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.
[8]
Ann Jones: Okay. Well, thanks very much. We’ll go into
some questions, then, first off. The first set of questions, then,
from David Rees. David.
|
[9]
David Rees: Thank you, Chair. Good morning, First Minister.
The programme for government actually has four cross-cutting themes
in it. ‘Prosperous and secure’ is one of them, and it
links into perhaps a lot of the other issues. But the economy is
critical, I think, to move forward on tackling all these issues.
You’ve indicated that you will be pressing ahead with your
commitments in full following the decision to leave the EU, but
we’ve also seen changes happening because perhaps the
presidential election in America puts a focus on America looking
inwards rather than outwards, and being protective more than being
supportive of global economies. How do you see the Welsh Government
tackling the issues that are going on globally, which seem to be
creating more inward-looking aspects in their economies and less
attraction to inward investment elsewhere? Because you’ve got
two areas of the economy: sustain what we’ve got and bring
new in. Some of what we’ve got is struggling. We’ve
seen it before in your own patch, having some concerns, and
we’ve seen elsewhere losing some jobs. So, how are you going
to prioritise those two aspects?
|
[10]
The First Minister: Well, we plan to continue to spread the
message that Wales is open for business. That’s important.
We’ll continue to have our representation in the US and other
important markets and continue to ensure that the voice of Wales is
heard loud and clear. That said, the world is as uncertain as
I’ve ever known it in all my years in politics. We
don’t know what our final relationship will be with the
European market. We don’t know what view the US will take,
whether it will become almost autarchic in the way that it sees
itself in the future, or whether the words that were used in the
campaign trail were simply words. Now, at this moment in time,
it’s hugely difficult to know what view the US will take
about its international commitments, about its attitude to trade,
and until we know that there is bound to be some uncertainty. We
will continue with what’s been successful for us up until
now, and emphasising the message that Wales is an attractive place
for US companies to do business.
|
[11]
David Rees: Based upon the uncertainty of Brexit, and
unlikely to understand what the trade arrangements will be for at
least two years probably—outside—is it more important
that you focus upon ensuring that what you’ve got already in
place is sustained, so that we keep the economy as we have at the
moment going forward, and add to that quietly?
|
[12]
The First Minister: I went to the US in August. Every single
business that I spoke to said to me that they wanted certainty,
that they weren’t prepared to look at extra significant
investment at this stage until they knew whether they could access
the European market, which, for them, is the most important market,
via their bases in the UK. So, I think the fairest analysis I can
give is that things are on hold, as far as the US investors are
concerned, until they know what kind of relationship the UK will
have with the EU. For many of our investors, the fact that they are
in Wales means that they’re able to access that much larger
market than the UK is, and they want to have an idea fairly soon
about what the UK will be looking for in any final trade deal. I
think it’s also worth emphasising that the UK Government
needs to look at what needs to be done to bridge any gap that might
be between the ending of the article 50 process and a more lasting
sustainable settlement to avoid going off the edge of a cliff and
then having to climb back up it when a lasting solution is found. I
think it is hugely difficult to imagine a scenario where, within
two years of a date, there is a comprehensive arrangement between
the UK and the EU. I think that would be a world record in terms of
getting that done in that amount of time. So, there is a need to
think about what the transitional arrangements might be, whilst
respecting, of course, the result of the referendum.
|
[13]
David Rees: So, will your Government’s focus be on
supporting and developing indigenous businesses at this point in
time until you know that there’s certainty?
|
[14]
The First Minister: It’s become very difficult to
attract investment from other countries—more difficult than
it was—because of the uncertainty. We are still working hard
to attract that investment, and indeed investment from within the
UK, to come into Wales. Yes, we are looking, as we always have
done, to assist Welsh businesses. Some of them are not dependent on
export markets. Many of them are. Again, they’re saying,
‘Well, we need to have an idea of what’s happening with
the European market so that we know what the nature of that trading
relationship will be’. There is no need, to my mind, for us
to lose free and unfettered access to the single market as we leave
the EU, as long as we are clever enough, as a country, to get the
right deal.
|
[15]
David Rees: Just one final one. On that basis, then, clearly
some of those trade deals are down to the UK Government negotiation
as part of the exit process. What discussions are you having
perhaps, as a nation, with partners in Europe to look at how you
can actually work together during this time and perhaps post Brexit
as well?
|
[16]
The First Minister: Well, the major difficulty for us is not
knowing at this stage what the UK Government’s view is.
I’ve read about Scotland looking at alternative arrangements.
I don’t think they’re realistic, if I’m honest. I
can’t see how Scotland can have an alternative relationship
with the European market compared to the rest of the UK without
there being some kind of customs controls at the border. So, I
remain to be convinced that that’s possible. Certainly, at
the moment, the European Union has taken the view that this is a
negotiation with the UK and that’s it. We’ll continue
to explore what possibilities there might be, but, ultimately,
it’s for the UK Government to decide what it sees as the most
important thing. Is it access to the single market or is it control
over immigration? You can’t have both. A balance needs to be
struck between what will be acceptable and in the UK’s
interests in the future.
|
[17]
Ann Jones: Okay?
|
[18]
David Rees: I’ll keep quiet now.
|
[19]
Ann Jones: No, no; it’s all right. I’ll just
adjust my thoughts now. Simon, on the Well-being of Future
Generations (Wales) Act 2015.
|
[20]
Simon Thomas:
Ie. Bore da. Os caf i droi at yr
arweiniad yr ŷch chi’n ei ddangos gartref, fel
petai—yn ddomestig—wrth gyhoeddi’r rhaglen
lywodraethu, fe ddywedasoch chi, ac rwy’n dyfynnu, bod eich
blaenoriaethau:
|
Simon Thomas: Yes. Good morning. If I
could now turn to the leadership that you’re showing
domestically, or closer to home, in publishing your programme for
government, you said, and I quote, that your priorities:
|
[21]
‘yn cael eu llunio a’u
datblygu yn unol ag egwyddorion arweiniol Deddf Llesiant
Cenedlaethau’r Dyfodol’.
|
‘will be
shaped and developed according to the guiding principles of the
Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act’.
|
[22]
Mae’r Ddeddf llesiant honno,
wrth gwrs, wedi arwain at gyhoeddi nodau cenedlaethol yn fwy
diweddar. Ym mha ffordd ŷch chi’n meddwl eich bod yn
dangos arweiniad drwy gyhoeddi nodau cenedlaethol ar ôl
cyhoeddi cyllideb ddrafft, ac ar ôl cyhoeddi rhaglen
lywodraethu? Onid yw hynny yn rhoi’r cart o flaen y
ceffyl?
|
That Act, of course, has led to the
publication of national goals and objectives more recently. So, how
do you think that you are showing leadership by publishing those
goals after publishing the draft budget and the programme for
government? Isn’t that putting the cart before the horse?
|
[23]
Y Prif Weinidog:
Wel, na, achos mae’r Ddeddf ei
hunan wedi ein harwain ni ynglŷn â beth yr ydym ni
wedi’i wneud yn y gyllideb ei hunan. Os ydym ni’n
edrych ar rai o’r pethau yr ydym ni’n eu symud ymlaen:
y metro, mae hwnnw’n rhywbeth, wrth gwrs, sy’n mynd i
sicrhau bod cymunedau wedi cael eu cysylltu; sicrhau bod yna ddigon
o staff yn y tymor hir yn y gwasanaeth iechyd—rydym ni wedi
gwneud hynny ynglŷn â’r ymgyrch sydd gyda ni i
ddenu mwy o feddygon i mewn i Gymru—ac, wrth gwrs, beth yr
ydym ni’n mynd i’w wneud, gyda chefnogaeth Plaid Cymru,
i sicrhau mwy o addysg feddygol yng Nghymru hefyd.
|
The First Minister: Well, no, because
the Act has led us in terms of what we’ve done in the budget
itself. If we look at some of the things that we’re moving
forward: the metro, that’s something that’s going to
ensure that communities are connected; ensuring that there’s
enough staff in the long term in the health
service—we’ve done that in terms of the campaign that
we have to attract more doctors into Wales—and, of course,
what we’re going to do also, with the support of Plaid Cymru,
to ensure more medical education in Wales as well.
|
[24]
Mae’n bwysig, wrth gwrs, hefyd
sicrhau bod gyda ni gymunedau sydd yn gallu wynebu’r dyfodol.
Dyna pam, wrth gwrs, rydym ni wedi cadw Flying Start a sicrhau bod
cyllideb Cefnogi Pobl, Supporting
People, wedi aros. Ynglŷn ag integreiddio a chysylltu
cymunedau, wrth gwrs—sicrhau nid dim ond bod y metro yna yn
un rhan o Gymru ond hefyd 20,000 mwy o dai newydd er mwyn sicrhau
bod cymunedau yn ffeindio bod yna ddyfodol iddyn nhw.
Gweithio gyda’n gilydd, a
ffeindio ffyrdd newydd o weithio gyda llywodraeth leol yn enwedig,
er mwyn sicrhau eu bod nhw’n gallu gweithio gyda’i
gilydd i weithredu yn well na beth sydd wedi bod yn wir lan i
nawr—. Dyna
enghreifftiau o ble mae hwn wedi digwydd.
|
Of course, we have to ensure that we have
communities that can face the future. That’s why we’ve
kept Flying Start and ensured that the Supporting People budget has
remained. In terms of the integration of communities—ensuring
not only that the metro is in one part of Wales but building more
houses to ensure that communities find that they have a future.
Working together, and finding new ways of working with local
government to ensure that they can collaborate to act and operate
better than what has happened thus far—. So, those are
examples of where this has happened.
|
[25]
Ynglŷn â’r Ddeddf ei
hun, wrth gwrs, nid yw’r Ddeddf eu hun yn rhywbeth sydd dim
ond yn Ddeddf ac wedi hynny bod dim byd yn digwydd ar ôl
hynny. Mae’r Ddeddf ei hun wedi’i gwau drwy waith y
Llywodraeth yn gyfan gwbl, a dyna rai enghreifftiau o le mae hynny
wedi digwydd.
|
In terms of the Act itself, it isn’t
something that is only an Act and then nothing happens afterwards.
The Act itself has been interwoven into the Government’s
work, and those are some examples of where that’s
happened.
|
[26]
Simon Thomas:
Mae’r pethau yr ydych yn
sôn amdanyn nhw—y metro, addysg feddygol ac adeiladu
tai fforddiadwy—ie, mae rhai o’r ffigurau wedi newid,
ond i fod yn onest, roedd y rhain i gyd yn cael eu trafod cyn
i’r Ddeddf yma ddod i rym. Felly, os yw hi wir yn cael ei
gwau drwyddo, ac os yw hi wir yn dylanwadu ar y gyllideb, a fedrwch
chi roi enghraifft go iawn o rywbeth gwbl ffres a newydd yn y
gyllideb, neu yn rhaglen y Llywodraeth sydd wedi deillio o’r
ffordd newydd o feddwl yr ydych chi i fod i’w dilyn nawr yn
ôl y Ddeddf?
|
Simon Thomas: The issues that you
mention—the metro, medical education and building affordable
homes—yes, some of the figures have changed, but, to be
frank, all of those were being discussed before this Act came into
force. Therefore, if it’s truly interwoven throughout
Government activity and truly influences the budget, can you give
us a concrete example of something totally fresh and new in the
budget or the programme for government that has emerged from the
new mindset that you’re supposed to have in place following
the Act?
|
[27]
Y Prif Weinidog:
Gallwn ni ystyried, wrth gwrs, beth
oedd ym maniffesto Plaid Lafur Cymru yn ystod yr etholiad ei hun,
a’r addewidion a roesom ni yn y maniffesto hwnnw. Roedd y
rheini wedi cael eu siapio wrth ystyried beth oedd goblygiadau'r
Ddeddf ei hun, sef edrych ar ffyrdd o helpu pobl i gael triniaeth
well a helpu pobl i gael mwy o hyfforddiant ynglŷn â
chael swyddi yn y pen draw. So, pan wnaethom ni ystyried, fel
plaid, beth yn gwmws fyddai’r addewidion yn yr etholiad,
roedd hynny’n cael ei wneud yng nghefndir y Ddeddf ei
hun.
|
The First Minister: We could consider
what was in the manifesto of the Welsh Labour Party during the
election itself, and the commitments that we put in that manifesto.
Those were shaped considering what the implications of the Act
were, namely looking at ways to help people to have better
treatment and help people to have more training for jobs,
ultimately. When we considered, as a party, what exactly those
commitments would be in the election, it was done against the
backdrop of the Act.
|
[28]
Simon Thomas:
A oes lle i wella?
|
Simon Thomas: Is there room for
improvement?
|
[29]
Y Prif Weinidog:
Rŷm ni wastad yn gwrando. Mae
yna raglen gyda ni. Mae’n hollbwysig ein bod ni’n gallu
gweithredu ar y rhaglen honno, ond, wrth ddweud hynny, wrth gwrs,
rwyf wedi dweud sawl gwaith nad oes monopoli gan un blaid yn y lle
hwn ar syniadau, a dyna pam rŷm ni’n agored, wrth gwrs,
i weithio gyda phleidiau eraill er lles pobl Cymru.
|
The First Minister: We’re always
listening, of course. We have a programme, and it’s important
that we can implement that programme. But, in saying that,
I’ve said several times that no party in this place has a
monopoly on wisdom, and that’s why, of course, we’re
open to working with other parties for the benefit of the people of
Wales.
|
[30]
Ann Jones: Okay, Lynne.
|
[31]
Lynne Neagle: Thank you, Ann. There’s a lot of
emphasis in ‘Taking Wales Forward’ on the need to use
existing community structures and resources and on promoting
community involvement and ownership, yet one of the first things
that’s happened has been the decision that the Minister is
minded to phase out Communities First. How do you see that process
fitting with the aims in the programme for government, particularly
in relation to the need to tackle child poverty?
|
[32]
The First Minister: Building resilient communities is hugely
important to us—it’s one of the seven well-being goals
in the future generations Act. We have to make sure that, when we
look at helping communities and individuals, we have the most
effective programme possible. Communities First has been around for
a long time—it’s time for it to be refreshed. I know
that the Cabinet Secretary had said he’s minded to phase it
out, but we want to make sure that what we replace it with is
better and more far-reaching. We know that Communities First has
been successful in helping communities, but we also know that there
is poverty within communities that don’t qualify for
Communities First. It’s being able to help people who live in
those communities that has to be important as well.
|
[33]
We want to listen to what people have to say. We want engagement
with not just organisations but people across the length and
breadth of Wales. The intention is to make sure that we have a
programme that is refreshed and a programme that, having learnt
from the experience of Communities First, is broader and more
targeted for the future.
|
[34]
Lynne Neagle: Thank you.
|
[35]
Ann Jones: Do you want to follow up?
|
[36]
Lynne Neagle: If I could just ask one very quick
supplementary, then, obviously, there is an enormous amount of good
practice that’s been developed—I know not
everywhere—so, what will the Government’s plan be to
actually ensure that that good practice is retained, including in
those communities that have benefited from the programme?
|
[37]
The First Minister: Absolutely. As part of the engagement
process, we wanted to know—well, we know—where some of
the good practice is and to find out what else is working and
incorporate that into what we do in the future. We don’t want
to lose that.
|
[38]
Ann Jones: Okay. John.
|
[39]
John Griffiths: Just to build on that, briefly, First
Minister, some of the community centres in Communities First areas
are particularly dependent on the programme. They’re not
delivering some of the programmes that will continue, like Lift and
Communities for Work, but they are very valuable to their local
communities. So, could you assure the committee and myself that, in
this process of consultation, those particular community centres
and what they deliver will be carefully considered in deciding the
way forward?
|
09:15
|
[40]
The First Minister: Yes, of course. Where they are
effective, we want to retain them. So, as the approach to building
resilient communities changes we don’t want to lose the
expertise or the facilities that have been built up and have been
successful in helping communities.
|
[41]
Ann Jones: Okay? Shall we move on, then? Huw, on the Wales
Bill and cross-party agreements.
|
[42]
Huw Irranca-Davies: First Minister, could I ask you, first
of all, what assessment you’ve made of the impact of the
Wales Bill on the future programme of the Welsh Government?
|
[43]
The First Minister: Well, one example is the Trade Union Act
repeal Bill, which, as things stand at the moment, sits—we
believe—within our competence, but may sit outside our
competence when and if the Wales Bill is passed in its current
form. That’s meant that we’ve had to bring that forward
quickly as a priority. Beyond that, there’ll be the usual
challenges of seeing a change in the Assembly’s competence
half way through the Assembly term. That’s manageable. I
don’t see a difficulty with that, but we have to wait and see
what the shape of the final Bill is.
|
[44]
Huw Irranca-Davies: Okay. And, on that, I know you
can’t give a running commentary, but what do you make of the
concessions made so far? What more are you looking for, either in
policy terms or in fiscal terms?
|
[45]
The First Minister: They’re helpful. The first thing
we have to understand, to my mind, is that this is not a Bill that
will settle the issue of the devolved settlement in Wales. There
will be outstanding issues that will have to be returned to, such
as the jurisdiction, such as policing, things like air passenger
duty. So, this is a step forward potentially, but it can’t be
a solution that is sustainable. But that is, unfortunately, the
history. I regret that, but that’s the history of devolution
in Wales. The concessions that have been made are helpful.
There’s still some work to be done. The fiscal framework will
need to be agreed before any consideration can be given to
supporting a legislative consent motion, for example, in the
future, but I think it’s fair to say that the UK Government
have listened in some areas. They still can’t get their head
around the issue of the jurisdiction or of policing—
|
[46]
Huw Irranca-Davies: Well, can I just ask you on that?
Because it’s interesting that the letter went out on the
eleventh of this month to the Lords, from Lord Bourne. It was quite
interesting that he wrote to peers—and I’ve had a good
look at the letter. He says, and I quote, ‘The Welsh
Government has agreed to support the group’—this
legislative reform group. Is that right, now, that it has the full
backing of the Welsh Government? Because it seemed to me that you
were in quite a different position previously, that you wanted
something that was more rigorous to look at this issue of distinct
jurisdiction, or separate jurisdiction, or at least to look at the
reform. The letter implies that you’re foursquare behind this
working group.
|
[47]
The First Minister: No. We’re happy to be a part of
it. Just to explain the history of it, the first meeting took
place, to which Welsh Government officials were not invited,
despite what the letter says.
|
[48]
Huw Irranca-Davies: The letter does say that.
|
[49]
The First Minister: The letter says that. That’s not
correct. A letter went out on 14 July, which I’m prepared to
share with members of the committee, that emphasises the confusion
that existed over whether officials had been invited or not. My
view of the group is that it’s wholly inadequate for the
purpose that it is intended to serve. We’re prepared to play
a part in it, but there’s nobody on it from Wales. There are
Wales Office officials. Those who are involved in
justice—none of them are from Wales at all. So, the question,
then, I have to ask is: ‘Well, what exactly is this group
meant to achieve?’ But better to be in, looking at what
it’s doing, than outside at this moment in time. But, from my
perspective, what is hugely important is that a justice in Wales
commission is set up. Our view is that it should be statutory. The
UK Government’s view is, at the moment, as we understand it,
that it should be non-statutory, but there’s no getting away
from the fact that what we will have in the future is confusion. We
will have the only jurisdiction anywhere in the world that
I’m aware of where there are two sets of laws applying and
two legislatures. It’s confusing for professionals. We
already have examples of lawyers arguing the wrong law because
they’re in Wales. It’s particularly confusing for
members of the public. More and more litigants in person are
appearing before the courts because they can’t get legal
representation. It means that courts are slowing down, but, for
them, it makes it even more difficult to access the right law as it
applies in Wales. The fact that there’s still a single
jurisdiction confuses the matter even more.
|
[50]
Huw Irranca-Davies: Well, that’s crystal clear: that
you’re in disagreement with that letter that went out on
substantial issues, and also on the way forward as well. Could I
just ask one final question? Cross-party working seems to me a
leitmotif now of this early stage of the Assembly. There is a
parliamentary review that has been set up into health and social
care in Wales, which is part of agreements with Plaid Cymru. Do you
see this as being an ongoing approach within the Assembly’s
working, that reaching across? What influence will that have on the
shape of the forward programme of government?
|
[51]
The First Minister: Hugely important. I see the arithmetic
of the Assembly. There’s never been a situation where any
party has had a majority and the culture is different here,
compared to, for example, in Westminster, where there was a
coalition where they spent most of their time arguing with each
other. Here, we have developed the tradition of scrutiny, of
course, but also of working cross-party where there are common aims
and objectives. I think that’s what members of the public
would expect us to do. At the end of the day, they are far more
open to cross-party working than perhaps some in politics are. But
for me, it’s hugely important that we do reach out and work
together for common goals where we can agree them.
|
[52]
Ann Jones: Simon, you wanted to come in.
|
[53]
Simon Thomas:
Jest ar y pwynt yma: o’r hyn
rydych wedi ei ddweud wrth Huw Irranca-Davies, rwy’n cymryd
nad ydych eto’n barod i gefnogi LCM ar gyfer Bil
Cymru.
|
Simon Thomas: Just on this point: from
what you’ve said to Huw Irranca-Davies, I take it that
you’re not yet ready to support an LCM for the Wales
Bill.
|
[54]
Y Prif Weinidog:
Mae hynny’n iawn. Nid ydym mewn
sefyllfa i wneud hynny.
|
The First Minister: That’s
correct. We’re not in a position to do that.
|
[55]
Simon Thomas:
Ai’r fframwaith cyllidol yr
ydych chi’n aros amdano cyn eich bod mewn sefyllfa i
benderfynu ar hynny?
|
Simon Thomas: So, is it the fiscal
framework that you’re waiting for before you’re in a
situation to make a decision?
|
[56]
Y Prif Weinidog:
Mae hynny’n un peth. Mae
hynny’n hollbwysig. Nid oes modd cytuno ar unrhyw beth heb
fod y fframwaith hwnnw wedi cael ei gytuno, ac mae Llywodraeth y
Deyrnas Unedig yn deall hynny. Maent wedi dweud hynny wrthyf fi
sawl gwaith. Mae yna sawl peth ynglŷn â’r pwerau
sy’n gorfod cael eu datrys. Rydym yn mynd i ddechrau proses
yr LCM o achos y ffaith bod yn rhaid i’r broses honno
ddechrau er mwyn bod y Cynulliad yn gallu pleidleisio arno fe ym
mis Ionawr. Ond nid yw hynny’n meddwl ar hyn o bryd, wrth
gwrs, ein bod ni’n fodlon cefnogi’r LCM heb wybod yn
gwmws beth fydd yn y Mesur ei hunan.
|
The First Minister: That’s one
thing. That’s crucially important. We can’t agree
anything unless that framework has been agreed and the UK
Government understands that. They’ve told me that on a number
of occasions. There are a number of things in terms of powers that
will need to be resolved. We are going to start the LCM process
because that process has to start so that the Assembly can vote on
it in January. But that doesn’t mean that at the moment we
are willing to support that LCM without knowing exactly what will
be included in the Bill itself.
|
[57]
Simon Thomas:
Ond bydd y Cynulliad yn cael gweld
rhyw fath o LCM yn fuan iawn, felly.
|
Simon
Thomas: But the Assembly will,
therefore, see some sort of LCM soon.
|
[58]
Y Prif Weinidog:
Ie, dyna’r nod. Mae’n
rhaid i ni ddechrau’r broses nawr, neu ni fyddwn yn barod i
wneud hynny ym mis Ionawr. Felly, rydym yn mynd i ddechrau’r
broses ar y sylfaen without prejudice, gan ddweud,
‘Reit, mae’n rhaid i ni ddechrau’r broses’
ond wrth gwrs, nid oes penderfyniad eto ynglŷn â beth
fydd y safbwynt terfynol ynglŷn â’r Mesur ei
hunan.
|
The First Minister: Yes, that’s
the aim. We have to start the process now or we won’t be
ready for that vote in January. So, we’re going to start the
process without prejudice and say, ‘Right, we have to
commence the process’, but of course, there’s been no
decision as of yet as to what the final stance on the Bill itself
will be.
|
[59]
Simon Thomas:
Diolch.
|
Simon Thomas: Thank you.
|
[60]
Ann Jones: Okay, thanks. Shall we move on, then? Mark, you
wanted to ask some questions around climate change.
|
[61]
Mark Reckless: First Minister, just to introduce that, in
the programme of government you’ve dropped the detailed
targets approach you used in the fourth Assembly, and I wonder: is
that because the national indicators for the well-being goals are
now the measures by which your Government should be judged?
|
[62]
The First Minister: I think that’s a fair point. We
had 538—if I remember—indicators, at least over 500.
There was some debate as to whether it was that exact
figure—too many. We were criticised for having too many
indicators for people to get a clear picture of what exactly we
were doing as a Government. We took that on board and, indeed, the
indicators are there for us to be judged against. That’s
true.
|
[63]
Mark Reckless: On climate change, speaking with Cabinet
Secretary, Lesley Griffiths, she says, notwithstanding the 36 per
cent cut in the capital budget and your prioritisation of that,
that she expects to be able to meet the climate change goals of the
Welsh Government, but there’s no plan to set any climate
change budget prior to the statutory back-stop date of the end of
2018. Is that because you’re expecting to meet your climate
change goals through the closure of Aberthaw power station, and
that other matters are relatively insignificant in comparison to
that?
|
[64]
The First Minister: No, because we know that
Aberthaw—. We want to see Aberthaw stay open. It’s an
important employer. We know that Aberthaw’s life will come to
an end naturally in the next decade in any event. We know, of
course, that industrial operations can have a major effect in terms
of emissions, Tata particularly. If Tata wasn’t there, well,
yes, our emissions would drop dramatically, but then there’d
be thousands of jobs that wouldn’t be available either. So,
getting the balance right between retaining the jobs that we have
and reducing our emissions and our carbon footprint is never easy
but, nevertheless, in the longer term we feel that we will see our
emissions drop in any event. But, no, we can’t rely on losing
industrial plant in order for carbon emission targets to be met. We
have to look, for example, at things like the metro to make sure
that fewer people feel that they have to get into their cars. We
know that transport is a significant contributor to carbon
emissions. So, no, Aberthaw is not the panacea in terms of reducing
our footprint.
|
[65]
Mark Reckless: But on transport, you are still promoting the
black route for the M4. You mentioned Port Talbot, and prior to the
referendum you were putting greater emphasis on how high the pound
was and the problems that that was leading to. Now that the pound
is so much more competitive, do you recognise that as a factor in
supporting the continuing quantity and quality of production at
Port Talbot, and do you also see it as something that you can use
to help encourage inward investors by pointing to how much more
competitive Wales has become as a base for production?
|
[66]
The First Minister: It’s true to say that the slide in
the pound has been helpful for our exporters, but they themselves
have said that we can’t rely on that in the long term. This
is a short-term advantage to exporters. But what they’re now
seeing is a rise in their input costs. If we look at Tata, for
example, they import iron ore and coal, and the price of that is
rising. So, short-term gain is inevitably balanced, if you are
importing a significant amount of raw material, by a long-term
loss. As far as Tata are concerned, they export around about 30 per
cent of what they produce—beyond Europe, some of it.
It’s hugely important that they’re able to continue to
do that. But for a lot of our exporters the boost that the drop in
the exchange rate has had for them will be balanced in the longer
term by the increase in their input costs as they import so much of
the raw material that they use to manufacture.
|
[67]
Mark Reckless: Even though the value of their output is
presumably greater than the value of their input.
|
[68]
The First Minister: At the moment, they’ve hedged, of
course. A lot of them have hedged for the long term in terms of
buying their raw materials, and once those hedges come to an end,
then of course the input costs will hit. For some industries,
that’s not so important. They don’t import much as far
as their raw materials are concerned. But for industries like Tata,
of course that will be difficult for them because of the rise in
their input costs. We don’t have coal available for them to
use as coke. We don’t have iron ore as a raw material. So,
yes, that short-term boost is important, but they know full well
that it needs more than that in order to sustain the long-term
security of the plant in Port Talbot particularly.
|
[69]
Mark Reckless: Thank you.
|
[70]
Ann Jones: Mike.
|
[71]
Mike Hedges: Very briefly, if devaluation worked, we’d
be a very successful economy. The pound’s collapsed from
something like $4.20 to the pound in 1945 to about $1.20 now. It
gives a short fillip, but do you agree it’s not a long-term
solution?
|
[72]
The First Minister: No, it isn’t. Some industries will
benefit very much in the short term, but again, we are net
importers of food; always will be, always have been. We will see an
increase in food prices, of that I have no doubt, despite the
fairly cut-throat competition that takes place amongst retailers.
We know there will be an increase in the price of fuel.
That’s obviously priced in dollars, and we’ve seen the
slide against the dollar. That’s inevitable, and that will
have an effect inevitably on distribution costs and ultimately on
costs of manufactured goods. So, at the moment, yes, it’s
true to say that our exporters have seen a better picture than when
the pound was higher, but when those input costs start to hit, it
will then balance out once again. We can’t rely on exchange
rates as a beneficial long-term tool to help Welsh industry.
|
[73]
Ann Jones: Thank you. Jayne.
|
[74]
Jayne Bryant: Thank you, Chair. Tackling health inequalities
is critical for the future well-being of the people of Wales, and
we know that poverty feeds poor health. How is this being tackled
across Government as a priority?
|
[75]
The First Minister: We are looking at refreshing the child
poverty strategy. Carl Sargeant is the lead Minister, but I have to
emphasise that I see poverty as something that is something that
the whole Government needs to approach and tackle, rather than it
sit entirely within the portfolio of one Minister. So, that’s
what we’ll be doing next; and, of course, looking at ways
that we can help to alleviate poverty by refreshing schemes such as
Communities First and looking at new approaches to make sure that
we can become even more effective. That said, of course, many of
the levers are not in our hands. We know that the recession post
2008 hit the lowest paid hardest. We know that there are too many
people who are agency workers. They’ve become self-employed
against their own desires. They’re on zero-hours contracts
and all these things. Even though they may be in employment,
actually their household income is such that they’ve gone
into poverty. One of the issues that I heard many times in May and
June was people saying to me, ‘Well, I remember when my
father’—it was ‘father’ normally, when they
were talking, or usually—‘was in the steelworks, or was
in the mines, it was a tough job, but it was well paid. There was a
pension at the end of it and it was secure. I, on the other hand,
have two or three jobs’—casual, as they would call
it—‘zero hours, no pension. Someone’s to blame
for this’. That’s the big challenge for us as a
society. Our unemployment figures are low, that much is true, but
masking that is a decline in the security of employment that people
feel very worried about.
|
[76]
Jayne Bryant: Thank you. Just quickly, we know that the
older population is growing in Wales. How do the ‘Taking
Wales Forward’ programme priorities specifically address the
challenges with an older population, both in the immediate term and
for the future generations of older people?
|
09:30
|
[77]
The First Minister: Several things. But first of all, in the
short term, it means holding steady on what we spend on health and
social services. I’ve never understood the reasoning behind
separating the two. They clearly are interlinked. That’s why,
of course, we spend 7 per cent more on health and social services
per head than is the case in England. That reflects partially the
fact that we have a slightly older population, but ultimately this
starts with improving the health of the population when
they’re young so that people’s general state of health
is good when they’re young and they keep that as they get
older. We have seen a decline in the rate of strokes and heart
disease. That’s to be welcomed. There are some areas that are
more stubborn. It’s true to say that you can’t do
everything, because of the frailty of the human body. One of the
things that was said to me was that if people take exercise in
their twenties, thirties and forties, they’re less likely to
have a stroke or heart disease but more likely to have a joint
replacement when they’re older. But better that than a
debilitating stroke, for example. So, for us, the question always
is making sure there’s enough resource to deal with current
issues and the current population whilst, at the same time, being
able to devote enough resource to longer-term health gain so that
people’s general state of health improves over the
generations.
|
[78]
Jayne Bryant: Thank you.
|
[79]
Ann Jones: Russell.
|
[80]
Russell George: First Minister, in developing questions from
David Rees earlier, what was different in your programme for
government and ‘Taking Wales Forward’ as a result of
Brexit, as opposed to the UK voting to remain in the European
Union?
|
[81]
The First Minister: The biggest issue for us is the question
mark over the European funding. We’ve had some comfort on
that with what the UK Government has said—up until
2020—but beyond that there’s nothing. We get about
£650 million a year in total in European funding. Some of
that is through convergence funding, which, it could be argued, we
wouldn’t want to qualify for in the future, but the point is
that we would have had transitional funding if we hadn’t
qualified so that we don’t fall off a cliff edge. At the
moment, there is no money to pay farmers, for example—their
subsidy payments of £260 million—beyond 2020. So,
that’s an issue. We know, with the metro, for example, that
there is £125 million of funding that is now in question.
It’s not fatal to the metro, but of course it imposes a
greater limit on what we can do as far as the ambition and speed of
the metro’s development and extension can go. So, that really
has been the main issue: what we do with a substantial loss of
finance, particularly beyond 2020.
|
[82]
Russell George: But my question was specifically: what was
different in your programme for government? Because that came about
after Brexit.
|
[83]
The First Minister: Is it before—?
|
[84]
Russell George: Your programme for government was launched
in September, and that was after Brexit. So, what I’m asking
is: what was different in your programme for government as a result
of Brexit?
|
[85]
The First Minister: Well, we intend to deliver our programme
for government. We haven’t changed the programme for
government as a result of Brexit, although we do face challenges in
terms of finances that are not yet answered. We haven’t
changed our philosophy as far as attracting inward investment is
concerned. We’ve got the message out there that Wales is open
for business. We’ve been particularly active in ensuring
that, with what we’ve launched to recruit medical staff,
people don’t feel that Wales or Britain is not welcoming to
doctors. We have an international market for doctors and we rely on
doctors from other countries to work in our NHS. We always have
done. Other countries do the same. There is no country in the
western world that’s entirely able to train its own staff and
retain its own staff. It’s an international market. So, the
programme for government remains, but of course there are issues
such as finance that will need to be resolved in the future.
|
[86]
Russell George: You said that Wales is open for business,
and you mentioned Scotland earlier on. In the SNP conference last
month, Nicola Sturgeon talked about a four-point plan to boost
trade and exports. She said that she wants to create a permanent
trade representation in Berlin, and investment hubs in Dublin and
Brussels. She also said that she wants to double the number of
Scottish Development International staff working across Europe to
support investment and trade opportunities for Scotland. So, what
plans do you have in that regard, and do you have plans to increase
staff in international Welsh Government offices?
|
[87]
The First Minister: As long as we don’t get criticised
for it. That’s the point. I have sat—. He hasn’t
done this personally, but his party has, on many occasions,
criticised us for having offices at all abroad. They have been
hugely useful for us in attracting investment. The Scots have many,
many more people on the ground than we have. I would argue,
however, that that hasn’t necessarily translated into great
success as far as investment is concerned. Yes, we will need to
boost our offices. The question for us is always this: do you boost
an existing office or do you open up a new office, possibly with
just one member of staff? The Scots might talk about opening an
office in a particular city, but it might just be one person. We
were in Dublin before Scotland; we reopened the office there and
that’s been hugely beneficial for us. But we commissioned
work from the Public Policy Institute for Wales specifically on
that point: what is the most effective way forward? Do you boost
existing offices or do you open a new office? Ireland has the same
dilemma, given its size. The way it was put to us by the Irish was,
‘The question for us is: do we double the number of staff in
a German city or do we have one person in Jakarta? How do we become
effective?’ So, that’s why we commissioned that
work.
|
[88]
We’ll continue to look at new offers in the States,
particularly. We’ve just opened Atlanta. We need to look at
whether we open another office in the States out on the west coast
or look further north in North America, possibly not in the States.
Brussels will remain; that’s hugely
important—that’s going to be one of the world’s
major markets anyway. And we’ll continue to look at where we
can best place Welsh staff.
|
[89]
Russell George:
But these issues weren’t in your
programme for government. It’s not an alternation you made to
your programme of government to do what you’ve just stated
now.
|
[90]
The First Minister:
No, it’s an ongoing programme. A
lot of staff were lost pre 2011. We’ve looked to reopen
offices that were shut then and re-employ more staff. We’ve
seen the benefits of that with the investment that we’ve been
able to attract. So, this is just a continuation of something that
we began in 2011.
|
[91]
Ann Jones: And then finally on this section, John
Griffiths.
|
[92]
John Griffiths:
First Minister, I want to return to
health and social care. In responding to Jayne Bryant you touched
briefly on health and social care issues. I’d like to hear
from you as to how the parliamentary review into the long-term
future of health and social care will shape Welsh Government policy
making for the future, including on the wider determinants of
health and ill health beyond health and social care
services.
|
[93]
The First Minister:
The intention is to have a cross-party
approach to this. That doesn’t mean that we’re looking
to avoid scrutiny or that other parties will be drawn in and not be
able to criticise where they feel they should. That’s not the
intention. But it is the intention to make sure that we have the
broadest review possible to see if we can come to some common goals
at least, without prejudice to the ability of others to scrutinise
what the Government does, of course. But that is what the review is
intended to do.
|
[94]
John Griffiths:
On the wider determinants of health and
ill health, First Minister, you mentioned physical activity and
exercise earlier and we now have the Minister for health and sport.
In terms of Welsh Government’s thinking and policy making,
will we now see a greater emphasis on physical activity to be more
preventative in tackling health issues in Wales?
|
[95]
The First Minister:
Yes. That’s the reason why sport is
specifically included in the title. I took the view that you had to
separate elite sport from community sport. Elite sport is
performance, and a lot of it has an economic drive, major events
particularly, whereas community sport is indeed about improving
people’s physical health. I wanted to make sure that, as we
talk about social prescriptions and we talk about people accessing
ways to help them that don’t include pharmaceutical
interventions—it’s hugely important, then, that sport
is seen as a part of health and improving people’s underlying
health, which is why it sits in that department.
|
[96]
Ann Jones: Okay. If everybody’s sort of
fairly—you’ve got one, and you—. I knew I
shouldn’t have looked over there. Go on then, Simon,
quickly.
|
[97]
Simon Thomas: There’s a link between what John Griffiths has
just asked and what Jayne Bryant asked earlier. You talk about the
change in services all the time, improving overall health in order
to save on the chronic services, if you like. But you haven’t
got the resources and the budget to double-run these services, have
you? You can’t continue with the sickness service, if you
like, whilst trying to put more resources into the health side of
things, because you just don’t have the resources and the
budget to do that.
|
[98]
The First Minister:
It’s true to say that the immediate
pressure comes on providing a service now, because people expect to
have a level of service and they are disappointed if they
don’t get that level of service. So, yes, it is right to say
that there is immense pressure to make sure that more resource goes
into dealing with people’s conditions now.
|
[99]
Simon Thomas: And political pressure.
|
[100]
The First Minister:
Sorry?
|
[101]
Simon Thomas: And political pressure from all parties.
|
[102] The First Minister: That’s absolutely true—absolutely true.
We see that on an almost daily basis, but that doesn’t mean,
of course, that we allocate all the resource to what I think
you’ve rightly described as a sickness services. So,
allocating sufficient resource so that we can improve
people’s health in the longer term is important, but, you
know, it can be difficult. Given the fact that demand on the health
service continues to increase, we’ve continued to put more
resource into the health service. What we have to avoid becoming is
a Government that simply looks at dealing with what is here and
now. The future generations Act tells us that we have to look at
the future and look to provide—even though we may not be able
to allocate as much resource as we would want to, given the
circumstances we find ourselves in—we have to make sure that
we allocate an adequate amount of resource to make sure that we
deal with these problems in the future.
|
[103] Ann
Jones: Well, we were going to move on to affordability, and
you’ve got a question around that, so do you want to do your
question, because it ties in, I think, where you started your
questioning?
|
[104] Simon
Thomas: Well, I think that was my kind of question.
|
[105] Ann
Jones: Was it? Oh, right.
|
[106] Simon
Thomas: I’ve got another question, however.
[Laughter.] Perhaps we’ll come back to that a little
later.
|
[107] Ann
Jones: Okay. All right, then. I was just thinking, if you
wanted to continue that theme, but, no—. Shall we move on to
affordability, then? Nick, you’ve got a question around the
new tax-raising powers.
|
[108] Nick
Ramsay: Yes. First Minister, we’re currently in the
scrutiny period of the draft budget, which, I imagine—I
know—underpins the programme for government. There are
commitments from that programme that will clearly go beyond this
budget over the next four or five-year period of this Assembly, and
yet, there doesn’t seem to be any acknowledgement or any
detail at this point about how tax powers will be used to underpin
the programme of government, even though those tax powers will be
with us in the very near future. I think that this is the last
budget we’ll be looking at, actually, that won’t
actually be within the new tax power regime. Why is there no
factoring in of the devolution of tax powers? And are you confident
that you know exactly what you’re going to be doing with
those tax powers to make sure the programme of government can be
delivered?
|
[109] The First
Minister: Well, two things: first of all, we need that fiscal
framework agreed between us and the UK Government. There has been
good progress on that, but it’s not agreed yet, and that
fiscal framework will be hugely important to make sure that Wales
doesn’t lose out as a result of the devolution of these tax
powers. I have to say that we have no plans to change the tax
rates, but what the devolution of income tax will give us is the
ability to use that revenue stream to borrow, and that, I think, is
hugely important. We have been, up until now, the only level of
government above community councils that can’t borrow
money—Northern Ireland can do it, Scotland will be able to do
it, obviously the UK Government can do it, local government can do
it. Now, these powers have to be exercised prudently. We understand
that, and I fully understand that in order to be able to borrow,
there needs to be a revenue stream, and what that will give us,
along with stamp duty—or the land transaction tax, as it will
become—and landfill disposals tax, is that revenue stream
against which we can borrow.
|
[110] Nick
Ramsay: Are you happy with the progress that’s been made
with the establishment of the Welsh Revenue Authority? We’ve
got the Welsh Revenue Authority coming down the line, we’ve
got the new Welsh treasury—is that all on track, and do you
think it’s going to be capable of delivering— Welsh
revenue authority
|
[111] The First
Minister: Yes, I am. We started very early with the Welsh
Revenue Authority, once we knew, of course, that LTT, as it will
become, and the landfill disposals tax were coming. So, the work is
going very well, and I anticipate that the authority will be ready,
as required.
|
[112] Nick
Ramsay: Thanks. And, given your statement that where we start
new programmes to fulfil our pledges, we must stop something else
to pay for it, can you give us any examples of where the Welsh
Government is intending to withdraw funding from other programmes
to pay for new commitments?
|
[113] The First
Minister: Well, we haven’t needed to do it yet, because
we’ve had cash increases from the UK Government, even though
they’re not real-terms increases. Now, that may not be the
case in the future, and, yes, then we will have to take decisions
on where funding should be stopped, but, so far, those cash
increases, as far as this financial year is concerned, have been
able to ensure that we haven’t had to take a decision on what
to cut.
|
[114] Nick
Ramsay: Very finally?
|
[115] Ann
Jones: Yes.
|
[116] Nick
Ramsay: Very finally: so, you’re happy that this budget
plays a significant role in the major programme over the next few
years and that it will actually be a workable piece of the jigsaw
to make sure that that programme of government can be delivered
over the next few years.
|
[117] The First
Minister: Yes.
|
[118] Ann
Jones: Mark and then Mike—on this same point, I take
it.
|
[119] Mark
Reckless: Revenues from land transaction tax, from the landfill
tax, from income tax, if that comes, will be offset by a reduction
in the block grant. So, when you are looking to support borrowing,
will there actually be more money there to support the borrowing,
and won’t it actually, even with a good fiscal framework, be
subject to higher risk than under block grants and therefore
perhaps less attractive to secure borrowing, unless, of course,
you’re planning to raise those taxes?
|
[120] The First
Minister: No. We’re not planning to increase the rates of
income tax in Wales, but it is right to say that the questions that
have been asked are questions that are being considered as part of
the fiscal framework discussions. It’s hugely important for
us that we don’t see a situation where Wales is worse off as
a result of those discussions, but I’m confident we can get
to a position where that isn’t the case.
|
09:45
|
[121] Ann
Jones: Okay. Mike.
|
[122]
Mike Hedges: Thank you, Chair. My questions follow on from Nick
Ramsay’s. The first one is: what progress is being made on
the aggregate levy?
|
[123] The
First Minister: On the aggregate
levy—that’s still stuck at the moment, if I remember
rightly, in court action. There’s an issue, if I remember
rightly, over whether it can be set at different levels across the
UK, where the Azores judgment is involved. To my memory,
that’s where it’s at at the moment.
|
[124]
Mike Hedges: Yes, but, of course, the Azores judgment will
disappear in two years’ time, so we should be available to
have it, shouldn’t we?
|
[125] The First
Minister: It depends on what the nature of the UK’s
relationship is with the EU in the future, and whether
there’ll be some aspects of European law that will continue
to apply, and, indeed, what the UK Government itself does. So,
again, it may, or it may not.
|
[126]
Mike Hedges: And the other question I’ve got is: we’ve
got an agreement on no detriment—which has discovered a new
meaning to what I thought; I thought it was going to be at the very
beginning within the fiscal framework. Assuming that the Treasury
come up with numbers that we don’t agree with, and I look at
what happened over the funding for the Olympics, where we probably
got what I think should have been Swansea’s share of it for
the whole of Wales, is there any proposal to have an appeals
mechanism for a body to adjudicate between the Treasury and between
the Welsh Government—a bit like the Office for Budget
Responsibility acts as an arbitrator—in order that we are not
treated unfairly?
|
[127] The First
Minister: I agree wholeheartedly with that. Australia has its
grants commission, which is a model that can be looked at. The UK
will have to develop its structure as we leave the EU. We
can’t go to a situation where decisions on the UK’s
internal market, or financial decisions, are governed entirely by
Whitehall—there has to be agreement between the different
Governments. So, for example, if we look at animal health, it makes
sense to have a common animal health regime across GB—of
course it does—but by agreement, not by imposition. With
agriculture, imposition of what, effectively, would be the English
payment scheme on the rest of the UK would not be
acceptable—it has to be done by agreement. The same with
finance.
|
[128] The difficulty
we have at the moment is the Joint Ministerial Council’s
disputes resolution process basically ends with the Treasury. So,
if you are in dispute with the Treasury, the Treasury are the other
party in the dispute, and they also judge it. Well, in the long
term, that can’t possibly be right. We do have to move to, I
think, an independent body. One of my suggestions years ago was
that any dispute would be adjudicated by a panel of four or
five—perhaps those in the Lords, people with experience, but
not in any way politically connected, or in active politics. But
the Treasury wouldn’t let go of it. But that has to change in
the future if the UK is going to be robust in the future.
|
[129]
Mike Hedges: My last question: of course, London is different to
the rest of Britain. London is an international city, and probably
more comparable to New York than it is to the rest of Britain, and
gross—. Land values and house prices in London bear no
relationship at all to the rest of Britain, but bear a relationship
to what’s happening in the rest of the world. How can we
ensure that what’s happening in London is excluded from
comparisons? Otherwise, we’re bound—no matter what the
Welsh Government does, or whatever Welsh Government we
have—to do less well than London.
|
[130]
The First Minister:
It’s a two-edged sword, because, of
course, the whole of Britain benefits from money being distributed
out of London to the rest of the UK. But, you’re right, of
course London operates as a city almost outside of the UK in terms
of the fact that it’s a world city. One of the issues that
have been raised from time to time is that London should keep its
own revenue. Well, yes, that would be great for London,
that’s true, not so good for the rest of the UK, and it would
also undermine one of the reasons why the UK exists in the first
place. That redistributed element is surely one of the benefits of
UK membership, as far as Wales is concerned. So, what’s
hugely important, and I understand this point, is that the fiscal
framework is agreed, and it’s agreed on a basis that’s
beneficial to Wales. Ideally, we’d see Barnett reform, but
that is not in the vocabulary of the current UK
Government.
|
[131]
Mike Hedges: Okay.
|
[132]
Ann Jones: Okay. Simon.
|
[133]
Simon
Thomas: Jest i ddechrau, un cwestiwn penodol iawn: rŷch chi
newydd sôn eich bod chi’n hyderus bod sefydlu Awdurdod
Cyllid Cymru yn mynd yn ei flaen fel rŷch chi’n ei
ddisgwyl. A ydych chi wedi penderfynu ble i roi pencadlys yr
awdurdod hwnnw? Rŷm ni’n colli sgiliau iaith Gymraeg trethiannol ym Mhorthmadog, er
enghraifft, sydd, y gallaf ddweud wrthych chi, yn rhywbeth sydd yn
golled go iawn i bobl sy’n arfer yr iaith Gymraeg wrth drafod
trethi. Byddai’n beth da i ddangos eich bod yn symud awdurdod
y tu allan i Gaerdydd. A oes penderfyniad wedi digwydd
eto?
|
Simon
Thomas: Just to start, one
very specific question: you’ve mentioned that you’re
confident that establishing the Welsh Revenue Authority is
progressing as you’d expect. Have you decided where to put
the headquarters of that authority? We’re losing Welsh
language skills in taxation in Porthmadog, for example, which is, I
can say to you, a real loss for the people who use Welsh when
discussing taxation. It would be a good thing to show that
you’re moving an authority outside Cardiff. Have you made a
decision yet?
|
[134]
Y Prif Weinidog:
Na, dim eto. Rwy’n ymwybodol,
wrth gwrs, o’r pwyntiau sy’n cael ei wneud
ynglŷn â
Phorthmadog. Mae pobl wedi dweud hyn wrthyf fi o’r blaen. So,
na, nid oes penderfyniad eto, ond rwy’n deall, wrth gwrs, y
nod i sicrhau bod mwy o swyddi ar gael tu fas i
Gaerdydd.
|
The First Minister: Not as of yet, no.
I am aware of the points that you make about Porthmadog. That point
has been made to me in the past. But, no, no decision has been made
as of yet, but I do understand, of course, the aim of ensuring that
there are more jobs available outwith Cardiff.
|
[135]
Simon Thomas:
Ai eich penderfyniad chi fel
Llywodraeth fydd sefydlu pencadlys, neu benderfyniad yr awdurdod
pan fyddwch yn penodi cadeirydd?
|
Simon Thomas: Is it your decision as a
Government to establish the headquarters, or the decision of the
authority when you appoint a chair?
|
[136]
Y Prif Weinidog:
Na, ni fel Llywodraeth.
|
The First Minister: No, us as a
Government.
|
[137]
Simon Thomas:
Ocê. Diolch. A gaf i
jest fynd yn ôl at fenthyca am
eiliad? Mae’r darlun yn dal yn niwlog oherwydd nid oes
fframwaith cyllidol yn ei le, ac mae wedi’i gymysgu gan y
ffaith bod gennych chi, mewn theori o leiaf, fynediad i fenthyca
cynnar ar gyfer un prosiect yn benodol, sef yr M4 newydd, wrth
gwrs. Pe na bai’r ymchwiliad cyhoeddus yn cefnogi eich
cynlluniau presennol ar gyfer yr M4, a fyddai gennych chi yr hawl
i’r arian yna ar gyfer cynlluniau eraill, megis y
metro?
|
Simon Thomas: Okay. Thank. Could I just
return to borrowing for a second? The picture is still cloudy
because there is no fiscal framework in place, and it has been
confused by the fact that you, in theory at least, have access to
early borrowing for one specific project, namely the new M4 relief
road. If the public inquiry didn’t support your current plans
for the M4, would you have the right to claim that money for other
projects, such as the metro?
|
[138]
Y Prif Weinidog:
Na, dim ar hyn o bryd. Mae’r
arian yna—
|
The First Minister: No, not at the
moment. That money—
|
[139]
Simon Thomas:
A ydy hynny’n rhan o’r
drafodaeth rydych chi’n ei chael o gwmpas y fframwaith
cyllidol?
|
Simon Thomas: Is that part of the
discussions you’re having around the fiscal framework?
|
[140]
Y Prif Weinidog:
Ar ddiwedd y dydd, bydd, wrth gwrs,
achos mae hwn yn rheol dros dro. So, efallai, bydd hynny’n
newid gydag amser.
|
The First Minister: At the end of the
day, it will be, because this is a temporary rule. So, perhaps that
will change in time.
|
[141]
Simon
Thomas: Maes o law.
|
Simon
Thomas: In due
course.
|
[142]
Y Prif Weinidog:
Ond, ar hyn o bryd, mae’r arian
yna ar gael i’r M4—nid dim ond i’r black
route, wrth gwrs, ond i’r M4 ynglŷn
â sicrhau bod yna ffordd osgoi rownd twneli Brynglas.
Ond, wrth gwrs, bydd hynny’n newid, lle bydd y rhwystr yna
ddim yna yn y pen draw.
|
The First Minister: But, at the moment,
that funding is available for the M4—not only for the black
route, of course, but for the development of the M4 in ensuring
that the relief road around the Brynglas tunnels is in place. But,
that will change once that barrier is removed ultimately.
|
[143]
Simon Thomas:
Rwyf jest eisiau deall pa gyfyngiadau
sydd o gwmpas y penderfyniad yna. Rydych newydd ddweud nid o
reidrwydd y black route, ond ar gyfer gwelliannau yn
gyffredinol. Felly, a ydy’ch pwerau benthyg yn y maes yma,
sydd hyd at £0.5 biliwn yn ôl beth rwy’n
ei ddeall, yn rhywbeth rydych yn gorfod ei drafod gyda Llywodraeth
San Steffan, neu a ydyn nhw’n mynd i ddweud ‘Wel,
mae’n natur problem trafnidiaeth, felly cariwch ymlaen gyda
fe’? Pa fath o benderfyniad sydd yna?
|
Simon Thomas: I just want to
understand what restrictions surround that decision. You just said
it’s not necessarily the black route, but for improvements
generally. So, are your borrowing powers in this area, which are up
to £0.5 billion, as far as I understand, something that you
have to discuss with the Westminster Government, or are they going
to say, ‘Well, it’s a transport project, so carry on
with it’? What kind of decision is there?
|
[144]
Y Prif Weinidog:
Na, nid oes eisiau trafod.
Mae’r arian yna ar gael ar hyn o bryd i un project, ta beth
fydd llwybr y project hwnnw, ac, wrth gwrs, unwaith y byddwn mewn
sefyllfa lle bydd y pwerau wedi cael eu trosglwyddo, felly bydd
unrhyw rwystr yn mynd.
|
The First Minister: No, there is no
need for discussion. That funding is available now for one project,
whatever the route of that will be, and once we’re in a
position where the powers are transferred then any barrier will be
removed.
|
[145]
Simon Thomas:
A’r cwestiwn olaf, jest ar y
benthyg, felly. O ystyried yr holl bwerau datganoledig a fydd yn
dod—y ddau brif dreth rydym yn eu trafod ar hyn o bryd
a’r y dreth incwm—a oes gennych chi unrhyw amcangyfrif
o tua faint y bydd modd i Lywodraeth Cymru ei fenthyca mewn ffordd
ddiogel wrth fwrw ymlaen? A ydym ni’n sôn am tua
£2 biliwn, neu a oes yna unrhyw ffigwr gennych chi, i
gefnogi’r rhaglen llywodraethu sydd gyda chi nawr?
|
Simon Thomas: And the final question on
borrowing therefore. Given all the devolved powers that will
come—the two main taxes that we are discussing currently and
income tax—do you have any estimate of how much the Welsh
Government will be able to borrow in a secure way in pressing
ahead? Are we talking about £2 billion, or do you have any
figures in mind, to support the programme for government that you
have currently?
|
[146]
Y Prif Weinidog:
Na, dim ar hyn o bryd. Mae
hynny’n rhywbeth rydym yn dal i’w ystyried, ac
mae’n dibynnu, wrth gwrs, ar beth fydd canlyniad y
trafodaethau ar y fframwaith cyllidol. Felly, na. Beth sy’n
wir i’w ddweud yw y byddwn yn gallu benthyg mwy o arian, ond
ar hyn o bryd nid yw’n glir yn gymwys beth yw’r
limit.
|
The First Minister: Not at the moment,
no. This is something that we are still considering, and it
depends, of course, on the outcomes of the negotiations on the
fiscal framework. So, no. What is true to say is that we will be
able to borrow more, but it’s not clear exactly what the
limit will be at the moment.
|
[147]
Simon Thomas:
A fyddwch chi’n ymgynghori ar
hynny, neu ydy e jest—
|
Simon Thomas: Will you be
consulting on that, or is it just—
|
[148]
Y Prif
Weinidog: Na,
na—
|
The First Minister: No, no—
|
[149]
Simon Thomas:
Beth yw’r camau i benderfynu ar
rywbeth fel yna, achos mae’r cwestiwn o sefydlogrwydd incwm a
refeniw y Llywodraeth yn bwysig fan hyn?
|
Simon Thomas: What are the steps to
make that kind of decision, because the question of stability of
income and revenue for the Government is very important?
|
[150]
Y Prif Weinidog:
Mae hynny’n rhywbeth i’r
Llywodraeth ei ystyried, ac, wrth gwrs, i’r Cynulliad ei
sgrwtineiddio yn y modd arferol. Byddai hynny’n rhywbeth a
fyddai’n cael ei ddelio ag ef ar lawr y Cynulliad.
|
The First Minister: That is something
for the Government to consider and, of course, for the Assembly to
scrutinise in the usual manner. That is something that would be
dealt with on the floor of the Assembly.
|
[151]
Simon Thomas:
Bydd, bydd. Ocê.
|
Simon Thomas: Yes, it will. Okay.
|
[152] Ann
Jones: I’ve got John on this point, and then I’ll
come back to you.
|
[153] John
Griffiths: I just wanted to ask a little further, First
Minister, in terms of the significance of that borrowing ability
for the M4, that £500 million. Because given the timescale of
the work on the M4, and the fact that Welsh Government will have
borrowing powers more generally within that timescale, how
significant is that early borrowing facility for the taking forward
of Welsh Government policy on the M4, and indeed, more widely, on
the metro?
|
[154] The First
Minister: Well, we never intended to borrow for the metro in
its early stages in any event. The finance was there. We were
looking at different funding sources, and part of it was European
funding. The borrowing was simply for the M4 at this stage. It
depends on the outcome, of course, of the inquiry and when the M4
relief road starts. I’m hopeful that it will start before the
rules change to make it easier for us to have more flexibility over
borrowing. There will be a limit of course, a Treasury limit, I
should add, on what we can borrow. It won’t be an open
chequebook in that sense. But, much of it depends on the timing of
the inquiry, the recommendations of the inquiry, and any decisions
that are taken thereafter.
|
[155]
Ann Jones: Okay. Bethan.
|
[156]
Bethan Jenkins:
Rydym wedi cyffwrdd yn gynharach ar
weithio gyda phleidiau eraill, ond nid yn y cyd-destun o ba mor
fforddiadwy yw rhai o’r
cysyniadau sydd wedi dod ger bron gan Blaid Cymru. Hynny yw, mae
rhai ohonyn nhw yn beilotiaid: mae yna ganolfan newydd i
hyrwyddo’r Gymraeg ac mae yna arian ychwanegol yn mynd mewn i
anhwylderau bwyta. Os oes gan
rhai o’r projectau yma werth mwy hirdymor, a fyddech chi’n edrych i weld sut y byddai
hynny yn cael impact ar gyllidebau yn y dyfodol? Oherwydd, wedyn,
byddai’n rhaid addasu beth rydych yn ei wneud o ran yr hyn
sydd yn y rhaglen ar hyn o bryd er mwyn gallu parhau gyda rhai
o’r syniadau hynny.
|
Bethan Jenkins: We touched earlier on
working with other parties, but not in the context of how
affordable some of the concepts are that have come before us
through Plaid Cymru. That is, some of them are pilots:
there’s a new centre to promote the Welsh language and
there’s additional money going in to eating disorders. If
some of these projects do have a greater value in the long term,
would you look to see how that would have an impact on future
budgets? Because then perhaps you’d have to adjust what
you’re doing in terms of what’s in the programme at
present in order to continue with some of those ideas.
|
[157]
Y Prif Weinidog:
Wel, wrth gwrs, bydd hyn yn rhan
o’r trafodaethau yn y pen draw dros y blynyddoedd i weld beth
yn gwmws sy’n gweithio. Ac, wrth gwrs, ein nod ni fel
Llywodraeth yw gweithio gyda’r pleidiau eraill ynglŷn
â’r gyllideb. Mae’n gynnar eto i ddweud yn gwmws
beth fydd yn digwydd dros y blynyddoedd nesaf, ond mae yna gytundeb
gennym yn awr i symud ymlaen. Bydd yn rhaid i ni ystyried pa mor
effeithiol yw’r projectau peilot o ran a ddylen nhw gael eu
cyllido yn y dyfodol.
|
The First Minister: Well, yes, this
will be part of the negotiations eventually over the years to see
exactly what does work. And our aim as a Government, of course, is
to work with other parties on the budget. It’s too early to
say exactly what will happen over the next few years, but we do
have an agreement to move forward. We will have to consider how
effective the pilot projects are and whether they are to be funded
for the future.
|
[158] Ann
Jones: Okay? Is everybody content, then, that we’ve asked
enough questions on affordability? Okay, fine. We move on to the
delivery section, then, of the programme for government. David,
you’ve got the first set.
|
[159] David
Rees: Thank you, Chair. I think it’s partly been answered
because Lynne Neagle asked earlier about
Communities First, but she also highlighted the input into the
decision in your document about helping communities, working with
communities and supporting communities. At times of austerity, we
are seeing, actually, many of those communities struggling because
of local government decisions to change some of the services that
are non-statutory. How do you see your Government actually
supporting those communities to ensure that those services remain
in those communities, so that they can benefit from services such
as libraries, community centres and leisure centres in their heart,
and they haven’t got to go out? They’re having
tremendous trouble, actually, leaving those communities to find
them elsewhere.
|
[160] The First
Minister: Our preferred position is that local authority
facilities should continue to be run by local authorities, but
there may be occasions when that’s not possible. The last
thing we would want local authorities to do is to close facilities;
there are two other options they should consider first. Firstly,
whether there is a social enterprise or a not-for-profit that can
take over those facilities—I’ve seen it, for example,
in my own authority in Bridgend—or whether there’s a
local community group that can take over a
facility—I’ve seen it in your constituency in Britton
Ferry. All those possibilities should be explored, rather than
simply saying, ‘Well, we can’t afford to run this
anymore, so we’re going to close it.’ That, I
don’t think, is an acceptable approach in these times of
austerity.
|
[161] David
Rees: And will your Government be looking at ways to make it
smoother and easier for those community groups to actually do that,
because some of them find it very difficult to get support and very
difficult to get advice, and the timescales put upon them by local
authorities are very tight?
|
[162] The First
Minister: It’s hugely important that they’re able
to access advice. We do work with the third sector, of course.
We’ve got an action plan that we work on with them. There are
many associations of voluntary organisations locally that are able
to offer advice to community groups in terms of where they can get
access to funding, how they can get access to training, and
we’ve seen that happen in many parts of Wales. But, to my
mind, it truly is in the interests of a local authority to be able
to smooth the transition and to provide help to people who wish to
run a facility as a community group, rather than just saying,
‘It’s all yours now.’ I’ve seen good
examples of that happening across Wales where that transition has
been facilitated properly by a local authority.
|
[163] David
Rees: And is that what is meant by a ‘made in Wales
approach’, because I’m deeply concerned still that
there are authorities that don’t have the same view as you,
and are therefore making things difficult? On top of which, we have
seen the same individuals in those communities taking on task after
task after task, and therefore they’re becoming, basically,
worn out and tired—they are being exhausted because of the
process.
|
[164] The First
Minister: When I first heard the term ‘big
society’, I did see it, I have to say, as a way of throwing
what were previously local authority services at voluntary groups
on a wholesale basis. That said, I think where it’s possible
for an enthusiastic community group to take over a
facility—where it’s possible for a not-for-profit or a
social enterprise to do that—then that’s exactly what
local authorities should be considering, if they say that they
can’t do it themselves.
|
[165] David
Rees: Okay.
|
[166] Ann
Jones: Lynne.
|
[167]
Lynne Neagle: I think we have to recognise that local authorities
don’t want to make these cuts. Obviously, they’re in a
very difficult position indeed, and I very much welcome the
protection that the Welsh Government has tried to give local
government, but we are in hard times.
|
10:00
|
[168] And it does seem
to me that there’s a really key role for organisations like
Sport Wales and the relevant bodies to actually co-ordinate more
and to share expertise, and to bring people together. I don’t
know if that work is happening at the moment. Is that something
that you would look at trying to drive forward as a Government?
|
[169]
The First Minister:
I think that’s an eminently
sensible suggestion. Sport Wales are the body charged with
promoting sport and to assist, to my mind, community groups to move
forward with taking over a facility such as this. It’s a big
ask of people. Enthusiasm is one thing, the ability to do it and
the ability to access the advice and finance that you need is
another. But I would expect, for example, the local associations of
voluntary organisations to be able to help, and they are doing
that—I’ve seen examples of that—but Sport Wales
will have a role; that’s true.
|
[170] Ann Jones: Okay. Mike.
|
[171]
Mike Hedges: On that, of course, with sports clubs taking over
their clubs’ sports grounds, that can work very well, but
they need access to equipment. Cutting a football ground or a rugby
ground is not the same as cutting your back garden. So, has any
advice been given to local authorities or others to try to ensure
that adequate equipment is available to sports clubs that take over
grounds?
|
[172]
The First Minister:
I would expect that to be part of the
discussions that take place. Clearly, a voluntary group is not
going to want to take over something that is in desperate need of a
huge amount of money just to keep it open. In the same way,
there’s no point taking over a building if none of the
equipment that was there previously is still there. So, it’s
hugely important that, as part of those discussions, local groups
feel that they’re able to take over a facility that will be
improved in the future and can be run without a huge financial
burden.
|
[173] Ann Jones: Okay, on this point, Huw, or
Simon?
|
[174] Huw Irranca-Davies: It’s on this
point.
|
[175]
Ann Jones: Both on this point?
|
[176] Simon Thomas: On local government.
|
[177]
Huw Irranca-Davies:
Yes, on this point.
|
[178]
Ann Jones: Well, on this point, I’ll take Huw first and
then I’ll come back to you on local government.
|
[179]
Huw Irranca-Davies:
A very short question: do you have any
concerns that, because of the year-on-year deep ingress into both
the public sector, local authorities particularly in this case, but
also into the third sector as well, that that capacity to deliver
this collaboration and reform is denuded? I say this as I look
around different parts of Wales and you speak to back-office
functions in local authorities, where people expect things to be
happening and they say, ‘We’ve had endless
Westminster-driven cuts behind the scenes again and again and
again; we’d love to help deliver this, and so would the third
sector, so would all those community voluntary organisations, but
it’s tough.’
|
[180]
The First Minister:
Yes, but the question I’d ask is:
do local authorities need to be running their own back-office
functions, or can they just not pool their resources? That’s
what we’re trying to encourage them to do now in order to be
able to get greater resilience, as far as they’re concerned,
and be able to offer that advice. For the future, the future of
local government lies in collaboration amongst local authorities,
given the size of our local authorities, to be able to deliver a
better service. So yes, it is tough, even though in Wales we have
protected local government spending relative to elsewhere in the
UK, but local authorities, I’m sure, can find new ways of
working, particularly working more closely with each
other.
|
[181]
Huw Irranca-Davies:
But my point is specifically about that
issue: it’s not the generality of the cuts, it’s in
this fact of having to work in a different way, in a smarter and a
cleverer way with fewer resources. Accepting that, is the capacity
there, both in the third sector and in local authorities to do that
level of collaboration? Because in days gone by, we would have
said, ‘Let’s throw some resource at this to make this
happen’, but not we don’t have the resource to do
that.
|
[182]
The First Minister:
There are good examples of it happening
anyway.
|
[183]
Huw Irranca-Davies:
Yes.
|
[184]
The First Minister:
I think it’s true to say that we
must guard against what I think David Rees has described, which is
volunteer exhaustion, where the same people in communities are
involved in everything. And being able to encourage more people to
come forward as volunteers is going to be important, as it always
will be in the future. That’s why we work with the third
sector in order for them to be able to attract more
volunteers.
|
[185]
Ann Jones: Simon.
|
[186]
Simon Thomas:
Ie, jest ar y pwynt yma, mae’n
amlwg yn y rhaglen llywodraethu eich bod chi wedi troi i ffwrdd
oddi wrth ad-drefnu llywodraeth leol, fel y cyfryw, ond mae nifer o
ddatganiadau wedi cael eu gwneud gan yr Ysgrifennydd Cabinet
ynglŷn â chydweithio, a hyd yn oed cydweithio gorfodol.
Mae’n ymddangos i mi nad oes modd i chi gyflawni’r hyn
rydych chi’n bwriadu ei wneud heb ryw fath o ddeddfwriaeth. A
ydych chi’n bwriadu dod â Deddf diwygio, os nad
ad-drefnu, llywodraeth leol i’r Cynulliad, felly?
|
Simon
Thomas: Just on that point,
clearly, in the programme for government, you have actually turned
your back on local government reorganisation as such, but many
statements have been made by the Cabinet Secretary on collaboration
and even enforced collaboration. It appears to me that you
can’t achieve what you want to achieve without some sort of
legislation. So, do you intent to introduce a local government
reform, if not reorganisation, Act to the Assembly?
|
[187]
Y Prif Weinidog:
Ydyn; nid ad-drefnu, rydym ni wedi
dweud hynny nawr. Beth mae’r Ysgrifennydd wedi ei ddweud yw
nad yw e moyn ad-drefnu; bydd 22 o awdurdodau lleol,
ond fyddan nhw ddim yn gwneud popeth
eu hunain. Mae’n rhaid gweld mwy o gydweithio yn rhanbarthol.
Rydym ni wedi gweld hyn yn gweithio yn effeithiol iawn gydag
addysg. Mae’n rhaid gwneud yr un peth, er enghraifft, gyda
chynllunio, jest i roi enghraifft arall. Ond ni fydd hyn yn
rhywbeth gorfodol—all e ddim bod, neu fyddai fe ddim yn
gweithio. So, bydd rhaid newid y gyfraith er mwyn sicrhau bod yna
ffordd i orfodi awdurdodau lleol, os maen nhw’n moyn cadw eu
hannibyniaeth yn y ffordd honno, i weithio gyda’i gilydd er
mwyn gweithredu gwasanaeth gwell i’w hardaloedd.
|
The First Minister: Yes; not
reorganisation, we’ve said that now. What the Cabinet
Secretary has said is that he doesn’t want reorganisation;
there will be 22 local authorities, but they won’t do
everything themselves. Now, we have to see more collaboration on a
regional level, and we’ve seen that working very effectively
with education and also with planning, just to give you another
example. But it can’t all be voluntary, or it wouldn’t
work. So, we will have to change the law to ensure that there is a
way to enforce local authorities, if they want to keep their
independence, that they have to work together in order to offer a
better service to their areas.
|
[188]
Simon
Thomas: Beth yw’r amserlen, felly, ar gyfer deddfwriaeth
o’r fath? Nid yw yn y rhaglen ddeddfwriaethol bresennol, nac
ydy?
|
Simon
Thomas: What’s the
timetable for such legislation, because it’s not in the
current legislative programme, is it?
|
[189]
Y Prif
Weinidog: Ond mae hon yn ddeddfwriaeth y bydd yn cael ei dodi o flaen y
Cynulliad mor gynted â sy’n bosibl.
|
The First
Minister: No, but this is
legislation that will be placed before the Assembly as soon as
possible.
|
[190]
Simon
Thomas: Oce. Rydw i’n gysurus gyda hynny, achos dyna’r
polisi yr oeddem ni’n ei gymryd cyn yr etholiad diwethaf.
Ond, i droi at sut mae ariannu’r broses yna, a ydy’r
ddeddfwriaeth yna yn mynd i edrych hefyd ar ddulliau cyllido
llywodraeth leol, achos mae rhai o’r problemau sydd wedi cael
eu rhannu o gwmpas y ford heddiw yn deillio o’r ffaith bod
llywodraeth leol, byddai rhai yn dadlau, yn orddibynnol ar arian
o’r canol ac nad yw’n codi digon o arian yn lleol.
Mae’r sgôp yn gyfyngedig, ond mae gyda chi ddwy brif
ffrwd-y dreth gyngor ei hunan, a threth fusnes. A ydy’r ddwy
dreth yna yn debyg o gael eu diwygio yn y Cynulliad hwn
hefyd?
|
Simon
Thomas: I’m comfortable
with that, because that’s the policy that we put forward
prior to the last election. But, in turning to how you fund that
process, is that legislation also going to look at the funding
arrangements for local government, because some of the problems
that have been aired around the table today emerged from the fact
that local authorities, some would argue, are over-reliant on
central funding, and don’t raise enough funds locally. The
scope is limited, but you have two main sources—council tax
and business rates. So, are those two taxes likely to be reformed
in this Assembly?
|
[191]
Y Prif
Weinidog: Gallwn ni ystyried hynny, ond mae’n rhaid bod yn ofalus,
yn enwedig gyda threth fusnes. Dim ond pum awdurdod fyddai’n
ennill o achos hynny. Byddai’r rhan fwyaf ohonyn nhw’n
colli allan. Byddai Caerdydd, Pen-y-bont ar Ogwr a sir Benfro yn
ennill yn fawr iawn, o achos y ffaith bod Valero, er enghraifft, yn
sir Benfro. Ond byddai rhai awdurdod yn colli arian, yn enwedig
awdurdodau gwledig, o achos y ffaith bod arian yn cael ei
drosglwyddo mas o ardaloedd trefol—
|
The First
Minister: We can consider that, but that we have to be
careful, particularly with business rates. Only five authorities
would gain from that. Most of them would lose out. Cardiff,
Bridgend and Pembrokeshire would gain a lot, because Valero, for
example, is down in Pembrokeshire. But some authorities would lose
money, particularly those in rural areas, because money is being
transferred out of the urban areas—
|
[192]
Simon
Thomas: Ond rŷch chi wastad yn gorfod cael rhyw fath o drefn ar
drethi.
|
Simon
Thomas: You always have to have some sort of
distribution mechanism.
|
[193]
Y Prif
Weinidog: Ie, mae’n rhaid sicrhau nad ydym ni mewn sefyllfa lle
mae rhai awdurdod lleol yn colli mas yn fawr iawn achos unrhyw fath
o ad-drefnu. Mae rhai wedi sôn am gadw eu trethi busnes. Wel,
mae hynny’n newid sylfaenol a sylweddol ynglŷn
â’r ffordd y maen nhw’n gallu cyllido eu hunain.
Ond, mae hyn yn rhywbeth y gallwn ni ei ystyried wrth weld y model
rhanbarthol yn datblygu yn y pen draw.
|
The First
Minister: Yes, we have to
ensure that we’re not in a position where some authorities
lose a great deal as a result of any reorganisation. Some have
mentioned that they should retain their business rates. Well,
that’s a fundamental and significant change in terms of how
they self-fund. But this is something that we can consider in
seeing the regional model develop, ultimately.
|
[194]
Simon
Thomas: Ond a ydych
chi’n cytuno gyda’r rhai sy’n dweud nad yw
e’n glir ar hyn o bryd o ran adnabod bod gwaith gan awdurdod,
neu waith da mewn ardal i hybu’r economi, yn cael ei wobrwyo
a bod yna ddim cylch virtuous, fel petai, o weld twf trethi
busnes wedyn yn cael ei fwydo nôl i’r economi. Dyna
beth mae’r business improvement districts yn
trio’i wneud, er enghraifft. Ond, a oes yna unrhyw ffordd o
weld hynny’n datblygu wrth i’r rhaglen lywodraethu yma
gael ei gweithredu?
|
Simon
Thomas: But do you agree with
those who say that it’s not clear at the moment, and
it’s not easy to identify that good work carried out by local
authorities in the economy is rewarded, and that there is no
virtuous circle in seeing the growth of business rates being fed
back into the economy? That’s what BIDs are trying to do, for
example. But is there any way of seeing that developing as the
programme for government is implemented?
|
[195]
Y Prif
Weinidog: Mae hynny’n wir am Gymru, wrth gwrs, a’r ffaith
nad ydym ni’n gweld unrhyw fath o dwf yn y dreth
gorfforaethol. Mae’n wir i ddweud ei bod hi’n bosibl i
ystyried sefyllfa lle byddai awdurdodau lleol yn gallu cadw mwy o
arian o’r dreth fusnes, ond beth fyddai’n digwydd os
yw’r dreth yna yn mynd i lawr a’r arian yn mynd i lawr?
Byddai’n rhaid ffeindio rhyw ffordd iddyn nhw gael rhyw fath
o iawndal o awdurdodau eraill, neu o Lywodraeth Cymru. So, pan mae
popeth yn mynd yn dda, wel, iawn—mae’n wir i ddweud y
byddai system fel yna yn bosibl. Ond beth fyddai’n digwydd pe
bai 2008 yn digwydd unwaith eto a bod un awdurdod efallai yn gweld
cwymp sylweddol yn yr arian y maen nhw’n ei godi o’r
dreth fusnes? Dyna’r broblem y byddai eisiau ei
datrys.
|
The First
Minister: That’s true
about Wales, of course, and the fact that we don’t see any
growth in corporation tax. It is true to say that it is possible to
consider a situation where local authorities could retain more
business rates revenue, but what would happen if the tax and
revenue reduces? We’d have to find some way of having some
kind of compensation from other authorities, or from the Welsh
Government. So, when things are going well, fine—it’s
true to say that that kind of system would be possible. But what
happens if we have another 2008 and one authority sees a
significant decrease in the money that they raise from business
rates? That’s the problem that we would have to
resolve.
|
[196]
Simon
Thomas: Ond nid ydych chi’n cau’r draws yn glep ar y
syniad o ddiwygio, unrhyw fath o ddiwygio.
|
Simon
Thomas: But you’re not
closing the door entirely on the idea of reform.
|
[197]
Y Prif
Weinidog: Na. Fyddwn ni ddim yn gweld sefyllfa lle byddai’r dreth
fusnes yn cael ei datganoli yn hollol i awdurdodau lleol. Nid wyf
i’n meddwl y byddai hynny’n gweithio yn ymarferol.
Rydym ni wastad yn agored i weld ym mha ffordd y gallwn ni
ddatganoli mwy o bwerau i awdurdodau lleol, lle mae hynny’n
mynd i fod yn weithredol.
|
The First
Minister: No. We
wouldn’t see a situation where business rates would be
completely devolved to local authorities. That wouldn’t work
in practice. But we’re always open to change, or open to see
how we can devolve more powers to local authorities, where that is
practicably possible.
|
[198] Ann
Jones: John.
|
[199] John Griffiths: Yes, while we’re
talking about delivery, First Minister, earlier we talked about
indicators and the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act
2015, and obviously it’s very important the Welsh Government
is in a position to know, through monitoring and evaluation,
whether what it wants to see delivered through its strategy and
policies is being delivered. Is Welsh Government still on a journey
towards results-based accountability? If so, where is Welsh
Government on that journey?
|
[200]
The First Minister:
Well, we have the seven goals we can be
judged against. We have the 46 indicators against which we can be
judged. We have the Future Generations Commissioner for Wales,
whose role it is to act as a critical friend, if I can put it that
way—not a friend, and not in Government’s pocket, of
course not, but a critical friend of Welsh Government. It’s
against the requirements of the FG Act that we would expect
ourselves to be judged.
|
[201]
John Griffiths:
Just to take it a little bit further,
Chair, I think we’re all familiar with the scenario where, in
the past, there’s been some measurement of output as it was
described. So, it was about people accessing programmes,
perhaps, rather than delivery of the purposes and aims of those
programmes. I think that’s why there was the concentration on
moving towards results-based accountability, to have those harder
outcomes evidenced. So, what you’ve just described now, does
that place Welsh Government firmly on that footing of results-based
accountability, in your view?
|
[202] The First
Minister: I think that’s a fair point. You can’t
get judged on the number of strategies you produce; you get judged
on how effective they are—how many people you get into
training, how many people you get into jobs, how many people are
able to access secure employment, just to give an example on the
economy. These things are important—that’s true.
I’ve often used the phrase ‘strategy factory’ in
the past and that’s what Government needs to avoid. Yes, you
have to outline what you’re going to do, but what’s
hugely important is how you do it and how you’re judged on
how you do it. That’s where results come in. At the end of
the day, we are judged. I’m questioned in the Chamber every
week on statistics and that’s what scrutiny is about. I
understand that.
|
[203] Ann
Jones: Okay. Can I just ask you, I take licence from the Chair,
as the only north Walian here, could you just outline to the people
of north Wales—
|
[204] Simon
Thomas: I go up to Porthmadog.
|
[205] Ann
Jones: Well, yes, we’ll mention Porthmadog, yes. Could
you just outline for the record and for the people of north Wales
how your Government strategies and how your Government programme
will help them?
|
[206] The First
Minister: In several areas. First of all, if we look at health,
we did put Betsi Cadwaladr into special measures. They were not
delivering the service that people would expect. How can people
judge that? They’ve seen improvements, for example, in cancer
treatment and we’re seeing the sub-regional neonatal
intensive care centre coming to Glan Clwyd. I intervened personally
in that to make sure that we had a review that indicated that that
SuRNICC was possible to place in Wales, otherwise those mothers
would’ve gone to Arrowe Park, where we’d have had no
control over the level of service.
|
[207] In terms of the
economy, Airbus is our single biggest employer and we work very
closely with Airbus. Going across the coast, Surf Snowdonia,
[Inaudible.] Wylfa Newydd—we’re very supportive
of as a driver for employment. If we look at Rhyl, which I know the
Chair has great interest in—
|
[208] Ann
Jones: Where’s that?
|
[209] The First
Minister: —£34 million of investment into the
seafront in Rhyl. There’s a new school in Rhyl as well, and
people can see these as examples of where Welsh Government is
looking to invest. We also have people, of course, numbering in the
hundreds, working in Llandudno Junction. I know full well that
people will say to me, ‘Well, the north is forgotten
about’. What I say to them is that, actually, the north has
about a quarter of the representation in the Assembly; it has
strong representation in Cabinet at a level that doesn’t
exist in Westminster. So, the north’s voice can never be
forgotten, and I know full well, Chair, that you would never allow
that to happen anyway.
|
[210] Ann
Jones: All right, thank you. I just wanted something on the
record about that. If we’re happy with that section that
we’ve completed, shall we move around to topical questions
and then, perhaps—? There are a number of people who’ve
got topical questions—sorry about this, First Minister, but
we’ll try and get through them all. Dai, do you want to start
off, then, with a topical question?
|
[211]
Dai Lloyd: Diolch yn fawr, Gadeirydd. Bydd y Prif Weinidog
yn ymwybodol, yn naturiol, y cyhoeddwyd adroddiad gan Goleg
Brenhinol y Meddygon—Royal College of
Physicians— ar ysbytai'r
wythnos hon, a oedd yn darogan nifer o bethau, ond yn benodol bod
40 y cant o swyddi gwag ymhlith arbenigwyr hŷn mewn ysbytai,
ynghlwm â nifer o swyddi gwag ymysg meddygon iau yn ysbytai
hefyd. Beth oedd rhai
o’r meddygon hyn yn ei ddweud oedd efallai bod nifer o
ffactorau, yn naturiol, ond un o’r pethau y maen nhw’n
poeni amdano ydy’r canran o fyfyrwyr meddygol o Gymru sydd yn
derbyn hyfforddiant mewn ysgolion meddygol yng Nghymru.
Yn yr ysgolion meddygol y tu fas i
Gymru rŷch chi’n eu gweld yn yr Alban a Lloegr, mae dros
50 y cant o fyfyrwyr meddygol yn dod o’r ardal, yn sylfaenol,
o’r lle mae’r ysgol feddygol honno wedi cael ei
lleoli.
|
Dai Lloyd: Thank you very much, Chair.
The First Minister will be aware, naturally, that a report
was published by the Royal College of Physicians this week,
which forecast a number of things, but particularly, that 40 per
cent of the vacant posts in hospitals were for senior clinicians,
and that there were a number of vacancies among junior doctors too.
What some of these physicians were saying was that there may be a
number of factors, naturally, but one of the things that they are
concerned about is the percentage of medical students from Wales
who receive training in medical schools in Wales. In medical
schools outwith Wales in Scotland and in England, over 50 per cent
of medical students come from the area in which the medical school
is based.
|
[212]
Rhyw 15 mlynedd yn ôl pan
edrychais i ar ffigurau Caerdydd, 38 y cant o fyfyrwyr meddygol yng
Nghaerdydd ar y pryd oedd yn dod o Gymru, a nawr mae’r canran
yng Nghaerdydd ac yn Abertawe yn is na hynny. Wrth gwrs, beth rydym
ni’n ei weld ydy pobl sy’n derbyn hyfforddiant yn
graddio fel meddygon, felly, yn ein hysgolion meddygol ni yma yng
Nghymru, ond wedyn yn gadael i fynd yn ôl i le bynnag maen
nhw eisiau mynd. Mae hyn yn
adlewyrchiad, efallai, o’r problemau rydym ni’n eu
cael, felly, wrth lenwi’r swyddi gwag hyn yn nes
ymlaen. A ydych chi’n rhan o unrhyw drafodaeth, felly, i
gynyddu canran y myfyrwyr meddygol yn Abertawe—yn yr ysgol ôl-raddedig yn
fanna, wrth gwrs—ac yng Nghaerdydd, i gynyddu canran y
myfywyr meddygol sy’n dod o Gymru.
|
Some 15 years ago when I looked at figures for
Cardiff, the figure was 38 per cent in terms of medical students
from Wales, and now the percentage in both Swansea and Cardiff is
lower than that. Of course, what we see is people receiving
training and graduating as doctors in our medical schools here in
Wales, but then leaving to return to wherever they’re from or
wherever they want to go. This is a reflection of the problems that
we have in filling our vacant posts later on in the process. Are
you part of any discussion, therefore, to increase the
percentage of medical students in the postgraduate school in
Swansea, and in Cardiff also, in order to increase the percentage
of medical students from Wales.
|
10:15
|
[213]
Y Prif Weinidog:
Mae sawl person wedi dweud wrthyf fi
fod yna deimlad ymysg pobl ifanc ei bod hi’n haws cael lle
mewn coleg yn Lloegr nag yng Nghymru, er eu bod nhw’n dod o
Gymru. Mae hynny’n fy nhrwblu i, mae’n rhaid i fi
ddweud. Mae’n rhaid inni ystyried pam mae hynny yno, fel
perception, a hefyd, wrth gwrs, i sicrhau bod mwy a mwy o
fyfyrwyr yn yr ysgol yn ystyried meddyginiaeth fel gyrfa. Un modd i
wneud hynny, wrth gwrs, yw edrych i weld os gallwn ni estyn nifer y
llefydd sydd ar gael. Mae’r Ysgrifennydd ar hyn o bryd yn
edrych ar Fangor i weld beth sy’n bosibl ym Mangor, wrth
gofio’r ffaith nad oes ysbyty athrofaol yn yr ardal, ond mae
hynny’n rhywbeth gallwn ni ystyried, wrth gwrs. Ar un adeg,
roedd hi’n wir i ddweud bod meddygon yn tueddu dilyn eu
gyrfaoedd yn yr ardal lle roeddynt wedi hyfforddi. Nid felly y mae
hi ar hyn o bryd yng Nghymru, ond mae’n amlwg bod eisiau
gwneud mwy er mwyn hybu mwy o fyfyrwyr ifanc i ystyried
meddyginiaeth. Wrth ddweud hynny, wrth gwrs, dim ond rhan o’r
llun yw hyn. Mae’n rhaid inni hefyd sicrhau ein bod
ni’n gallu tynnu pobl i mewn, achos y farchnad rhyngwladol
sydd yna ynglŷn â meddygon.
|
The First Minister: Several people have
told me that there is a feeling among young people that it’s
easier to get a place in an English college than in Wales, even
though they come from Wales. That does trouble me, I have to say.
We have to consider why that perception exists, and we have to
ensure that more schoolchildren do consider medicine as a career.
One way to do that, of course, is to look at whether we can extend
the number of places that are available. The Cabinet Secretary is
looking at Bangor to see what’s possible in Bangor, bearing
in mind that there’s no university hospital in the area, but
that’s something that we can consider of course. At one time,
it was true to say that doctors tended to pursue their careers in
the areas where they trained. That’s not how it is in Wales
at present, but evidently we need to do more in order to encourage
more young people to study medicine. In saying that, that’s
only a part of it, as you have to ensure that we attract people in
because it’s an international market in terms of doctors.
|
[214] Ann
Jones: David Rees.
|
[215] David
Rees: Before I go on to my question, on that one: doctors
aren’t the only aspect of the workforce in the healthcare. We
talked earlier about the affordability and as you say, and as Simon
said, we are firefighting an awful lot because of dealing with
current sicknesses and ill health. Looking forward, is your Welsh
Government now putting in place a strong strategy for all health
professionals—nurses, other allied health
professions—to ensure that the resources are there so we can
deliver care in the home, care in the community, but also to ensure
that we can still deliver effective care in our tertiary sector and
secondary sector?
|
[216] The First
Minister: Yes. We have been encouraging as much cross-working
as possible amongst the professions. We’re seeing in it
Prestatyn at the moment. Where you look at Healthy Prestatyn, you
have available to people who go to what was a GP—or replaced
two GP surgeries—a number of professionals and they are
referred to the person who’s most appropriate to them.
I’m aware of what the British Medical Association is saying
about the need to increase the number of GPs. I listen to what
they’re saying, but there’s no point in increasing the
number of GPs if the work they’re dealing with is work that
actually could be dealt with by someone else. It just puts
more pressure on them. So Choose Well is hugely important, saying
to people, ‘Go and see a pharmacist first, if not, then a
community nurse and then a GP.’ I’m very keen to get
away from the idea that people think that their first port of call
is a GP. That just puts pressure on GPs for no reason. So, yes, I
am aware of what the BMA are saying, but I also take the view that
GPs are important, clearly, but it’s also about those other
professions, such as occupational therapists, such as
physiotherapists, such as community nurses, who can provide that
holistic service and take pressure off the GP workforce.
|
[217] Ann
Jones: We’ll move on because you’ve opened a can of
worms now. Everybody wants to talk about this. Simon.
|
[218]
Simon
Thomas: Jest wrth sôn am feddygon teulu, mewn mannau o Gymru mae
yna broblem ddifrifol wrth recriwtio a chadw meddygon teulu, does
dim dwywaith am hynny. Mae yna sawl dull—rŷch chi newydd
sôn am un yn y gogledd, ond mae yna ddulliau eraill
rwy’n ymwybodol ohonynt—clystyrau er enghraifft, ac
ariannu uniongyrchol i’r clwstwr yn hytrach na thrwy fwrdd
iechyd. Mae hynny yn newid y peth. Mae’n gofyn y cwestiwn, a
dweud y gwir, i Lywodraeth Cymru: a ydym ni’n gallu cadw y
dull presennol o feddygfeydd preifat sydd gyda ni i ddarparu
gwasanaeth gofal sylfaenol? Onid yw yw hi’n bryd camu yn
ôl a dweud ei bod hi’n bryd symud at fodel newydd a bod
y model newydd yn mynd i gynnwys pethau fel y clystyru yma, y
cymysgedd o wahanol staff, o wahanol sgiliau, advanced practice
nurses a phob dim arall, a’i bod hi’n bryd rhoi
diwedd a therfyn ar y feddygfa teulu draddodiadol? Ai dyna’r
sefyllfa rydym ni ynddi?
|
Simon
Thomas: Just on the issue of
GPs, now in some areas of Wales there is a serious problem in
recruiting and retaining, there’s no doubt about that. There
are a number of methods, and you’ve just mentioned one in
north Wales, but there are others in terms of clustering and direct
funding for clusters, rather than it coming through the health
board. That can change things, and it does pose the question of the
Welsh Government: can we actually retain the current model of
private surgeries that we have in providing primary care services?
Isn’t it time to take a step back and say we need to move to
a new model and that the new model will include things such as
clustering, the mix of different staff with various skills,
advanced practice nurses and all sorts of other skills, and that it
is time to put an end to the traditional GP surgery? Is that the
situation we find ourselves in?
|
[219]
Y Prif
Weinidog: Rwy’n credu bod hynny’n mynd i ddigwydd ta beth.
Nawr, barn y rhan fwyaf o feddygon teulu byddai, ‘Na, byddem
ni’n moyn cadw y system bresennol,’ achos mae nifer
ohonyn nhw wedi prynu mewn i bractis, felly mae’n nhw’n
moyn ystyried y buddsoddiad yna, ac rwy’n deall hynny.
Mae’n bwysig i rai ohonyn nhw eu bod nhw’n cael eu
hystyried fel eu bod nhw’n annibynnol ac yn gallu rhoi cyngor
annibynnol. Ond, beth sy’n digwydd nawr yw bod myfyrwyr yn
dod allan o’r brifysgol, mae dyledion gyda nhw ac nid ydyn
nhw’n moyn prynu i mewn i bractis. Rwyf wedi gweld hynny yn
fy ardal i, lle mae llawer mwy
o feddygon sydd ar gyflog nawr na meddygon sydd wedi prynu i mewn i
fod yn bartner mewn meddygfa deuluol. Rwy’n credu bod hyn yn
mynd i ddigwydd dros amser. Mae hwn yn gyfle o achos y ffaith, mewn
rhai rannau o Gymru, yn enwedig mewn ardaloedd gwledig, os ydych
chi yn eich ugeiniau ac mae rhywun yn dweud wrthych chi,
‘Mae’n rhaid i chi weithio yn y fan yna ac rydych
chi’n mynd i aros yn y fan yna nes eich bod chi’n 60 a
mwy’, mae’n nhw’n dweud, ‘Wel, nid wyf
fi’n moyn gwneud hynny. Mae hynny’n amser hir
iawn’. Os ydych chi’n dweud wrth rywun, ‘Cerwch
i’r fan yna, ac wedyn mae lan i chi benderfynu faint o amser
rydych chi’n mynd i aros’, wel, efallai y gwnân
nhw aros ta beth. Felly, mae’n rhaid gweld—
|
The First Minister: Well, I think
that’s going to happen whatever. The opinion of the majority
of GPs is, ‘No, we would want to keep the current
system,’ because they’ve bought into the practice and
so they want to consider that investment. I understand that.
It’s important for some of them that they are considered as
being independent and can provide independent advice. But,
what’s happening now is that students come out of university,
they have debts and they don’t want to buy into a practice.
I’ve seen that in my area, where there are far more doctors
who are salaried than those who have bought into being a partner in
a GP practice. So, that’s going to happen over time. Now,
this is an opportunity because of the fact that, in some parts of
Wales, particularly in rural areas, if you’re in your 20s and
someone tells you, ‘You have to work there and you’re
going to stay there until you’re 60 or older’, they
say, ‘Well, no, I don’t want to do that. That’s a
very long time’. If you tell somebody, ‘Go there, and
then it’s up to you to decide how long you’re going to
stay there’, well, maybe they’ll stay anyway. So, we
have to see that—
|
[220]
Simon
Thomas: A yw hynny’n rhoi cyfle i chi, fel Llywodraeth?
Mae’n rhoi cyfle i chi fanteisio ar y cyfle hwnnw. Mae
gwacter yn agor. Dylech chi fod ar y droed flaen.
|
Simon Thomas: Does that give you an
opportunity, as a Government? You need to take that opportunity.
There’s an opening there, and you should be on the front
foot.
|
[221]
Y Prif Weinidog:
Wel, rwy’n credu bod y byrddau
iechyd yn gallu gwneud hyn. Mae yna gyfle i sicrhau bod pobl yn
gallu mynd i ardaloedd lle mae wedi bod yn anodd i recriwtio pobl,
heb ddweud wrthyn nhw, ‘Mae’n rhaid i chi fynd yno a
sefyll yno am weddill eich gyrfa’. Mae yna gyfle yno.
Mae’n wir i ddweud bod yna llawer o feddygon teulu sydd ddim
yn cytuno â hynny, ond mae’n rhaid i fi ddweud wrthyn
nhw, ‘Mae amseroedd yn newid nawr, ac mae yna llai a llai o
bobl sydd eisiau prynu i mewn i bractis yn y ffordd
draddodiadol’.
|
The First Minister: Well, the health
boards can do this. There is an opportunity to allow people to go
to areas where it’s been difficult to recruit people without
telling them, ‘Well, you have to go there and stay there for
the rest of your career’. So, there is an opportunity there,
but it is true to say that there are a lot of GPs who don’t
agree with that, but I have to tell them, ‘Well, times are
changing now, and there are fewer and fewer people who want to buy
into a practice in the traditional way’.
|
[222] Ann
Jones: I’d forgotten what it was like to chair a
committee with you on. That was quite interesting. Sorry, David.
Your original question—. It was your fault; you started all
this off. Your original question, please.
|
[223] David
Rees: It goes back to the economy and perhaps what you were
talking about before. We all appreciate the importance of the
foundation industries to our economy. I refer to Tata, for obvious
reasons, as it’s in my constituency. I have said it before:
the Welsh Government, I think, led very strongly in the early
months of this year, but it’s gone very quiet lately. People
seem to have an impression that everything is fine, everything is
moving along, but we’re all aware of the uncertainty still
created by the decision of Tata. Ford is another example. Recently,
we’ve seen uncertainty as a consequence of the decision about
Ford. What is the Welsh Government doing to ensure that companies
such as Tata are supported, and that the commitment that you gave
back in March is still there to the industry now so that the jobs
are secured? Because companies such as Tata are not just a
business; they are basically the heart of the community. The loss
of companies such as that would devastate my constituency—and
your constituency, probably, even, as well.
|
[224] The First
Minister: You can’t be a modern industrial economy if you
don’t produce your own steel. There are a number of reasons
why you need to do that. One of them, for example, is: how do you
provide the kit for your armed forces if you’re reliant on
another country to manufacture it for you? There are lots of issues
there that arise, one of which is security. I think the best way to
describe the situation of Tata at the moment is that things are
better, but certainly not out of the woods. There are two major
issues that are yet unresolved. Firstly, the issue of pensions,
which there’s been no progress on with the Government since
this Prime Minister came into place. Secondly, energy prices. Now,
I would strongly urge the Chancellor in his autumn statement to do
something about energy prices. The steel industry in Wales is
paying 46 per cent more for its energy than in other countries.
I’ve listened to figures that Celsa have given me, where they
compare their operations in Spain to the UK. Spain is 37 per cent
cheaper when it comes to energy. Now, the exchange rate is helpful
at the moment in that regard, but this underlying lack of
competitiveness, as far as energy is concerned, has to be addressed
now to make sure that there’s a level playing field for those
who are operating in the UK, compared with the rest of Europe. I
don’t want to mislead people by saying that things are now
settled, because they’re not; they’re better. The
situation isn’t as acute as it was in March, particularly for
the heavy end in Port Talbot, but there is still work to do. The UK
Government is not engaging in the same way as it did when the
previous Prime Minister was there, and that’s something that
they need to readdress.
|
[225] David
Rees: And is it engaging with your Government on these
areas?
|
[226] The First
Minister: Not as strongly as before June. I think it’s
fair to say that David Cameron did take quite a strong personal
interest in the future of the steel industry and was prepared to
consider options that were unusual, but that’s gone now with
this current Government. They do need to understand that, in order
to secure a future for the steel industry, they need to take more
interest than they have done so far.
|
[227] Ann
Jones: I’ve got John Griffiths and Huw on this one.
|
[228] David
Rees: Just one final point from me. Have you got a strategy in
place now, if that’s happening, to look at alternative
options available to the Welsh Government to support industries
such as Tata?
|
[229] The First
Minister: We’ve put in place a package of more than
£60 million, which is still on the table. Tata have been
hugely appreciative of that. We can’t do anything about the
pension scheme—it has to be done at a UK level. We
can’t do anything about energy, because they have the ability
to control energy prices. So, we do need the UK Government to
resolve those two issues. If they are resolved then I think that
Tata’s future is secure, but they do need to be resolved.
We’ve done as much as we can do. The UK Government now needs
to resolve these issues as quickly as possible and not rely on the
exchange rate to act as the cushion for years to come.
|
[230] Ann
Jones: Okay. Right, I’ve got John, Huw and Jayne.
|
[231]
John Griffiths:
I think there are big questions, Chair,
aren’t there, in terms of industrial strategy. It’s a
criticism of the UK Government, I think, that it doesn’t
appear to have one. It ought to get one very quickly. At Liberty
Steel recently, First Minister, we were celebrating the success of
the reopening of the Tredegar plant but also looking at the plans
that Liberty have for the future. I think they’ve got some
far-reaching ideas around steel and infrastructure and
energy.
|
[232]
One important aspect of that is the tidal
lagoon. They have an interest in the tidal lagoon. Tidal lagoons
would be big infrastructure projects and hopefully we would see a
manufacturing capacity in Wales. Wales would be in at the forefront
of a very important new development that hopefully would stand us
in good stead for a long time to come. We expect to hear in the
autumn statement—hopefully there will be an announcement
giving the go ahead for tidal lagoons. I just wonder what Welsh
Government is doing at the moment, First Minister, given the
topicality of the decision that may be imminent, to continue to
make it crystal clear that Welsh Government sees tidal lagoons as
very important for those reasons and many more.
|
[233]
The First Minister:
It is transformative, not just the
Swansea bay lagoon, but the potential for lagoons across the entire
south Wales coast, not just in terms of being able to generate a
reliable source of energy. As long as the moon is there, then the
energy will be there. Yes, there is a significant capital cost, but
we have to get out of this thinking that every single power plant
in the UK has to be paid for by another country. We welcome the
investment in Wylfa Newydd, of course we do, and we welcome the
investment in Hinkley, but we do have to put our own hands in our
own pockets from time to time in order to build the power capacity
that we need. The Port Talbot dock is in a very good position to
act as the main hub for maintenance and manufacture of the kit for
the lagoons. There’s huge potential in Port Talbot, possibly
in Milford Haven as well, in servicing the lagoons in the future.
There’s huge potential there to create hundreds if not
thousands of jobs, but it does need that commitment from the UK
Government to make sure that this happens.
|
[234]
John Griffiths:
Just—
|
[235]
Ann Jones: No, no—. Just briefly, because we’ve got
five people on this and then we’ve got four more who’ve
indicated—
|
[236]
John Griffiths:
I was—
|
[237]
Ann Jones: No, no. Huw. Sorry, John—Huw.
|
[238]
Huw Irranca-Davies:
First Minister, a few weeks have gone by
since the welcome Nissan statement. Are we any clearer now what was
actually said to Nissan and has the same thing been said to the
automotive sector in Wales, including Ford, which you and I share
an interest in as it’s a local workforce?
|
[239]
The First Minister:
We’re no clearer, although we do
know that what I can only describe as a promise to use their best
endeavours to avoid tariffs as far as the automotive industry is
concerned has been made by the UK Government. Beyond that, we
don’t know what financial incentives may have been offered to
Nissan.
|
[240]
Huw Irranca-Davies:
But they should be offered here, surely,
if they’ve been offered—
|
[241]
The First Minister:
Equity suggests that that should happen.
In the same way, equity suggests that tariff-free access should be
extended to other sectors as well—steel, aeronautics. The
automotive sector is important and I welcome a commitment to trying
to avoid tariffs for the automotive sector, of course I do, but it
can’t just be for the automotive sector.
|
[242]
Ann Jones: Okay. Jayne.
|
[243]
Jayne Bryant: Just briefly, we were at Liberty Steel last week,
along with John Griffiths and the MPs, and it’s great news
for Tredegar and hopefully Newport with future job announcements.
But one of the points made was that the workforce that has been
re-taken on at Liberty are all getting older. What are we doing to
ensure that the skills are there for the next generation of these
jobs coming through for younger people?
|
[244]
The First Minister:
I think there was a perception that steel
making in some communities was on the way out. I think if
you’d have said to people in Tredegar that steel pipe making
would return, they’d have been surprised. Now that they see
it there, there’s more of an incentive for local youngsters,
particularly, to want to get apprenticeships. Liberty Steel are
fully aware of the need for training. They want to make sure they
have a skills pipeline for the future and, of course, as a
Government, we will stand ready to help them.
|
10:30
|
[245] Jayne
Bryant: Thanks.
|
[246] Bethan
Jenkins: I think people in Port Talbot would be very
disappointed by what you’ve said previously about the fact
that you as First Minister can’t do anything on energy prices
and pensions. There is always a way for somebody in your position,
I would have thought, to be able to exert your immense influence on
the UK Government in relation to these things. So, I would like you
to reflect on that. But, my question is with regard to the current
situation at Tata with regard to the discussions with ThyssenKrupp
in Germany and whether you think this would be the best deal for
Wales. If not, would there be potential to go back to the
Excalibur-Liberty Welsh proposition so that we can have that
ownership and that control here in Wales?
|
[247] The First
Minister: The Member is being mischievous when she says that.
She knows full well it’s the UK Government that controls the
energy and not us. She knows that as far as pensions are concerned
we don’t have any role and actually I don’t think that
neither she nor I would want the UK Government to be allowed off
the hook. They have a responsibility here to deal with energy
prices and with pensions—
|
[248] Bethan
Jenkins: And that’s exactly why you should be much
stronger on this.
|
[249] The First
Minister: We are hugely strong on this. The reality is we
can’t control energy prices. They can and they have a
responsibility to ensure—. We’ve done as much as we
can, but the ball is now firmly in the court of the UK Government.
They need to do more, particularly over energy. Let’s see
what happens in the autumn statement. And they need to do more in
terms of dealing with the pensions issue. They can’t just
rely, as I think they are at the moment, on the exchange rate being
favourable and, therefore, the pressure’s off, because
that’s not going to be the case for the future. So, as far as
Tata are concerned, we are still pushing the UK Government. We
still want to see energy being dealt with as part of the autumn
statement on the twenty-third and it will be of immense
disappointment to the workforce in Port Talbot if we find that
isn’t the case. At the moment, Tata are showing commitment to
Wales. There’s no indication that they will want to sell to
anyone else at this stage. On the ThyssenKrupp deal, what’s
absolutely crucial is that any joint venture includes two blast
furnaces in Port Talbot. If there’s a reduction to one blast
furnace then, of course, if that blast furnace needs to be
maintained in any way then there’s no steel production at all
at that point—or no production of iron at that point. So,
it’s hugely important that there are two blast furnaces going
forward. We understand that the financial situation in Port Talbot
has greatly improved from what it was in March. That’s a
tribute to the workforce who are there. Our package is still on the
table but the UK Government can’t be allowed to get off the
hook by simply saying, ‘Well, the Welsh will deal with all
that.’ They have a responsibility as well.
|
[250] Ann
Jones: Okay, thanks. Right, there are four people who’ve
indicated that they’ve got topical questions and I do want to
try and finish this session around about 10:50. Mark Reckless is
the next one.
|
[251] Mark
Reckless: First Minister, I commend you for the stance you took
in our debate this week on scrapping the Severn tolls. On the issue
of free-flow tolling, UK Ministers said to the Welsh Affairs
Committee in July that investment in that would take three or, more
likely, four years before it became operational. Given our vote
this week and given that timescale, why is the Welsh Government
supporting the introduction of that technology?
|
[252] The First
Minister: We don’t control the tolls. Even though the
tolls are actually in Wales, the tolls are actually the
responsibility of the highways agency and the Department for
Transport. Anything that removes the barriers is welcome, but
preferably we’d like to see the tolls removed. But there is
an issue that we have to examine carefully and that is: if the
physical barriers go, that would mean traffic will arrive at the
Brynglas tunnels even more quickly and that will create even more
congestion around the Brynglas tunnels, which clearly is an issue
for us. We know that barrier-free tolling is becoming more common:
the M50 around Dublin moved at a great expense from having barrier
tolls in place to free-flow tolling and that has meant that traffic
has flowed more easily. But, the danger is that you reduce
congestion at the Severn bridge and increase congestion at the
Brynglas tunnels, which is why the two issues have to be dealt with
together.
|
[253] Mark
Reckless: First Minister, we voted on Wednesday against having
tolls. Could I ask you to look at the legal position? Because the
current UK Government power to levy tolls stems from the Severn
bridges Act. And once taken back into the public sector, a further
sum—at the most recent estimate, £88 million—is
paid off, and that power to levy those tolls lapses. So, whether
it’s administered by the highways agency or whether they own
it may be neither here nor there, because under the Transport Act
2000, section 167, a road charging scheme would need a new scheme,
and section 168 provides for a joint scheme of the Welsh Assembly
and the UK Government. Surely, at least for the southern bridge,
that would be required and, if we’re against any tolls, why
on earth should we support investing in free-flowing technology
that couldn’t come in until we had the power to stop there
being tolls?
|
[254] The First
Minister: When the second Severn bridge was built, despite the
fact that the tolls are in Wales, the legislation made it clear
that, in effect, the tolls were in England. The Welsh Office of the
day was given no role, as far as those tolls are concerned. So,
when it comes to the Severn bridge tolls—. Just beyond the
Severn bridge, it’s right—of course we have those
powers. But, because of the way that the legislation was set up, we
actually have no control over those tolls or their setting.
|
[255] Mark
Reckless: But, Minister, please will you check—? I know
you’re not going to take what I say as gospel on this, but
please could I ask you to check this further, take legal advice,
and look at the legislation yourself? The Severn bridges tolls,
once they’ve raised that sum of money, the power of the UK
Government Secretary of State to levy tolls under that Act lapses.
At that point, there is a good argument that our agreement is
required for continued tolling—that’s what the St
David’s Day agreement says; it’s what the Silk
commission said. Please will you look at this, get legal advice and
think about it very carefully before we encourage the UK Government
to invest in free-flowing technology that would have no use if we
succeed in stopping the tolls and do have that power after
2019?
|
[256] The First
Minister: It’s an interesting point and worth reflecting
on, and I will do that.
|
[257] Mark
Reckless: Much appreciated.
|
[258] Ann
Jones: Perhaps we could have a note for the committee.
|
[259] The First
Minister: Yes.
|
[260] Ann
Jones: Thank you. Nick, you wanted to come in on this
point.
|
[261] Nick
Ramsay: No, I’m happy with that—I’ll just
stick to my question.
|
[262] Ann
Jones: Right, okay. Go to your question, then.
|
[263] Nick
Ramsay: Great. Thank you. First Minister, I’ve asked you
about this in Plenary, but it’s a very important subject for
me and for other Assembly Members. Can you update us on the impact
of next year’s business rates revaluation on businesses
across Wales? Are you in a position yet to give more detail on
transitional arrangements that will be in place? Would you, indeed,
consider a delay in the implementation so that some of the problems
can be ironed out?
|
[264] The First
Minister: No, I don’t think that we can delay, because
there’ll be many businesses that’ll benefit. With
anything like this, you tend to hear from the people who’ve
lost out—understandably, of course. Indeed, in some parts of
Wales, it seems that there have been significant increases, which
is something we have to look at, which is why the transitional
scheme of £10 million is in place. I’m surprised,
because the last valuations took place in 2008, when the economic
position was much stronger, and I would’ve thought that, for
the vast majority of businesses, they would’ve seen a
reduction in their business rates. Now, I am aware that other
businesses have seen an increase—it’s been raised with
me in the Chamber—but that’s why, of course, we have
the transitional scheme in place, and there’ll be further
details coming in the very near future.
|
[265] Ann
Jones: Just a small one then.
|
[266] Nick
Ramsay: Yes. I appreciate that this is revenue-neutral overall,
so it’s not the sort of issue that we deal with in some other
situations. However, if you take together the increase in the
rateable value in my area, Conwy, and the Vale of Glamorgan, the
increase in the multiplier, and the fact that some businesses are
being raised above the thresholds that they’re currently in,
that is a heck of a lot of expense for a lot of businesses in rural
areas particularly to take on. So, will you please undertake to
look at it very urgently and see what transitional arrangements can
be put in place?
|
[267] The First
Minister: One of the things that I’ve noticed is that
there seem to be concentrated effects in some parts of
Wales—Cowbridge, for example, has been raised in the Chamber.
I have asked officials to look at what the reasons for this might
be and to see why some parts of Wales seem to have been affected in
a much different way from most of the rest of Wales, if I can put
it that way. But that’s why the transitional rates scheme is
there. It’s designed to help businesses that have seen a
significant difference in what they’ll be asked to pay in the
future. And, as I say, the details of that will be made available
to Members in the near future.
|
[268] Ann
Jones: Okay. Simon.
|
[269] Simon
Thomas: No, I’ve covered all of my questions.
|
[270] Ann
Jones: Right, thank you very much. Does anybody else have a
topical question that they haven’t notified? No. You’ve
all been very good today—you can all go home early. First
Minister, we’ve arrived at that position where nobody wants
to ask you anything else, so can I say thank you very much to you
and your officials? We’ll send you a copy of the transcript
to check for accuracy, but if we can have that one note I think
we’ve asked for on Mark Reckless’s question—thank
you very much.
|
[271] The First
Minister: Thank you.
|
[272] Ann
Jones: We’ll see you in February, I think, which is the
next meeting.
|