|
Dechreuodd y cyfarfod am 09:02.
The
meeting began at 09:02.
|
|
Cyflwyniad, Ymddiheuriadau a Dirprwyon
Introductions, Apologies and Substitutions
|
|
[1]
Christine
Chapman: Good morning,
everyone, and welcome to the first committee of 2016 for the
Communities, Equality and Local Government Committee. We have had
apologies from Gwenda Thomas, and I know that John Griffiths will
be attending in her place.
|
|
Craffu ar
Gyllideb Ddrafft Llywodraeth Cymru ar gyfer 2016-17: y Gweinidog
Gwasanaethau Cyhoeddus
Scrutiny of Welsh Government Draft Budget 2016-17: the Minister for
Public Services
|
|
[2]
Christine
Chapman: The first item
today is the scrutiny of the Welsh Government draft budget, and we
have the Minister for Public Services. Just for you to be aware, we
will be holding four ministerial scrutiny sessions over two
meetings to inform our work on the draft budget, and, obviously,
the deliberations from this committee will be shared with the
Finance Committee to inform its wider scrutiny of the draft budget.
So, can I welcome the Minister, Leighton Andrews—the Minister
for Public Services? Can I also welcome your officials, Reg
Kilpatrick, director for local government, and Debra Carter, deputy
director, local government finance policy? So, welcome to you
all.
|
|
[3]
Minister,
obviously, Members will have had sight of your paper, so, if
you’re happy, we’ll go straight into questions. I just
want to ask you—and this is to do with preventative
spend—. Now, in your paper you say that cuts to the local
government revenue budgets are unavoidable. Could you just explain
on what basis you say that, given that the overall revenue funding
for Welsh Government departments has increased?
|
|
[4]
The
Minister for Public Services (Leighton Andrews):
Yes,
if you take the period since 2010, of course, we’ve had
successive real-terms reductions to the Welsh budget as a result of
successive UK Governments’ austerity measures, and those
reductions do mean tough choices. If you look at the budget
that’s come out, the Welsh revenue budget will, of course, be
4.5 per cent lower in real terms in 2019-20 than in 2015-16. So,
there will have been a real-terms reduction in our total budget of
3.6 per cent. We’ve had to focus our priorities on areas,
obviously, of greatest need—priorities that are in line with
the Government’s programme for government. Just to illustrate
what we’ve been able to do, however, in cash terms since
2010-11, spending per head in Wales in respect of local government
has increased by 1.2 per cent, whereas spending per head in England
on local government has decreased by 12.6 per cent, and spending
per head in Scotland has decreased by 10 per cent. So, I think that
we’ve provided a good settlement for local government in the
context of a very difficult financial settlement
overall.
|
|
[5]
Christine
Chapman: Okay. Thank you,
Minister. I know that Lindsay has got some questions.
|
|
[6]
Lindsay
Whittle: Thank you, Chair,
and good morning, Minister. I wasn’t on this committee last
year, but I understand that there was some criticism of the Welsh
Government for not demonstrating how you’d prioritised
certain areas—I think that health and local government were
two of those areas. I can particularly empathise with local
government. I’m a passionate believer, as you know, in local
government. Within the local government budget, you’ve
allocated additional funding for schools and social services. I
wonder if you could tell us what specific outcomes this additional
funding is supposed to lead to. What would you, as the Minister,
expect to happen?
|
|
[7]
Leighton
Andrews: Let’s be
clear about the money that has been allocated. We’ve
allocated an additional £34.8 million in the revenue support
grant and, added to moneys from the education budget, there will
be, overall, £39 million to ensure that local government is
able to implement this Government’s manifesto commitment to
ensure that budgets to schools are protected by 1 per cent above
the money that we receive from central Government. On top of that
of course, we’ve allocated £21 million to social
services in the context of the RSG. That’s separate from and
in addition to, of course, the money that’s being put in to
support the intermediate care fund. We have got clear goals, but
these are goals that will be taken through by my colleagues the
Minister for Education and Skills and the Minister for Health and
Social Services, to ensure that their priorities are delivered by
local government. But, essentially, in education it is about
continuing to raise standards and in the field of social services
it is obviously ensuring that we provide the best care to people of
all ages.
|
|
[8]
Lindsay
Whittle: Thank you for
that, Minister. I’m sure the appropriate committees will
monitor those Ministers that you referred to and I would ask a
question: how will you monitor those Ministers within your
Government as well? How will you monitor that local government is
actually spending the money that you’re allocating to them in
the direction that you want? Respectfully, that is your
responsibility as well.
|
|
[9]
Leighton
Andrews: It’s
certainly not my responsibility to monitor other Ministers, but I
will obviously have conversations with my colleagues in other
departments about the way in which this money is being allocated.
We’ve been accounting for the additional money that’s
been put in for education and social services now for some years.
The education money, obviously, is identified in the annual returns
provided to us by local government and I’m pleased that local
government has met that target over time, of ensuring that the 1
per cent is passed through to schools. In respect of social
services, that money is monitored through the annual returns in
respect of social services as well.
|
|
[10]
Lindsay
Whittle: Thank you,
Minister—
|
|
[11]
Christine
Chapman: Sorry, but before
you come in, Lindsay. I mean, obviously I know you don’t, as
you said, monitor those, but are you content that there is enough
scrutiny among the Cabinet in terms of some of these very important
issues?
|
|
[12]
Leighton
Andrews: Well, we talk
about these issues on a bilateral basis.
|
|
[13]
Christine
Chapman: Right, okay.
Because, obviously, other committees will have to scrutinise some
of the specifics. Okay; thank you. Lindsay.
|
|
[14]
Lindsay
Whittle: Thank you,
Minister, for your reply. I know that Welsh local government, just
prior to Christmas, have welcomed what money has been made
available to them under these particularly difficult circumstances
from the London Government, and I appreciate the problems that you
have as a Minister as well—I’m not unsympathetic. Much
of the investment is in preventative spend. How are you going to
ensure that, in fact, you can monitor that preventative spend and
that it will be effective? It’s no good just throwing money
at a subject if we’re not actually coming back with
results.
|
|
[15]
Leighton
Andrews: I think it is
important, particularly in difficult times, that local government
and other public services are looking to ensure that the money that
is put into the system prevents unnecessary spend subsequently in
other areas, or prevents cost shifting between different public
services, for example. There would be no point in money not being
used wisely, for example, in social services if that just led to
further burdens within our hospitals. So, I think there has been
quite a dialogue and quite a debate with local government about the
way in which we can shift more resources into prevention. We take a
leadership role in a number of areas on that. For example, we have
a group chaired for us by the chief constable of Gwent, Chief
Constable Jeff Farrar, on effective services for vulnerable
groups, which has
identified best practice in a number of areas, for example dealing
with issues such as missing persons, and has brought together
public service practitioners to consider some of those most
challenging issues where collaboration is needed. Indeed, to
illustrate how we’ve learnt from and absorbed and led on
that, their work on domestic violence is now reflected in the
national framework put into statute by the Violence against Women,
Domestic Abuse and Sexual Violence (Wales) Act 2015. But
they’ve also done work in the area, for example, of
multi-agency safeguarding hubs, which enable earlier intervention
on safeguarding matters. These bring together people from different
public services, working together on a long-term basis to identify
need and ensure earlier intervention. We’ve got a number of
very good examples there in Gwent, in Rhondda Cynon Taf and in
Cardiff and Vale, for example.
|
|
[16]
Lindsay
Whittle: Okay. Thank you
very much.
|
|
[17]
Christine
Chapman: Peter.
|
|
[18]
Peter
Black: Thank you, Chair.
Can I start by declaring an interest as a member of City and County
of Swansea? Minister, despite the reductions for local government,
you warn that there are short-term decisions, for example to close
leisure centres or libraries, which will store up problems for the
future, and the WLGA are also concerned about that. What mechanisms
and what support are you putting in place to enable councils to try
to mitigate the impact of those short-term decisions?
|
|
[19]
Leighton
Andrews: Well, these are
decisions that local government will have to take. What I seek to
do is to encourage local government to try and plan on a longer
term basis. That’s not easy to do when our own settlements,
clearly, are not on the long-term basis that we would like to see.
But I think people have been well aware of the scale of challenges
facing them. In fact, as Lindsay Whittle acknowledged earlier,
local government has broadly welcomed this
settlement—it’s certainly better than they were
expecting. Most local authorities were planning, I think, for cuts
of around 4 per cent, and the overall cut, of course, is 1.4 per
cent. So, it is important that they develop medium-term financial
strategies that take account of all the different ranges of income
available to them—Welsh Government funding, council tax, fees
and charges and, of course, their reserves. And we look to see
local authorities collaborating with others in the community to
ensure that there is robust and sustainable provision, including in
discretionary areas of expenditure, for the future.
|
|
[20]
Peter
Black: There are concerns
about some statutory services. Libraries are a good example of
that, where there are some statutory obligations on local
authorities in terms of libraries, although not specifically in
relation to individual libraries. Are you working with your
ministerial colleagues to ensure that local government do actually
maintain that statutory obligation as part of this?
|
|
[21]
Leighton
Andrews: Yes, I mean, I
think local authorities are aware of their statutory obligations.
As you say, statutory obligations are not fulfilled by having
specific individual libraries in specific individual places. It is
about a general level of provision, but, certainly, I have had
those discussions with my colleague the Deputy Minister for
Culture, Sport and Tourism.
|
|
[22]
Peter
Black: Okay.
|
|
[23]
Christine
Chapman: Before you come
back, Peter, I’ve got Mike, but I just want to pursue that
question on leisure centres and libraries. How much work is being
done by you as a Minister in terms of ensuring that there’s
consistency across all local authorities in terms of supporting
initiatives for communities to take over leisure centres and
libraries? What is your assessment of that?
|
|
[24]
Leighton
Andrews: I’m not sure
it’s for us to ensure consistency between local authorities.
Local authorities need to develop whatever is appropriate for their
own circumstances. But, of course, my colleague the Deputy Minister
for culture has produced guidance in respect of library provision.
I, along with other colleagues—my colleagues the Minister for
Communities and Tackling Poverty and the Minister for Finance and
Government Business—have met to discuss issues such as asset
transfers and the provision around those. As you will be aware, I
commissioned work—. Sorry, the Minister for Economy, Science
and Transport and I jointly commissioned work that was delivered by
Keith Edwards in respect of alternative models of delivery, and
we’ve published an action plan around that. So, I think
there’s been a considerable amount of work that’s been
done to support local government in this area, and these subjects
have been discussed, for example, at the finance seminar we held
jointly with the Welsh Local Government Association on 19
November.
|
|
[25]
Christine
Chapman: Okay. Thank you.
Peter, I’ll just bring Mike in on a supplementary and then
come back to your question. Mike.
|
|
09:15
|
|
[26]
Mike
Hedges: As you’ll
remember—I’m sure most members of the committee
do—we did an investigation into libraries and I will raise
again something that I raised then. In Julie James’s
constituency, you have a library in Sketty, run by the council, and
half a mile away from that, or less than half a mile away,
you’ve got a library run by the further education college.
Less than half a mile away, you’ve got a library run by the
University of Wales Trinity St David, and just over a mile
away—perhaps a mile and a half away—you’ve got
one run by Swansea University. What discussions have you had with
other Ministers about some form of collaboration so that you could
actually put the general library and Swansea further education
college’s library together? There would be savings, but also
you’d probably have a better library.
|
|
[27]
Leighton
Andrews: Indeed, I think I
was a member of the committee when the library discussion took
place, so I remember it. Let me say that I don’t think
it’s for me to initiate those conversations in respect of
Swansea University, Trinity St David, Swansea Met and Swansea
council. These are precisely the kinds of conversation I would
expect the local leadership to initiate.
|
|
[28]
Christine
Chapman: Thank you.
Peter.
|
|
[29]
Peter
Black: Thank you, Chair.
Minister, you’ve transferred £31.1 million from the
local government improvement action line into the RSG. That
previously supported local authorities to build corporate capacity
and improve delivery through outcome agreement grants. Does this
indicate that you will now abandon this outcome agreement grant
process for local government?
|
|
[30]
Leighton
Andrews: Well, I came to
the view that, you know, it was right for us to reduce the number
of specific grants and to enable local authorities to make
decisions of their own. I’m very keen that local government
drives up overall service delivery and has a consistent focus on
performance improvement. I’m not convinced, myself, that the
outcome agreement focus necessarily, for the long term, is the way
to do that. I think, in the short term, it was a good model and it
provided some changes in focus and delivery. Clearly, there was an
incentive on local government to ensure that it got the outcome
agreement money, but I think that was a short-term measure.
I’m more interested in opening up transparency, in having
good comparative data on performance by local government across
Wales, which I think will enable local people to identify where
local authorities are delivering and where they are not—where
they are not reaching the best in class. With that information
available, it seems to me that that is the way to drive performance
change within local authorities. You will be aware also that there
has been a continual demand from local government that we should
reduce the number of hypothecated grants, and with this decision I
think that we move to situation where, during the lifetime of this
Assembly, we will have moved £190 million into the RSG, away
from hypothecated grants.
|
|
[31]
Peter
Black: I certainly
support that as well. I’m interested in the explanation on
the outcome agreements. I think that you’re right. That was a
lot of work for local authorities, although it was a specifically
different sort of grant to a hypothecated grant because there was a
partnership involved in that. Does that mean that you are becoming
much more light touch than your predecessors in that
regard?
|
|
[32]
Leighton
Andrews: I’m not
normally accused of being light touch.
[Laughter.]
|
|
[33]
Peter
Black: I know;
that’s why I’m so confused.
|
|
[34]
Leighton
Andrews: Look, I want to
focus on performance improvement, but I think that, in the age of
big data, it is perhaps easier to draw a transparent—to shine
light on the way that authorities are performing. I think that will
be the direction of travel for the future.
|
|
[35]
Peter
Black: Thank you. My
other question is about the reduction of £495,000 to the
supporting collaboration and reform action, which of course relates
to local service boards, which have just been made statutory by the
wellbeing of local communities Act. Why did the Welsh Government
decide to reduce funding in that particular area given that
you’ve just passed a law to put those service boards on a
statutory basis?
|
|
[36]
Leighton
Andrews: Can I be clear?
The creation of the public service boards under the Well-being of
Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, which kicks in from 1 April,
is going to be supported by £730,000, which I have allocated
for next year. We’ve developed guidance on public service
boards as to how that funding should be directed to support the
wellbeing assessment and the subsequent development of the
wellbeing plan. The money that I have transferred—the money
that you refer to—I have, in fact, transferred some of that
to the legislation and transformation budget to support joint
working and collaboration activity.
|
|
[37]
Christine
Chapman: Mark.
|
|
[38]
Mark
Isherwood: In relation to
preventative spend, a local authority, it has been reported today,
is making a decision on whether to close all their public toilets.
How are you engaging, for example, in that area with local
authorities to encourage them to work differently? You mentioned
some options—asset transfer or transferring to town and
community councils—but are you looking at procurement schemes
or community toilet schemes, for example, as an alternative, rather
than taking the easy option, which would actually add costs in
other areas?
|
|
[39]
Leighton
Andrews: There are
alternative delivery models. As I said earlier, we commissioned
work on that from Keith Edwards. Local authorities are well aware
of that work. It was the subject of the discussions in the 19
November joint seminar with the WLGA on financing of local
government. I think that they are aware of their responsibilities
and I look to them to work with local community organisations,
third sector partners and others to deliver where they need
to.
|
|
[40]
Christine
Chapman: Thank you.
Janet.
|
|
[41]
Janet
Finch-Saunders: Thank you. Good
morning, Minister. How does the Minister respond to the
WLGA’s call for a fundamental review of the local government
funding formula? I know it’s something that’s been
raised across the Chamber here. Many feel that the funding formula
is very outdated and that it really doesn’t help or support
our more rural councils.
|
|
[42]
Leighton
Andrews: There are a number
of issues in relation to the funding formula. We said in our White
Paper last February that we were not going to look at a longer term
review of the overall local government finance system while we were
moving forward on the process of local government reorganisation,
but that we were open to exploring the future financing questions.
Indeed, I have established a finance futures panel to inform our
thinking as a Government on this. And, of course, the WLGA has
created an independent commission chaired by Professor Tony
Travers, which is also looking at these questions. The two groups
are working very closely together and, indeed, I expect to have a
presentation from Professor Tony Travers—I’ve already
met him—on the work that he is doing very soon.
|
|
[43]
In
respect of the formula specifically at the present time, the
formula is not my formula, of course. The formula is a formula that
is agreed with local government through what is known as the
distribution sub-group. Authorities from all over Wales are
represented on that group. The formula is looked at annually and
it’s reviewed by independent members to see whether it is
still reflecting the needs facing local government. I’ve not
received a collective call from local government for a fundamental
review, and, when I talk to local government leaders, I still have
yet to find a single local government leader who really thinks the
formula works to the advantage of his or her authority. I think
there is a recognition that there are going to be winners and
losers on different aspects of the formula. The formula takes into
account various drivers of need, including population growth,
deprivation and sparsity issues. So, it’s certainly not the
case that rural authorities are disproportionately affected by the
formula.
|
|
[44]
Janet
Finch-Saunders: Can I just ask
then, Minister: do you believe it to be outdated or not?
|
|
[45]
Leighton
Andrews: Do I believe the
formula is outdated as currently constituted? I think the formula
is reviewed annually, so I don’t think it’s technically
outdated. I think the issue is whether we need to look more
fundamentally at local government finance, and we will do that in
due course.
|
|
[46]
Christine
Chapman: Janet, before you
come back, I’ve got Mike and Peter on a supplementary and
then I’ll come back to you. So Mike first, and then
Peter.
|
|
[47]
Mike
Hedges: Well, I think that
most rural authorities get substantially more than Swansea and
Cardiff. Would the Minister provide a note on how much per head of
population each local authority gets? I think this idea that
there’s little money going to rural authorities and huge sums
going to the large, urban authorities is misguided and wrong in
fact. I think if that note could be provided and it could be put in
with our evidence, at least then we would actually have the truth
of the matter, rather than prejudice.
|
|
[48]
Leighton
Andrews: Can I say
I’m very happy to provide such a note? Just to illustrate the
point that my colleague, the Member for Swansea East—have I
got that right this time—has made, authorities such as
Cardiff and Flintshire receive less funding per head through the
settlement than does Powys.
|
|
[49]
Christine
Chapman: Thank you. Peter,
and then back to Janet.
|
|
[50]
Peter
Black: I absolutely
accept that, in terms of funding per head, Powys does receive more
than some of the urban authorities. I think the issue though,
Minister, is that when it comes to the annual increase or decrease
in funding, the rural authorities are consistently at the bottom of
the pile and are getting bigger cuts in their funding than the
urban authorities. Now, of course, it is based on need and there is
a formula in place. But also, even though, say, in terms of Powys,
they may have a declining population and may have issues, if there
is a certain base at which you have to provide services
irrespective of the way in which the population is moving, I was
just wondering whether you’ve considered a mechanism that
would try to even out the disparity in funding for various councils
as part of the local government settlement this year and maybe for
future years as well.
|
|
[51]
Leighton
Andrews: The Member will
recall that, last year and, indeed, in some previous years,
we’ve had a funding floor in the settlement, if you like, to
make allowances for the overall reductions. Indeed, in 2015-16,
Powys received an additional £2.2 million as part of the
funding arrangements. One of the perversities of this, however, of
course, is that if you move from a year when there is a funding
floor to a year when there isn’t a funding floor, which we
have done this year, because the overall settlement was generous,
as local government has accepted, those authorities that previously
had a funding floor may in fact receive a more difficult settlement
because the formula requires us to catch up with two years of
adjustments. So, it’s not always—you know, the funding
floor should only be a transitional mechanism and the danger is,
I’m afraid, that when it comes to a halt, the cuts can
actually be deeper.
|
|
[52]
Peter
Black: I think
that’s why I was arguing for a more permanent
evening-out—
|
|
[53]
Leighton
Andrews: What you’re
essentially arguing for, then, is a movement of money from urban
and Valley authorities to rural authorities, and I think we should
have that clearly on the record.
|
|
[54]
Peter
Black: Or an additional
amount of money being put in specifically to
assist—
|
|
[55]
Leighton
Andrews: Welsh Government
provides around 75 per cent of local government spend at the
moment, so you’re also then arguing for central Government to
assume a greater percentage of local spend. I don’t know
whether that, in the context of a discussion around the future
financing of local government, is right. I think, you know, there
clearly have got to be redistributive mechanisms within the
financing of local government, but I’m not sure—when
does local government stop being local government? Central
Government is already providing 75 per cent of its
funding.
|
|
[56]
Peter
Black: I think we
recognise that that is the problem, and until you
actually—
|
|
[57]
Leighton
Andrews: But you’re
arguing for more money from central Government.
|
|
[58]
Peter
Black: What I’m
arguing is that until you actually adjust that problem and sort out
local government financing, to go away from that, you need to put
those mechanisms in place.
|
|
[59]
Leighton
Andrews: I think
there’s a utopian element to your argument, Peter.
|
|
[60]
Peter
Black: A very good
book.
|
|
[61]
Christine
Chapman: Before I come back
to Janet, I’ve got a very brief supplementary from
Mark—and then back to Janet.
|
|
[62]
Mark
Isherwood: You mentioned
Flintshire as a low-per-head recipient of funding. How do you
address a situation, such as in Flintshire, where there actually is
a large rural component? My wife, for example, represents a rural
ward with six rural communities in Flintshire. In addressing this,
is it not the case that although you do have an annual review,
nonetheless it’s the Welsh Government that sets the terms of
reference that determine how the formula should
prioritise?
|
|
[63]
Leighton
Andrews: No, the terms of
reference are collectively set between us and local government.
Just to say, on this, if you take a local authority like
Flintshire, clearly, those parts of Flintshire that have areas of
sparsity will be reflected within the overall setting of the
formula.
|
|
[64]
Christine
Chapman: Okay, thank you.
Janet.
|
|
[65]
Janet
Finch-Saunders: We’ve
touched on hypothecation, but in the recently published
‘Localism 2016-21’ manifesto, the WLGA again calls for
local councils to be offered increased financial flexibility and a
move away from the overly complex and costly system of grant-funded
dependency that hampers local councils. How are you going to adjust
to those calls?
|
|
09:30
|
|
[66]
Leighton
Andrews: Well, I’m
already taking action. We’ve moved, prior to this settlement,
£160 million from hypothecated grants into the RSG. With this
settlement, it goes up to £190 million moved into the RSG
simply during the lifetime of this Assembly. I think that’s
been significant work that needs to be appreciated. We intend to
continue the scope to do more around de-hypothecation. I’m
working with ministerial colleagues to do that. We’ve had
discussions with local government also about how we can simplify
some of the grant mechanisms that exist, and we will continue to
explore the opportunities for funding flexibilities in the
future.
|
|
[67]
Christine
Chapman: I want to move on
now, then, to Gwyn.
|
|
[68]
Gwyn R.
Price: Good morning. On
local government reform, what is your response to the warning from
the WLGA that any predicted savings from the local government
merger process may be a decade away, and that the process will
not
|
|
[69]
‘remedy the
enormous financial challenges local government faces over the next
five years’?
|
|
[70]
Leighton
Andrews: Well, local
government reorganisation isn’t intended to remedy the
financial challenges that local government faces. Local government
needs to work through its own ways of handling the financial
challenges that we face. I repeat what I said earlier: we have done
far more in Wales to protect local government against the austerity
agenda of central Government than have the Governments in either
England or Scotland. So, can I say that the important thing here, I
think, is to have an appreciation of that? And, you know,
colleagues around this committee have been part of the discussions
on the draft local government Bill and the regulatory impact
assessment that we’ve published. It’s not true to say
that savings will not kick in for a decade. Savings would kick in
probably after a period of two or three years and we would be
starting to see the returns on that investment, I think, quite
quickly. Added to that, of course, last June I published the review
of the cost of administration in local government, which was
carried out for us by KPMG, which demonstrated that, if local
authorities in Wales were operating to the best practice available
across the UK, then there was scope for administrative savings of
some £151 million per annum. So, I think it is important that
local government look at that, that they look at the opportunities,
where they can, to use their reserves as well to structure services
for the future, and I think that it’s very important that we
don’t confuse these two issues. There are immediate tasks
that local government has to take on, and then there are the issues
around the future of local government, its structure, and the
savings that will arise from mergers.
|
|
[71]
Gwyn R.
Price: Thank
you.
|
|
[72]
Christine
Chapman: Okay. Thank you.
Bethan.
|
|
[73]
Bethan
Jenkins: Rwy
jest eisiau gofyn cwestiwn ynglŷn â sut mae’r
gyllideb yn adlewyrchu amcanion y Llywodraeth er mwyn deall y
cyswllt rhwng sut mae’r llywodraeth leol yn perfformio ac
wedyn yr arian yr ydych chi’n rhoi fel Llywodraeth. Sut ydych
chi’n cyfiawnhau gwerth am arian yn hynny o beth? Cawsom
ni’r ombwdsmon i mewn cwpl o wythnosau yn ôl ac roeddwn
i wedi dweud wrth yr ombwdsmon bryd hynny fy mod i wedi edrych ar
sut mae llywodraeth leol yn gwerthuso ei hun, ac, yn amlwg,
mae’n mynd i werthuso ei hun mewn ffordd decach nag efallai y
byddai’r ombwdsmon yn ei hasesu. Felly, sut ydych chi’n
defnyddio’r gyllideb i sicrhau bod yr arian yn mynd i’r
awdurdodau lleol hynny sydd yn perfformio ac sydd yn gwneud yn well
nag, efallai, cynghorau eraill agos?
|
Bethan
Jenkins: I just want to ask
a question on how the budget reflects the Government’s
objectives to better understand the links between local government
performance and then the funding that you as a Government provide
to them. How do you ensure value for money in that regard? We had
the ombudsman in just a few weeks ago and I told him at that point
that I had looked at how local government self-evaluates, and,
clearly, they are going to do that in a fairer way than perhaps the
ombudsman would do. So, how do you use your budget to ensure that
the funding does go to those authorities that are performing and
are performing better, perhaps, than other councils
nearby?
|
|
[74]
Leighton
Andrews: We don’t
have a competitive bidding process for local government funding
overall. There is a danger in competitive bidding processes, which
is that people get skilled in the preparation of bids, and that
experience in becoming more and more skilled in the preparation of
bids means that you become the recipient of more and more money,
and I’m not sure—. I think we’ve got to be
careful about how we address these kinds of issues. In terms of
performance improvement, I do want local authorities to undergo a
process of self-assessment, and the White Paper that we published
in February had a lot to say about performance improvement, about
assessment by local authorities themselves, about audit, and so on,
and the relationship between self-assessment and performance
improvement and, indeed, audit. So, we’ve published, I think,
our expectations of local authorities.
|
|
[75]
I have
also looked at some of the best practice in the UK, where local
authorities have been able to track in real time their performance
in particular service areas. You could see children’s
services, for example, against other authorities and indeed against
their own performance over time. There are very interesting models
that I’ve seen in Haringey, for example, which have been
based on the work done by the—. They’ve established a
delivery unit very similar to that which used to operate in No.
10—the former Prime Minister’s delivery unit. I think
those kinds of models are useful. I’ve mentioned these to
local government colleagues and I hope that they will study and
learn from them. But what we have done is that we have published
our local authority performance website last September, and this
website includes analysis of aspects of local government spending
alongside performance. So, it allows more in-detail benchmarking of
performance against other authorities. Authorities should
themselves, of course, have the data on their own performance over
time and how they can redirect resources to improve services. So, I
think this is about transparency. I think it’s about the use
of data. It’s about the better command of data locally and
that is what we would expect local government to be
doing.
|
|
[76]
Bethan Jenkins: Diolch am hynny. Ond jest fel sylw ar hynny: os oes yna
fodelau eraill ar draws Prydain, byddwn i’n gobeithio bod yna
siawns i fod yn proactive ac nid jest i obeithio eu bod
nhw’n mynd i edrych ar hynny, ond i danlinellu sut y bydden
nhw yn gallu gwella wrth edrych ar yr hyn sydd yn digwydd mewn
llefydd fel Haringey, os yw e mor dda â’r hyn rydych yn
ei ddisgrifio. Ond sylwad yw hwnnw yn fwy na dim.
|
Bethan
Jenkins: Thank you for
that. But just as a comment on that: if there are other models
across Britain, then I would hope that there would be an
opportunity to be proactive and not just to hope that they would
look at that, but to actually highlight how they could improve by
looking at what is happening in places such as Haringey, if
it’s as good as you suggest. But that was a comment more than
anything.
|
|
[77]
Leighton
Andrews: I agree with you.
I have made many speeches to local government leaders and local
government chief executives in which I have highlighted examples
from other parts of the UK, including Haringey, including Plymouth,
including Lambeth, including Cheshire West and Chester, and many
others where there are some good examples of best practice. Indeed,
the leader of Plymouth council, of course, spoke at the finance
seminar that we ran with the Welsh Local Government Association in
November, to illustrate how, even where authorities are under more
stress in terms of their budgets than we are in Wales, local
government still survives and still develops services in an
innovative way.
|
|
[78]
Bethan Jenkins: Mae
jest gen i gwestiwn arall ynglŷn â’ch gweledigaeth
i greu un gwasanaeth cyhoeddus sydd yn ffocysu ar asiantaethau yn
gweithio gyda’i gilydd gyda dinasyddion i wella eu bywydau. A
allwch chi esbonio sut y mae’r gyllideb ddrafft yn gallu mynd
tuag at yr amcan hwnnw? Oherwydd yn sicr ar lefel llawr gwlad, mewn
nifer o faterion lleol rwy’n eu cael, mae dinasyddion
efallai’n teimlo mai nhw yw’r bobl olaf i ddarganfod
gwybodaeth am sefyllfa neu am gyfarfod cyhoeddus ynglŷn
â dyfodol rhyw wasanaeth neu’i gilydd. Sut ydy hwn yn
mynd i adlewyrchu realiti ar lawr gwlad, yr hyn rydych chi’n
ei ddweud yn eich dogfen chi?
|
Bethan
Jenkins: I have a further
question on your vision for one public service focused on agencies
working together and with citizens to improve their lives. Can you
explain how this draft budget can contribute towards that aim?
Because certainly at a grass-roots level, in a number of local
issues that I deal with, citizens feel that perhaps they are the
last people to find out about a certain situation or about a public
meeting on the future of some service or other. How is this going
to reflect the reality at grass-roots level, that which you say in
your document?
|
|
[79]
Leighton
Andrews: Yes, it is very
important, I think, that local authorities develop better
mechanisms for communication with their local public. That’s
why we’ve put in in the past, for example, money to ensure
that local authorities can improve websites, broadcast meetings
over the internet, and so on and so forth.
|
|
[80]
Bethan
Jenkins: There are still
many not doing that.
|
|
[81]
Leighton
Andrews: Well, I agree with
you on that and we emphasise that again in the White Paper and
we’ve taken a number of steps to try and drive people in that
direction. But, at the end of the day, these are matters for local
leaderships; they are not matters for me. All I can do is say what
I think best practice should be. You asked specifically about how
we’d allocated funding. We’ve allocated money
obviously, as I said, to the transformation and legislation fund,
which is intended to support collaborative projects across the
public services. I’ve created the public service digital
innovation fund as well, which I hope will drive work in this area.
The work of our public service leadership academy, Academi Wales,
is, I think, significant and best in class in many respects. We
have people coming from other parts of the UK to learn from what
they’ve been doing. We had an excellent public service
leadership summit—the first real public service leadership
summit—in November, which attracted 200 public service
leaders across Wales, which included, let me say, not just devolved
public services, but also non-devolved public services. Indeed,
most if not all of the chief constables were at that event, to
illustrate. Obviously, on top of that, we’ve allocated money
to the public service boards, and this will enable those boards to
be strong and to develop a clear and coherent agenda for the local
areas, and, clearly, devolved and non-devolved services will be
represented within those.
|
|
[82]
Bethan Jenkins: Mae’r cwestiwn byr olaf sydd gyda fi ynglŷn
â’r asesiadau ynglŷn â’r byrddau hynny
a’r gyllideb ranbarthol gydweithredol. Rydych chi’n
dweud bod allbwn o’r asesiadau hynny yn mynd i gael ei
gyhoeddi eleni. A oes gennych chi unrhyw wybodaeth newydd am y ddau
beth hynny?
|
Bethan
Jenkins: My final brief
question relates to the evaluations of those local service boards
and the regional collaboration fund. You say that output from the
evaluations will be published this year. Do you have any new
information that you can provide on those two issues?
|
|
[83]
Leighton
Andrews: Well, there is a
variety of projects carried forward under the regional
collaboration fund, and there have been some good successes. I
think the evaluation work has said that people need to be clear
about the objectives at the start of the programme and need to be
more focused on ensuring buy-in from all partners, but we’ve
seen good work, for example, in Ceredigion where partners have been
working with other organisations to support the humanitarian
assistance with the Syrian refugee crisis, ensuring co-ordination
across health, housing, education and social care. The Cardiff
partnership board has been working with a variety of organisations,
ranging from schools and youth services to Communities First and
Families First, to introduce the first city-wide time banking
scheme in the UK, for example, and we’ve got some good
examples of LSB projects that have now come to an end, funded by
European moneys—Connecting Families in Bridgend, for example,
which has developed and implemented a new model of service to
address the needs and behaviours of families who place the most
demand on public services. We’ve got similar examples in
Carmarthenshire, Conwy and Denbighshire.
|
|
[84]
Christine
Chapman: Okay.
Mike.
|
|
[85]
Mike
Hedges: Minister,
you’ve said every authority should take account of all the
available funding streams. Is that shorthand for increased fees and
charges and extending fees and charges?
|
|
[86]
Leighton
Andrews: Well, local
government currently spends around £8 billion of general
revenue a year in providing local services, and that money, of
course, doesn’t just come from central Government. Around
£3.2 billion comes from the RSG, a further just under
£1 billion comes from the redistribution of non-domestic
rates, £1 billion is raised from council tax, but on top of
that there are some specific grants—some of those from
central Government, some of them from Welsh Government—and
then there is the income that local government receives from fees
and charges, and that is roughly just under £1.3 billion at
the moment across Wales. I think it is inevitable that local
authorities are going to look at the charging and fees that they
attribute to local services currently. That will clearly be one of
the issues that they will be discussing with their local
communities when they consult on their plans for the
future.
|
|
[87]
Mike
Hedges: Okay. Can I move
on to reserves? I think that this is perhaps one of the least
understood areas of local government. General reserves are
themselves relatively low in most authorities, but the total
reserves are relatively high, with most of them being earmarked. Do
you think it would be helpful if you suggested, instructed, or
whatever method you have, local authorities to identify what those
reserves are being used for? I know, for example, the local
authority in the area you represent keep a substantial reserve
because they do not insure their schools—they use their
reserves to self-insure. Thus it saves them several million pounds
in insurance a year, but if a school burns down they become
responsible for replacing it. Now, I think that’s a prudent
way of doing it, because insurance is an exceptionally expensive
commodity, but would it not be helpful if that was done? Would it
also be helpful to distinguish between cash reserves and non-cash
reserves, because, again—sorry, I’ll finish on
this—some local authorities, for example, are self-borrowing;
they’re still holding in reserve certain sums of money but
they’ve actually borrowed that money into their capital
programme to avoid paying capital charges? Again, I think
it’s a very prudent use of resources, but it does mean that
the amount shown in the reserve column is not necessarily how much
is available in cash.
|
|
09:45
|
|
[88]
Leighton
Andrews: I think I’d
make a number of observations on that. First of all, I think it is
evident that some authorities are more efficient in their use of
reserves than others. I often discuss with the leader of my local
authority how they are approaching the whole issue of reserves.
He’s carried out a line-by-line review of their reserves to
identify what is absolutely needed in reserves and what could be
used in terms of service transition and transformation, for
example. The reality is that, at the end of the day, reserves are
intended for a rainy day. It’s pretty wet out there in terms
of local government finance at the present time, and I think
it’s important that local authorities keep their reserves
under constant review. So, what I’ve done is I’ve
published the material, and the Welsh Government websites contain
the latest details of the size and nature of each individual local
authority’s holding of reserves. I’ve also provided to
every councillor in Wales, and, indeed, provided on our website,
guidance for members on scrutinising decisions on reserves—on
the use of reserves and on the holdings that local authorities
have.
|
|
[89]
Mike
Hedges: Can I move on to
the KPMG administrative savings review? There are a couple of
points I’d like to ask you on this. Is there not a benefit of
collaboration between local authorities? If one local authority
deals with payroll, for example, exceptionally efficiently, for
them, instead of the other authority to try and catch up, to
actually take over the payroll function of both authorities, thus
for the saving to be made without any big changes inside the
authority.
|
|
[90]
The
second one is that KPMG—. It’s very interesting. The
difficulty is that local authorities don’t always account in
exactly the same way and sometimes there are difficulties in
working out exactly how much a service costs. It’s one of the
things that the pro-privatisers have used in the past, in that
they’ve been allocating a percentage of the chief
executive’s salary against a service, or a proportion of
costs relating to personnel against a service, to prove it would be
cheaper to privatise. Even taking that into account, there are some
authorities that do deal with things better. Rather than everybody
trying to catch up, wouldn’t the advantage be to let those
who do things well do them for more than one authority?
|
|
[91]
Leighton
Andrews: I completely agree
with you. I think they should, and I would like to see more doing
that. Sadly, I’ve got examples—I won’t name
them—of local authorities who I think are actively
discouraging that happening. So, I’m very grateful if my
colleague wants to make that point as loudly as he can around
Wales.
|
|
[92]
On the
second point that he makes from the KPMG study, he’s
absolutely right about the variable accounting systems in terms of
how people assess costs and so on, and management costs are often
redistributed outwards, if you like, to specific services in that
way. It is important; I think local authorities do aim to get a
grip on what are the true costs of particular services, and I think
the KPMG study has helped in that, because it’s made this
whole process much more transparent.
|
|
[93]
Mike
Hedges: I’m sure it
has. I think that actual costs and marginal costs are incredibly
important, but they vary dramatically between the two. I think it
is important that we do identify the difference between the
two.
|
|
[94]
The
last question I’ve got is on council tax. Again, you’ve
said:
|
|
[95]
‘to think
seriously about the funding challenges they face and to balance
this with a consideration of the financial burden on
households’.
|
|
[96]
Is
that, again, shorthand for, ‘If you go above 5 per cent,
you’re going to be capped’?
|
|
[97]
Leighton
Andrews: The Welsh
Government has not needed to cap local authorities, as it happens,
in recent years. I would expect most local authorities to behave
prudently. However, I’m also not in the game of subsidising
local authorities to make inappropriately low council tax judgments
either, because it seems to me that that simply leads to a
situation, ultimately, where central Government absorbs more and
more of the costs of running local government.
|
|
[98]
Christine
Chapman: Okay, thank you.
We’ve got a number of other specific areas as well. John, I
think you had some questions.
|
|
[99]
John
Griffiths: Yes. Moving on to
community safety, Minister, and the £400,000 that’s
been allocated for the next financial year to help implement the
Act, are you confident that that money is sufficient for that
implementation, and could you give the committee some idea of the
outcomes that you will be looking for in terms of that
allocation?
|
|
[100]
Leighton
Andrews: Do you mean
specifically in respect of violence against women?
|
|
[101]
John
Griffiths: Yes.
|
|
[102]
Leighton
Andrews: Yes. I think
it’s important that local authorities, and indeed all public
services, shoulder their responsibilities in this area. We talked
about prevention and preventative work earlier, and there has been
some good work, as I illustrated, through the effective services
for vulnerable groups programme, which has developed best practice
in this area, which fed into the framework we developed under the
Act. But I don’t want the provision of central funds to be
used as an excuse by local authorities to give up on support they
are giving, say, to refuges or to other support for women and
children at risk of domestic abuse or sexual violence. The funding
that we’ve allocated has been for specific services through
the introduction of the national training framework, for the
appointment of the national adviser, and for raising awareness
through our advertising campaigns, which have been very
successful—indeed, award-winning in some cases. So, our goal,
obviously, is to contribute to the work introduced by the Violence
Against Women, Domestic Abuse and Sexual Violence (Wales) Act 2015
and the goals there and the duties, indeed, which fall very
specifically on public authorities.
|
|
[103]
John
Griffiths: Okay. Is there
also—. Lindsay touched very briefly, I think, in terms of
domestic violence, on the preventative nature of spend in that
area, and, indeed, your paper states that the annual cost of
domestic abuse in Wales is £826 million, but that every
£1 spent in this area of activity saves the public purse
£2.90. So, in that context, did you consider an increased
allocation over and above what’s been provided because of the
preventative nature of that spend?
|
|
[104]
Leighton
Andrews: Yes. I’ve
looked to increase that budget. My predecessor had increased it.
This will be the first year of implementation of the Act and I
think it’s right that we keep the moneys allocated against
the objectives of that Act under review for the future.
|
|
[105]
John
Griffiths: Okay, that’s
fine. If we could move on, Chair, to the area of youth justice, I
think this is probably a very good example of preventative spend,
because money that’s allocated that does reduce youth
offending I think saves a tremendous amount of money for the public
purse because of the cost of taking young people through the
criminal justice system and, indeed, the cost of incarceration if
there’s resulting imprisonment. Some of that saving is a
saving to the UK Government, Minister, of course, isn’t it,
in terms of the criminal justice system and prisons and custody
generally? Is that aspect of preventative spend ever discussed
between Governments, because, obviously, one Government might not
be as keen to spend money that’s going to save another
Government money compared to saving itself money, as it were? I
think that’s a very tricky area, isn’t it, but does
that ever get factored into discussions?
|
|
[106]
Leighton
Andrews: It’s a good
and important question, I think. We are in a position now where
we’re clear that the UK Government does not intend to devolve
justice, or, indeed, even youth justice, to Wales, and I’ve
not yet met the new Secretary of State for Justice, Michael Gove,
in his current capacity, though I hope to meet him in the
not-too-distant future. I did, however, make representations to him
in respect of the budget for the youth justice board, and I met
Lord McNally just before Christmas—the chair of the youth
justice board—to discuss the outcome of that, because they
sustained quite significant cuts in their budget, and I also made
representations in respect of the budget that was to come to Wales.
So, those discussions do go on, though largely, at present, I would
say, in the context of the overall spending review that’s
taken place. I do think that this is an area that has been one of
great success in Wales, where we’ve seen reoffending rates
held, but the number of offences has been reducing over the last
few years and there are fewer young people in the youth justice
system. We’ve had to make some savings in this budget. I do
think there is a need for a dialogue with the UK Government as to
how appropriate it is, if they’re not prepared to devolve
youth justice to Wales, that we should carry on making the level of
contribution that we are in this area. But, I think that’s
not a decision that I would want to rush into because, clearly,
there are projects out there being supported, but that is a
discussion that we will have to reflect on in the context of our
own budgets, given that they are being cut by central
Government.
|
|
[107]
John
Griffiths: Could I just
follow up briefly, Chair? I’ve mentioned the nature of spend
in this area—preventative spending in financial terms. But,
of course, it’s also a matter of the impact on communities of
offending, and the impact on the offenders themselves and their
families. Obviously, every young person who can be diverted to a
more productive life for themselves and their communities, and for
Wales as a country, is of great value in terms of quality of life,
as well as preventing spend by different levels of government. So,
it’s great to reflect on the progress that you’ve
mentioned, Minister, but the programme for government progress
report does nonetheless acknowledge that reoffending rates among
young people are still of concern. So, on that basis, the decision
to reduce funding for the youth justice action from £5.2
million to £4.4 million, which is something like a 15 per
cent reduction, is of concern to this committee, notwithstanding
the progress that’s been made. What would you say to the
concern that this reduction in funding might not see us maintain
the progress that we’ve made to this day?
|
|
[108]
Leighton
Andrews: Well, we’ve
had to make tough decisions across our budgets, and one of the
questions that I’ve been debating myself over these last few
days is whether this money that we provide under this budget head
should be transferred into the RSG, for example. Because
we’ve got an overall question and, in earlier questions,
colleagues have raised whether we should be reducing the number of
hypothecated grants. Now, I could have done that. I’ve chosen
not to do it this year, but I might well want to begin a
consultation as to whether that happens in subsequent years. That
is an area of discussion. One of the reasons that we do have
dedicated grants is perhaps because we take a view that if we
didn’t have those dedicated grants, the work that goes on in
those areas might not otherwise happen. So, it is a difficult
balance to strike in fact, particularly in some areas around
criminal justice or preventative work in respect of criminal
justice and areas such as Gypsy/Travellers and so on, where there
is sometimes more of a reluctance among local authorities to take
on work in what are perceived to be publicly unpopular areas. So,
this is a discussion for the future. We think that the reduction in
funding can be accommodated by there being greater collaboration
across local authority areas, and with a focus specifically on
supporting those young people with challenging behaviours or who
are on the cusp of entering the youth justice system. I don’t
pretend it’s a happy decision, but I think it’s a
difficult decision that we’ve had to take.
|
|
[109]
John
Griffiths: In terms of that
collaboration that you mentioned then, Minister, and perhaps a new
way of working, will Welsh Government and your ministerial
colleagues be taking a hands-on role in making sure that that new
way of working is in place?
|
|
[110]
Leighton
Andrews: Well, yes, I think
it’s mainly in my portfolio. It’s a question for us in
discussion with the youth justice board as well.
|
|
[111]
Christine
Chapman: Peter’s got
a supplementary, before I bring Mark in.
|
|
[112]
Peter
Black: I’m just
interested in the scenario that you painted about whether
it’s right for the Welsh Government to continue funding a
non-devolved area in the face of that area having a declining
budget. How does that apply in terms of the police and the funding
that you put in for the PCSOs? Obviously you have a manifesto
commitment up until May, but is that up for review under the same
principle after May do you think?
|
|
10:00
|
|
[113]
Leighton
Andrews: We have a
manifesto commitment and we delivered it. We’ve continued
that funding into the next financial year. Clearly, it will be for
future Governments to make decisions in these areas.
|
|
[114]
Christine
Chapman: Mark.
|
|
[115]
Mark
Isherwood: Thank you. If I
could start with a related question on the points John Griffiths
made. John Griffiths raised some very important points around
preventative spend across administrations, and, of course, there
are many parts of the world that have ‘federal
Governments’ or central Governments and then state/national
regional Governments, where the spending decisions of one will
impact on the budgets of another and which, therefore, have
developed mechanisms for dealing with that. What consideration has
the Welsh Government given to the mechanisms and the practice
established elsewhere globally, which might be adopted to reflect
those shared impacts of individual decisions?
|
|
[116]
Leighton
Andrews: Well, we have our
mechanisms. I explained, you know, much earlier we have the
effective services for vulnerable groups programme, which is
chaired by Chief Constable Jeff Farrar—he’s somebody
from a non-devolved service who leads on that for us, and Chief
Constable Farrar is also a member of my public service leadership
panel. So, I think we’ve absorbed some of that learning and
we’ve implemented it in our own way here in Wales. I think
that the interesting questions, maybe for the next Government, are
going to be around that tension between the responsibilities of the
UK Government and the responsibilities for us in Wales. Clearly,
you want to avoid a simple cost-shunting exercise where, you know,
a reduction in devolved services spending in one area simply leads
to more spending—more spending need, shall I say, by a
non-devolved service such as the police, and the framework we have
with our public service boards should allow us to do that. But then
there is a specific area around responsibility for where portfolios
are not devolved, and I think we will—if our budgets are
going to continue to be squeezed by central Government—have
to look very carefully at where we are essentially funding things
that really are the responsibility of the UK Government, given that
we now have, in the context of the present UK Government, some very
emphatic decisions about things they are not going to devolve to
Wales.
|
|
[117]
Mark
Isherwood: Are there, or are
you aware of, internationally, any examples of compensation flows,
where Governments will agree that there’s been a saving or a
cost incurred by the other administration?
|
|
[118]
Leighton
Andrews: Yes, there are,
and to a degree, I think, sometimes those things operate in Wales
as well. But the problem I think we have is that our experience
over the last six years has been that, where central Government has
wanted to devolve services to us, they’ve usually come at a
discount. So, we tend to be looking at these issues not necessarily
on the basis of partnership.
|
|
[119]
Mark
Isherwood: So it’s
something to explore and develop for the future. Moving on to the
fire and rescue service, your paper states that planning for major
incidents is
|
|
[120]
‘of the
utmost importance in the current security
climate’.
|
|
[121]
What
assessment, therefore, have you undertaken of the likely impact of
the reduction—I think from £5.8 million to £5.1
million—in budget provision for that?
|
|
[122]
Leighton
Andrews: I think
we’ve protected spend around major incidents and, of course,
the bulk of funding in respect of major incidents comes from other
areas—the resources raised by the fire and rescue authorities
themselves. The reductions that we’ve put in place have
largely been in the area of community fire safety. I’m
pleased that there’s been great success in Wales in reducing,
for example, the number of fires over recent years and I think that
the budget reduction, in fact, is actually—. Sorry, I need to
clarify your figures. You’re right that the top line looks
like it’s £5.8 million to £5.1 million, but there
has actually been a merger of budgets here and the overall
reduction in the resilience budget is under £200,000. If you
want me to give you a note just to explain that—
|
|
[123]
Christine
Chapman: Yes, if you could
provide a note on that, Minister.
|
|
[124]
Leighton
Andrews: Yes, that’s
fine.
|
|
[125]
Mark
Isherwood: And similarly, in
relation to—
|
|
[126]
Christine
Chapman: Mark, sorry,
before we move on, I want to take up a supplementary on this from
Bethan, and then I’ll bring you in. Bethan.
|
|
[127]
Bethan
Jenkins: I just wanted to
ask a question, sorry—. Speaking to some firefighters and
people who work in the sector—. It’s in relation to the
flooding recently. I acknowledge the fact that fire incidence has
gone down, but what they’re saying to me is that, in relation
to incidents such as flooding, that money, then, is being—.
While they may be reducing budgets to attend fires, the money then
is going into having to attend flooding incidents, and, if they
were the main body responsible for flooding, they would be able to,
potentially, see an increase in their budget. Could you explain
whether you’ve had discussions with either the trade unions
or the sector to see or to expand on their role in taking
responsibility for this area? Although I acknowledge, obviously,
Natural Resources Wales would have one of the key roles here as
well.
|
|
[128]
Leighton
Andrews: The responsibility
for flooding does lie with Natural Resources Wales for management.
However, there are groups within—. These issues are discussed
within the Wales resilience forum; there are regular meetings
between Natural Resources Wales and the fire and rescue authorities
about these issues. Clearly, it would not be our intention at this
present time to effect such a transfer of responsibilities. These
issues, are, however, discussed sometimes when we meet with the
trade unions.
|
|
[129]
Christine
Chapman: I wonder if you
are able to provide us any information on those discussions, just
for clarification, Minister. Because, obviously, there is a
concern—we just need to confirm how it’s
working.
|
|
[130]
Bethan
Jenkins: I think it’s
because of—. Obviously, because they acknowledge—. I
think a lot of the discussion there is about the fact there may be
a reduction in funding because of the lessening of incidents in
that field, but then, of course, they’re not potentially
being acknowledged for the overcapacity that they’re finding
themselves in at the moment for the flooding. So, whether
there’s something that could be discussed in terms of
budgeting in that regard—. So, that was, really, what it
was.
|
|
[131]
Leighton
Andrews: I’m happy to
provide a note in respect of fire service engagement in flood
prevention and flood management.
|
|
[132]
Christine
Chapman: That would be
useful, I think, yes. Okay, thank you. Mark.
|
|
[133]
Mark
Isherwood: In hindsight, does
there need to be some form of contingency provision, given the
increased incidents happening and forecast, for this, and should
that be a central fund or should that be a form of reserves held by
the authorities themselves?
|
|
[134]
Leighton
Andrews: Sorry, in respect
of what, now? We’re talking about flooding.
|
|
[135]
Mark
Isherwood: Flooding.
|
|
[136]
Leighton
Andrews: That’s not
my portfolio responsibility. That’s a matter for the Minister
for Natural Resources.
|
|
[137]
Mark
Isherwood: The services that
you fund have a key role in responding to these
incidents.
|
|
[138]
Leighton
Andrews: These are matters
that fall within the duties of the fire and rescue authorities and
it’s for them to decide how to manage their own resources in
that way.
|
|
[139]
Mark
Isherwood: But should there
not be a Welsh Government cross-cutting provision for exceptional
circumstances or events such as these?
|
|
[140]
Leighton
Andrews: There is provision
within the budget of the Minister for Natural Resources, and the
Minister for Natural Resources announced—the First Minister,
in fact, announced additional money for the flooding situation just
in the last couple of weeks. In respect of my own budgets, I am
content that the responsibility lies with the fire and rescue
authorities—the bulk of their funding does not come from
me—and that they should manage their resources
appropriately.
|
|
[141]
Mark
Isherwood: You’re not
saying that Natural Resources Wales could give money to fire and
rescue authorities.
|
|
[142]
Leighton
Andrews: Sorry, I’m
not going to answer questions that are not on my portfolio. If the
Member wants to direct those questions to the Minister for Natural
Resources, then, of course, he’s able to do so.
|
|
[143]
Mark
Isherwood: If
somebody’s house has been flooded, or business has been
flooded, they’re not really concerned which Minister, they
want to know how it’s going to be dealt with.
|
|
[144]
Leighton
Andrews: Sorry,
you’re scrutinising my budget, I think.
|
|
[145]
Christine
Chapman: Yes, I think, from
this point of view, Mark, it’s not the relevant Minister,
but, obviously, you can have the opportunity to question Carl
Sargeant on this in Plenary. Any other questions?
|
|
[146]
Mark
Isherwood: Well, yes. Sorry.
A similar theme: your paper states that both Care and Social
Services Inspectorate Wales and Estyn have been allocated
additional funding to keep their cuts down to manageable levels.
Again, what assessment, therefore, have you made of the reductions
in the budgets for these two bodies?
|
|
[147]
Leighton
Andrews: The assessments
are, actually, for the Ministers for education and skills and
health and social services to make. They have to make the judgments
as to what is appropriate for the inspectorates that operate in
their area. The budgets are held within my MEG in order to ensure
effective independence between the policy directorates and the
inspection organisations. But the reality is that, if there is
going to be less activity in a particular area, then, you know, the
inspectorates will need to address their overall inspection plans
in that regard as well.
|
|
[148]
Christine
Chapman: Okay. Mike, you
had a supplementary, I think.
|
|
[149]
Mike
Hedges: Just on fire and
rescue services, it’s my understanding—perhaps the
Minister can correct me if I’m wrong—that fire and
rescue get the vast bulk of their money, if not all their money,
from local authorities by a charge, and, if they need additional
money, they can put a supplementary charge on to the local
authorities.
|
|
[150]
Leighton
Andrews: That was the point
I was making earlier. I agree with my colleague.
|
|
[151]
Christine
Chapman: Okay, thank you.
If we can move on now, we’ve got about 20 minutes maximum
left. So, Alun, you had some questions.
|
|
[152]
Alun
Davies: Diolch yn fawr. Rydych chi wedi dweud, Weinidog, sawl gwaith,
ei fod yn fater i lywodraeth leol ac i gynghorau gwahanol ddeall
impact ac asesu impact y penderfyniadau maen
nhw’n eu gwneud pan fo’n dod i gyllidebu a
phenderfyniadau cyllidebol. Mi oedd yna drafodaeth llynedd,
rwy’n meddwl, pan oedd yna sôn amboutu pa mor gadarn a
pha mor briodol ydy’r asesiadau sy’n cael eu gwneud gan
lywodraeth leol. A ydych chi’n dal i feddwl ei fod yn fater i
lywodraeth leol yn unig wneud asesiadau ar gydraddoldeb, er
enghraifft? A ydych chi’n hapus bod yr asesiadau sy’n
cael eu gwneud i gyd yn gadarn ac yn briodol?
|
Alun
Davies: Thank you very
much. You have said several times, Minister, that it is for local
government and for various councils to understand and to assess the
impact of the decisions that they make when it comes to funding and
to funding decisions. There was a discussion last year, I believe,
when there was reference to how robust and how appropriate the
assessments that are undertaken by local government are. Do you
still believe that it is a matter for local government alone to
carry out equality impact assessments, for instance? Are you
content that the assessments that are undertaken are all robust and
appropriate?
|
|
[153]
Leighton
Andrews: Well, there are
public sector equality duties that fall on us, of course, as a
Government, as well as on public service bodies, including local
authorities. At the end of the day, there are specific duties on
local government to carry out assessments in respect of the
equality impact of proposals that they’re making. When I
issued the provisional settlement, of course, I reminded local
government of their duties in that regard. I’ve also shared
information on best practice on how to engage local populations in
the budget-setting process, and, clearly, that includes such things
as equality impact assessments and community impact assessments.
So, you know, I don’t think any local authority is unaware of
their duty to consider the impact of their decisions on equality
and, indeed, of course, this has been a matter where certain
decisions have been challenged in the courts when local authorities
have gone through a consultation process that’s been felt by
local groups to be inadequate. There have been occasions where
local authorities have had to go back and look again at decisions
they’ve made in that regard. So, I think there is a clear
framework, local authorities know what their responsibilities are,
and, increasingly, it seems to me, community groups know what the
local authorities’ responsibilities are as well.
|
|
[154]
Christine
Chapman: Can I just, before
I bring Alan back in—? I mean, I think all of us may be aware
of individual cases where there’s a concern that maybe local
authorities are not adhering to this and, as you said, they can
access the courts, but it seems a very radical step to do that. Is
there more the Welsh Government can do to help this along? Because
not all groups may be aware of the duty.
|
|
[155]
Leighton
Andrews: I think the
important thing here is that local authorities carry out their
equality duties. Equality law is not devolved, but there are
specific public sector equality duties that fall on us as well. I
think we have taken the steps that are necessary to ensure that
people are aware of their responsibilities.
|
|
[156]
Christine
Chapman: So, that would be
down to scrutiny by local members, then, you’re
saying.
|
|
[157]
Leighton
Andrews: Well, scrutiny by
local members, scrutiny by civic society, but, equally, there are
specific duties.
|
|
[158]
Christine
Chapman: Okay. Sorry,
Alun.
|
|
[159]
Alun
Davies: Na,
rwy’n falch bod y Gweinidog wedi ateb yn y ffordd mae e wedi.
Mae’r ffaith eich bod chi wedi ysgrifennu at y cynghorau
lleol gyda’r enghraifft o best practice yn awgrymu imi
roedd yna bryder yn eich meddwl chi amboutu sut oedd hyn yn
digwydd. Rwy’n falch eich bod chi wedi ymateb i hynny ac wedi
ysgrifennu at awdurdodau lleol. Rwy’n credu mai dyna yn union
yw’r peth iawn i’w wneud. Ond a ydych chi fel
Llywodraeth yn casglu gwybodaeth ar draws y wlad er mwyn inni fan
hyn gael y darlun cyfan o benderfyniadau awdurdodau lleol? Achos
beth sydd yn dod ataf i yw—rydych chi’n hollol iawn,
petai yna grŵp lleol, grŵp cymunedol, yn meddwl bod un
cyngor wedi gwneud cam mewn unrhyw ffordd, mae’n bosibl mynd
drwy broses y llysoedd, er fy mod i’n cytuno â’r
Cadeirydd o
ran pa mor effeithiol mae hynny’n gallu bod—. Ond, i ni
fan hyn, mae bob awdurdod yn gwneud penderfyniadau gwahanol ac yn
gwneud asesiadau. A ydych chi yn casglu’r wybodaeth i ni gael
darlun cenedlaethol o’r penderfyniadau yma, a beth sy’n
digwydd ar lefel genedlaethol?
|
Alun
Davies: No, I’m glad
that the Minister responded in the way that he did. The fact that
you have written to local councils with the example of best
practice suggests to me that you did have a concern in your mind
about how this was being undertaken. I am glad that you have
responded to that, and that you have written to the local
authorities. I think that that is exactly the right thing to do.
But, as a Government, do you collect information from across the
country so that we here can have the full picture of the decisions
that local authorities make? Because what comes to me is—you
are completely right to say that if a local group, a community
group, thinks that a council has made a mistake in some way, it is
possible to go to the courts, although I do agree with the
Chair about the question of how effective that can be—. But,
for us here, every authority is making a different decision and
making different assessments. Are you collecting the information so
that we can have a national picture of those decisions, and of what
happens on a national level?
|
|
10:15
|
|
[160]
Leighton
Andrews: No.
|
|
[161]
Alun
Davies: A
ydych chi’n meddwl felly nad oes gennym ni ddarlun clir
o’r impact—y cumulative impact, os ydych
chi’n licio—o’r penderfyniadau unigol?
|
Alun
Davies: Do you therefore
think that we don’t have a clear picture of the
impact—the cumulative impact, if you will—of the
individual decisions?
|
|
[162]
Leighton
Andrews: Every local
authority takes hundreds of spending decisions and other decisions
that require equality impact assessments in the course of the year.
I’m not sure that it’s helpful for us to accumulate
that information; I think that’s a matter for local
authorities and it’s a matter for local scrutiny.
|
|
[163]
Alun
Davies: Rwy’n cytuno, ond mi ydych chi wedi dweud hefyd fod gan
Llywodraeth Cymru ddyletswydd a chyfrifoldebau i sicrhau bod yr
asesiadau yma’n digwydd, a’n bod ni yn deall beth ydy
impact y penderfyniadau unigol. Ac felly, os nad ydych
chi’n casglu’r wybodaeth ac yn dod i gasgliad
cenedlaethol, mae’n awgrymu i mi ei bod hi’n anodd iawn
i chi fel Gweinidog allu bod yn sicr nad oes impact yn
digwydd nad ydych chi’n ei wybod amdano.
|
Alun
Davies: I agree, but
you’ve also stated that the Welsh Government has a duty and
responsibilities to ensure that these assessments are undertaken,
and that we understand what the impact is of the individual
decisions. Therefore, if you don’t come to a national
conclusion and don’t collect information nationally, that
suggests to me that it’s very difficult for you as a Minister
to be sure that there is no impact going on that you don’t
know about.
|
|
[164]
Leighton
Andrews: I think
we’ve got to be clear about what is the responsibility of the
Government; I think our responsibility is to ensure that local
government implements its duties, or that they have the best
information available to them on the implementation of duties. I
don’t think it’s for us to second-guess every decision
that’s been taken by a local authority. That’s for the
local authority, its members and its local public and its local
civic societies to do.
|
|
[165]
The
logic of what you’re suggesting would be that we would have
to collect evidence on virtually every decision taken by a local
authority, analyse it and then determine—which is not our job
anyway—whether or not it’s complied with an equality
impact assessment. Now, that would require a huge expansion and
bureaucracy within Welsh Government. It would probably duplicate
the work of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and duplicate
the work of individual local authorities
themselves.
|
|
[166]
Alun
Davies: Ond,
os nad ydych chi’n deall beth yw cumulative
impact o’r penderfyniadau, mae’n anodd iawn i chi fod yn
sicr bod hyn yn digwydd. Ond, i symud ymlaen, beth am asesiadau
ynglŷn â’r Gymraeg? Mae gan lywodraeth leol
gyfrifoldeb i sicrhau ei bod yn ystyried yr impact ar yr
iaith o benderfyniadau unigol a’r penderfyniadau cyllidebol.
A ydych chi yr un mor gadarn bod asesiadau sy’n digwydd
ynglŷn â’r iaith yn briodol ac yn sicrhau ein bod
ni yn deall yr impact ar yr iaith o benderfyniadau
llywodraeth leol?
|
Alun
Davies: But, if you
don’t understand what the cumulative impact of decisions is,
it is very difficult for you to be certain that this taking place.
But, to move on, what about the impact assessments in relation to
the Welsh language? Local government has a responsibility to ensure
that it does consider the impact on the Welsh language of
individual decisions and of budgetary decisions. Are you equally
certain that the impact assessments in relation to the Welsh
language are appropriate and that they do ensure that we do
understand the impact on the Welsh language of the decisions of
local authorities?
|
|
[167]
Leighton
Andrews: Am I confident?
No. Am I clear that local authorities need to do this properly?
Yes. We have been clear, I think, in advising local government on
their responsibilities on impact assessments, and, indeed, on the
implementation of Welsh language standards, and I think they will
face a more challenging environment in respect of those standards
and their obligations under them. The Well-being of Future
Generations (Wales) Act 2015, of course, puts an obligation on
local authorities to consider the goal of a thriving Welsh language
within their communities. I’m pleased to say that, in
general, authorities are opting to take the Act forward and are
keen to do that. I would like local authorities to learn from best
practice and for the Welsh Local Government Association to support
them in this.
|
|
[168]
On top
of that, of course, I have established a Welsh language task and
finish group, chaired by a former member of this committee, Rhodri
Glyn Thomas, to ensure that these matters are considered and built
upon in the process of transition from our existing local
authorities to new local authorities in the future.
|
|
[169]
Alun
Davies: Diolch.
|
Alun
Davies: Thank
you.
|
|
[170]
Christine
Chapman: Bethan, you had a
supplementary.
|
|
[171]
Bethan
Jenkins: Roeddwn i jest eisiau gofyn, fel rhan o’r grŵp
hwnnw mae Rhodri Glyn Thomas yn mynd i’w arwain—.
Rydych yn gwybod ein bod ni wedi cael gweithdai ynglŷn ag
agweddau tuag at hiliaeth ac agweddau tuag at bobl sydd yn hoyw.
Rwy’n credu bod angen gweithdai yn lleol ynglŷn ag
ymatebion swyddogion a phobl leol tuag at yr iaith Gymraeg.
|
Bethan Jenkins: I just wanted to
ask, as part of that group that Rhodri Glyn Thomas is to
lead—. You will know that we’ve had some workshops on
people’s attitudes towards racism or towards homosexuality. I
do think that we need some workshops locally in terms of the
response of officers and local people to the Welsh
language.
|
|
[172]
Rwy’n dweud hynny mewn ffordd difrifol iawn oherwydd
roeddwn i mewn cyfarfod cyhoeddus—ni fyddaf i’n dweud
lle—lle roedd swyddogion y cyngor yn dweud bod gwariant ar yr
iaith Gymraeg o ran dogfennau yn fwrn arnyn nhw o ran y gyllideb,
ac o ran sut roedd hynny yn cael ei gymryd oddi ar wasanaethau
eraill. Nid wyf yn disgwyl bod swyddogion nad ydynt yn cael eu
hethol i ddweud hynny mewn cyfarfodydd cyhoeddus, ac felly byddwn
i’n eich annog chi i gynnal gweithdai o’r fath
gyda’r WLGA er mwyn sicrhau bod agwedd pobl tuag at yr iaith
Gymraeg yn gwella o fewn y sector honno.
|
I say that in all
seriousness because I was at a public meeting—I won’t
say where—where council officials were saying that
expenditure on the Welsh language in terms of documents and so on
was a burden on their budgets, and that it was taking away from
other services. I wouldn’t expect unelected officers to be
saying that in public meetings. So, I would encourage you to hold
workshops of that kind with the WLGA to ensure that the attitude of
people towards the Welsh language is improved within that
particular sector.
|
|
[173]
Leighton Andrews: Wel,
mae’n siom i glywed hynny, wrth gwrs. Rwy’n hapus i
rannu terms of reference grŵp Rhodri Glyn gyda’r
pwyllgor yma, ac rwy’n hapus i drafod gyda’r WLGA y
pwnc sydd wedi ei godi gan yr Aelod.
|
Leighton
Andrews: Well, it’s
disappointing to hear that, of course. I’m happy to share the
terms of reference of Rhodri Glyn’s group with the committee,
and I’m also happy to discuss with the WLGA the issue that
was raised by the Member.
|
|
[174]
Christine
Chapman: Okay. Thank you.
Mark, you had a supplementary.
|
|
[175]
Mark
Isherwood: Yes. Again,
it’s the equality impact assessment. In my experience, when
constituents or disability fora or disability access groups raise
particular issues with us over local authorities, it’s not
the local authority’s lack of knowledge over the Equality Act
2010, or the public sector equality duty, because they will cite
that immediately: it’s their awareness of what that actually
means from the perspective of the service user. We know who to go
to. We know that, if we speak to the expert local groups, or to
providers of good practice in some local authorities in
Wales—and there are some excellent models of good
practice—we can get the answers, but some local authorities
become entrenched in defending poor decisions rather than seeking
better awareness to avoid spending lots of money getting it wrong
in the future. Again, is there a role, as you see it, for Welsh
Government? I hope you agree there is, and not just in robustly
encouraging local authorities to access that expert awareness
training and knowledge before they make major spending
decisions.
|
|
[176]
Leighton
Andrews: I think that there
is no shortage of advice on which local authorities can draw. There
is no shortage of guidance published by this Government. There is
no shortage of encouragement from me and previous Ministers that
they should do this. At the end of the day, it is down to local
leadership.
|
|
[177]
Christine
Chapman: Okay. Well, can I
thank you, Minister, and your officials, for attending today? I
think it’s been a very comprehensive scrutiny session. We
will send you a record of the meeting so that you can check it for
factual accuracy. So, thank you for attending, Minister.
|
|
10:22
|
|
Cynnig o dan Reol Sefydlog 17.42 i Benderfynu
Gwahardd y Cyhoedd o’r Cyfarfod
Motion under Standing Order 17.42 to Resolve to Exclude the Public
from the Meeting
|
|
Cynnig:
|
Motion:
|
|
bod y pwyllgor yn penderfynu gwahardd y cyhoedd o'r eitem
nesaf yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.42(vi).
|
that the committee
resolves to exclude the public from the next item in accordance
with Standing Order 17.42(vi).
|
|
Cynigiwyd y cynnig.
Motion moved.
|
|
[178]
Christine
Chapman: Could I now invite
the committee to agree to move into private session to discuss the
evidence? Yes. Okay, thank you.
|
|
Derbyniwyd y cynnig.
Motion agreed.
|
|
Daeth rhan gyhoeddus y cyfarfod i ben am
10:23.
The public part of
the meeting ended at 10:23.
|
|
Ailymgynullodd y pwyllgor yn gyhoeddus am 11:00.
The committee reconvened in public at 11:00.
|
|
Craffu ar Gyllideb Ddrafft
Llywodraeth Cymru ar gyfer 2016-17—Prif Weinidog Cymru
Scrutiny of Welsh Government Draft Budget 2016-17—The First
Minister of Wales
|
|
[179]
Christine
Chapman: Okay. If we can
make a start then. Now, this is the second of our scrutiny sessions
on the Welsh Government’s draft budget for 2016-17. Can I
give a very warm welcome to our panel? First of all, the Rt Hon
Carwyn Jones AM, First Minister of Wales; also, your officials,
Bethan Webb, deputy director, Welsh language, and Iwan Evans,
senior policy officer, strategic planning. So, welcome to you all.
First Minister, Members will have had sight of the paper and will
have read the evidence very carefully. So, we will go straight into
questions. As you know, this is a scrutiny session. I just want to
start off. We know that there has been an overall increase in
revenue funding allocated to the Welsh Government departments, but
in your area, you have decided to cut the funding for the Welsh
language by 5.9 per cent. I just wonder whether you could clarify
and account as to how you made that decision.
|
|
[180]
The
First Minister (Carwyn Jones): First of all, we
must look at the context. There have been cuts in real terms to our
budget, added to cuts that have occurred since 2010-11. So,
it’s not the case that the Welsh language is the only area
where there have been cuts. It’s been very difficult. We are
looking at a cash-terms cut of some 5.9 per cent. It would have
been more difficult if I hadn’t allocated an extra £1.2
million after the autumn statement to support the language, but
nevertheless, it’s been a difficult time in terms of looking
at what we should do with the budget. That said, we have tried to
put in an element of protection for the language: the £1.2
million is one area. Just to emphasise, that’s not £1.2
million extra; it’s £1.2 million that wouldn’t
have been there otherwise, if I could put it that way, so the cut
would have been deeper than would otherwise have been the case. So,
difficult decisions, but what we’ve tried to do in a
financial climate that’s less than helpful is to prioritise
those areas that would have the most effect in terms of encouraging
the language.
|
|
[181]
Christine
Chapman: Thank you.
I’ll move on now then to Bethan.
|
|
[182]
Bethan Jenkins: Diolch. Mae’n siŵr eich bod wedi gweld bod nifer o
grwpiau gwahanol wedi dod allan yn beirniadu y penderfyniad yma.
Mae Dyfodol i’r Iaith wedi dweud ei fod yn mynd i ddatod
llawer o’r sylfaen sy’n cynnal y Gymraeg fel iaith fyw
sy’n ffynnu, ac wedyn mae Dathlu’r Gymraeg yn dweud ei
fod yn mynd i gael effaith andwyol iawn ar y gwaith sy’n cael
ei wneud i hyrwyddo’r iaith Gymraeg. Sut ydych yn ymateb
i’r beirniadaethau hynny, sydd yn weddol gryf yn fy marn
i?
|
Bethan Jenkins: Thank you.
I’m sure that you’ve seen that many groups have come
out and criticised this decision. Dyfodol i’r Iaith has said
that it will unravel much of the fabric that maintains Welsh as a
thriving and living language, and then Dathlu’r Gymraeg has
claimed that it will have an extremely damaging impact on the work
being done to promote the Welsh language. So, how do you respond to
those criticisms, which are quite strong in my view?
|
|
[183]
Y
Prif Weinidog: Mae’n anodd. Byddwn yn erfyn gweld consýrn gan
gyrff allanol ynglŷn â faint o arian sy’n cael ei
hala ar y Gymraeg, ond mae’n rhaid i ni gofio beth yw’r
cefndir neu’r cyd-destun ariannol fan hyn. Rydym wedi sicrhau
bod twf wedi bod o ran addysg Gymraeg. Mae rhai cytundebau sydd
wedi dod i ben, sef cytundebau fel Bwrw Mlaen, a chytundebau eraill
ynglŷn â Chymraeg i oedolion. Wrth gwrs, mae’r
endid newydd yn dechrau ynglŷn â hynny. Felly, mae peth
o’r arian wedi cael ei ailflaenoriaethu hefyd. Ond, wrth
ystyried y cyd-destun, rydym wedi ceisio sicrhau bod yr arian yn
cael ei hala yn y ffordd fwyaf effeithiol, wrth gofio’r
ffaith bod yna lai o arian ar gael.
|
The First
Minister: It is difficult. I
would expect to see concerns from external organisations about the
amount of funding spent on the Welsh language, but we must bear in
mind the background, or the financial context here. We have ensured
that there’s been growth in terms of Welsh in education.
There are some schemes that have come to and end, such as Bwrw
Mlaen and Welsh for adults. Of course, we have the new entity being
established in that area. So, some of that funding has been
reprioritised also. But, given the context, we have tried to ensure
that the funding is spent in the most effective way possible,
bearing in mind that there is less funding available.
|
|
[184]
Bethan Jenkins: Jest
i fynd yn ôl at eich pwynt chi yn gynharach ynglŷn
â’r £1.2 miliwn. A ydy hwn yn ychwanegol
i’r £25.6 miliwn, sef y prif gyllideb, er mwyn i mi
ddeall a yw’n rhan o’r gyllideb neu’n ychwanegol
iddi?
|
Bethan
Jenkins: Just to go back to
your earlier point about that £1.2 million. Is this in
addition to the £25.6 million, which is the main budget? I
just want to understand whether it is part of the budget or in
addition to it.
|
|
[185]
Y
Prif Weinidog: Na,
5.9 y cant yw’r toriad, ac mae’r £1.2 miliwn yn
rhan o hwnnw. Felly, byddai’r toriad wedi bod yn waeth heb yr
£1.2 miliwn.
|
The First
Minister: No, 5.9 per cent
is the cut, and the £1.2 million is part of that. So, the cut
would have been worse without that £1.2 million.
|
|
[186]
Bethan Jenkins: Ocê. Diolch.
|
Bethan
Jenkins: Okay. Thank
you.
|
|
[187]
Christine
Chapman: Okay. Thank you.
John.
|
|
[188]
John
Griffiths: Can I just follow
up on that? First Minister, in terms of the prioritisation of
funding, as you mentioned, Welsh Government is very much in the
position of having to prioritise very strongly given the overall
budget situation. But, this criticism that we need to make sure
that Welsh remains a thriving and living language is one that
sometimes leads people to question the way that money is spent on
the Welsh language. Particularly in my area, for example, the local
authority and others question the production of documentation
bilingually, in circumstances where they believe they have evidence
that that documentation, if it’s provided in Welsh,
isn’t read by anybody. They see that as almost a waste of
money really. They believe that expenditure would be much better
supporting the language in the community—you know,
Welsh-medium education, which I know you made additional allocation
to, but generally supporting Welsh in the community in an area
where there is little Welsh spoken on the streets or in the
community. Obviously, there are some legal issues, I know, around
all of this. But, do you have any sympathy with that view in terms
of prioritisation of spend?
|
|
[189]
The
First Minister: Well, I’ve
heard the view, but, of course, the biggest challenge that we face
when it comes to promoting the language is habit and ensuring that
people use the language outside of certain contexts. We know, for
example, with Welsh-medium schools, not just those in areas where
English is the primary language, that there are issues with
youngsters, particularly, then using the language outside of the
classroom. One of the ways of ensuring that the use of Welsh is
seen as natural is to make sure that documentation is bilingual and
that people live in a bilingual society. If it were to be the case,
for example, that people learnt the language and then found
themselves in a situation where Welsh wasn’t particularly
obvious—it wasn’t present in the
community—they’d lose the language. So, I think
what’s more important is that we see the natural development
of bilingualism in Wales and people feel quite at ease in using
either language. If people feel they have to ask for Welsh, or
people feel they have to ask for Welsh documents, usually they
won’t do it. Then, of course, the habit will be to use
English at all times when dealing with officialdom. That’s
something we’re trying to overcome.
|
|
[190]
John
Griffiths: Just very quickly,
Chair. You wouldn’t consider that there’s any level of
documentation, for example, some voluminous and highly technical
documentation that local authorities have to provide with regard to
planning, for example, that might allow a little flexibility around
these issues.
|
|
[191]
The
First Minister: Bear in mind, of
course, that there are authorities that work through the Welsh
language or that work bilingually. So, the documentation would have
to be made available. I think we need to ensure that we have a
society that is seen as naturally bilingual, where people
don’t feel that there is a restriction on the language that
they choose to use. If people feel they have to ask for a document
in Welsh, then my worry is that they’ll just get used to the
idea of not using Welsh in that context.
|
|
[192]
Christine
Chapman: Okay, thank you,
John. Alun.
|
|
[193]
Alun
Davies: Rwy’n credu y byddai pob un ohonom yn cytuno mai
dwyieithrwydd naturiol yw’r math o gymdeithas y liciwn ei
gweld ar draws y wlad. Ond, nid yw hynny’n mynd i ddigwydd
heb ein bod yn blaenoriaethu creu’r math yna o gymdeithas.
Mae hynny’n meddwl gwariant ar yr iaith sydd yn gyson
â’r weledigaeth y mae’r Llywodraeth wedi
disgrifio ar sawl achos. A ydych chi’n gallu cadarnhau bod y
toriadau rydym yn gweld yn y cyllidebau sy’n cefnogi’r
Gymraeg yn gyson â pholisi’r Llywodraeth a gweledigaeth
y Llywodraeth o greu cymdeithas ddwyieithog?
|
Alun
Davies: I think that each
and every one of us would agree that natural bilingualism is the
type of society that we would like to see across the country. But,
that isn’t going to happen if we don’t prioritise
creating such a society. That means expenditure on the Welsh
language that is consistent with the vision that the Government has
described on many occasions. Can you confirm that the cuts that we
are seeing in budgets to support the Welsh language are consistent
with the Government's policy and vision of creating a bilingual
society?
|
|
[194]
Y
Prif Weinidog: Cwestiwn teg. Os af i drwy’r gyllideb ei hunan, rydym
wedi, wrth gwrs, sicrhau bod mwy o arian ar gael ynglŷn
â’r Gymraeg mewn addysg. Rydym yn gwybod bod her fanna
ynglŷn â sicrhau ein bod yn creu siaradwyr Cymraeg pan
maen nhw’n ifanc. Ynglŷn â’r pethau eraill,
ynglŷn â Twf, er enghraifft, mae Twf wedi cael ei
ailgontractio. Rwy’n credu bod arbedion yn gallu cael eu
gwneud yno, heb effeithio ar y gwasanaeth.
|
The First
Minister: That’s a
fair question. If I could just go through the budget itself, we
have ensured that there is more funding available for Welsh in
education. We know that there is a challenge there in ensuring that
we do create Welsh speakers at an early age. In terms of other
aspects, Twf, for example, has been re-contracted. I think there
are savings that can be made there that won’t impact upon the
service.
|
|
[195]
Ynglŷn â Chymraeg i oedolion, fe wnes i sôn
yn gynharach ynglŷn â sefydlu’r endid cenedlaethol
a fydd yn rhoi modd newydd inni weithio er mwyn sicrhau ein bod yn
gallu gweithredu Cymraeg i oedolion. Mae rhai o’r pethau
eraill, fel Bwrw Mlaen, er enghraifft, fel y dywedais, yn rhywbeth
sydd wedi sicrhau bod canolfannau ar gael i bobl ar draws Cymru.
Ond, rhaid inni ailddefnyddio’r arian hwnnw mewn ffyrdd
sy’n fwy effeithiol.
|
In terms of Welsh
for adults, I mentioned earlier the establishment of the national
entity that will provide us with a new way of working in order to
ensure that we can provide Welsh for adults. There are other
aspects, such as Bwrw Mlaen, as I said, which is something that has
ensured that centres are available across Wales. But, we have to
reuse that funding in more effective ways.
|
|
[196]
Ynglŷn â’r mentrau iaith, mae yna doriad wedi
bod yng nghyllidebau’r mentrau iaith. Mae’n mynd i fod
yn her iddyn nhw. Rydym yn deall hynny. Ond, rydym wedi sicrhau na
fydd toriadau swyddi yn y mentrau iaith. Bydd y bobl ar gael i
hybu’r iaith yn y gymuned yn yr un modd ag o’r
blaen.
|
In terms of the
mentrau iaith, there has been a cut in the mentrau
iaith budgets. That is going to be a challenge for them. I
understand that. But, we have ensured that there won’t be any
job losses at the mentrau iaith. There will be people
available to promote the language in the community in the same way
as has happened in the past.
|
|
[197]
Alun
Davies: Rwy’n falch clywed hynny. Mae Twf yn rhaglen arbennig o
dda, rwy’n meddwl. Roeddech yn dweud ei fod yn bosibl gwneud
arbedion. Liciwn i ddeall yn union beth roeddech yn meddwl drwy
ddweud hynny.
|
Alun
Davies: I'm glad to hear
that. Twf is an excellent programme. You said that it was possible
to make savings. I would like to understand exactly what you meant
by saying that.
|
|
[198]
Y
Prif Weinidog: Mae
cytundeb presennol Twf yn dod i ben ddiwedd mis Mawrth. Mae’r
cytundeb yn mynd i gael ei ailgontractio i addasu i ateb anghenion
newydd yn y maes. Mae hyn yn rhoi cyfle, wrth gwrs, i ailedrych ar
sut y caiff y gwasanaeth ei ddarparu er mwyn gallu gwneud arbedion
ynglŷn ag effeithlonrwydd. Er enghraifft, bydd gweithgaredd
marchnata cytundeb newydd Twf, ‘Cymraeg i Blant’ yw ei
enw, yn dod yn ganolog i isadran y Gymraeg er mwyn arbed cyllid a
sicrhau bod y gwaith yn rhan ganolog o gynlluniau i
farchnata’r Gymraeg. Felly, nid yw’n safio arian
yn y meysydd sydd yn delio â phobl, ond mae’n safio
arian, fel maen nhw’n dweud, yn y ‘back
office’, er mwyn sicrhau bod arian ar gael, er
enghraifft, ar gyfer addysg Gymraeg.
|
The First
Minister: The current Twf
contract will come to an end at the end of March. It will be
retendered in order to respond to new needs in the area. That gives
us an opportunity, of course, to review how the service is provided
in order to make efficiency savings, essentially. For example,
marketing activity in the new Twf contract—‘Cymraeg i
Blant’ as the contract is called—will become part of
the Welsh language sub-division in order to save funds and ensure
that the work becomes a central part of plans to market the Welsh
language. So, it’s not making savings on the front line as it
were, but it is making savings in the back office to ensure that
the funding is available, for example, for Welsh-medium
education.
|
|
[199]
Alun
Davies: Y
llynedd, pan gawsom y sgwrs yma yn ystod trafodaethau cyllidebol y
llynedd, roeddech yn methu disgrifio’r cyfanswm o wariant ar
draws y Llywodraeth ar y Gymraeg. Rwy’n gweld eich bod yn
edrych ar sawl papur o’ch blaen chi nawr, so, rwy’n
cymryd bod yna fwy o ddeallusrwydd o wariant ar draws y Llywodraeth
ar y Gymraeg. A oes modd i chi ddisgrifio sut rŷch chi wedi
mynd ati i sicrhau ein bod yn deall beth ydy’r gwariant ar y
Gymraeg ar draws y Llywodraeth? Sut hefyd a ydych chi’n
sicrhau bod y gwariant yn cael yr impact rŷm ni i gyd eisiau
ei weld?
|
Alun
Davies: Last year, when we
had this conversation during our budgetary discussions last year,
you were unable to quantify the total spend on the Welsh language
across the Welsh Government. I see that you’re looking at
several pieces of paper in front of you now, so, I take it that
there is greater understanding of expenditure across the Government
on the Welsh language. Can you possibly describe to us how you have
gone about ensuring that we are able to understand what the
expenditure on the Welsh language is across the Government? Also,
how do you ensure that the expenditure has the impact that we all
want to see?
|
|
[200]
Y
Prif Weinidog: Mae’r pwyllgor yn gallu gweld, wrth gwrs, yr arian sydd
yn cael ei hala ar y Gymraeg, sef y gyllideb bresennol, sef yr
arian a fydd yn cael ei hala o’r flwyddyn gyllidol nesaf, sef
£25,645,000. Felly, dyna’r gyllideb ar y Gymraeg. Ond,
wrth gwrs, mae yna rannau eraill, sef addysg, er enghraifft, lle
mae’r Gymraeg yn cael ei hybu hefyd trwy’r ysgolion
Cymraeg ac y mae hwnnw’n dod mas, wrth gwrs, o’r
gyllideb addysg.
|
The First
Minister: The committee can
see the money spent on the Welsh language, and that is the current
budget, which is the funding that will be spent from the next
financial year, which is £25,645,000. So, that is the Welsh
language budget. But, there are other areas, education, for
example, where the Welsh language is also promoted through
Welsh-medium schools, for example, and that comes out of the
education budget.
|
|
[201]
Ynglŷn â’r impact a sut rydym yn mesur impact
unrhyw benderfyniadau ynglŷn â phortffolios eraill
a’r effaith ar yr iaith Gymraeg, rŷm ni yn gwneud hynny.
Er enghraifft, mae gan bob adran ganllawiau ynglŷn ag
asesu’r effaith ar y Gymraeg wrth baratoi eu cyllidebau
drafft ac y mae hynny, wrth gwrs, yn effeithio ar y cynllun gwario
ar gyfer y flwyddyn ariannol nesaf. Mae hefyd yr asesiadau o
effeithiau strategol sydd yn adlewyrchu’r pwyslais rŷm
ni’n ei roi ar y Gymraeg. Felly, mae yna ganllawiau wedi cael
eu rhoi ynglŷn â hynny er mwyn sicrhau bod
adrannau’n gwybod ym mha ffordd y dylent asesu pa fath o
impact sydd ar yr iaith Gymraeg o ran y penderfyniadau y maen
nhw’n eu gwneud.
|
In terms of the
impact and how we evaluate the impact of any decisions taken on
other portfolios and the impact that they will have on the Welsh
language, we do that. For example, every department has guidance in
place in terms of assessing the impact on the Welsh language when
preparing their draft budgets and, of course, that does have an
impact on the spending plans for the next financial year. Also,
there are the strategic impact assessments that emphasise the
priority we give to the Welsh language. So, guidance is in place
there to ensure that departments are aware how they should assess
what impact any decisions they take will have on the Welsh
language.
|
|
[202]
Christine
Chapman: Before I bring you
back in Alun, can I just ask, First Minister, as far as the
cross-portfolio work that you do with the Welsh language is
concerned, how sure are you that every portfolio has the same
priority on the Welsh language? We’ve had this discussion,
obviously, with other areas as well, but I think the committee has
been concerned about this in other areas.
|
|
[203]
The
First Minister: Yes, it is the
case that all departments are expected to mainstream the Welsh
language with the work that they do. The promotion of the Welsh
language is not the responsibility of one Minister alone. Although
one Minister at the moment, and that’s me of course, is
responsible for the language, all departments have a responsibility
to promote it.
|
|
[204]
Of
course, the standards will have an effect on this. The first
tranche of the standards are already in place; the second is being
developed; and the third will be after the Assembly elections. But
the standards will also mean that we, as a Government, as well as
other public bodies, will need to continue to ensure that we
provide a service that is naturally bilingual. Many of the duties
that the first set of standards will impose are familiar to local
authorities, but it is worth, of course, emphasising that they are
standards that we would expect them and ourselves to adhere
to.
|
|
[205]
Christine
Chapman: Okay, thank you.
I’ve got Mike and then I’ll come back to
Alun.
|
|
[206]
Mike
Hedges: Can I talk about
Flying Start? In Flying Start, the money is there, so it’s
not new money, but are you convinced of the adequacy of the
Welsh-language Flying Start provision within Wales? I’m not
convinced it’s adequate within Swansea, but are you convinced
that it’s adequate within Wales, because the sum
of money is there, so, it’s just how it’s shared
between English medium and Welsh medium? Are you convinced that
that is being done fairly and adequately?
|
|
11:15
|
|
[207]
The
First Minister: Yes, I don’t
see evidence of that not being done fairly and adequately, as you
put it. But, of course, where there are areas where it’s felt
that there is insufficient funding or attention being given to the
Welsh language, we would be keen to understand where that is and
then take steps in order to deal with that. But Flying Start, of
course, is not primarily a scheme that is there to promote the
Welsh language, even though, of course, it’s an important
part, potentially, of the work that it might do. Where there are
areas where it’s felt that more could be done within Flying
Start to promote the language, we’re keen to understand where
that might be.
|
|
[208]
Mike
Hedges: The point I was
trying to make, obviously not very successfully, is: if children
start off in a Flying Start through the medium of Welsh then the
likelihood is they’re going to carry on through the
Welsh-medium system. If they start off in Flying Start through the
medium of English the likelihood is they’re going to go
through the English-medium system. And the point I was trying to
make is: do you think there is adequate provision within Flying
Start in order to feed into the Welsh-medium schools?
|
|
[209]
The
First Minister: I’ve not
seen a suggestion that the provision is inadequate in that way. We
know, of course, that there are several ways of providing education
for very young children through the medium of Welsh, but, as I say,
I’m not aware of any evidence that suggests that that
provision is inadequate. But, of course, where there’s
evidence where it’s felt that that might be a problem,
I’m very keen to see it.
|
|
[210]
Christine
Chapman: Okay. Thank you.
Alun.
|
|
[211]
Alun
Davies: Rwy’n falch fod y Llywodraeth wedi cyhoeddi, o’r
hyn rwy’n ddeall, y cyfanswm o wariant ar y Gymraeg achos
mae’n ein galluogi ni wedyn i gael trafodaeth ehangach yn
hytrach na dim ond canolbwyntio ar raglenni penodol. A phan rydym
yn gwneud hynny, rydym yn clywed gan fudiadau megis Dyfodol
i’r Iaith a Chymdeithas yr Iaith Gymraeg, sy’n edrych
ar draws y Llywodraeth ac yn edrych ar doriadau difrifol, ac
rwy’n credu bod Cymdeithas yr Iaith wedi disgrifio
cynlluniau’r Llywodraeth fel tanwariant difrifol. Pan rydych
yn edrych ar y cyd-destun, rwy’n credu bod yna feirniadaeth
deg o Lywodraeth fan hyn, achos mae’r Llywodraeth wedi bod yn
gryf yn beirniadu Llywodraeth y Deyrnas Unedig am dorri yn ôl
ar S4C. Ond wedyn mae’r Llywodraeth yma yn torri yn ôl
ar Gyngor Llyfrau Cymru, ac os ydym eisiau creu'r gymdeithas
ddwyieithog yr ydych wedi ei disgrifio, mae’n rhaid cael
sianel deledu ond mae hefyd rhaid cael llyfrau ac mae rhaid cael
cyngor llyfrau sy’n gallu cyhoeddi drwy gyfrwng y Gymraeg.
Mae’r ddau yn bwysig. Ydych chi’n cytuno nad yw’n
ddigon da i feirniadu Llywodraeth San Steffan am wneud yr union
beth mae Llywodraeth Cymru yn ei wneud ar yr un pryd?
|
Alun
Davies: I’m glad
that the Government has announced, as far as I understand, what the
total expenditure is going to be on the Welsh language because that
then enables us to have a broader discussion rather than just
concentrating on specific programmes. And when we do that we do
hear from organisations such as Dyfodol i’r Iaith and
Cymdeithas yr Iaith Gymraeg, who are looking across the Government
and seeing serious cuts, and I do believe that Cymdeithas yr Iaith
has described the Government’s plans as a grave underspend.
When you look at the context, I think that there is a fair
criticism of the Government here, because the Government has been
very critical of the United Kingdom Government for cutting back on
S4C. But then this Government is cutting back on the Welsh Books
Council, and if we want to create the bilingual society that you
have described, it’s necessary to have a television channel
but we also need books and we also need a books council that can
publish through the medium of Welsh. The two are important. Do you
agree that it is not good enough to criticise the Westminster
Government for doing precisely what the Welsh Government is doing
at the same time?
|
|
[212]
Y
Prif Weinidog: Wel,
mae yna wahaniaeth, wrth gwrs, yn y sefyllfa rhyngom ni a
Llywodraeth y Deyrnas Unedig, sef mae yna fwy o flexibility
gan Lywodraeth y Deyrnas Unedig. Mae mwy o gyfle gyda nhw i godi
arian. Nid oes cyfle gyda ni o gwbl i wneud hynny. Rydym yn gorfod
byw y tu mewn i gyllideb dynn. Beth rydym wedi ei ddweud wrth
Lywodraeth y Deyrnas Unedig yw ei bod yn bwysig dros ben i sicrhau
cyllido S4C yn y pen draw ac yn yr hirdymor. Roedd cyllido S4C,
wrth gwrs, yn addewid ym maniffesto Llywodraeth bresennol y Deyrnas
Unedig. Byddwn yn erfyn, wrth gwrs, felly, iddyn nhw gadw at yr
addewid a wnaethon nhw yn y maniffesto hwnnw. Mae’n rhaid
inni, wrth gwrs, weithio y tu mewn i gyllideb sy’n cael ei
hadeiladu yn hollol drwy’r grant rydym yn ei gael wrth
Lywodraeth y Deyrnas Unedig, a thra bod y grant hwnnw wedi lleihau
yn ddifrifol dros y blynyddoedd, mae yna benderfyniadau anodd gyda
ni i’w gwneud.
|
The First
Minister: Well, there is a
difference, of course, in terms of the position between us and the
UK Government, namely the UK Government has greater flexibility.
They have more opportunity to raise funds. We simply don’t.
We have to live within a very tight budget. What we’ve told
the UK Government is that it’s extremely important to secure
the funding for S4C ultimately and in the long term. The funding of
S4C, of course, was a manifesto commitment of the current UK
Government. We would expect them, therefore, to stick to that
manifesto pledge. We, of course, have to work within a budget that
is entirely funded through a grant that we receive through the UK
Government, and given that that grant has significantly decreased
over the past few years, we have some difficult decisions to
take.
|
|
[213]
Ynglŷn â’r cyngor llyfrau, wrth gwrs,
mae’n wir i ddweud bod yna doriad wedi bod yng nghyllideb y
cyngor llyfrau, ond hefyd rwy’n deall bod 65 y cant o’r
cyhoeddiadau sydd yn dod o’r cyngor llyfrau yn cael eu
cyllido—mae 65 y cant o’r cyhoeddiadau yn cael eu
cyhoeddi yn Gymraeg ac mae 65 y cant, felly, o’r cyllid yn
mynd tuag at gyhoeddi llyfrau yn Gymraeg. Felly, mae’r rhan
fwyaf o’r arian o ran y cyngor llyfrau yn mynd i’r
iaith Gymraeg. So, mae yna lot fawr o gefnogaeth yn cael ei rhoi
i’r iaith yn y ffordd honno.
|
In terms of the
Welsh Books Council, it is true to say that there has been a cut in
the books council’s budget, but I also understand that 65 per
cent of the publications coming from the books council are
funded—65 per cent of the publications are published in Welsh
and, therefore, 65 per cent of the budget goes towards the
publication of Welsh-medium books. Therefore, the majority of the
books council’s funding goes to the Welsh language. So, a
great deal of support is provided to the language in that
way.
|
|
[214]
Alun
Davies: Nid
wyf yn anghytuno â’r dadansoddiad, ond, wrth gwrs, mae
gennych hawl berffaith i wneud pob un o’r penderfyniadau
gwariant fan hyn. Felly, nid oes ots faint yw cyfanswm cyllideb
Cymru; mae gennych yr hawl i wneud pob un penderfyniad y tu mewn i
hynny. Felly, os ydych yn blaenoriaethu’r Gymraeg neu ddim yn
blaenoriaethu’r Gymraeg, penderfyniad i’w wneud gan
Lywodraeth Cymru yw hynny. Beth bynnag sy’n digwydd
gyda’r gyllideb o San Steffan, mae’r penderfyniadau yma
yn nwylo Llywodraeth Cymru. Felly, petai Llywodraeth Cymru eisiau
gweld y Gymraeg fel blaenoriaeth, mae’n bosibl gwneud
hynny.
|
Alun
Davies: I do not disagree
with that analysis, but, of course, you have a perfect right to
make each and every one of the spending decisions here. Therefore,
it doesn’t matter what the total Welsh budget is; you have
the right to make each individual decision within that. Therefore,
if you prioritise the Welsh language or do not prioritise the Welsh
language, that decision is one for the Welsh Government. Whatever
may happen with the budget that comes from Westminster, the
decisions that are made here lie in the hands of the Welsh
Government. So, should the Welsh Government wish to see the Welsh
language as a priority, it’s possible to do so.
|
|
[215]
Y
Prif Weinidog: Wel,
yn gyntaf, wrth gwrs, ni fyddai’n deg i ddweud bod llaw rydd
gennym ni, a bod yna arian ar gael heb feddwl am y toriadau yr ydym
wedi’u gweld. Mae penderfyniadau anodd wedi gorfod cael eu
gwneud. Petai’r arian yno, wrth gwrs, byddem ni am gynyddu
faint o’r arian sydd yn cael ei hala ar yr iaith. Yr ydym
wedi gweld twf, wrth gwrs, o ran addysg Gymraeg. Bydd hynny’n
parhau i’r flwyddyn ariannol nesaf. Ond, wrth gwrs, fel y
mae’r Aelod yn ei wybod, mae yna benderfyniadau anodd
ynglŷn â ble y mae’r arian yn mynd: iechyd,
addysg—pob rhan o Lywodraeth. Yr oeddwn am sicrhau ceisio
lleihau unrhyw doriadau a fyddai’n cael eu gwneud ynglŷn
â’r iaith Gymraeg. Yr ydym wedi gwneud hynny, wrth
gwrs, wrth ychwanegu, er enghraifft, yr £1.2 miliwn sydd wedi
lleihau’r toriad a fyddai wedi digwydd heb hynny.
|
The First
Minister: Well, first of
all, of course, it would not be fair to say that we have a free
hand in this area, and that there is funding available without
taking into account the cuts that we have experienced. Difficult
decisions have had to have been made. If the funding was there, we
would want to increase the amount of money spent on the Welsh
language. We have seen growth, of course, in terms of Welsh-medium
education, which will continue for the next financial year. But, of
course, as the Member is well aware, there are difficult decisions
to be made in terms of where the money is spent: health,
education—all parts of Government. What I wanted to ensure
was to try to mitigate the impact of any cuts made in terms of the
Welsh language. We have done so, of course, by providing, for
example, that £1.2 million, which has alleviated the cut that
would have happened if it weren’t for that
funding.
|
|
[216]
Christine
Chapman: Okay. Thank you.
I’ll move on now to Peter.
|
|
[217]
Peter
Black: Yes. Thank you,
Chair. First Minister, you told the committee last year that you
would look at ways to improve the information provided as part of
the draft budget language impact assessments. Can you tell us
what’s been done to improve the information this
year?
|
|
[218]
The
First Minister: Yes. Well,
I’ve already mentioned, of course, what we do in terms of
departments knowing about what they need to do as part of the
language impact assessments. It is the case now that assessments
are carried out on a regular basis, and it’s something, of
course, that we will continue to do. I already mentioned, of
course, that all departments will issue guidance on assessing the
impact on the Welsh language in preparing their draft budgets, and
that expenditure plan for 2016-17 and the statement of strategic
impacts reflect the emphasis that we place on the Welsh language.
So, we do expect, of course, all departments to recognise, first of
all, that they have to assess what the impact might be on the
language, and to recognise that in any submissions that they make
to Ministers.
|
|
[219]
Peter
Black: Okay. None of the
budget documents provide details about how the Welsh language
impact assessments were carried out across portfolios, what the
results of those assessments were, and how they influence different
funding decisions. Does that mean that you haven’t published
everything, or is that it?
|
|
[220]
The
First Minister: No. First of all,
in terms of what happens with ministerial briefings, we are looking
at ways of how we can improve the impact assessments. We do this on
a regular basis. For example, briefing templates will be amended to
ask more detailed questions about the implications of expenditure
on the Welsh language in relation to any policy decision. Officials
from all parts of Government will then be asked to consider the
language from the outset before reaching the full impact assessment
stage. Now, that is on top of what already exists, and those steps
will enable us to conduct a much more detailed audit, for example,
of the Welsh Government’s expenditure on the Welsh language,
but also, of course, in terms of being able to improve the way in
which impact assessments take place within departments.
|
|
[221]
Peter
Black: What you’ve
just described to me is what I would expect to see in an impact
assessment. Given that we raised this 12 months ago, why
aren’t we getting it now?
|
|
[222]
The
First Minister: I don’t
understand the point that you’re trying to make in terms of
the impact assessments.
|
|
[223]
Peter
Black: Well, the impact
assessment, which we’ve got—well, what we have in front
of us—is not what I would expect an impact assessment to tell
us: what the impact on the Welsh language is, what the results of
the assessments were, how it influences expenditure decisions.
That’s not in the public domain at the moment, if those
documents exist. It was raised 12 months ago. Why haven’t we
got that in front of us now? You’ve just said that this is
what you want to do to improve things, but none of that is
available as public documents.
|
|
[224]
The
First Minister: Impact assessments
are part of regular ministerial briefings and ministerial
submissions. So, they form part of the everyday work of briefing
Ministers in any event. When Ministers take decisions, the
information they receive is based on different assessments. The
Welsh language impact assessment is one of those
criteria.
|
|
[225]
Peter
Black: You’ve
published a strategic integrated impact assessment, but that
doesn’t seem to give the sort of information that we would
look for on the Welsh language. I mean, do you not think that the
public should have more information when we’ve talked already
about the cuts to the Welsh language? We need to know what the
impacts of those cuts are going to be and what the impacts of
mainstream decisions are going to be on the Welsh language to help
people understand how the budget is impacting on the Welsh
language, full stop. I mean, that information doesn’t appear
to be public.
|
|
[226]
Ms
Webb: Mi
fyddwn ni’n creu mailbox ar gyfer y gwaith yma er mwyn
dadansoddi ymhellach, ond ers blwyddyn, rydym ni wedi bod yn cael
sgyrsiau cynnar yn y broses o greu polisi er mwyn egluro, reit o
ddechrau’r broses, yn unol â’r safonau, beth ydy
effaith gwariant unrhyw bolisi newydd ar y Gymraeg. Bydd y gwaith
yma yn parhau i’r flwyddyn nesaf.
|
Ms
Webb: We will create a
mailbox for that work in order to analyse it further, but, for a
year, we have been having discussions early on in the process of
formulating policy to explain, right from the beginning of the
process, in accordance with the standards, what the impact of the
expenditure on any new policy will be on the Welsh language. This
work will continue into the next year.
|
|
[227]
Peter
Black: I think the point
I’m making is that you have this information within
ministerial briefings et cetera. If we are to effectively
scrutinise how the Welsh language is being impacted by this budget,
we need to have that information in the public domain. I think what
we’re saying is that we’d like to see that published,
or certainly a summary published of that information, so that we
can carry out an effective scrutiny of what the impact of the
budget is on the Welsh language.
|
|
[228]
The
First Minister: I’m not sure
it’s quite as easy as that, because, whilst we have
individual language assessments in terms of individual policies and
programmes, it’s difficult to provide an overall assessment,
given the fact that our view is that, despite the budget cuts that
we know have, unfortunately, had to take place, we don’t
anticipate there being a significant effect on language use and
promotion in any event.
|
|
[229]
Christine
Chapman: Bethan.
|
|
[230]
Bethan
Jenkins: Ond
mae hynny’n hollol wahanol i beth mae rhai o’r grwpiau
pwyso, fel rwyf i wedi dyfynnu yn gynharach, wedi dweud. Maen
nhw’n dweud ei fod e’n mynd i gael effaith andwyol ar
yr hyn sydd yn digwydd. Felly, os nad ydyn nhw’n gwybod sut i
asesu’r hyn rydych chi’n ei wneud o ran effaith y
toriadau, yna sut ydyn nhw’n gwybod—? Efallai, er
enghraifft, eu bod nhw’n gallu bod yn fwy hyblyg i newidiadau
yn y dyfodol a newid yr hyn sydd yn cael ei ddelifro ar lawr gwlad,
felly.
|
Bethan
Jenkins: But that’s
entirely different to what some of the pressure groups, as I quoted
earlier, have said. They say that it’s going to have a
detrimental impact on what’s happening. So, if they
don’t know how to assess what you’re doing in terms of
the impact of the cuts, how can they know—? For example, they
may be able to respond more flexibly to change in the future and
change what’s being delivered at grass roots.
|
|
[231]
Y
Prif Weinidog: Rwy’n credu bod yn rhaid inni osgoi meddwl taw dim ond
yr arian sy’n gwneud gwahaniaeth. Mae arian yn gwneud
gwahaniaeth, rwy’n deall hynny, ond nid yw’n bopeth,
ontefe? Felly, yr hyn rydym ni wedi ceisio ei wneud yw sicrhau, lle
mae toriadau wedi cael eu gwneud, eu bod nhw ddim yn effeithio ar
yr hyn sy’n cael ei wneud ar y ddaear, er enghraifft,
gyda’r mentrau iaith, sicrhau bod dim lleihad yn nifer y bobl
sydd yn hybu’r iaith yn y gymuned. Lle mae rhai cynlluniau
wedi dod i ben, sef y grant technoleg ac, er enghraifft, Bwrw
Mlaen, mae’r rheini wedi dod i ben yn naturiol, ond yr hyn
rydym ni wedi ceisio sicrhau yw bod yna lai o impact ar y
gwasanaethau mae cyrff yn gweithredu oddi mewn i gymunedau, ac mae
mentrau iaith yn rhan o hynny. So, i fi, roedd e’n bwysig
dros ben i sicrhau ein bod ni ddim yn gweld lleihad yn nifer y bobl
sydd yn gweithredu i hybu’r Gymraeg yn y gymuned.
|
The First
Minister: I think that we
must avoid thinking that only the funding makes a difference.
Funding does make a difference, I understand that, but it’s
not everything, is it? So, what we have sought to do is to ensure
that where cuts have been made they do not have an impact on what
is being done on the ground, for example, with the mentrau
iaith, ensuring that there is no reduction in the number of
people who are promoting the Welsh language within the community.
Where some schemes have come to an end, such as the technology
grant and, for example, Bwrw Mlaen, those have come to a natural
end, but what we have sought to ensure is that there is less of an
impact on the services that these organisations deliver within
communities, and mentrau iaith are part of that. So, for me,
it was very important to ensure that we didn’t see a
reduction in the number of people who work to promote the Welsh
language in the community.
|
|
[232]
Bethan Jenkins: Ond
‘llai o impact’ roeddech chi wedi dweud jest nawr, nid
‘dim impact o gwbl’. Felly, hyd yn oed os mai llai o
impact a fydd, mae e’n mynd i gael rhyw fath o impact ar yr
hyn sydd â photensial i ddelifro ar lawr gwlad ac felly dyna
pam, rwy’n credu, fod Peter yn mynd ar ôl y pwynt yma
o’n gallu i asesu’r hyn sy’n digwydd.
|
Bethan
Jenkins: But you said
‘less of an impact’ just now, rather than no impact at
all. So, even if it will be a lesser impact, it will have an impact
on what has the potential to deliver at a grass-roots level and
that’s why I think Peter is pursuing this point—so that
we can assess what’s happening.
|
|
[233]
Y
Prif Weinidog: Wel,
mae yna impact ynglŷn â’r ffaith bod yna rai
cynlluniau na fydd ar gael rhagor. Mae hynny’n iawn, ond
byddwn i’n dadlau na fydd impact ar y gwaith dydd i ddydd
sy’n cymryd lle drwy’r mentrau iaith, ynglŷn
â Twf, y pethau ynglŷn ag addysg Gymraeg, yn enwedig
gyda phobl ifanc, a gwaith yr endid cenedlaethol ynglŷn
â Chymraeg i oedolion. Felly, ynglŷn â’r
gwasanaethau sydd yn cael eu delifro yn y cymunedau, mae yna lai o
impact ar y rheini.
|
The First
Minister: Well, there is an
impact in terms of the fact that there’ll be some schemes
that won’t be available any longer. That’s true, but I
would argue that there will be no impact on that day-to-day work
that is carried out in the mentrau iaith, around Twf, things
in relation to Welsh-medium education, particularly with young
people, and the work of the national entity in relation to Welsh
for adults. So, in terms of the services that are delivered within
communities, there will be less of an impact on them.
|
|
[234]
Christine
Chapman: Peter.
|
|
[235]
Peter
Black: Taking an example,
just looking at the strategic impact assessment that you publish
with the budget, I’m just choosing higher education. There
are a couple of paragraphs on higher education in which you said
you’ve allocated an extra £10 million for higher
education student support to protect the tuition fee policy and
you’re talking about how you’re protecting people with
particular characteristics. There’s no mention at all there
of the Welsh language. So, you’re providing a strategic
integrated impact assessment that deals with a whole range of
issues around protected characteristics, which, you know, is
fine.
|
|
11:30
|
|
[236]
You’ve
certainly encouraged that, but the Welsh language is also a
cross-cutting Welsh Government priority. Education is a
particularly important part of the Welsh language, but
there’s virtually no reference to the Welsh language at all
in that assessment. I think it’s important that, if
you’re going to carry out this assessment, you do include
what the impact of your budget is going to be on the Welsh language
as well as those other characteristics.
|
|
[237]
The
First Minister: That’s
something, certainly, we can look at, if it’s felt that
there’s insufficient attention given to the impact on the
language in that respect. But, as I said earlier on, in terms of
individual policies, there is an impact assessment that’s
carried out and what you’ve referred to is whether there
should be a full impact in terms of higher education
particularly.
|
|
[238]
Peter
Black: It’s not
just higher education—it’s education, full stop.
We’ll come to Coleg Cymraeg later on, but it’s
education, full stop, I think. Sorry, Bethan.
|
|
[239]
Christine
Chapman: Bethan.
|
|
[240]
Ms
Webb: We can certainly
look into collating information because we look out across
Government and we work in partnership with all departments,
including HE, on Welsh-language matters, so we can certainly look
into that and inform the committee in due course.
|
|
[241]
Peter
Black: Yes. It’s
just an example.
|
|
[242]
Christine
Chapman: I think the point
that Peter’s making—and others—is that it just
needs to be a bit more visible so that people can assess that,
then.
|
|
[243]
Peter
Black: Yes.
|
|
[244]
Christine
Chapman: Okay. Peter, any
other questions?
|
|
[245]
Peter
Black: No, that’s
fine.
|
|
[246]
Christine
Chapman: Gwyn.
|
|
[247]
Gwyn R.
Price: Good morning.
You’ve already touched on some of this, First Minister, but
what is your response to the criticisms from Cymdeithas yr Iaith
Gymraeg that the Welsh Government, in reducing the funding on the
Welsh language, has disregarded the Well-being of Future
Generations (Wales) Act 2015 in relation to the Welsh language
well-being goal? They also say that the Act has failed its first
test.
|
|
[248]
The
First Minister: It comes as no
surprise that I disagree with that. Direct Government spending on
the language is, of course, important, but it’s only part of
the answer. We know that policy and legislation are important as
well to ensure that responsibility for promoting the language is
shared. We set ourselves a challenge in Bwrw Mlaen for the Welsh
language to be placed higher up the agenda, within Government and
in local authorities and other public bodies, and to see an
improvement in strategic planning for the language.
|
|
[249]
One of
the ways, of course, of ensuring the wellbeing of the language is
to have places where people can use the language naturally,
particularly in areas where the language has been in decline or is
not a community language. We’ve done that through the centres
that we’ve funded and also, of course, in terms of promoting
the language through the standards and through mainstreaming the
language, not just in terms of what the Government does, but in
terms of life in Wales more generally.
|
|
[250]
If you
look, for example, at the standards themselves, they ensure that,
certainly in the first set, with public bodies, bilingualism is
seen as the norm. That contributes, I’d argue, to the
wellbeing of the language, because we know that one of the biggest
challenges is not just to increase the number of speakers, but also
to ensure that those who can speak the language use it and use it
in a confident manner. So, changing habit in that way, through
using the centres and through using the standards, can have a
strong effect that goes hand in hand with the money that we already
spend on the language.
|
|
[251]
Christine
Chapman: Okay, thank you.
Lindsay.
|
|
[252]
Lindsay
Whittle: Prif Weinidog, can
I say, first of all, that I think it is very important that you
take personal responsibility, as First Minister, for the Welsh
language? You mentioned earlier on that it’s all
Ministers’ responsibility and the responsibility of all of
us, but I do commend you for taking that as a portfolio, really,
and that’s important.
|
|
[253]
Pob
wythnos, rwy’n dysgu Cymraeg yn y Cynulliad yma ar yr ail
lawr gyda Siân Jones, fy athro. Mae’n bwysig iawn i fi,
achos rwy eisiau deall fy wyres yn canu ‘Dacw Mam yn
Dwad’ ar y ffon i dad-cu.
|
Every week, I
learn Welsh in this building on the second floor with Siân
Jones, my teacher. It’s very important to me because I want
to understand my granddaughter singing ‘Dacw Mam yn
Dwad’ on the phone to her grandfather.
|
|
[254]
It’s very
important to me, even though I’m not a fluent Welsh speaker.
I noticed that, the Bwrw Mlaen programme, which you’ve cut
drastically, one of its main objectives is to ensure that Welsh is
heard outside of the schools. You commissioned some work by Bangor
University, but that failed to actually tell you whether Bwrw Mlaen
delivered value for money or was effective in promoting Welsh
throughout various communities. So, you’ve simply just cut
it. So, what’s the answer then? Because, if you cut by 25 per
cent this year and if you did the same in another three years, it
doesn’t take a mathematical genius to tell us that it’s
gone. So, what’s the answer?
|
|
[255]
The
First Minister: Bwrw Mlaen was
there as a specific scheme for a specific time to provide money to
ensure that we could, for example, allocate capital funding to
create the 10 Welsh language centres. They’re not all there
yet, but the money’s been allocated to them. That’s
created a lot of energy in areas across Wales. The idea is to use
that money for those centres in those parts of Wales to
reinvigorate the language in those parts of Wales as well. The
intention is that they’re dynamic multi-purpose centres that
will make the language more visible in our communities. So, Bwrw
Mlaen was a specific scheme that was designed to make sure that
there was funding available for those 10 centres placed
strategically around Wales.
|
|
[256]
Lindsay
Whittle: Right. I’d
be interested, First Minister—. I mean, I live in
Abertidwr, where 35 per cent of people
under 15 actually understand and speak the Welsh language, but
it’s very rare you hear it on the streets. There is nowhere
for those young people to go other than—well, after school.
Throughout Wales, there are excellent examples—I’m
going to quote some but I’m sure that other places are
available—. Saith Seren in Wrexham, cafe Bodlon in Eglwys
Newydd in Caerdydd, and Clwb Y Bont in Pontypridd, which has been
working like a Trojan for decades to promote the Welsh language.
What can you do with organisations like that? I know they’re
private enterprises, but they’re so good at promoting the
Welsh language that I think you should be working more closely with
people like that as well.
|
|
[257]
The
First Minister: I think we do. The
intention’s not to compete with organisations but to work
with them. If we look at Wrexham, for example, the intention there
is to work with the groups within the community who’ve been
promoting the Welsh language. The centres themselves are physical
centres. They’re centres that can be used by people where the
language can be promoted—where the language can be used. The
first one that I went to was Llanelli. What they were telling me
there was that young people particularly went there and used the
language naturally. Young people can be
reluctant—you’ve hit the nail on the head
yourself—to use the language outside a school setting because
it’s seen as unusual, but it was seen as quite normal to use
the language in the setting of Y Lle in Llanelli. Getting young
people used to using the language in that context, for me, is the
key to getting them to use the language more confidently in other
contexts as well.
|
|
[258]
So,
one of the challenges that we face with the language is that the
areas where the language was dominant have declined over the years.
When the collieries went, a lot of the—. In many of the
collieries, Welsh was the dominant language. Now, people are much
more spread out in terms of where they work. The chapels are not as
strong as they once were. The language was very dominant in many
areas of Wales through the use of the language through the chapels.
I’d argue that Welsh survived because of that, because, if
you look at the other Celtic languages—Irish being one
example—people didn’t hear Irish at all when they went
to religious services, at a time when they were particularly
important parts of most people’s lives.
|
|
[259]
With
those areas of dominance having been lost, it’s absolutely
crucial for us to create other areas where the language is seen as
the natural language of use. One way—it’s not the only
way, but one way of doing it is through creating centres such as
these where it seems perfectly natural and normal to use the
language, especially in parts of Wales where the language is not
widely used on the streets. That helps to create the habit change
that we need in order to make sure that the language doesn’t
just grow in terms of speakers, but grows in terms of
use.
|
|
[260]
Lindsay
Whittle: Can I say, First
Minister, that the only good news I’ve heard about the Welsh
language is that there is a huge increase in uptake in Patagonia.
Whilst I applaud that—I think that’s
fantastic—throughout this entire paper, all I’m reading
is, ‘Cuts, cuts, cuts, cuts’, and that’s not
going to help.
|
|
[261]
The
First Minister: Well, let me give
you another example of something that we’ve been working on
and indeed funding. That’s the Gwynedd schools language
charter, in terms of extending that to other local authorities in
Wales. I saw a very, very good presentation from Gwynedd Council,
who looked at use of the language outside the school and were quite
surprised by what they’d seen and heard. They wanted to make
sure that the schools that they had were not just schools where
Welsh was the medium of instruction but that led on then to being
something that strengthened the use of the language in the
community. It’s impressive, and it’s worked very well.
What we’ve done is fund projects to see how that will work in
parts of Wales where Welsh is a community language and other parts
of Wales where it isn’t generally a community
language.
|
|
[262]
That
can have an enormous effect on use of the language without an
enormous amount of expenditure, if I can put it that way. So, what
we’ve tried to do is to be clever in terms of the way
we’ve used what has been a declining budget in order to make
sure that we can encourage the language in other ways.
|
|
[263]
Lindsay
Whittle: Diolch am eich
ateb.
|
Lindsay
Whittle: Thank you for your
response.
|
|
[264]
Christine
Chapman: A supplementary
from Bethan.
|
|
[265]
Bethan Jenkins: Rwyf
eisiau deall yn iawn, gyda’r canolfannau newydd—y 10
canolfan newydd—pryd fyddwch chi’n asesu sut maen
nhw’n dechrau cael effaith ar yr hyn sy’n digwydd yn y
gymuned. Oherwydd, nid oeddwn ar y pwyllgor ar y pryd, ond syniad
yr holl beth oedd tynnu’r arian oddi wrth oedolion yn y
gymuned er mwyn creu’r canolfannau yma. Rwyf eisiau deall yn
glir bod yna sgriwtini yn mynd i ddigwydd o ran sut maen
nhw’n gwneud yn y gymuned leol a sut mae hynny’n mynd i
gael effaith real ar dwf yr iaith yn yr ardaloedd. Rwy’n
ymwybodol o’r un sy’n digwydd yn fy ardal i ym
Mhontardawe, wrth gwrs, ond nid wyf yn sicr am y rhai eraill, er
enghraifft.
|
Bethan
Jenkins: I wanted to
understand, with these new centres—the 10 new
centres—when you will be assessing how they are beginning to
have an impact on what happens in the community. Because, I was not
on the committee at the time, but the idea was to take money out of
Welsh for adults in the community in order to set up these centres.
I want to understand that scrutiny is going to happen of how they
are doing in the local communities and how they are having a real
impact on the growth of the Welsh language in those areas. I am
aware of the one in my region in Pontardawe, of course, but not
quite certain about what’s going on elsewhere.
|
|
[266]
Y
Prif Weinidog: Rydym ni’n gweithio gyda’r canolfannau eu hunain
er mwyn monitro’r gwaith y maen nhw’n ei wneud, a hefyd
i asesu, wrth gwrs, faint o effaith maen nhw’n cael ar dwf a
datblygiad yr iaith Gymraeg yn eu hardaloedd nhw. Rydym ni’n
eu helpu i weithio gyda grwpiau eraill yn y gymuned a hefyd i ddod
â phobl at ei gilydd sydd â’r un nod—sef
cryfhau a chadw’r Gymraeg yn y gymuned ei hun. So, rydym
ni’n monitro ac yn asesu beth maen nhw’n ei wneud. Mae
hi’n gynnar eto. Rhywbeth weddol newydd yw hyn.
|
The First
Minister: We are working
with the centres themselves to monitor the work that they do, and
also to assess what impact they have in terms of the growth and
development of the Welsh language in their areas. We do assist them
in working with other groups within the community and also in
bringing people together who have the same aim—namely
strengthening and retaining the Welsh language in their own
communities. We monitor and assess what they do. It’s at an
early stage now because this is relatively new.
|
|
[267]
Bethan Jenkins: A
fyddwch chi’n gwneud rhywbeth yn flynyddol neu a fyddwch
chi’n cael adroddiad ganddyn nhw atoch chi—er mwyn inni
allu edrych arno, er mwyn inni ddeall sut fyddwn wedyn yn gallu
asesu’r hyn yr ydych chi’n ei wneud fel
Llywodraeth?
|
Bethan
Jenkins: Would you be doing
something annually or would you get a report from them sent to
you—so we could have a look at it, for us to be able to
understand how to assess what you're doing as a
Government?
|
|
[268]
Ms
Webb: Rydym ni’n bwriadu cael adroddiadau cynnydd blynyddol.
Hefyd, rydym ni wedi sefydlu gweithgor rhwng y 10 canolfan a fydd
yn cwrdd tair gwaith y flwyddyn i rannu arferion da, achos
mae’r 10 canolfan yn wahanol iawn eu naws. Achos, o ran
polisi iaith, mae iaith yn annatod yn wahanol yn y gwahanol
ranbarthau yng Nghymru ac mae gofynion yr ardaloedd lleol hynny
hefyd yn wahanol, ac mae’r canolfannau’n ymateb i hynny
yn eu hanfod.
|
Ms
Webb: We intend to have
annual progress reports. Also, we have established a working group
between the 10 centres, which will meet three times a year to share
good practice, because the 10 centres are very different in terms
of their ethos. Because, in terms of language policy, language is
different in the different regions in Wales and the requirements of
the different areas are very different, and the centres do respond
to those needs.
|
|
[269]
Bethan Jenkins: Felly, bydd hynny’n rhywbeth y byddwch yn gallu rhannu
gyda ni i lawr y lein.
|
Bethan
Jenkins: So, that is
something that you could share with us down the line.
|
|
[270]
Ms
Webb: O
fewn y flwyddyn. Rydym ni wedi rhoi targed iddyn nhw o dair
blynedd, fel mae’r Prif Weinidog wedi ei ddweud, er mwyn rhoi
amser i’r canolfannau sefydlu. Ond fyddem ni’n disgwyl
adroddiad cynnydd ar ddiwedd y flwyddyn gyntaf o weithredu pob
canolfan, ac mae ail gyfarfod gweithgor y canolfannau yn digwydd ym
mis Chwefror.
|
Ms
Webb: Yes, within the
year. We have given them a target of three years, as the First
Minister has said, in order to give the centres time to bed in. But
we expect a progress report at the end of the first year of
operation of each centre, and the second meeting of the working
group will happen in February.
|
|
[271]
Christine
Chapman: Okay. I was just
going to ask about the working group. So, you’ve had one
meeting and there’ll be another one shortly—okay. And
that is for all the centres, then, the 10, not a working group for
each centre, just the whole project—?
|
|
[272]
Ms
Webb: Currently,
it’s all the centres we fund, but we may extend it to other
third-party groups, such as other Members have suggested. So, Clwb
Y Bont, Saith Seren and Soar in Merthyr could be part of that group
once a year as well. It’s about creating energy and
solutions. Local solutions are very different across Wales.
We’re heartened by what’s happening currently, but it
is early days.
|
|
[273]
Christine
Chapman: Okay, thank you.
Just to remind Members, we’ve just got about a quarter of an
hour left. I know there is a number of areas we need to cover. So,
can I ask that you are as concise as possible? John, I think, has
the next question.
|
|
[274]
John
Griffiths: Yes. I have
questions to the First Minister about the Welsh Language
Commissioner’s budget. When the commissioner gave evidence to
this committee at the end of last year, she said that, over the
four years of her existence, she’d lost something like 25 per
cent of the budget, and any further cuts would make it very
difficult for her to operate. Particularly, it would be disastrous
in terms of implementing the Welsh Language (Wales) Measure 2011.
So, I think the committee would be very interested in your response
to those grave concerns of the commissioner, even given the
allocation of £150,000 in mitigation. Obviously, there will
be further cuts to the budget, in terms of the evidence given at
the end of last year.
|
|
[275]
The
First Minister: That’s
correct. It is challenging, as we know. The decision was taken to
reduce the commissioner’s budget by 10 per cent. It’s
consistent, of course, with the financial settlement that has been
provided for other commissioners as well. One of the reasons for
reducing—or, the main reason, actually, for
reducing—the commissioner’s funding was in order to
continue to support activities that promote the use of Welsh in the
community. Given the tightness of the budget, it was a question of
how we can find ways of getting money to support Welsh in the
community.
|
|
11:45
|
|
[276]
But,
that said, and I did meet with the commissioner on this,
I do
accept that the next two years will be challenging, not just for
ourselves as a Government, but for the commissioner as well from
the perspective of implementing the Welsh language standards,
particularly on organisations, of course, in the second round and
conducting standards investigations in relation to other sets of
standards. That’s why the extra £150,000 was allocated,
in order to help the commissioner through this financial year with
that workload to make sure that the commissioner would be able to
do the work that we’re expecting the commissioner to
do.
|
|
[277]
John
Griffiths: So, you now
believe, then, First Minister, that the allocation of that
£150,000 is adequate and will allow for effective
implementation of the Welsh language Measure and address those
other issues that you’ve mentioned?
|
|
[278]
The
First Minister: Yes, I do because
the commissioner made the point to me when I met her that there was
a particular pressure in the coming financial year. Despite the
financial background, I took the decision to make sure that there
was extra money available for the forthcoming financial year to
deal with the particular burdens that the commissioner faced in
this financial year.
|
|
[279]
John
Griffiths: Okay. So, in terms
of that £150,000, that’s available for the next
financial year. There’s that flexibility to spend it over
that two-year period, then, really.
|
|
[280]
The
First Minister: It’s
designed to assist with the extra work—the standards work
that—the commissioner is doing and to recognise the burden
that exists at the moment with the production of those standards in
terms of the commissioner’s work.
|
|
[281]
John
Griffiths: So it will be
available for the next financial year.
|
|
[282]
The
First Minister: Well, we
anticipate it to be used in this financial year. That’s what
the money is there to do—to help with the promotion of those
standards.
|
|
[283]
John
Griffiths: So there
won’t be that flexibility, then, to carry it into the next
financial year.
|
|
[284]
The
First Minister: That’s not
what we’re looking to do, no, because the point that was made
to me by the commissioner was that there was a need to ensure that
she was able to deliver in terms of creating the standards. Of
course, most of the work will be finished in the course of the
coming financial year.
|
|
[285]
John
Griffiths: Okay. Just to
clarify, Chair, I think the evidence we heard from the commissioner
was very much about concern in terms of implementing the Measure,
particularly over the two-year period of this financial year and
the next financial year. But that allocation isn’t to address
that pressure, it’s more in terms of what you’ve just
told us.
|
|
[286]
The
First Minister: We are looking to
see what flexibility we might be able to provide for the
commissioner in terms of the money that’s available this year
and the money that will be available next year. That flexibility is
set out in the framework agreement that exists between the
commissioner and the Welsh Government.
|
|
[287]
Christine
Chapman: Mike.
|
|
[288]
Mike
Hedges: First of all, can
I declare an interest? My daughter attends a Welsh-medium school.
The first question: can the First Minister explain the rationale
behind the £825,000 transfer from the Welsh language BEL to
the Welsh in education BEL?
|
|
[289]
The
First Minister: I am sorry. I do
beg your pardon.
|
|
[290]
Mike
Hedges: Can the First
Minister explain the rationale for the transfer of £825,000
from the Welsh Language BEL to the Welsh in education
BEL?
|
|
[291]
The
First Minister: Well, it is
something that is more or less an administrative difference. I
mean, the delivery will be the same but we wanted to make sure, as
we always do from time to time in the course of the financial year,
that money is allocated to areas where the money can be spent more
effectively.
|
|
[292]
Mike
Hedges: One of the things
that I’ve discovered is how little higher education is
available through the medium of Welsh. There’s been a cutback
in the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales, which I
don’t necessarily disagree with, but do you know how that is
likely to impact on the Coleg Cymraeg Cenedlaethol?
|
|
[293]
The
First Minister: Bethan.
|
|
[294]
Ms
Webb: Of course, Coleg
Cymraeg Cenedlaethol is funded by the HEFCW budget and Welsh
Government will provide strong steers to HEFCW to encourage them to
continue the funding of Coleg Cymraeg and maintain the current
momentum and contain the current levels. But, as it stands, it is a
decision for HEFCW.
|
|
[295]
Mike
Hedges: So, what we have
to do is follow HEFCW’s budget. I mean, one of the things I
find interesting in following budgets in the Assembly is you
don’t just follow the Assembly’s budget, you have to
follow it one, two and, sometimes, three stages down the line to
see how things are happening. It does make it difficult for
scrutiny of certain items, and that’s one we’ve had to
get to grips with.
|
|
[296]
Christine
Chapman: Sorry,
that’s in the remit letter, then, isn’t it?
|
|
[297]
Ms
Webb: I think that there
is a strong steer from Welsh Government in the remit letter, which
should aid HEFCW’s decision, but it is ultimately
HEFCW’s decision.
|
|
[298]
Mike
Hedges: Can I just raise
the Twf programme? There’s been a small reduction of
£0.2 million. It’s seen as a major programme within the
Welsh Government budget, but £0.2
million—£200,000—is not a huge sum of money; what
is the rationale behind hitting a budget that is relatively small
with a relatively small cut?
|
|
[299]
The
First Minister: Well, the project
is being re-contracted, when it comes to an end in March. That does
give us the opportunity to make efficiency savings at that stage. I
mentioned earlier on in terms of marketing activity how we can
reprioritise that and save money in doing so, without cutting back
on the level of service. It’s correct to say, of course, that
HEFCW is an arm’s-length body; it takes its own decisions. It
has had a steer through the remit letter, but HEFCW would have
to—. If, for example, the remit letter was not followed,
HEFCW would have to explain that; of course they would. A wry smile
came to my face when the Member was saying you have to follow money
as it goes through the hands of different organisations. I remember
the days of the Welsh Development Agency; well, that was something
that was always quite obscure. But, certainly, there has been, as
Bethan said, a strong steer that’s been given.
|
|
[300]
Christine
Chapman: Okay?
|
|
[301]
Mike
Hedges: Fine;
yes.
|
|
[302]
Christine
Chapman: Thank you.
Janet.
|
|
[303]
Janet
Finch-Saunders: Thank you. To what
extent were you, as the First Minister, involved in making the
decision to cut the Welsh Books Council’s funding by 10.6 per
cent, and how can you explain the rationale for this
decision?
|
|
[304]
The
First Minister: Well, that comes
out of another Minister’s budget, not mine. I’m not
directly responsible in terms of my portfolio for the Welsh Books
Council, but, again, decisions would have been taken in the context
of the spending round that we had. As I mentioned earlier on, some
65 per cent of Welsh Books Council spending does go on
Welsh-language publications.
|
|
[305]
Janet
Finch-Saunders: And do you take on
board the concerns expressed to the Finance Committee about the
impact this may have on the Welsh publishing industry, on the rural
economy, and on the Welsh language more generally?
|
|
[306]
The
First Minister: Well, again,
we’ve had very difficult decisions we’ve had to take in
Government, and it’s right to say that there has been that
cut to the Welsh Books Council. It compares, of course, with
what’s happened with the budget for the Welsh language, where
the cut has been much smaller, but nevertheless, the Welsh Books
Council will still be in a position where it is able to assist
Welsh language publication, given the fact that that’s where
most of the money goes at the moment.
|
|
[307]
Christine
Chapman: I’ve got a
supplementary now from Bethan on this.
|
|
[308]
Bethan Jenkins: Rwy’n credu taw dyma un o’r enghreifftiau
lle’r oedd Peter Black a fi yn gynharach yn dweud y
byddai’n effeithiol petaem ni wedi gallu gweld yr impact,
oherwydd rydych chi’n gyfrifol fel Prif Weinidog am yr iaith
Gymraeg, ond wedyn yn dweud nad chi oedd wedi gwneud y penderfyniad
ar hyn. Felly, os nad chi oedd wedi gwneud y penderfyniad, pa
asesiad oeddech chi fel Prif Weinidog, sy’n gyfrifol am y
Gymraeg, wedi ei wneud ar botensial yr impact? Mae gennym restr hir
yn fan hyn, o’n blaenau, o’r impact: bydd llai o lyfrau
yn gallu cael eu cyhoeddi i blant ifanc; bydd yn cael impact gwael
iawn ar ba mor cynaliadwy fydd y sector yn y dyfodol, ac yn y
blaen, ac yn y blaen. Felly, a allwch chi roi mwy o wybodaeth inni
ynglŷn â’r trafodaethau a gawsoch chi
â’r Gweinidog a oedd yn gwneud y penderfyniadau
yma?
|
Bethan
Jenkins: I think that this
is one of the examples where Peter Black and I were saying earlier
that it would be useful if we’d been able to see the impact,
because you are responsible as the First Minister for the Welsh
language, but then you say that you are not the one who made the
decision on this matter. So, if you weren’t the one who made
the decision, what assessment did you as the First Minister, with
responsibility for the language, make of the potential impact? We
have a long list here before us of the impact: fewer books will be
able to be published for young children; it will have a very
detrimental impact on the sustainability of the sector in the
future, and so on, and so forth. So, can you give us more
information about the discussions that you had with the Minister
who was making these decisions?
|
|
[309]
Y
Prif Weinidog: Wel,
mater i’r Gweinidog yw hynny, ond a gaf i ddweud bod dau beth
wedi digwydd ynglŷn â’r cyngor llyfrau sydd yn
mynd i fod o les iddyn nhw? Rwy’n gwybod bod trafodaethau yn
cymryd lle ar hyn o bryd gyda’r Gweinidog dros addysg i weld
pa fath o rôl bydd gan y cyngor llyfrau ynglŷn â
chynhyrchu dogfennau, ffurflenni a llyfrau ynglŷn â
sicrhau twf yr iaith yn y dosbarth, sef pethau newydd i’r
cwricwlwm Cymreig newydd. Felly, mae potensial y bydd rôl yna
i’r cyngor llyfrau i greu cyhoeddiadau newydd ar gyfer y
cwricwlwm newydd, ac wrth gwrs, byddai hwb ariannol ynglŷn
â hynny.
|
The First
Minister: Well, that is a
matter for the Minister, but can I say that two things have
happened in terms of the Welsh Books Council that will be
beneficial to them? I know that there are negotiations taking place
at the moment with the Minister for education to see what kind of
role the Welsh Books Council would have in producing documents,
forms and books to ensure that there is development in the use of
the language in the classroom; so, material for the new curriculum.
So, there is a potential role there for the Welsh Books Council to
generate new publications for the new curriculum and, of course,
that would then provide them with a financial boost.
|
|
[310]
Yn
ail, mae’r cyngor ei hunan yn ystyried cronfeydd newydd o
gyllido yn y pen draw. Rwy’n deall bod bid i’r
loteri wedi cael ei wneud, er enghraifft, sy’n mynd i helpu
ynglŷn â lleihau’r impact ei hunan. Felly, mae yna
bethau eraill y mae’r cyngor llyfrau yn gallu edrych arnynt
er mwyn sicrhau eu bod yn cael mwy o arian i mewn.
|
Secondly, the
council itself is considering new sources of funding for the long
term. I understand that a bid has been made to the lottery, which
will assist in mitigating the impact. So there are other things
that the books council can consider to ensure that they do bring
more funds in.
|
|
[311]
Bethan Jenkins: Diolch.
|
Bethan
Jenkins: Thank
you.
|
|
[312]
Christine Chapman: Thank you. Mark.
|
|
[313]
Mark
Isherwood: Thank you.
Evidence from Mentrau Iaith Cymru refers to the view shared by
language planners and academics that investment in language
requires long-term investment, and therefore long-term strategic
planning. How, therefore, do you respond to the concern
they’ve expressed, that the proposed cuts to the Welsh
language budget indicate a lack of long-term planning for Welsh
language, and the criticism alongside that from Cymdeithas yr Iaith
that the cuts raise major questions about the Government’s
long-term strategy?
|
|
[314]
The
First Minister: Well, the answer I
give to that is that, whilst it’s true to say, of course,
that there has been a cut to the budget of the mentrau
iaith, that will not affect their ability in terms of employing
people to deliver on the ground. What we wanted to do was to avoid
a scenario where there would be job losses in the mentrau
iaith. It’s bound to have an effect, we understand that,
in terms of helping the Welsh language in our communities across
Wales; that isn’t going to happen. What we wanted to do was
to make sure, therefore, that delivery would still continue, and
continue in a way that we thought would be effective. We have, of
course, as well, got the Welsh language use promotion grant. That
is something, of course, that helps the mentrau iaith. We
know that the mentrau have an important role to play; we
know that we need to ensure consistency across the mentrau
as well, to ensure that the structures are right, and also to
improve standards. Also, of course, I think it’s worth saying
that we’ve invested £750,000 over the past two years in
a programme to develop the capacity of the mentrau to
promote Welsh language use at grass-roots level. Now, I’d
argue that that is a sign of our commitment to long-term planning
in terms of developing the language in communities—that
we’ve invested to make sure that there is the right structure
and consistency across Wales to ensure that that
happens.
|
|
[315]
Christine
Chapman: Bethan.
|
|
[316]
Bethan Jenkins: A
allaf jest ofyn cwestiwn sydd wedi dod i mewn i fy mhen i nawr? A
ydych chi wedi gwneud unrhyw asesiad i gymharu’r gwaith y mae
Bwrw Mlaen a’r canolfannau yn mynd i’w wneud o gymharu
â’r mentrau iaith? Yn hynny o beth, nid ydym am weld
unrhyw beth sy’n digwydd gyda’r mentrau efallai yn
tynnu oddi wrth yr hyn y bydd y canolfannau newydd yn ei wneud.
Rwyf jest eisiau cael ateb gennych chi na fydd cyfiawnhad yn y
dyfodol, wedyn, i dorri, er enghraifft, y mentrau, oherwydd bod y
canolfannau yma’n gwneud yr un fath o waith yn y
gymuned.
|
Bethan
Jenkins: Can I just ask a
question that has come to mind now? Have you made any assessment to
compare the work that Bwrw Mlaen and the centres will be doing,
compared with mentrau iaith? In that respect, we do not want
to see anything taking place with the mentrau that might
take away from what these new centres will be doing. I just wanted
a response from you that this will not be the justification in the
future for cutting, for example, the mentrau because the
centres will be doing the same type of work in the
community.
|
|
[317]
Y
Prif Weinidog: Na,
achos nid yr un gwaith maen nhw’n ei wneud, wrth gwrs.
Mae’r mentrau yn gallu estyn mas i’r gymuned, a
dyna’r gwaith maen nhw’n ei wneud. Mae’r
canolfannau, wedyn, yn ychwanegu at y gwaith maen nhw’n ei
wneud, er mwyn sicrhau, unwaith eu bod nhw’n creu
gweithgareddau yn y Gymraeg yn y gymuned, bod pobl yn gallu mynd i
rywle a defnyddio’u Cymraeg hefyd mewn lle lle mae’n
hollol naturiol iddyn nhw wneud hynny. Nid cystadleuaeth yw hi
rhwng y ddau.
|
The First
Minister: No, because they
don’t carry out the same work, of course. The mentrau
can reach out to the community, and that’s what they do. The
centres, then, add to that in order to ensure that, once
Welsh-medium activities are generated within the community, people
can actually go somewhere and use the Welsh language in a place
where it’s entirely natural for them to do that. So, there is
no competition between the two.
|
|
[318]
Bethan Jenkins: Ocê. Roeddwn i jest eisiau ‘clarify-o’ hynny
er mwyn fy mod yn deall hwn at y dyfodol.
|
Bethan
Jenkins: Okay. I just
wanted to clarify that so that I could understand this for the
future.
|
|
[319]
Y
Prif Weinidog: Os
oes unrhyw ofn y byddwn yn symud dros y blynyddoedd i system lle,
yn lle cael mentrau iaith sy’n gweithio yn y cymunedau, y
byddwn yn erfyn iddyn nhw i ddod i ganolfannau, na, nid dyna
yw’r nod.
|
The First
Minister: If there are any
concerns that we will move over the coming years to a system where,
instead of having mentrau iaith that work in the
communities, we will be expecting them to come to the centres, then
no, that’s certainly not our intention.
|
|
[320]
Bethan Jenkins: Ocê.
|
Bethan
Jenkins: Okay.
|
|
[321]
Christine
Chapman: Okay. Can I thank
the First Minister and his officials? We have come to the end of
this scrutiny session. We will send you a transcript of the meeting
so that you can check it for factual accuracy. So, can I thank you
for attending?
|
|
11:58
|
|
Papurau i’w Nodi
Papers to Note
|
|
[322]
Christine
Chapman: Before we close
the public meeting, the committee may wish to note that there are
some papers to note, there. And, I just wanted to mention that we
will continue the scrutiny of the draft budget at next week’s
meeting, where we will hear from the Minister for Communities and
Tackling Poverty, the Minister for Finance and Government Business
and the Deputy Minister for Culture, Sport and Tourism.
|
|
11:59
|
|
Cynnig o dan Reol Sefydlog 17.42
i Benderfynu Gwahardd y Cyhoedd o’r Cyfarfod
Motion under Standing Order 17.42 to Resolve to Exclude the Public
from the Meeting
|
|
Cynnig:
|
Motion:
|
|
bod y pwyllgor yn penderfynu gwahardd y cyhoedd o weddill y
cyfarfod yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.42(vi).
|
that the committee
resolves to exclude the public from the remainder of the meeting in
accordance with Standing Order 17.42(vi).
|
|
Cynigiwyd y cynnig.
Motion moved.
|
|
[323]
Christine
Chapman: So, can I now
invite the committee to go into private session to discuss the
evidence? Okay? Thank you.
|
|
Derbyniwyd y cynnig.
Motion agreed.
|
|
Daeth rhan gyhoeddus y cyfarfod i ben am
11:59.
The public part of
the meeting ended at 11:59.
|