those have
been pretty badly or are badly hit by the business rate
revaluation. I know that will come up in the topical questions, but
that’s the situation at the moment. Those companies are
responsible for procuring a large amount of local goods, employing
a large number of local people and keeping the economy of our local
areas going round. So, are you concerned about the effect of the
business rate revaluation on them, and what advice are you going to
give them to make sure that they carry on being those anchor
procurement centres at the heart of local economies?
|
|
[151] The First
Minister: Having seen the headlines in some of the papers with
regard to what’s happening in England this morning, I
certainly wouldn’t want to see that happening here. Yes,
there are some businesses that are seeing increases in their
business rate—we know that—but the revaluation exercise
is cost neutral. Those who may see an increase clearly are
concerned and I understand that. Those who are seeing a decrease
are quiet—it’s in the nature of these things. Well, of
course, the announcement has been made on business rate relief, and
certainly I hope that that provides some comfort for those
businesses who will see increases.
|
|
[152] On in-work
poverty, we know that intervention can only take us so far, but
that doesn’t mean, of course, that we should sit back and do
nothing. We know that work is the most sustainable route out of
poverty. We know that in-work poverty is becoming a bigger part of
the picture, so work is not always enough, which is why we talk
about better jobs closer to home. We do have a strong relationship
with the private sector, and we are working with them to tackle
that hugely important issue. Promoting the adoption of the living
wage and responsible working practices are hugely important. We
will soon publish a code of practice on ethical employment in
supply chains, and that will contain a range of commitments
encouraging organisations to adopt fair employment practices,
including the Living Wage Foundation’s living wage, and
we’re continuing to explore what more we can do.
|
|
[153] In terms of
working with the anchor institutions, again, we have a good
relationship with them. We are progressing to pilots, which are two
different methods of procurement policy interventions. The first
pilot is focused on uniform and clothing made in Wales for the
public sector. The second is focused on signage—buying signs
and looking to support those jobs in Wales that manufacture signs;
that’s quite a big business, of course, given the need for
them. So, procurement and ethical procurement is something that
we’re very much working towards, and that code of practice
will be published soon. And, of course, we’ll continue to
work with private sector employers to make sure that they
understand how important the living wage is.
|
|
[154] The Deputy
Presiding Officer: Okay, thank you. Jayne.
|
|
[155] Jayne
Bryant: Thank you, Chair. As the population ages, we know
there’ll be a need for more carers, and that’s not just
those carers caring for loved ones who are unpaid, but those in the
care sector. Those who work on the front line are often on minimal
rates of pay, typically with no guaranteed working hours. Do you
see social care as a priority sector for Welsh Government
employability work, and how can we support the social care
workforce so that they feel valued, skilled and rewarded for their
essential work, but also, crucially, so that it’s seen as a
worthwhile career for carers in the future?
|
|
[156] The First
Minister: Hugely important, we know that. We know that the
sector has not historically been the one that offers the highest
paid jobs—we understand that—where there have been
recruitment issues in the sector, and where a fair percentage of
the workforce is from other countries. But we do recognise the
importance of the care sector not just in terms of what it delivers
as a service, but to the economy as a whole. I know that both the
Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure and the Cabinet
Secretary for Health, Well-being and Sport have asked officials to
look at how we might make a bigger contribution to supporting the
development of the social care sector in Wales. The Lift programme,
for example, was launched in 2014. I asked Ministers to see how
that programme could support key sectors, and a key commitment was
made at that time to provide training and employment opportunities
in the social care sector. And, indeed, by the end of last year,
253 training and employment opportunities have been taken up by
Lift participants in the social care sector.
|
|
[157] Finally, the
Communities4Work innovation fund does provide an investment of
£1.7 million to help Communities4Work participants and,
obviously, one of the projects that has been taken forward is
‘Step into Care’. That’s specifically targeted at
unemployed young people, offering them the chance to find a job in
the social care sector. So, yes, it’s important that the jobs
are made available, but of course we will continue to press the
importance of the living wage in the sector as well.
|
|
[158] Ann
Jones: Okay, thank you. Briefly on this.
|
|
[159] David
Rees: Just on that point, yesterday there was a list of
companies that were identified as not meeting those levels of
minimum wage to their employees, and there were several in Wales,
and some of them were in the care sector. What can you do to ensure
that companies such as those don’t get contracts from
publicly funded bodies, so that the people they’re
employing—and who are going to end up in poverty as a
consequence of their low wages—end up dealing with people who
will give a decent wage to people to do a decent job?
|
|
[160] The First
Minister: Well, this is where the code of practice comes in.
That’s going to be hugely important in guiding the way in
which decisions are taken, but we want to see—. We are a
living-wage employer, but we want to make sure that that is true,
eventually, of every local authority in Wales and, indeed, through
the services that they procure. It’s one thing, of course,
for a local authority itself to be a living-wage employer, but if
they are using contracted-out services, it’s important that
those services are staffed by people who are also being paid the
living wage. The social care sector is a skilled sector and an
important sector. It can’t afford to be seen as a low-cost,
low-pay sector, if we’re going to have the social care system
that we would all want to see, and that’s why we’ll
continue to push the living wage in the social care sector and
continue to provide opportunities for people to work in it.
|
|
[161] Ann
Jones: Okay, thank you. Dai Lloyd.
|
|
[162] Dai
Lloyd: Diolch, Gadeirydd, a
diolch am eich cadeirio aeddfed y bore yma. Rwy’n mynd i fynd
ar ôl yr un math o drywydd a’r un y mae Jayne Bryant
wedi bod yn sôn amdano fe. Pan fyddwn ni’n sôn am
dlodi ac yn sôn am yr arian sydd ar gael i chi fel
Llywodraeth, neu ar gael i bobl Cymru, wrth gwrs, mae’r bloc
rydym ni’n ei gael fel Cynulliad, ac wrth gwrs, rydym ni wedi
clywed am arian y loteri ac elusennau ac ati, ac, wrth gwrs, mae
yna ffrwd arall o arian rydym ni wedi clywed amdani hi hefyd, sef
budd-daliadau. Nid oes rheolaeth gennym ni dros hynny. Wrth gwrs,
mae pobl Cymru yn derbyn budd-daliadau, er nad ydy’r holl
system yna wedi’i datganoli, yn naturiol, fel yr ydych
chi’ch gwybod. Ond, o fewn hynny, mae yna wendidau, achos
rydym ni’n sôn am dlodi a gwaith, ac wedyn, wrth gwrs,
mae yna rai pobl sydd yn sâl. Nid ydyn nhw’n gallu
gweithio, ac wrth gwrs mae yna nerfusrwydd a phryderon ynglŷn
â lefel y budd-daliadau y maen nhw yn ei chael. Ac, wrth
gwrs, mae yna wastad newidiadau yn y system—nid af i i mewn
iddyn nhw rŵan—sydd yn golygu bod yna anhrefn yn aml, a
lot o oedi yn y system, a bod pobl yn dioddef tlodi achos eu bod
nhw yn sâl.
|
Dai Lloyd: Thank you, Chair, and thank
you for chairing in such a mature fashion this morning. I’m
going to look at the same sort of issue that Jayne Bryant has been
talking about. When we talk about poverty, of course, and when we
talk about the funds available to you as a Government, or available
for the people of Wales, I should say, there’s the block we
have as an Assembly, and of course we’ve heard about lottery
funding and charities, for example, but there is another funding
stream, of course, which is benefits. We don’t have any
control over that. Of course, people in Wales receive benefits,
although, of course, benefits are not devolved, as you’re
aware. But there are weaknesses in that regard, because we talk
about work and poverty, and there are some people who are unwell
and are therefore not able to work, and there is a nervousness and
concern there about the level of benefits that they receive. And of
course, there are always changes in the system—I won’t
go into that now—which mean that there is often confusion and
a lot of delay in the system, and people are in poverty because
they are unwell.
|
|
[163]
Ar ben hynny, mae pryderon
ynglŷn â’r sawl sydd yn gofalu, yn enwedig
gofalwyr sydd yn oedolion ifanc. Hynny yw, mae’r ffaith eu
bod nhw yn gorfod gofalu am aelodau eraill o’r teulu ddim yn
eu galluogi nhw, felly, i fynd allan i weithio. Mae hwythau hefyd
yn cwympo rhwng dwy stôl, felly, ac mae yna nifer o esiamplau
tebyg, wrth gwrs, ac nid yw lefel y budd-daliadau wastad yn ddigon
uchel. Y cwestiwn cyntaf ydy: pwy yn eich Llywodraeth chi sydd yn
gweiddi ar ran y bobl yma, sydd yn dioddef ar sail system sydd ddim
wedi’i datganoli yn y bôn, ond mae yna anghyfiawnder
yna sydd wedyn yn esgor at dlodi?
|
In addition to that, there are concerns about
carers, especially carers who are young adults. The fact that they
have to perform caring duties in relation to other members of their
families doesn’t enable them go out to work themselves. They,
too, are falling between two stools, and there are many other
similar examples, and the level of benefits, perhaps, is not high
enough. The first question is: who in your Government is advocating
for these people who are suffering because of, ultimately, a
non-devolved system, but where there is injustice that leads to
poverty?
|
|
[164]
Y Prif Weinidog:
Wel, Carl Sargeant fel Gweinidog sydd â’r prif
gyfrifoldeb, ond rŷm ni’n gwybod bod pobl wedi colli mas
o achos y ffaith bod budd-daliadau wedi cael eu torri. Rŷm
ni’n gwybod bydd incwm sawl teulu yng Nghymru yn cael ei
dorri o achos hynny. Chwe chan miliwn o bunnoedd y flwyddyn yw
canlyniad y toriadau sydd wedi digwydd lan i nawr, ac wrth gwrs,
rheini sydd yn ennill y lleiaf sydd yn cael eu bwrw y mwyaf. Fe
welsom ni hyn, wrth gwrs, gyda’r treth ystafell wely yn
enwedig, lle roedd pobl yn colli arian er nad oedd dewis gyda nhw
ynglŷn â lle roedden nhw’n byw.
|
The First Minister: Well, Carl Sargeant
is the Minister with lead responsibility in this area, but we do
know that people have lost out because of benefit cuts. We know
that the incomes of many families in Wales will have been cut as a
result of that. The total figure is £600 million per annum,
and it’s those earning least who are hardest hit in these
cases. We saw this, of course, with the bedroom tax particularly,
where people were losing money although they had no option in terms
of where they actually live.
|
|
[165]
Rŷm ni’n moyn
sicrhau—. Ac mae’n wir i ddweud, i rai bobl, nid yw
gwaith yn opsiwn. Mae hynny’n iawn, ond mae’n rhaid i
Lywodraeth y Deyrnas Unedig, felly, ystyried eu sefyllfa nhw, gan
ddeall nad yw rhai pobl yn gweithio ond eu bod nhw’n
gweithredu gwasanaeth sydd yn safio arian i’r system
gyhoeddus, o achos y ffaith eu bod nhw’n gofalu am rywun.
Felly mae’n rhaid sicrhau bod y system budd-daliadau yn
cydnabod y ffaith bod hynny yn digwydd, gan nad yw’n gwneud
hynny nawr.
|
What we want to do—. It is true to say,
of course, that for some people, work simply isn’t an option.
That’s true to say, but the UK Government, therefore, has to
consider the position of those people. They must understand that
some people don’t necessarily work, but they do provide a
service that saves money to the public purse because of their
caring responsibilities. We must therefore ensure that the benefits
system recognises that, as it doesn’t do so at the
moment.
|
|
[166] Dai
Lloyd: Yn bellach
i hynny, gan fynd ar ôl pwynt
yr oedd Jayne wedi’i grybwyll eisoes, roeddem ni’n
sôn yn fanna am ofalwyr answyddogol o fewn y teulu, ond, wrth
gwrs, mae’r sector gofal cymdeithasol ei hun hefyd yn cael ei
danariannu. Gallem ni fod yn sôn yn nhermau’r cyflogau
sydd ar gael ac ati, ond, yn y
bôn hefyd, achos efo fy het fel meddyg teulu rŵan, rwyf
yn ymwybodol iawn ein bod ni’n hollol ddibynnol yn y
gwasanaeth iechyd ar y sector gofal cymdeithasol. Os ydy
hwnnw’n ddiffygiol, neu mae yna ormod o fylchau yn lleol,
mae’n tanseilio ein gwaith ni yn y gwasanaeth iechyd, a bydd
mwy o bobl yn gorffen lan yn yr ysbyty ac mae yna oedi hir cyn i
chi ddod allan o’r ysbyty wedyn achos nid yw’r gofal ar
gael yn y gymuned. Ar ddiwedd y dydd, mae’n system gymhleth
pan fyddwch chi’n gweithredu fel elusen neu fel cwmni preifat
neu yn statudol i ddarparu gofal cymdeithasol. Ond, ar ddiwedd y
dydd, nid oes jest dim digon o arian yn y sector gofal
cymdeithasol. Nawr rwy’n gwybod bod pobl yn dweud nad yw e
cweit mor syml â hynny ond, yn y bôn hefyd, mae o mor
syml â hynny achos beth sy’n digwydd ydy rydych
chi’n disgwyl i elusennau yn enwedig ond hefyd cwmnïau
bach preifat ddarparu gofal cymdeithasol lle nad ydyn nhw’n
gallu fforddio gwneud hynny ac maen nhw’n mynd i’r wal
yn gynyddol. Rydym ni wedi gweld cwmnïau elusennol yn enwedig
yng Nghymru yn mynd i’r wal dros y misoedd diwethaf achos nid
yw lefel yr arian sydd ar gael i’w digolledu nhw am eu
gwasanaeth yn ddigon i ddarparu gwasanaeth a chario ymlaen i
weithredu fel hynny. Felly, ar ddiwedd y dydd mae yna angen dybryd
i gael mwy o arian yn y sector gofal cymdeithasol. Nid wyf yn
gwybod sut ydych chi fel Llywodraeth yn gallu wynebu’r her
sylfaenol yna.
|
Dai Lloyd: Further to that, and going
after a point that Jayne has already mentioned, we were talking
there about unofficial carers within the family, but, of course,
the social care sector itself is also underfunded. We could talk in
terms of the salaries that are available, and so on, but the fact
is that, if I put my GP hat on for a moment, I’m very aware
that we are very dependent in the health service on the social care
sector. If there are deficiencies there, or too many gaps on a
local level, it undermines our work in the health sector, with more
people ending up in hospital and great delays then before you come
out of hospital because the care isn’t available in the
community. At the end of the day, it’s a complex system when
you’re operating as a charity or a private company or on a
statutory basis to provide social care. But, at the end of the day,
there just isn’t enough money in the social care sector. Now
I know people say that it’s not quite that simple but,
actually, it is that simple because what happens is that you expect
charities especially but also small private companies to provide
social care where they can’t afford to do so and they go
bankrupt very easily. We’ve seen charities going bankrupt
over the last few months in Wales because the level of funding
available to pay for their services is not sufficient to provide
the service and carry on operating as they do. So, at the end of
the day, there is a desperate need to have more funding in the
social care sector. I don’t know how you as a Government can
face that basic challenge.
|
|
12:30
|
|
|
[167]
Y Prif Weinidog:
Mae’n anodd o achos y ffaith
rŷm ni wedi gweld toriadau mor fawr yn dod o San Steffan. Er
hynny, wrth gwrs, rŷm ni’n gwybod bod taliadau y pen yng
Nghymru, neu faint o arian sy’n cael ei hala yng Nghymru ar
ofal cymdeithasol, yn fwy y pen nag yn Lloegr. Ond mae yna heriau,
rwy’n deall hynny. Mae yna heriau ynglŷn â’r
sector ei hunan. Rydym ni, wrth gwrs, fel Llywodraeth wedi rhoi
addewid ynglŷn â faint o arian bydd pobl yn gallu cadw
cyn eu bod nhw’n gorfod talu at gostau gofal cymdeithasol eu
hunain. Ond hefyd mae yna broblem strwythur fan hyn. O siarad gyda
rhai pobl sy’n gweithio yn Ysbyty Treforys, maen nhw’n
delio gyda saith system wahanol, mwy neu lai, o ofal cymdeithasol.
Mae’n rhaid i hynny newid. Wel, rŷm ni’n gwybod
nad yw ail-strwythuro awdurdodau lleol yn mynd i ddigwydd ond
mae’n hollbwysig—a bydd hwn yn rhywbeth sy’n
orfodol ta beth—bod cynghorau lleol yn gweithio gyda’i
gilydd er mwyn gweithredu un gwasanaeth, sy’n ei gwneud
hi’n rhwyddach i’r ysbyty. Maen nhw’n gallu
sicrhau bod y gwasanaeth yn fwy cadarn yn y pendraw a dyna’n
gwmws beth rydym ni eisiau ei wneud, sicrhau—er bod yr
awdurdodau yn mynd i aros fel awdurdodau—bod gwasanaethau yn
cael eu gweithredu ar lefel ranbarthol yn y pendraw ac nid ar lefel
sy’n rhy fach i sicrhau bod y gwasanaeth yn ddigon cadarn i
weithredu drwy’r amser.
|
The First Minister: It is difficult
because of the fact that we have seen such major cuts coming from
Westminster. But, of course, we do know that per capita payments in
Wales, or the amount spent in Wales on social care, is greater per
capita than in England. But there are challenges, I understand
that. There are challenges in terms of the sector itself. We, as a
Government, of course, have made a pledge in terms of how much
money people will be able to keep before they have to start paying
for their own social care costs. But there is a structural problem
here too. In speaking to some people working in Morriston Hospital,
they’re dealing with seven different systems of social care,
more or less. That has to change. We know that there is going to be
no restructuring of local authorities but it is crucially
important—and this will be something that is mandatory any
way—that local authorities do collaborate in order to deliver
a single service, which makes things easier for the hospital. They
can ensure that the service is ultimately more resilient and
that’s exactly what we want to do, ensure—although the
local authorities will remain in place as local
authorities—that services are delivered at a regional level
ultimately, not at a level that’s too small to ensure that
the service is resilient and robust enough to provide an effective
service.
|
|
[168] Ann
Jones: Okay. Thank you. Mike Hedges.
|
|
[169] Mike
Hedges: Would you agree, First Minister, that the wider problem
with poverty in Wales is the balance of the Welsh economy? Example:
ICT, according to the Office for National Statistics, shows us
performing at roughly half that of which we should if we were
common to the rest of Britain. We know ICT is something that can
move anywhere geographically, even to Simon Thomas’s rural
areas mentioned earlier, though it does have a tendency to cluster.
I’ve seen the success of the Welsh Government’s life
sciences programme, which has dragged Wales up in terms of that
high-performing sector. What I’m asking is: will the First
Minister look at doing the same thing for ICT as has been done for
life sciences, because that would have a dramatic effect in getting
people out of poverty?
|
|
[170] The First
Minister: Yes. I mean, broadband is key to this. To me,
superfast broadband is the equivalent of the railway lines in the
nineteenth century. I’ve said that before. If you’re
connected, you’re connected to a market. Twenty years ago,
people had no choice but to move if they were going to work in ICT.
Now that isn’t the case across many parts of Wales. People
can live almost anywhere in Wales and yet still be able to do the
job that they would want to do. We know the market wouldn’t
have delivered that, but we know there are many, many businesses
who are wholly dependent on having that broadband speed in order
for them to function, otherwise they’ll move to a more urban
area, which is the last thing that we want to see. What we find
with investors particularly is that they don’t look at Wales
necessarily, they’ll look at a particular part of Wales. With
Aston Martin it was St Athan or somewhere else in the world. It was
never going to be anywhere else, because St Athan had the building,
they were content that they could get the skills that they needed.
We couldn’t say to them, ‘Well, can you look somewhere
else instead?’ That’s not the way it worked. At the
heart of it, there are two things: first of all investors say,
‘Can you guarantee that there’s a skills pipeline? Will
we get the people we need?’ It’s harder to be able to
reassure them in a rural area than an urban area. We can do it, but
it’s a harder task, because they’ll say, ‘Well,
there are fewer people here, there are fewer graduates, and, so, as
a result—and, as a result, will we get the people we
need?’ We can do it, because we can give them other examples
of other businesses like them who have managed to do that.
|
|
[171] Secondly,
it’s a matter of targeting people who are at the time of
their life when they want to move. It’s very difficult to
persuade people in their twenties and thirties to move to a rural
area. The older they get, the more likely they are to want to move,
and so we are able to draw people who are perhaps—you know,
they might’ve left Wales years ago and want to come back and
live and want to come back and work in Wales, and we can give them
the opportunities to do that. But at the heart of it is the digital
infrastructure. If rural Wales were thought of as a place where the
infrastructure was rickety, where broadband speeds weren’t
fast enough, then that just makes rural Wales unattractive as a
place to invest, which is why we’ve invested so much in
Superfast Cymru, so that we can say, ‘Actually, the digital
infrastructure in rural Wales is as good as you’re going to
get anywhere in Europe, and that’s why you can base yourself
in many places in rural Wales, because you’ve got the
infrastructure around you’.
|
|
[172]
Mike Hedges: But a lot of ICT—the great products—are
literally things like Hewlett-Packard, which grew out of
somebody’s garage in California. It really is about growing
these indigenously ourselves. We’ve done really well with
life sciences and I think that people generally accept the Welsh
Government’s success in that area. What I’m looking for
is the same sort of growth out of ICT as well, which could give the
same push to getting people out of poverty.
|
|
[173]
The First Minister:
The big change in the past decade has
been the willingness of our young people to be more innovative.
They’ve always been innovative, but have never really been
encouraged to be so. We’re seeing amongst young people a far
greater sense of confidence to take an idea forward and to develop
it as a business. What we’re not yet in a position to do is
to persuade all of them that, if they’ve set up in business
and they’ve failed, it’s not somehow a judgment on
them. What I found in California, particularly in Silicon Valley,
is that many of the tech businesses there that are successful are
run by people who actually set up businesses before, maybe two or
three times, and the businesses failed, but it’s not seen as
a badge of shame, if I can put it that way. In California—.
Chapter 11 helps in America, in terms of the bankruptcy laws, but
what I found there was, if you set up in business and it
didn’t work out, you learnt from it, you moved on. People
weren’t saying ‘told you so’. Bottling a bit of
that and bringing it back is what we need to do and we are seeing
signs of it amongst young people who don’t fear that they
will be judged if they set up a business and, through no fault of
their own, the business doesn’t work out, and then have the
confidence to start again, try again, and eventually succeed.
There’s a cultural difference that exists in that part of
California, for example, that we need to be able to push more in
Wales.
|
|
[174]
Ann Jones: Russell George.
|
|
[175]
Russell George:
There’s a high level of businesses
that are finding it difficult to recruit people with the right
skills. We know we’ve had poor PISA results; we know we need
to do better in education. But in regard to how Government can
support pupils from deprived backgrounds to be trained in the
skills that employees need—so, this is linking the skills
that employees need with attainment for those from deprived
backgrounds and how they’re going to support that.
|
|
[176]
The First Minister:
In terms of school, the pupil deprivation
grant has helped with that, as, to an extent, has Schools Challenge
Cymru, but, for many young people, their ability to access skills
will be shaped by their ability to access further education. In
order for them to access that, they need to be sure that
they’re going to be supported, which is why we kept the
education maintenance allowance. There are so many young people who
are in further education who are there because the EMA provides
them with the means to stay there and to acquire the skills that
they need.
|
|
[177]
So, there are two ways to approach this:
firstly, ensuring that young people are financially supported to
stay in FE, and, secondly, of course, to make sure that further
education colleges do provide the skills that are required. And
they have a good record of doing that. I well remember, not long
after I became First Minister in 2009, going to Coleg Menai where
they were, at that point, setting up courses to ensure that local
youngsters had the skills that were needed by the nuclear industry,
even though Wylfa B was still many years away—they had that
foresight. So, we know that FE colleges, working with employers,
are absolutely key to making sure that, when there is a potential
investment—perhaps some years hence—that local people
have the skills to get the jobs, and also in terms of working with
Government to identify areas where there are skills shortages to
make sure that people have those skills in the future.
|
|
[178] Ann Jones: Okay.
I’m going to draw this part of the agenda item—which is
only agenda item 2, let me tell you all, in case we—to a
close. Then, I’m going to move on and allow 20 minutes
now for topical issues.
|
|
12:38
|
|
Sesiwn Graffu ar y Gweinidog: Materion Amserol a
Phynciau o Bwysigrwydd Lleol
Ministerial Scrutiny
Session: Topical Matters and Key Issues of Local Importance
|
|
[179] Ann Jones: I have four topical questions,
and then there are some local issues that Members have wanted to
raise as well. So, we’ll take those in. There are a couple of
issues, though, First Minister, on the poverty that we’ve
received from some stakeholders that we would like to write to you
on, which we will discuss when we send our report to you. So, if we
could do that, that would be good. So, we’re going to move on
to the topical matters now. As I say, I’ve got four Members
that have indicated. I’m going to try and do this in the same
way—. The First Minister probably feels he’s being
questioned all—but I’m going to try and do it based on
how we do it in the Chamber with questions to the First Minister.
So, we’re not going to ramble on. We’re just going to
try and do the four questions quite quickly.
|
|
[180] The First
Minister: Is that aimed at me, Chair?
|
|
[181] Ann
Jones: Sorry?
|
|
[182] The First
Minister: Was that aimed at me? [Laughter.]
|
|
[183] Ann
Jones: Is it at this point where the Chair usually says,
‘If the cap fits, wear it’? But, no, I won’t on
this occasion. I’ll be very good. So, I’ve got four
questions. I’m going to start with Mark Reckless. So,
we’re going to Mark Reckless, Russell George, and then Simon
Thomas has got two.
|
|
[184] Simon
Thomas: They are linked.
|
|
[185] Ann
Jones: They are linked, but we’ll have them as two. And
then we’ve got some local issues around—. Nick,
you’ve got one on the rail franchise. Jayne, you’ve got
one on transport, unless it’s—.
|
|
[186] Jayne
Bryant: It’s been answered.
|
|
[187] Ann
Jones: It’s been answered. That’s fine. So,
we’ve only got one from Nick Ramsay, on transport, on the
rail franchise. So, Mark Reckless, if you can take the first one,
then.
|
|
[188] Mark
Reckless: First Minister, when you argued in favour of the
legislative consent motion for what’s now the Wales Act, you
said that it was a balanced decision, with arguments both ways. One
of the key arguments you made in favour of the Wales Bill becoming
an Act was that the Sewel convention would become incorporated in
law, as was the case in Scotland, and that would give us
significant protection for devolved powers. Has that plank of your
argument been struck away by the Supreme Court judgment as goes to
this area?
|
|
[189] The First
Minister: Well, the Supreme Court said that it wasn’t a
legal issue but it was constitutionally important and a fundamental
part of the constitution. So, if, for example, the Sewel convention
is ignored in the future, then that is a very serious
constitutional issue. At the heart of this, of course, is the fact
that Parliament is sovereign and can do, effectively, what it
wants. So, from the Supreme Court’s point of view, they would
see it, legally, as, ‘Well, actually, because Parliament is
sovereign, this can’t be a justiciable issue of
itself’. But, for me, it’s hugely important that, where
the Sewel convention is enshrined in an Act of Parliament,
it’s respected by Parliament.
|
|
[190] Mark
Reckless: But wouldn’t you have expected the Supreme
Court to ultimately enforce the law? I thought you were emphasising
a distinction between Sewel being merely a convention for us, but
being enshrined in law for Scotland. Hasn’t the Supreme Court
said, ‘Actually, that distinction isn’t valid’,
in the way I think perhaps you’d emphasised in the LCM
vote?
|
|
[191] The First
Minister: It hasn’t gone as far as I would have hoped,
no, is the answer. I would have hoped that the Supreme Court would
have recognised that Sewel is a law that should be respected. They
haven’t gone that far. Nevertheless, the fact that Sewel is
enshrined now in the Wales Act does give it greater weight, but,
no, not the weight that I would have expected when the LCM went
through.
|
|
[192] Mark
Reckless: Thank you.
|
|
[193] Ann
Jones: Okay. Russell George on business rates.
|
|
[194] Russell
George: Yes. Thank you, Chair. Members received a statement
this morning with regard to the targeted high street rates scheme
for 2017-18. That was very welcome. I have to say that I did read
it on the media first. So, there is an issue here of significant
announcements being made, I think, to the Senedd rather than
through embargoed press releases, but, all said, I welcome the
statement this morning. Now, many businesses were significantly, of
course, affected by the revaluation, in particular areas
significantly. So, I want to know who is going to define
‘high street’, because that’s mentioned in the
statement today. Because I’ve got cases where businesses that
I would regard as just off the high street have been significantly
affected. So, is that definition going to be decided by Welsh
Government or by local authorities? I’ll also say that I very
much welcome the additional funding and the statement, but is there
going to be significant time to allow local authorities time to
plan and implement a scheme in time for 1 April?
|
|
[195] The First
Minister: Local authorities have known that this has been
coming for a while. So, this won’t come as a surprise to
them. The use of the term ‘high street’ is not meant to
apply to a street, or, in particular, one street. Clearly, what
we’re looking to do is to help small businesses to deal with
increases, if they’ve had those increases, but we
wouldn’t seek to define in every part of Wales exactly where
the high street lies in a particular town. Rather, it’s aimed
at a particular type of business that may have seen increases in
business rates.
|
|
[196]
Russell George:
I’m grateful for that. And to know
exactly who it is targeted at—. I certainly had a town
council contact me this morning and they have been significantly
affected by the revaluation. So, are they are going to be able to
be helped? And also, if I can specifically ask, just for clarity:
are all businesses with a rateable value of under £50,000
that have had an increase in their rateable values going to be
eligible for support from the scheme?
|
|
[197] The First
Minister: Well, the detail of the scheme will be made clear. We
have said—we have offered the value of the scheme.
We’ve given an indication of what the scheme is designed to
do. But the detail will become available over the next few
weeks.
|
|
[198] Russell
George: Okay.
|
|
[199] The First
Minister: I understand that the detail needs to be made
available as quickly as possible.
|
|
[200] Ann
Jones: Okay. The first of your two, then, Simon.
|
|
[201]
Simon
Thomas: Diolch, Gadeirydd. Mae’r ddau gwestiwn yn amserol ac yn
lleol, felly gobeithio bod hyn yn addas. Dros y ffordd o ble rydym
ni ar hyn o bryd, mi welwch chi arwydd yn dweud ‘Canolfan Yr
Egin’, safle a chartref i S4C, sy’n dod i dref
Caerfyrddin, ond mae’n gynllun ehangach na jest S4C. Nawr,
mae pobl y dref, wrth gwrs, a phobl y gorllewin yn gyffredinol yn
edrych ymlaen yn eiddgar i weld S4C yn symud yma, ond mae’r
cynllun ei hunan yn rhan o gynllun ehangach o ddatblygiad gan
y coleg a thu mewn i gynllun dinas-ranbarth bae Abertawe yn
ogystal. Mae’n siŵr y byddem ni wedi gweld ar y
newyddion pe baech chi wedi dod i Gaerfyrddin gyda cyhoeddiad ar Yr
Egin—byddwn ni wedi clywed erbyn hyn. Felly, nid ydw
i’n disgwyl ichi wneud cyhoeddiad. Ond a ydych chi mewn
sefyllfa i ddweud ym mha ffordd y bydd y Llywodraeth yn ystyried
cefnogi a sicrhau bod Yr Egin yn dod i fodolaeth? Hefyd, a ydych
chi mewn sefyllfa i warantu na fydd yna gwtogi ar wariant arall gan
y Llywodraeth ar wasanaethau neu gefnogaeth i’r Gymraeg er
mwyn talu am Yr Egin?
|
Simon Thomas: Thank you, Chair. I have
two questions that are timely and local, so I hope that’s
suitable. Across the way from where we are now, you will see signs
saying ‘Canolfan Yr Egin’, which is the new home for
S4C when it comes to Carmarthen, but it’s a wider plan than
just for S4C. Now, of course, the people of the town, and the
people of west Wales in general, are looking forward very much to
see S4C moving here, but the plan itself is part of a wider plan as
a development by the coleg and the Swansea bay city region, of
course. I’m sure that we would have seen on the news if you
had come to Carmarthen with an announcement on the Egin—we
would have heard by now. So, I’m not expecting you to make an
announcement today. But are you in a position to tell us in what
way the Government will consider supporting the Egin to make sure
that it does come into existence? And also, are you in a position
to guarantee that there will no cutting down on other funding from
the Government on support for the Welsh language in order to pay
for the Egin?
|
|
12:45
|
|
[202]
Y Prif Weinidog:
Rwy’n cofio pan roedd hyn yn
cael ei drafod gyda fi. Y rheswm pam roedd Caerfyrddin wedi cael ei
dewis oedd o achos y ffaith— dyna beth cafodd ei ddweud
wrthyf i—na fyddai cost o gwbl i’r pwrs cyhoeddus. Nawr
wrth gwrs, mae’r sefyllfa wedi newid. Mae’n rhaid i mi
ddweud, roeddwn i wedi cefnogi cais ynglŷn â Dyffryn
Aman, achos y ffaith yr oeddwn i’n meddwl ei bod yn
hollbwysig i fynd i rywle lle’r oedd y Gymraeg o dan bwysau
difrifol. Ond yr ateb oedd, ‘Wel, mae Caerfyrddin yna,
mae’r safle yna, nid yw’n mynd i gostio dim byd’.
Mae hynny wedi newid. Nawr, mae yna drafodaethau yn cymryd lle ar
hyn o bryd rhwng y brifysgol, a hefyd swyddogion, ac felly
mae’r trafodaethau yn dal i barhau, ond, wrth gwrs, rydym
ni’n gobeithio bod mewn sefyllfa cyn bo hir lle mae’r
sefyllfa hon yn gallu cael ei datrys. Nid y coleg a ddywedodd hyn,
mae’n rhaid imi fod yn glir; nid y brifysgol a ddywedodd
hynny wrthyf i, ond S4C ei hunan.
|
The First Minister: I recall when this
was discussed with me. The reason Carmarthen had been chosen was
because of the fact that there would be no cost to the public
purse. That’s what I was told. And now, the situation has
changed, of course. I have to say, I had supported a bid put in for
the Amman valley, because I thought it was very important that it
went to an area where the Welsh language was under serious
pressure. But the answer was, ‘Well, Carmarthen is there, the
site is there, it’s going to be cost neutral’. But the
situation has now changed. Negotiations are ongoing with the
university and the officials, but we hope to be in a situation
before too long when this situation can be resolved. And may I say
it wasn’t the university that told me this? It was S4C
itself.
|
|
[203] Simon
Thomas: Sori, ni chlywais i
hynny.
|
Simon Thomas: Sorry, I missed that.
|
|
[204]
Y Prif Weinidog:
Nid y brifysgol a ddywedodd wrthyf i
na fyddai cost pan roedd y trafodaethau hyn yn cymryd lle, ond S4C
ei hunan.
|
The First Minister: It wasn’t the
university that told me that it would be cost neutral during the
negotiations; it was S4C itself.
|
|
[205]
Simon Thomas:
A gaf i jest fod y glir, felly? A
ydych chi fel Llywodraeth, mewn egwyddor, yn dal i gefnogi’r
syniad o symud S4C allan o Gaerdydd i Gaerfyrddin?
|
Simon Thomas: Could I just to be clear
then, please? Are you as a Government, in principle, still
supportive of the idea of moving S4C out of Cardiff to
Carmarthen?
|
|
[206]
Y Prif Weinidog.
Ydyn, mewn egwyddor.
|
The First Minister: Yes, we are, in
principle.
|
|
[207]
Simon Thomas:
Diolch yn fawr. Mae’r ail
gwestiwn yn dilyn o hynny. Un o’r rhesymau rydym ni eisiau
S4C yn rhywle fel Caerfyrddin yw i roi swyddi da i bobl leol, ac i
fod yn rhan o’r ymgyrch yr ydych chi wedi’i gyhoeddi
fel Llywodraeth o greu miliwn o siaradwyr Cymraeg erbyn 2050.
Rwy’n croesawu hynny’n fawr iawn. Ond mae eisiau
creu’r economi sy’n gallu cynnal y cymunedau hynny lle
mae’r Gymraeg yn cael ei siarad. Ar 3 Awst y llynedd, 2016,
roedd eich Aelod Cynulliad chi dros Lanelli hefyd yn
croesawu’r ymgyrch hwn i greu miliwn o siaradwyr Cymraeg, ac
fe ysgrifennodd e yn y Llanelli Star ar y diwrnod
yna:
|
Simon Thomas: The second question is
following on from that. One of the reasons we would like to have
S4C in somewhere like Carmarthen is to give good jobs to local
people, and also to be part of the campaign that you have announced
as a Government to create a million Welsh speakers by 2050. I
welcome that very much. But we do need to create the economy that
can which can sustain those communities in which Welsh is spoken.
On 3 August 2016, your Assembly Member for Llanelli also welcomed
this campaign to create a million Welsh speakers, and he wrote in
the Llanelli Star:
|
|
[208] ‘In
practice this involves converting schools that currently have Welsh
and English language streams running side-by-side, into
Welsh-medium schools.’
|
|
[209]
Rydw i’n cytuno’n llwyr
gyda fe. Dyna’n gwmws, wrth gwrs, y mae Cyngor Sir Gâr
wedi ei wneud mewn ffordd hollol ddemocrataidd yn achos Ysgol
Llangennech. A ydych chi bellach mewn sefyllfa i roi eich
cefnogaeth y tu ôl i’r amcanion o droi ysgol
Llangennech o ysgol ddwy iaith gyda dwy ffrwd i mewn i ysgol
cyfrwng Cymraeg?
|
I agree completely of course with that. And
that’s exactly what Carmarthenshire County Council have done
in an extremely democratic way in the case of Ysgol Llangennech.
Are you now in a position to give your support to those objectives
of turning Ysgol Llangennech from a dual-stream school into a
Welsh-medium school?
|
|
[210]
Y Prif Weinidog:
Nid ydw i’n beirniadu’r
penderfyniadau y mae’r cyngor sir yn eu gwneud. Beth
sy’n fy nhrwblu i ynglŷn â Llangennech yw bod
rhwyg wedi digwydd yn y gymuned a phethau wedi cael eu dweud nad
ydym ni wedi eu clywed ers blynyddoedd mawr. Mae hynny’n
rhywbeth sy’n fy nhrwblu i’n fawr iawn. Ni fyddwn
i’n moyn gweld hynny’n digwydd eto. Felly, yn
strategol, wrth gwrs, rydym ni’n gefnogol o’r iaith
Gymraeg, ac yn gefnogol o’r cynlluniau strategol y
mae’r awdurdodau lleol yn eu creu, ond mae’n hollbwysig
i sicrhau bod cynghorau yn gwneud eu gorau glas er mwyn sicrhau bod
pawb yn y gymuned yn deall yn gwmws beth sy’n digwydd. Ond
nid ydw i’n credu y byddai unrhyw un yn moyn gweld yr un peth
yn digwydd eto mewn unrhyw gymuned arall yn Nghymru â beth
sydd wedi digwydd yn Llangennech ynglŷn â’r rhwyg
sydd wedi digwydd yn y gymuned ei hunan.
|
The First Minister: I don’t
criticise the decisions taken by the county council. But what
troubles me about Llangennech is that there has been a split in the
community and some things have been said that we haven’t
heard for very many years. And that is something that I find very
troubling indeed. I wouldn’t want to see such a situation
happening again. So, strategically, of course, we are supportive of
the Welsh Language and are supportive of the strategic plans drawn
up by the local authorities, but it is crucial to ensure that
councils do their very best in order to ensure that everyone in the
community understands exactly what is happening and why. I
don’t think anyone would want to see the same thing happening
again in any other community in Wales, in terms of the split that
has happened in the community itself.
|
|
[211]
Simon Thomas:
Rydw i’n cytuno’n llwyr
bod rhwyg wedi digwydd, ac mae yna bobl benodol wedi bod yn corddi
er mwyn creu rhwyg, ac mae’n anffodus iawn gweld hynny. Ond
onid ydych chi’n dweud wrth gynghorau lleol dros Gymru i
gyd—? Mae yna faterion tebyg yn sir Powys, er enghraifft, er
mwyn creu ysgolion Cymraeg. A ydych chi’n dweud wrthyn nhw,
‘Rŷm ni’n hoff iawn o’r strategaeth;
rŷm ni’n moyn 1 miliwn o siaradwyr Cymraeg, ond os
gwnewch chi benderfyniad amhoblogaidd yn lleol, ni wnawn ni ddim
eich cefnogi chi’?
|
Simon Thomas: I agree, of course, that
there has been a divide in the community, and some people have been
very keen to create that sort of division, and it is very
unfortunate to see that. But don’t you tell all councils
across Wales—? Similar things have happened in Powys, for
example, where people want to create Welsh-medium schools. Are you
telling them, ‘We’re very happy with the strategy and
we want 1 million Welsh speakers, but if you make a decision that
is unpopular locally, then we won’t support you’?
|
|
[212]
Y Prif Weinidog:
Wel, na. Mae’n rhaid cofio
hefyd fod yna rôl gyfreithiol fan hyn gan Lywodraeth Cymru.
Mae’n bosib, lle mae yna benderfyniad yn cael ei wneud gan
gyngor lleol, y bydd yna rôl felly i
Weinidogion—
|
The First Minister: Well, no. We must also bear in mind that the
Welsh Government has a legal role here. It is possible that, where
a decision is taken by a local authority, there is a role, then,
for Ministers—
|
|
[213]
Simon
Thomas: Mae’r rôl yna wedi diflannu. Mae’r rôl
yna wedi diflannu o dan y Ddeddf Addysg (Cymru) 2014 a aeth drwyddo
pan oedd y Cadeirydd yn rhan o’r pwyllgor bryd hynny.
Mae’r rôl bellach wedi diflannu.
|
Simon Thomas: That that role has
disappeared. That role disappeared under the Education (Wales) Act
2014 that went through when the Chair was on the committee at that
time. The role has now disappeared.
|
|
[214]
Y Prif Weinidog:
Rwy’n
gefnogol o’r egwyddor o sicrhau bod yna fwy o lefydd ar gael
drwy gyfrwng y Gymraeg ar draws Cymru. Rwyf hefyd yn deall bod
penderfyniadau yn gorfod cael eu gwneud, weithiau, mewn rhai
rhannau o Gymru lle mae’r iaith o dan bwysau mawr. Ond y
pwynt rwy’n ei wneud yw: fe fyddwn i’n gobeithio, yn y
pen draw, na fyddai’r sefyllfa yn codi eto lle mae pethau yn
cael eu dweud mewn ffordd nad ydym wedi gweld ers y 1970au. Nid ydw
i’n gweld yr iaith yn rhyw fath o bêl-droed
gwleidyddol—nid oes neb yn. Felly, byddwn i’n gobeithio
na fydd y sefyllfa yn Llangennech yn codi eto, ond nid ydw
i’n beirniadu'r awdurdod lleol ynglŷn â’r
penderfyniad y maen nhw wedi’i wneud.
|
The First Minister: I’m supportive of the principle of ensuring that there are more places
available for Welsh-medium education over the length and breadth of
Wales. I also understand that decisions do sometimes have to be
made in some areas of Wales where the Welsh language is under huge
pressure. But the point I would make is this: I would hope,
ultimately, that a situation wouldn’t arise where things are
said in a way which we haven’t seen since the 1970s. I
don’t see the Welsh language as a political football, and I
don’t think anyone else does either. No-one does. So, I would
hope that the situation in Llangennech wouldn’t arise again,
but I don’t criticise the local authority for the decision it
took.
|
|
[215]
Ann Jones: Okay, thank you. Nick Ramsay.
|
|
[216]
Nick Ramsay: Thanks, Chair. First Minister, rail services in
Carmarthenshire are predominantly provided, currently, by Arriva
trains. The same is true in my neck of the woods in south-east
Wales. Can you update us as to where we are with the franchise
situation and the future approaching handover, whatever operator it
may be? On Tuesday in First Minister's questions, I asked you if
any preliminary work had been done on the rolling stock side of
things, and although I’m in many ways repeating that
question, I wasn’t quite clear by your answer on
Tuesday.
|
|
[217]
You said that the issue of rolling stock
will be predominantly for the new franchise, and whilst I
understand that, my question on Tuesday was: given that it take
four years to bring on line new rolling stock, if that is left
totally to the start of the new franchise date, then it’s
going to be some considerable time before any new rolling stock
comes on line, and that’s clearly not what people are
expecting when that handover happens. So, could you be clear
again—what exactly do you envisage being the situation with
rolling stock with that new franchise? Are we going to be looking
at refurbished carriages, which then could be in use for a
considerable length of time? That’s not going to be the fresh
start that people are expecting, is it?
|
|
[218] The
First Minister: We’ll have the
franchise from next year. The tendency has been to use 40-year-old
carriages that have been mildly refurbished in order to run the
services. That’s not acceptable in the future. It can’t
happen in the future, of course, because the traction methods will
be different across different parts of the network. Heavy rail will
be there. There will be some light rail in the future, potentially.
Some of it will be electrified; some of it won’t. So,
actually, it won’t be possible to run one particular item of
rolling stock across the entire network. The difficulty is this:
whether we say to a potential franchisee, ‘You’ve got
to invest now, but actually, in a couple of years’ time,
you’re going to need different vehicles’. Potentially
it could be done through a leasing system, that’s true, but
the intention is, when the franchise begins, that we then, at that
point—at the very latest, at that point—have new
rolling stock that reflects the different traction methods that
will be used to propel that rolling stock along different part of
the network. So, yes, we’re not talking here about a
franchise that sticks with diesel. It’s becoming increasingly
more difficult to actually procure diesel trains, because it seems
a fairly elderly technology by now. Dual-mode trains are available.
So, there’s bound to be new rolling stock—not just
because part of the system will be electrified and there will be
different systems in place along the south Wales metro, but because
we want to see better rolling stock anyway.
|
|
[219]
Nick Ramsay: Can I just—?
|
|
[220]
Ann Jones: Very briefly, then, yes.
|
|
[221] Nick Ramsay: Very briefly. I fully understand, and I think
you’ve clarified a lot of what I asked on Tuesday. Are you
prepared, then—once this handover happens, once we have the
new franchise in place—that there are going to be
pretty tight negotiations and timescales with the new companies to
make sure that these new types of transport are available pretty
quickly?
|
|
[222] The First
Minister: They know this already. They know that there will be
changes in the franchise. There is a process that has to be
respected and, obviously, we’ll respect that process.
We’ve got very experienced people working on this from our
perspective. We’re looking at the not-for-profit model.
We’ve been prevented by the UK Government from looking at a
public sector arm’s-length body running the franchise, even
though Scotland can. We’ve moved away from the bizarre
scenario that was being suggested a year or so ago that trains
would have to stop at Welsh stations so people could change onto
English trains, which made no sense at all. That, fortunately, has
disappeared. At one point, the Department for Transport was saying
only services that terminated and began in Wales could form part of
the franchise. That would have taken out every single service north
of Merthyr except the Conwy valley line. That never made any sense
and we’ve moved on from that. But the underlying objective of
the franchise is to deliver better services and better rolling
stock. It’s one thing to have a service; it’s another
thing to have a service that’s pleasant to actually travel
on. Of course, in some parts of Wales we’re looking more
towards a metro system to deliver through a mixture of transport
modes, using a mixture of different methods of traction.
|
|
[223] Ann
Jones: The final and last topical question is from John
Griffiths.
|
|
[224] John
Griffiths: As Brexit continues to unfold, First Minister, it
strikes me that one of the real gains from devolution has been the
profile of Wales in the wider world and the extent to which Wales
has become connected more strongly to the wider world. Lots of good
things have happened in terms of Wales’s presence in the
world: Wales for Africa and much else. But quite a lot of our
relationships with other countries are through the UK’s
membership of the European Union and some of the structures that
exist. I just wonder if, in preparing for Brexit, Welsh Government
is looking at that connectedness and those relationships and to
what extent can they continue Wales’s relationship with the
European Union and European Union countries post Brexit, and what
sort of structures might help.
|
|
[225] The First
Minister: Some of the structures are European but they’re
not based on EU membership. As has been said before, we’re
not leaving Europe: we’re leaving the EU. The issue that
I’m wrestling with at the moment is: how do we now look to
increase our presence in Europe? We’ve been running our
investment team from Brussels for the whole of Europe. That’s
not going to be possible to do in the future. We have to look at
strategic cities in Europe where we have to base people. The
challenge for us always, given the resources that we have, is: do
you look to increase numbers in an existing office or do you put
one person in a new office? It’s a challenge that we’ve
talked to Ireland about, because they have a similar challenge, but
on a greater scale, being a sovereign state. We do look to work
closely with UKTI and that relationship works very, very well, but
there are some cities in the world where it’s hugely
important to have a Welsh Government representative because they
are able to form their own relationships with both Government and
businesses in that country. If we look at North America, North
America has been completely reorganised. I wanted to make sure that
North America was run from Washington. The presence in Washington
has been increased. That means we’ve got stronger
intergovernmental links there. We have a Friends of Wales caucus in
Congress that’s been very useful for us in terms of the
political links. Then we have our offices in New York, Chicago, San
Francisco and Atlanta. The next question is: where do we go next?
Canada doesn’t have an office at the moment. Do we look at
Canada? Do we look at other cities? But what we find—and what
we’re going to find with Brexit—is that we’re
going to have to work harder in Europe and have a presence in many
cities in Europe that we haven’t had a presence in for some
time, otherwise we get forgotten about.
|
|
[226] The profile of
Wales has never been higher. I’d like to say it’s to do
with Welsh Government entirely, but the Euros helped that. The
Euros were a tremendous way of selling Wales around the world and
the amount of publicity we’ve had off the back of that and
interest in people coming to Wales has been phenomenal. What I will
say to people is—. They say, ‘Well, what’s
changed in Wales?’ Well, we’ve got the Champions League
final coming in June. We would never have had that in a month of
Sundays pre devolution, because nobody would have been around to
push for it. No-one would have bid for it, in reality. No-one would
have provided the support for us to host an event of that size.
It’s the biggest single event we’ll ever have hosted in
Wales. It’s challenging. We’ll get there, but Cardiff
is the smallest city that’s hosted it. We are now able to
host some of the world’s biggest events in a way that, 20
years ago, would have been unthought of. And that all helps in
terms of Wales’s profile. It shows we’re able to host
these big events and it creates interest in Wales. What I’ve
always said is that if people have never heard of you,
they’re not going to visit you. If they’ve never heard
of you, they’re never going to invest. But if people have
heard of you, they’re going to say, ‘Well, I might want
to go to Wales. Let’s go there, as a tourist, spend money,
stay in a hotel, go to a restaurant,’ and some of those
people will look to invest in the future. So, that profile is
hugely important in terms of creating jobs in future.
|
|
13:00
|
|
[227] Ann
Jones: Okay. Well, it’s spot on one o’clock, so can
I draw this very public meeting to a close? Can I thank you, First
Minister, and your official, for your answers? It was a very, very
wide-ranging topic, and I’m sure we’ve only just
scratched some of the surface, although you may think that
we’ve gone in depth into some areas. As you know, we will
send a copy of the transcript to you, but also there are a couple
of issues that we will probably want to write to you on as well,
raised among the local issues. So, if that’s acceptable,
we’ll do that. Thank you very much for your attendance.
|
|
[228] I’d like
to thank the public as well. You’ve been a really good
audience, and we’re not used to having the public so close to
us in our new building, so you sometimes forget. But thank you very
much, and I hope you’ve enjoyed it and have been able to see
some of the ways that we work in your Assembly on your behalf.
|
