The proceedings are
reported in the language in which they were spoken in the
committee. In addition, a transcription of the simultaneous
interpretation is included.
|
Dechreuodd y cyfarfod am 09:30.
The meeting began at 09:30.
|
|
Cyflwyniad,
Ymddiheuriadau, Dirprwyon a Datgan Buddiannau
Introduction, Apologies, Substitutions and Declarations of
Interest
|
|
[1]
John Griffiths: Okay. Morning, everyone. May I welcome you
to this meeting of the Equality, Local Government and Communities
Committee? We have one substitute today. Mohammad Asghar is
substituting for Janet Finch-Saunders. Are there any declarations
of interest? No.
|
|
09:31
|
|
Craffu ar Gyllideb
Ddrafft Llywodraeth Cymru ar gyfer 2017-18
Scrutiny of the Welsh Government Draft Budget 2017-18
|
|
[2]
John Griffiths: Well, we will move quickly on then to item
2, scrutiny of the Welsh Government’s draft budget. I’d
like to welcome the Cabinet Secretary, Carl Sargeant, to the
meeting. Would you like to introduce your officials, Cabinet
Secretary, please?
|
|
[3]
The Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Children (Carl
Sargeant): Good morning, Chair. Good to be with you. The second
round of scrutiny for me in the same amount of weeks. Can I ask my
team to introduce themselves? Jo-Anne first.
|
|
[4]
Ms Daniels: Good morning. I’m Jo-Anne Daniels,
director for communities and tackling poverty.
|
|
[5]
Mr Howells: Morning. John Howells, director of housing and
regeneration.
|
|
[6]
John Griffiths: Thank you very much. Cabinet Secretary,
would you like to make any brief introductory remarks or are you
content if we go straight into questions?
|
|
[7]
Carl Sargeant: No, very happy with the scrutiny. Our budget
position is as well as could be expected under the financial
circumstances of the austerity measures imposed by the UK
Government. We are content with taking questions from the committee
today.
|
|
[8]
John Griffiths: Okay, thank you very much for that. I will
ask the first question or two then, Cabinet Secretary. To begin,
could you tell the committee how your approach to the strategic
integrated impact assessment has changed this year and whether you
are content with the detail contained within it—the level of
detail?
|
|
[9]
Carl Sargeant: I’m content with the detail. The
process for budget setting is pretty consistent. In addition to the
strategic impact assessments, we’re making sure that we have
the equality strands taken into account and also, alongside of
that, running the impacts of the Well-being of Future Generations
(Wales) Act 2015 as well, and making sure that we are planning with
the principles of the future generations Act for the long term and
looking at how our budget impact can be resolved within the
guidelines that we have.
|
|
[10]
John Griffiths: Has the process been any different this
year, Cabinet Secretary? I think some people look at the election,
for example, and wonder whether there’s been any disruption
or less time available to the normal state of affairs. Has that
been a factor at all in the impact assessment—the level of
detail within it?
|
|
[11]
Carl Sargeant: Within this department, no, it hasn’t.
I’ve not noticed that.
|
|
[12]
John Griffiths: Are you able, Cabinet Secretary, to point to
any specific allocations within your budget that will help achieve
Welsh Government equality objectives?
|
|
[13]
Carl Sargeant: Well, we will be launching the equality
standards in a few weeks’ time. The development of that is
ongoing. We look at all our portfolio in terms of aspects of risk
and we build that into programmes. So, whether that be in the
support for housing or supporting people—we look at the
equality strands across the piece of Government. So, we have a very
specific department responsibility on equality, but we drive the
equality strands through all our decision-making processes.
|
|
[14]
John Griffiths: Okay, so you wouldn’t highlight any
specific allocations within that.
|
|
[15]
Carl Sargeant: No, only the equality duties that we will be
launching the paper for in a few weeks’ time, which will give
details about the inclusion grant and things like that.
|
|
[16]
John Griffiths: Okay. We’ll move on then. I believe
Rhianon Passmore has some questions.
|
|
[17]
Rhianon Passmore: Thank you. Welcome, Cabinet Secretary. Has
the division of responsibility between different portfolios
affected the prioritisation within the draft budget in terms of
resources?
|
|
[18]
Carl Sargeant: My experience of Government is over a number
of years. This year, particularly, has been a very different one in
terms of relationships. The future generations Act has been
embedded into the organisation very well. We are working across
departments. The different style of Ministers is welcome as well,
and an interesting one. I will give you examples of that: on the
20,000 homes that we are seeking to build within this department, I
had a very early conversation with the Cabinet Secretary for
Economy and Infrastructure. He came to me and said, ‘Your
problem of 20,000 homes is also my problem’, which was very
welcome. We also have discussions with other Ministers. I meet with
Kirsty Williams, Alun Davies and Julie James on the issues around
childcare, so we have got a much more integrated way that we
operate at the very senior level within the organisation as well.
Operating around the future generations Act and how we plan for the
long term is embedded now into the department.
|
|
[19]
Rhianon Passmore: So, in terms of that as a theme for this
committee, you feel that there has not been any knock-on effect
from the fact that it is not within one portfolio. I know that
you’ve outlined—
|
|
[20]
Carl Sargeant: I assume you are specifically talking about
poverty in relation to this, so that splits—. Ken Skates is
the lead Minister on poverty wholesale. We have some very specific
programmes in terms of delivery around community resilience, on
which there is no ambiguity on responsibility, and I said—.
Actually, my response was much broader. I wasn’t sure that
you were talking about poverty at the time, so excuse me for that.
But the general principle of operation is the same. We work across
boundaries very well.
|
|
[21]
Rhianon Passmore: In regard to recent publications around
the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the Bevan Foundation, one of
their documents talks quite strategically about reduction of
poverty through managing economic growth, education, skills,
strengthening families and communities, et cetera. So, has there
been any assessment of these major players in terms of our reaction
to developing policy around poverty?
|
|
[22]
Carl Sargeant: I wouldn’t like to think that we react
to those reports. We welcome them. In fact, they are on the same
page as us, I would suggest. When I came into post, one of my first
discussions with my senior team was about setting the narrative out
for the department as a whole. The two themes I was
pursuing—and we still are, with vigour—. One is
economic regeneration: so, jobs, skills and growth—the same
as what Joseph Rowntree is saying and the PPI reports are
suggesting. The other element is well-being, and well-being
principally around the Act, but more importantly around adverse
childhood experiences. We believe that the two strands there are
linked, and, if we can get those working better, we think we will
start to turn the poverty curve. Poverty has been a really hard one
to deliver on for various reasons. A lot of the time, we
don’t hold the levers for tackling all issues of poverty;
therefore, we take a step forward and two steps back. I think we
have to have a fundamental rethink about what we do in tackling
poverty, and that is what the department is looking at, alongside
Ken Skates and other interventions, so that we do work hand in hand
on that issue.
|
|
[23]
Rhianon Passmore: Okay. Finally, then, you mentioned the
well-being of future generations Act in terms of tackling poverty.
How has this shaped budget allocations?
|
|
[24]
Carl Sargeant: Again, we look at that very early
on—about how our policy is developed and how we plan for the
future. I would suggest that one of our better examples across all
of Government is the way that we are shaping the childcare pledge.
The childcare pledge is a very complex piece of work, just to try
and get that off the ground. I made an announcement about that
yesterday. One of the examples in there is that we are working
alongside the future generations commissioner and the
Children’s Commissioner for Wales, the sector and
stakeholders, and we’ve started a programme called
‘Talk Childcare’, listening to people. So, part of the
future generations Act is about engagement. We’ve already had
over 1,500 responses to the ‘Talk Childcare’ programme,
which is one of the better responses we’ve had in terms of
our engagement online. That continues to come in. So, the
principles of the FG Act is what we’re planning here. We
could easily do, for the wrong reasons, warehousing for children.
That’s exactly what we don’t want to do. By
intervention and support of parents, the sector, the commissioners,
we’re embedding a different approach and policy delivery, and
that’s one good example. I would suggest, and in fact,
I’ve heard the commissioner say, that she is impressed at the
way we’ve delivered the future generations Act alongside the
childcare pledge. So, I’m quite pleased, actually.
|
|
[25]
Rhianon Passmore: Thank you.
|
|
[26]
John Griffiths: Before we move on, Cabinet Secretary, in
terms of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and Bevan Foundation work,
it has the great merit, I believe, of simplicity in talking about
how you increase the income of families in poverty, people in
poverty, and reduce their outgoings. So, as you say, a lot of it is
economic development strategy, and how low-paid sectors can be
developed—and Ken Skates obviously has key responsibilities
there—but in terms of getting outgoings down, often, people
who are in the greatest poverty are paying proportionately more for
their energy, for their water, and they’re more likely to be
in debt, for example. So, there’s probably quite a crossover
of responsibilities there, isn’t there, between UK
Government, Welsh Government, and different Ministers in Welsh
Government? What would be your role, do you think, in terms of
trying to get those outgoings down for families and people in
poverty in Wales?
|
|
[27]
Carl Sargeant: Well, I don’t believe there’s one
single programme that fixes this, and that’s why it’s
really important that we work across the boundaries, both
inter-departmental responsibility, and across boundaries of
Government responsibility. We have less leverage across
Governments, as you’ll be familiar with, but examples we
would use—. And that’s why the theme of my department,
of the two strands of economic regeneration and well-being, runs
through the departments wherever you are, whether you’re in
the housing division, or whether you’re in the community
safety division, or elsewhere—the children’s division.
We’ve got to look upwards at how we’re going to tackle
these issues. So, the housing team are under no illusion that they
don’t just build houses, they build communities, and they
build quality communities. So, we’re looking at energy
efficiency, easier travel to work, cheaper travel to work areas,
and how we fit that in with the planning system. So, there’s
a much more integrated approach to the resilience of
communities.
|
|
[28]
It’s complex, but I think we can’t fix any community,
or any individual on one single programme, and that’s why
Families First, Flying Start and Communities First all have an
involvement in my department about how we build a resilient
person/community.
|
|
[29]
John Griffiths: And different Ministers would take
responsibility perhaps for getting in touch with providers of
energy, of water, to try and make sure that they understand these
issues around poverty and take appropriate action.
|
|
[30]
Carl Sargeant: Of course. The issue around energy and
poverty wholesale is with the Minister, Lesley Griffiths. Ken holds
the ring on poverty, but we all have a responsibility as Ministers,
and the First Minister’s always been very clear on that.
I’ve just got some very specific programmes on children
within my division, but the ethos of tackling poverty is one that
runs through the spine of Government in terms of what we do. And
all of our policy objectives, the 100,000 apprenticeship schemes,
are enablers to build communities, and build people, giving them a
solid base out of poverty. So, we do understand about giving people
jobs and opportunity, and the childcare pledge is not just about
looking after children. Actually, it’s an economic stimulant
as well, to make sure people can get into work. So, there’s
lots of pluses to the policies that we’re introducing. And
that’s why we’re always looking for a Families First
plus, what more can they do, and housing plus. It’s a new way
of doing business really.
|
|
[31]
John Griffiths: Okay. Thank you very much, Cabinet
Secretary. I think Mohammad Asghar has some questions.
|
|
[32]
Mohammad Asghar: Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. My question
relates to Communities First, which you’ve already planned to
phase out, I think—I remember you making a statement—in
February next year. How will any decision to phase out Communities
First affect budget allocations in 2017-18? What steps will be
taken to ensure that funds currently allocated to Communities First
will be spent effectively, as part of any successive programme or
programmes, and deliver clear and measurable outcomes in this
field?
|
|
[33]
Carl Sargeant: Thank you for your question. Chair,
it’s really important that I place on record that I
haven’t said that I’m phasing out Communities First. I
said that I’m minded to, and there is a consultation process
under way. I think it’s important that committee understands
that, and the wider public as well. Subject to that consultation, I
will be making a decision early in the new year, and I’ll
make a statement about that then. I’ve said that, in this
year, it’s not a fiscal driver that’s changing the
issue around Communities First, but, longer term, that may be the
case.
|
|
09:45
|
|
[34]
It’s a one-year budget and I don’t know what that looks
like in the longer term. But more fundamentally, it’s about
making sure our programmes are fit for purpose, and what we do in
interventions in communities are holistic in terms of what
we’re trying to achieve. That’s why the review is under
way on Communities First. We are getting a significant response,
not as big as the ‘Talk childcare’ response, but we are
engaging with communities, both physically and online, to make sure
that we can glean as much information on the things that do work
and don’t work.
|
|
[35]
Can I just say in addition to that, and I’ve made this very
clear, that whatever happens to Communities First and whatever that
decision may or may not be, we are very keen to maintain a
programme around the Lift programmes and the job enabling
programmes that are usually led through the Communities First
programme and supported by it? So, that’s what we’re
keen to do. Subject to the decision made in February, or
January/February, then I will decide on what the budget alignment
should be used for—whether that will be a continuation,
whether that will be a change to the programme or stopping the
programme—but that will be a decision I’ll take then; I
haven’t made that decision yet.
|
|
[36]
Mohammad Asghar: Let me go further than this. Will there be
a role for local authorities in spending funds previously allocated
to Communities First, and will there be any job losses in that
field?
|
|
[37]
Carl Sargeant: Again, I haven’t made a decision on
that. The workforce is around about 740 units of employment.
It’s not very nice to call them units, but you understand
what I’m saying. These are real people in our communities and
they do a great job, a fantastic job in being at the heart.
They’ve been there for a long time. Some great work has gone
on in all of our communities that we’re aware of, but
it’s a programme that is very specific to particular areas.
We know that there is a need basis outside of those areas as well;
I get letters from many colleagues asking me about how we can
support individuals and families outside Communities First areas or
Flying Start areas. These are some of the conundrums that
we’re trying to face up to. I think it would be fair to say
that Communities First has done a great job and may be of its time.
I need to understand what that looks like now, and that’s why
I’m really keen—. It’s not particularly just
Communities First that I’ve looked at; I’ve looked at a
raft of programmes within the department. When I came in, I said
that the two drivers for us were economic regeneration and
well-being, and that we had to make sure our investments, wherever
they were, were delivered, and Communities First is no different to
that.
|
|
[38]
Mohammad Asghar:
Thank you.
|
|
[39]
John Griffiths:
Bethan.
|
|
[40]
Bethan Jenkins:
Regardless of the decision with regard to
Communities First, you’ve said in your paper that you intend
to continue with Communities for Work and Lift. When I was looking
on your website with regard to Communities for Work, the first
phase had £30 million of European funding; the second phase
had £11.2 million for investment and employment support, and
£6.8 million of that was European funding; and it’s
also co-sponsored by the Department for Work and Pensions. So,
I’m wondering, if you are going to continue with this in the
context of European funding decreasing, how will this then
substitute the work of Communities First? And can you tell me where
I can find the information on Communities for Work in the budget,
because I was personally struggling? I think it’s really
important, because if this is going to be a continuation regardless
of Communities First, then we need to understand how many people
this is helping and where you’re planning to take it, so that
we can have effective scrutiny of your ministerial
portfolio.
|
|
[41]
Carl Sargeant: Of course, and a very fair question, if I can say.
First of all, this is a 12-month budget, so what I’m
committing to doing is ensuring that we will continue this
programme for this budget round. What I can’t guarantee,
because I haven’t made that decision, is whether I will be
continuing Communities First as a programme within the next budget
round. The finances are there, but it will depend on what feedback
I get before I make that decision. But what I can commit to is
continuing the Communities for Work and the Lift
programme.
|
|
[42]
Bethan Jenkins:
Sorry, what is the funding for
Communities for Work, then?
|
|
[43]
Carl Sargeant: I’ll ask my team just to refer back to that. I
think it’s in the Communities First BEL,
but—.
|
|
[44]
Ms Daniels: It is. So, within the prevention and early
intervention BEL, which is just over £154 million, that BEL
includes funding for Families First, Flying Start and Communities
First, and in addition to that, some wider communities-related
activities, such as funding for Citizens Advice, funding for
Street Games, and it also includes the funding to support
Communities for Work—
|
|
[45]
Bethan Jenkins: Which is?
|
|
[46]
Ms Daniels: The precise—
|
|
[47]
Bethan Jenkins: How much is going towards Communities for
Work?
|
|
[48]
Carl Sargeant: Can I drop the committee a line on that? We
don’t have the detail of the specific numbers. It’s
within the broader BEL, and I’d much prefer to give you a
more detailed response, because it’s a fair question, in
terms of what finance is allocated to that, alongside the European
funding, and how many people that’s supported, because I
think that’s a reasonable response that you could reasonably
expect as well.
|
|
[49]
Just on the back of that, on your question about European funding,
of course, the commitment from the European Union and the UK
Government is for guaranteed funding until 20—
|
|
[50]
Mr Howells: Until 2020.
|
|
[51]
Carl Sargeant: Yes, 2020; that’s what I thought. So,
we are confident that we can continue that programme, certainly for
this 12 months. It’s a 12-month budget; we can’t hide
from that. I’m committed to delivering that for that 12-month
period. Hopefully, we can continue, because we know that the
economic and employment response is a positive one, getting people
back into the employment market and back into work.
|
|
[52]
Bethan Jenkins: Okay, thanks. I look forward to that
information.
|
|
[53]
Carl Sargeant: Yes, of course.
|
|
[54]
Bethan Jenkins: The question I had, and I know that some
might want to come back on Communities First, but I just wanted to
ask a quick question on regeneration. There seems to be a
significant drop in regeneration money of around 76 per cent. So,
it’s £62.6 million to £14.9 million, and you say
that you hope that you can improve on this after the autumn
statement. Would this then mean that there would be in-year
scrutiny or would it be part of the budget that we would vote on in
December? Obviously, it’s such a big drop, would that be able
to be lifted back up to the level that it was at, or would it only
be partly, or can you not tell me now what is within your capacity
to do in that particular area?
|
|
[55]
Carl Sargeant: I don’t know the answer to your
question in terms of detail, because we don’t know what the
autumn statement will deliver. We are hopeful, and indications
would suggest, that there’ll be a capital uplift, and
I’ve had some discussions with the finance Minister to see if
we can allocate some of that to this department, but the
regeneration budget, as a budget, are the numbers that
you’ve been given—
|
|
[56]
Bethan Jenkins: And what would suffer as a consequence, in
relation to the budget? It’s actually a massive reduction, so
I just want to understand what would go in relation to that, then,
if it stayed as is.
|
|
[57]
Carl Sargeant: VVP, as it was, the second phase of VVP, and
any other regeneration programmes that may be aligned to that.
You’ll see, in terms of the regeneration and the community
facilities grant that that’s been reduced as well. This is
just the number I’ve been dealt in terms of finance.
I’ve tried to measure the risk of non-investment in these,
and I think there are some great projects that we do around
communities, but just in terms of capital, my spend has been
reduced significantly, as in many other departments as well.
I’m hopeful that we can start to rebuild on the back of the
regeneration investment fund for
Wales—so, from the RIFW account we’re trying to
access some of the funds back into this department for
regeneration—and also the autumn statement. I’m
hopeful, following the statement, we may be able to include that in
the final budget, but I can’t promise that, because it may be
exactly the same as it is now, but I’m hopeful that we can
increase regeneration. Regeneration is not looking good, but I
can’t hide that and I wouldn’t want to. The fact is
we’ve got to cut our cloth accordingly, and the regeneration
budget is the one that’s had to take the hit.
|
|
[58]
Bethan Jenkins: Okay, well I’d just be conscious of
wanting to be kept abreast of any developments that you have, so
that we can effectively scrutinise, especially if it’s going
to be so impactful on the regeneration services that are provided
at the moment.
|
|
[59]
John Griffiths:
Yes, that would be very useful, and I
think that we should say that VVP is Vibrant and Viable
Places, just for the record, Cabinet Secretary. But I think
it’s quite clear, what you’ve said, that that hefty
reduction that Bethan Jenkins has referred to would mean that the
second round, then, as envisaged, of Vibrant and Viable Places
wouldn’t be able to proceed to the extent that you would
like. But if further capital money becomes available to you, then
you may be able to reinstate that.
|
|
[60]
Carl Sargeant: Well,
I’m not suggesting—. If I get some more money, then
I’ll consider what the next phase is; I’m not
committing today to a second phase of VVP, just in case, one, I
don’t get the money or, two, that it’s the wrong thing
to do. What I am committing to is: if I get more money, I will
consider what that will look like and I will be part of that
conversation with you. I’m happy to have that discussion, but
we have to put this into context. If I may, Chair, very quickly, in
the last term of Government, we lost £1.2 billion into the
Welsh economy. We should not forget that. That has a consequence.
We have to balance the books, and I don’t like—this is
a very difficult time in politics. We have to make choices.
Unfortunately, regeneration has had to take a significant cut
because I just don’t have the money to do that.
|
|
[61]
John Griffiths: Okay. Thanks for that.
|
|
[62]
Jenny Rathbone:
Can I just pick up—?
|
|
[63]
John Griffiths:
On this particular point? Yes.
|
|
[64]
Jenny Rathbone:
I’d just like to put it in a
different context, which is the result we’ve had overnight
and the Brexit result that tells us that we need to regenerate our
communities, or we’re going to get massive kick-back. So, I
hope you’ll be able to take that back to your colleagues in
Government to say that we need regeneration money to keep going, to
give people hope.
|
|
[65]
Carl Sargeant: The Member makes a fair point, but we also have to,
as I said earlier, balance the books, and it is about choices. I
think what’s important for me is that I’ve got a
resilient family, whatever that looks like, and that’s what
we’re trying to tackle across the whole of Government. Early
intervention and prevention is what we have to do. We have to
prioritise what our schemes are. Unfortunately, the regeneration
capital end of this is a real tough one. A point well
made.
|
|
[66]
John Griffiths: Sian.
|
|
[67]
Sian Gwenllian:
Jest i fynd yn ôl am funud at
Gymunedau yn Gyntaf, oherwydd bod hwn yn fater sydd yn peri pryder
i bobl yn ein cymunedau ni—rydw i wedi bod yn trafod y
posibilrwydd—rydw i’n deall bod yna ymgynghoriad yn dal
i ddigwydd-y bydd yr arian yn mynd efo pobl yn y gymuned ym
Maesgeirchen, a byddwch chi’n ymwybodol ohoni, cymuned
ddifreintiedig sydd wedi elwa’n sylweddol o’r cynllun.
Beth maen nhw’n ei ddweud wrthyf fi ydy eu bod nhw’n
deall bod yna rai agweddau o Gymunedau yn Gyntaf, efallai, sydd
ddim yn gweithio, ond maen nhw’n dweud eu bod nhw’n
awyddus, cyn bod Cymunedau yn Gyntaf yn cael ei dynnu i ffwrdd, fod
beth sydd yn mynd i ddod yn ei le fo yn glir, fel eu bod
nhw’n gallu cynllunio ymlaen, fel nad oes yna fwlch yn y
canol. Maen nhw’n awyddus i wybod mwy am—roeddech
chi’n sôn am barthau plant—y children’s
zones. A ydy hynny’n rhywbeth yr ydych chi’n dal i
ystyried ac a fyddai hynny’n rhywbeth a fyddai’n gallu
dod i mewn cyn i’r arian ddiflannu’n llwyr—bod
beth bynnag sy’n mynd i ddod nesaf yn dechrau dod trwyddo fel
nad oes gennym ni’r gap mawr yma yn y
canol?
|
Sian
Gwenllian: If I could return for a second to Communities First,
because this is an issue that’s a cause for concern for
people in our communities. I’ve been discussing the
possibility, and I understand that the consultation is ongoing,
that the funding will be removed with the community of
Maesgeirchen. You will be aware that that’s a disadvantaged
community that has benefited significantly from Communities First.
What they tell me is that they understand that there are some
aspects of Communities First that, perhaps, don’t work, but
they also said that they are eager, before Communities First is
removed, that what should replace it is clear, so that they can
plan for the future and that there should be no vacuum in the
middle. They’re eager to know more—you mentioned the
children’s zones. Is that something that you are still
considering and would that be something that could be introduced
before the funding disappears completely—that whatever is to
succeed Communities First would start to come through so that we
won’t have this large gap in the middle?
|
|
[68]
Carl Sargeant: I can understand why the Member is pushing
for more detail on this, but it wouldn’t be right of
me—because it would be premature in the decision-making
process for me to consider. I’m still taking evidence from
people, and I know I’ve recently received a letter from you,
Sian, in terms of issues around Communities First, as I have from
many of your colleagues as well. I will make the decision in the
early new year, and I will be very clear about the future progress
of what I see for the resilience of communities, including more
detail around children’s zones, Families First and Flying
Start. I’m sure my legal team are watching me very carefully,
and it would be wrong of me to indicate that, one, I’ve made
a decision in advance of—. But we are considering all options
and all of the good work that goes on in communities.
|
|
[69]
What I’m seeking to do is have the biggest impact for the
finances we have, and this year, as I said, the finances are in
place, but I can’t guarantee that for the longer term. The
indicators we’ve had from the UK, from the Institute for
Fiscal Studies, are around the next 11 years will be very difficult
in austerity measures and this is the top end of the good time. So,
what we do know is that we’ll reduce year on year for the
next 11 years, and I think that’s something that we’ve
got a plan for. In terms of the future generations, that’s
exactly the reason why we should have an Act like that, because
we’ve got to plan for the long term here.
|
|
[70]
Sian Gwenllian:
Rydw i’n meddwl eu bod
nhw’n deall hynny. Jest eisio gwybod mwy am y syniad parthau
plant rydw i’n meddwl y maen nhw, achos rydych chi wedi
sôn am hynny fel rhywbeth, efallai, a fyddai’n
cymryd drosodd—nid efo’r un lefel o arian, efallai. Ond
maen nhw ishio gwybod mwy am hynny a deall y byddan nhw’n
cael hynny rŵan yn y flwyddyn
newydd—
|
Sian Gwenllian: I think they
understand that, but they just want to know more about this concept
of children’s zones, because you have mentioned that is
something that might actually replace—perhaps not with the
same level of funding. But they just want to know more about that
and understand that they will receive that in the new
year—
|
|
10:00
|
|
[71]
Carl Sargeant: I can give some more detail on
children’s zones—the principle, if that’s useful,
because we’ll consider introducing children’s zones
whatever happens with Communities First. We don’t see this as
a financial model for introducing children’s zones.
It’s a concept that’s been proven abroad, where we see
different agencies coming together under a wraparound approach to
children and families, so we absolutely understand exactly
what’s going on in that young person’s life, and then
we model services around them. There’s a programme in Harlem
in the United States that was very good at this in terms of turning
round a troubled school where they identified interventions that
were required. The children’s zones will be about bringing
all of these agencies together to understand—so, it
won’t be a physical hub, but it will be a programme of how we
are able to use Families First, Flying Start and other external
agencies and third sector agencies together, through that
wraparound approach to communities. So, we’re going to be
trialling some children’s zones again in different
frameworks—they may be school based or they may be ward
based—about how we get into communities and understand how
they operate better.
|
|
[72]
Sian Gwenllian:
Ond nid oes yna ddim cyllid penodol
yn mynd efo’r parthau plant. Maen nhw’n defnyddio
cyllid o botiau gwahanol.
|
Sian
Gwenllian: But there’s no specific funding that goes
along with the children’s zone. It uses funding from
different pots.
|
|
[73]
Carl Sargeant: No, it’s a concept.
|
|
[74]
John Griffiths:
Okay. Well, any further information on
that following today’s meeting would be useful, Cabinet
Secretary. Could I just ask on Communities First? I understand what
you say that, obviously, you have to consider all the issues
involved and then come to a decision. Could you just confirm that
amongst those issues will be the future existence of centres that
are delivering Communities First in deprived areas, because there
is a great deal of anxiety around? Some centres are in a better
position than others in terms of delivering some of the programmes
you’ve indicated will continue, but those that aren’t
delivering those services are even more anxious than the others.
You know, they are providing a lot of valuable delivery to our
communities, and I just wonder if you would take the opportunity
today to confirm that you will be carefully considering the value
of those centres even if they’re not delivering those strands
that you’ve indicated will continue.
|
|
[75]
Carl Sargeant: What I can say is that my team are working incredibly
hard in engagement with communities and Communities First across
the 52 clusters. Working with local authorities and some of the
other providers of Communities First, we’re trying to
understand what the implications are of financing and that
financial model, and what the liabilities look like as well. So,
that’s quite a piece of work in itself. We shouldn’t
forget what the purpose of Communities First was: it was about a
tackling poverty programme. It wasn’t always to be considered
as a capital expenditure programme. It is around £30
million—the programme—it looks like, at the moment, and
two thirds of that is on salaries, and around a third of that is on
intervention of service.
|
|
[76]
So, I absolutely understand what the
Chair is saying in terms of community facilities that are used
sometimes to deliver other services, and that’s a
consideration we are thinking about with authorities. But I
can’t pre-empt a discussion—I mean, nothing might
change come February. If I’m convinced that it’s the
right thing to do to tackle the issues that we are seeking to do as
a Government, then we’ll continue that programme, but I have
to be convinced of that. I don’t think it’s wrong to
challenge a very significant programme that is targeted at tackling
poverty, and when we look at the stats behind it, we are not
shifting the very stubborn effects of poverty in communities. We
have to do something different or enhance it, and I haven’t
got the answer to that until the new year.
|
|
[77]
John Griffiths:
Okay. Thank you very much for that.
Rhianon, did you want to come in at this stage?
|
|
[78]
Rhianon Passmore: I think
in terms of the comments that we’ve just been given I’m
satisfied.
|
|
[79]
John Griffiths:
Okay. Thanks very much for that. Well,
we’ve move on then. The next questions that I have—I
think it’s Rhianon on this.
|
|
[80]
Rhianon Passmore:
In terms of the valuable discretionary
assistance fund, what steps have been taken to ensure improved
take-up from the discretionary assistance fund, and especially
relating to the recommendations made in the evaluation from 2015
around take-up and accessibility and knowledge of the
fund?
|
|
[81]
Carl Sargeant: Well, the draft contract is till March of 2017.
We’re just doing some review around that, about what that
looks like for the future. It’s a very positive scheme
and it’s very intensive work: the operators in the call
centre work in very vulnerable situations, sometimes, so it’s
something that we recommend.
|
|
[82]
The work with Northgate—. Northgate are the providers of the
scheme, and we’re looking at the recommendations of the
evaluation. Part of the network has been further developed in terms
of ensuring that a well-trained network is in place. So, it’s
not just about the specific issue around DAF, but what other needs
there are in terms of individuals as well. Improving the recording
of enquiries et cetera is something that we’ve learnt about.
We’re learning more about high-impact areas et cetera, where
the request for this is more prevalent. And, again, there’s
monitoring the customer service, because the customer experience is
always an interesting one as well, and we make sure that our
service providers are delivering something good for us.
|
|
[83]
The reporting mechanism is robust and we’ll take that into
account following the process in terms of re-procuring a service in
the future. It’s something that we stepped into the space of
in terms of delivering, and I think we’ve done pretty well in
terms of our commitment to communities and the need base around
this.
|
|
[84]
Rhianon Passmore: Okay, thank you. I’ve got a further
question. In terms of the potential for the devolution of
attendance allowance, what arrangements are in place in order to
prepare for that?
|
|
[85]
Carl Sargeant: It’s like all things that are gifted
from the UK Government—there are generally many questions
that are left unanswered and that is still the situation at the
moment. We’re still waiting for further detail from the UK
Government about the potential of the devolvement of this and what
that may or may not mean. We’ve got nothing fixed, yet,
because the detail is scarce.
|
|
[86]
Rhianon Passmore: Okay, thank you.
|
|
[87]
John Griffiths: I think we’ll move on, then, to Joyce,
who has a question on Supporting People.
|
|
[88]
Joyce Watson: Good morning, Cabinet Secretary. I’m
going to widen it out. I’m going to start with any
discussions that you’ve had with your ministerial colleagues
during this budget round about developing closer working links
across, for example, health, social services, housing and everybody
else in order to get better value for money.
|
|
[89]
Carl Sargeant: Yes, a really important one—Supporting
People is pretty special to most political parties, actually.
It’s a great lobby as well, the Supporting People—there
are a lot of people involved in this and I know Bethan Jenkins is
one who is a champion of this, too, as is Joyce Watson.
|
|
[90]
Your question is fundamentally right about what it is that we do to
make sure we get value for money, but it’s a really difficult
one in terms of measuring the outcomes of it. We know it does good,
and everybody who is engaged in the programme is doing good. But
when it comes to financial settlements: when I’m really under
pressure, where do I start pushing here? We’ve protected the
budget in terms of this year, but I can’t give assurances,
long term, that we’re going to be in that space. That’s
why I don’t think it’s unhealthy to have those
discussions.
|
|
[91]
I’ve already met with the new interim chief executive, which
I think is her title, Katie Dalton, with regard to Cymorth Cymru.
I’ve already met with other Cabinet Secretaries and Ministers
about what parts we deal with, as this department, and what does
health do and the interventions around there. I’ve started
the discussion—I mentioned it earlier to you—around
prevention and early intervention. I believe that is the pathway we
need to start developing as a Government and our partner
agencies—about getting in early—because a lot of the
Supporting People activity can be resolved if we get in at the
front end. One of the examples around that is our
homelessness—. We know that early intervention around
homelessness has produced some great stats for us, but, more
importantly, great outcomes for people: a 63 per cent reduction in
homeless reporting, and support. That’s because we did
something different within the Supporting People and housing
portfolio, just looking at problem solving differently. So,
we’re engaged with all of my colleagues, trying to get them
to shift budgets around to support early intervention will be a
long-term challenge, I expect.
|
|
[92]
Joyce Watson: I said I’d link it wider, and I’m
going to move straight into linking it with violence against women,
domestic abuse and sexual violence, because it fits here in terms
of Supporting People, and it fits more widely in terms of the
housing Act—legislation that’s coming forward. So, I
just wonder whether you could explain to us how, in terms of
viewing Supporting People more widely, and also gaining maximum
benefit for the individual and the budget, you’re piecing the
different parts of legislation together to deliver on that.
|
|
[93]
Carl Sargeant: Particularly around the VAWDA stuff, it is a
really important one. I know you’re committed to that, as I
am, and I want to make sure that we’re doing the best that we
can, but we don’t hold all the expertise in Government.
Regardless of what the Government says, sometimes it’s best
to consult the experts as well, and real people. So, I’ve got
an expert group, which I’ve just refreshed, actually. We meet
straight after this—the first meeting of the refreshed VAWDA
group. As to some of the tasks that I will be asking them to look
at, one is around sustainable long-term funding. We’ve talked
about it for a long time, about what that means and how we achieve
that. Secondly, it’s about service provision, so particularly
around refuge. What does that look like in Wales, and what are the
real needs to that?
|
|
[94]
But that group will help me start to frame where the finance comes
from as well. So, I’ve got two pots currently of finance
around—. I’ve got some in the Supporting People
programme, but also a very specific pot in the violence against
women and sexual exploitation pot of money as well. I’m
looking at and considering integrating those two together for the
very reason you talked about. One is we get better value by the
back-office function about managing two pots of money. We get a
little bit more into the front. But I think this group will maybe
give me some better advice on how best placed that is in procuring
that as well. So, it’s a very specific piece of work.
|
|
[95]
We’re starting on the journey, but we’re going to test
it on this area and then we’re going to move into the broader
principle of Supporting People as well. So, I’m not sure
whether I would bring VAWDA money out of Supporting People and have
a very specific pot of money allocated for that, joining them up,
or do we have a sort of Supporting People 2, which is adding the
money from the other department into this as well? More
importantly, I don’t particularly care where the money is
situated as long as whoever’s using it does it well. Whether
that will be in my department or somebody else’s is
irrelevant to me, as long as we’re maximising that
impact.
|
|
[96]
Joyce Watson: I was just—if I can, Chair—trying
to get—. For me, Supporting People—the two
words—mean just that, and to you, I know, they do as well. If
we’re going to look at it in the round, then we have to look
at the legislation in the round. I have to congratulate you on what
you’re doing within housing in terms of not asking families
to move. I suppose, if I sort of give an example of what I’m
looking for, it’s about poverty, it’s about linking
into poverty. So, if—and let’s stick on domestic
abuse—a wife, or a female, has to leave their home, and
therefore their community and their work, they’re straight
into poverty. So, it was that question that I was trying to get to
in terms of really looking at the individual, and whatever makes
them poor, and trying to resolve it by supporting them.
|
|
[97]
Carl Sargeant: Yes. As I said to you earlier on, I
don’t think there’s one programme that fixes this;
it’s a mixture of interventions that we need to have.
That’s why the children’s zone concept is something
that I’m really keen on because, often, it goes with
programme, because that’s how we do things. If it’s
postcode based, then you will be given a service around Families
First, Flying Start, but actually you may not need some of that
intervention. You might need something else that’s outside
your area, and exactly the same with Communities First. So,
I’m trying to give more flexibility into programmes, of
actually looking at people—individuals and
families—what they need and what wraparound approach we need.
We’ve got the integrated family support service, which is a
good example of how it can operate, but we’re not at
scale.
|
|
10:15
|
|
[98]
So, I think we’ve all got—in Government, local
authorities, third sector, statutory services—some really
good products that they support people with, but sometimes people
miss out because they’re either in the wrong place or
it’s the wrong intervention process. That’s a tough nut
to crack, but I think that goes to the base of your question about
what Supporting People is. I don’t think Supporting People,
as is, is the be-all and end-all for this. I think we’ve got
to look beyond that as well.
|
|
[99]
People are attracted by the name, and I can see exactly why, and
attracted by the pot, because you’re sort of ring-fenced. As
I said earlier, it’s a great little lobby
that—there’s lots of people there, lots of
organisations who push very hard to get into Supporting People. The
reality is that there are a lot of services outside Supporting
People that are equally as important in terms of that, but
you’re sort of protecting that little boundary.
|
|
[100] Joyce
Watson: So, when you’re going forward after this year
with your new budget, those will be the considerations that
we’ll be able to find in the budget moving forward, because I
know this is a unique budget because it’s only one year.
|
|
[101] Carl
Sargeant: I would like—and I know Mark Drakeford, the
finance Cabinet Secretary is of the same mind: he wishes he could
have produced a three-year budget but we just haven’t been
able to. I know if we can plan finances for the long term for
organisations, it gives them a much better resilient service and
plan. We just haven’t been able to do that and I regret that,
but it’s little down to us. It’s a UK Government
Treasury issue.
|
|
[102] Joyce
Watson: Thank you.
|
|
[103] John
Griffiths: Okay. Rhianon.
|
|
[104] Rhianon
Passmore: We’ve mentioned some of the key drivers in
terms of the fiscal reset—EU withdrawal post 2020, the
comments from the IFSS around depreciation and that context that
we’re in. In regard to other dynamics around whether
it’s universal credit or, what I’m asking you about now
specifically, the housing benefit cap impact on homelessness, we
know that Gingerbread has given dire warnings of eviction for, in
particular, vulnerable groups, around single-parent families, and
the concern would really be your reassurance that we’re
looking at that preventative spend in the round, whether it’s
Supporting People or around Communities First, to get optimum bang
for that buck, in terms of helping people and supporting people.
So, I mean, what is your view on the housing benefit cap in terms
of that homelessness warning that’s coming through from very
many different groups at this moment in time in terms of the wider
spend on preventative—?
|
|
[105] Carl
Sargeant: We’re aware this week, indeed, there was a
housing [correction: benefit] cap increase [correction: decrease]
this week and we’ve done some modelling again about risk
areas, and it’s predominantly city areas in Wales that are
more highly affected for obvious reasons. We can’t mitigate
all of these actions and, as much as we try, we are in a space of
limited budgets. I know Members fully understand that. What we can
try and do is give people opportunity. That’s why our
Government programme is about giving people jobs and opportunity,
for the more vulnerable in our communities. Enabling them to gain
confidence to get into the jobs market is another part of our
programming as well. The childcare offer, the 100,000 job
apprenticeships and community resilience all feature as part of a
jigsaw, a suite of tools that we’re trying to use as
Government to give people strength in our
communities—strength and hope. We want people to have safe
and vibrant communities, but we are constantly under pressure in
direct consequence of other people’s decisions. So, we can do
what we can. We’ve got to be nimble about this as well, but
that’s what we’re trying to do with our manifesto
commitment—shaping up for a future opportunity, an offer of
hope for people.
|
|
[106] Rhianon
Passmore: Okay. Thank you.
|
|
[107] John
Griffiths: Bethan.
|
|
[108] Bethan
Jenkins: You’ve previously said you would like to give
more funding towards violence against women and domestic abuse in
relation to the Act, but obviously the budget has stayed the same.
So, I just want to ask you why that is, in relation to the fact
that there will be additional obligations, and also whether you are
satisfied that the £331,000 that you’ve invested in the
strategy will be sufficient to deliver on your aims. I’ve
read the strategy and, while I don’t disagree with anything
in it, a lot of it is about creating new frameworks, guidance. I
wonder what scoping of the finances you’ve done to make sure
that those elements within the strategy that has just been released
are realised and that it’s not just about working with other
partners in relation to, sort of, having a top-slice of other
budgets—potentially from the police, potentially from the
voluntary sector—to substitute what would have been
additional money that you haven’t put into this current
budget.
|
|
[109] Carl
Sargeant: Well, you could perceive that the increase has
actually prevented it from decreasing. It’s a play on words,
but the reality is we’re in tough times, and I know, as a
Member, you’re aware of that and recognise that.
|
|
[110] The strategy was
launched last week. Following that, there’ll be a delivery
plan that we’ll be looking at with more detail in terms of
that. It is important, actually, the point the Member
raises—it is important that we have
cross-Government-organisation funding of this because it buys
people in. I pay tribute to Alun Michael and South Wales
Police—
|
|
[111] Bethan
Jenkins: Have they committed to doing—you know, if there
isn’t something that you can fund through the moneys that
you’ve put in, have they committed to being able to do that
then?
|
|
[112] Carl
Sargeant: What they are committed to is a more integrated
approach to service, including finances around that as well.
I’ve met with all the PCCs, actually, of all political
persuasions. I’m very encouraged by the inclusiveness about
opportunity, particularly around this subject. They are looking
very closely at what they do, what we do, what the third sector
does in terms of support, and the health service—about how we
all deliver services and what it is we need to do. That’s why
the delivery plan will give some focus on who’s responsible
for some of these things.
|
|
[113] Bethan
Jenkins: What I’m trying to tease out is, if, for
example, the £330,000 isn’t enough when you have that
delivery plan realised, will you come back with a potential
supplementary budget or would you then have conversations with
other colleagues as to where money could potentially come from,
just in case there might be a situation where you can’t then
deliver everything?
|
|
[114] Carl
Sargeant: I’ve got to work within the boundaries that
I’ve got—so the money that is allocated there. We are
confident that we can deliver services on that financial base. More
importantly, as I said to Joyce earlier on, for far too long
we’ve operated on a hand-to-mouth relationship with finance,
particularly around this sector. It’s a very vulnerable,
fragile sector. I brought a working group together to look at this
specifically. So, rather than just a shopping list of things that
we need—actually, what’s the shopping list and how are
we going to sustain funding for this, and whether that be through
Government funding, through third sector organisation support,
charity status, or whether that be police and fire and health
boards—bringing that together? So, what’s the real
cost? What’s the real need? We have to get underneath that
because, year on year, I have the same discussion with this
sector—I’ve had in the past and now I’m back in
this, and the discussion’s not changed in any way.
It’s, ‘How do we limp across to next year?’ That
really isn’t good enough; we really have to get underneath
that. As with many sectors, including this, there is some
self-interest about organisations, and there are some that deliver
services better than others. I need to get into that place and
understand who’s going to deliver what and where and who will
be responsible for it. That’s why the delivery plan will be
framed around that—about responsibilities and finances to
support that. So, can I commit to any further money? No, I
can’t, but what I am committing to do is to make sure that we
get the best value for money that we invest in, working alongside
partners, including people like South Wales Police—and north
Wales, actually, have already committed to working with
us—about how we maximise all our inputs in this.
|
|
[115] John
Griffiths: Okay. Thanks for that, Cabinet Secretary. We move on
then to financial inclusion and advice services, and it’s
Bethan Jenkins.
|
|
[116] Bethan
Jenkins: Sorry, it’s me again. Obviously, you know that
I’ve been doing quite a lot of work on this and I do have a
meeting with your advisers on Thursday. I just wanted to ask, in
relation to the strategy—again, it’s a similar theme to
the questions that I’ve just asked—where is the budget
for the delivery of the plan for the financial inclusion strategy
within your current budget, and how will that then be
implemented?
|
|
[117] Carl
Sargeant: In terms of detail about where the finance is in the
budget lines, I’ll get you that detail in a second. My team
will dig that out for us now. The conversation that we had during
the debate the other week around financial inclusion is a serious
one. I think it’s a fundamental part of a successful family,
about the ability to understand what finances are and financial
inclusion. I visited Step Change last week. It’s a great
organisation that’s helping people who are in a difficult
position in their finances. A lot of that is knowledge based. I
think we need to do some more. So, the conversation you will start
with my team is something that I hope we can progress into
something more in terms of delivery. Of course, the advice services
are one element we are seeking to support though Citizens Advice,
and we are looking now at a review about how our advice services
are working. It’s important that we give quality advice to
people. Again, some organisations, with the best intention, are not
properly aligned to giving financial inclusion advice to
individuals. I’m interested in the school setting, which I
know the Member has an interest in too. How we are able to support
that and finance that is another conundrum, but I’m very
interested to continue some dialogue with you and my team in terms
of that space that is requested. In terms of where it is in the
finance, it’s in, funnily enough, the financial inclusion
element of the BEL and it’s £13.927 million.
|
|
[118] Bethan
Jenkins: Sorry, I’m asking specifically on what the
delivery plan of the strategy would cost—has there been a
budget line for that?
|
|
[119] Carl
Sargeant: No, we haven’t got that.
|
|
[120] Bethan
Jenkins: Not yet.
|
|
[121] Carl
Sargeant: No.
|
|
[122] Bethan
Jenkins: Okay.
|
|
[123] Carl
Sargeant: But the whole BEL line for financial inclusion is
£13.927 million.
|
|
[124] Bethan
Jenkins: Okay. That’s fine. The other question was on
credit unions. Obviously, many of them are very different in nature
and some are coping better than others. Some have had to merge
because of financial problems, and I just wondered whether there
was anything in the 2017-18 budget to support credit unions.
|
|
[125] Carl
Sargeant: Just under £0.5 million.
|
|
[126] Bethan
Jenkins: Just under £0.5 million. Are you satisfied that
working with the—I think you’ve got a working group
now, haven’t you, that includes credit unions. Is that
something that they’ve been part of deciding?
|
|
[127] Carl
Sargeant: It is. I’ve looked at this in the past and I
ponder why we just can’t get credit unions to fly in Wales.
We’ve sought to have discussions with the private sector and
the public sector about taking the money from your earnings prior
to receiving—you can take it directly out of your pay, your
salary—and we just can’t get people confident enough to
take this up. I don’t know what we need to do. We’ve
done lots of campaigns, we’ve done lots of promotional
activity around this. In other countries—Ireland,
particularly, and in America—there are huge community credit
unions. We just haven’t been able to crack it in Wales and I
don’t know what the answer to it is.
|
|
[128] Bethan
Jenkins: Is that something—sorry, my last
question—something you could be working stronger with in
relation to local government? Obviously, when I put forward my
financial inclusion Bill, what I found was that local authorities
like Swansea were working very well with the credit unions and then
others weren’t at all. Then, trying to promote it through the
employees of the councils and offering different types of goods and
different types of services—for example, Swansea work with
the prison and offer services to the prisoners there. Is there
something that can be done in terms of sharing that best practice
better?
|
|
[129] Carl
Sargeant: We do that. I’ve visited many credit unions and
authorities about how—. We’ve even had them printing on
the back of payslips about access to credit unions et cetera.
It’s not that we’ve not been innovative in trying to
encourage people to do that, but there is just a—. I
don’t know what the answer to this is, Chair, but you as a
committee might be able to give me some advice on this because an
inquiry into credit unions, about how do we build the membership
up, is something that I’d be welcoming any evidence that you
might be able to offer. [Laughter.] Because we haven’t
been able to crack it. I could say we have, but we just
haven’t been able to.
|
|
[130] John
Griffiths: We always welcome ideas for the future work of the
committee, Cabinet Secretary.
|
|
[131] Bethan
Jenkins: We’re being lobbied by the Cabinet
Secretary.
|
|
[132] John
Griffiths: Thanks very much for that. We still have quite a
number of areas to cover and just about 30 minutes left I’m
afraid, so we do need to press on. Joyce, you have some questions
on the third sector.
|
|
[133] Joyce
Watson: Well, it was—I think they’ve been answered,
really. I think it was the challenges about sustainability in the
third sector and I think they’ve been covered, quite
frankly.
|
|
10:30
|
|
[134] John
Griffiths: Okay. Just to follow up quickly on that, Cabinet
Secretary, in terms of Welsh Government and your avowed wish that
the third sector would become less dependent on public funding, how
is that demonstrated in this particular one-year budget?
|
|
[135] Carl
Sargeant: It’s about sustainability. What we’ve
tried to do is give them a stable footing to start the discussions
with the very sectors that they represent. The WCVA are leading on
this for us in terms of broader conversations about how do they
support organisations to look at grant funding et cetera. We know
that, with some organisations, there’s a core level required
for services. There is lots of duplication in organisations as
well. We’re getting better at it, but we know that we
can’t sustain this long term—we just know that the
funding isn’t going to be available for that. What
we’re trying to do is prepare organisations for this. Some
listen, are very nimble and work to look for a different model.
Some, unfortunately, wait for the red-letter day to say that
there’s no more money and then we’re in crisis. We
don’t want people to be in that place. We want to give people
a very early heads up, saying, ‘Plan for something different
here.’
|
|
[136] John
Griffiths: Okay, Cabinet Secretary. We have some questions on
the community facilities programme, which I think we did touch on
and you touched on earlier. Do you want to ask anything in addition
to what was covered earlier, Sian?
|
|
[137]
Sian Gwenllian:
Ie, jest i holi—mae yna dipyn o
ostyngiad yn yr arian sydd yn mynd i’r rhaglen yma, onid oes?
Mae o’n mynd i lawr o £11 miliwn i £2 filiwn. Mae
hynny’n mynd i gael effaith ar gymunedau, yn enwedig pan
rydym ni’n cofio bod yna lai o arian yn dod o Ewrop. Sut,
rŵan, ydych chi’n mynd i ddefnyddio’r £2
filiwn yna mewn ffordd briodol wrth symud ymlaen? Bydd yn rhaid
creu gwell blaenoriaethau, efallai, er mwyn dyrannu’r arian
mewn ffordd mwy effeithiol.
|
Sian
Gwenllian: Yes, I just wanted to ask—there’s been
quite a bit of reduction in the funding going into this programme.
It’s going down from £11 million to £2 million.
That’s going to have an impact on communities, particularly
when we bear in mind that there is less money coming from Europe.
So, how are you going to use that £2 million in an
appropriate manner moving forward? Because we’ll have to
create better priorities, perhaps, in order to allocate the funding
in a more effective way.
|
|
[138] Carl
Sargeant: The scheme itself was amended a couple of years back
in terms of priorities. It was based on a heavier bias towards
poverty. So, we invested in our communities with higher risk. The
issue then was about—there were generally bidding rounds that
were set up. This is a rolling programme, so we look at how does
that work and fit into programmes. This is one area I nearly
stopped completely, because I thought financially, the value of
£2 million—. But, I do know that communities like this
and it helps communities. So, I’m hopeful that we can
maintain a stream of programmes coming through. Hopefully, if
finances increase on capital spend then I can increase the budget,
but I resisted getting rid of it on the basis that if I do get rid
of it, it probably wouldn’t come back at all. At the moment,
I’m just trying to keep it ticking over. But that’s
another one in terms of how regeneration and these community
grants, which I know people enjoy, are just under pressure.
It’s about priority for me, really.
|
|
[139]
Sian Gwenllian:
Yn aml iawn, mae pobl yn
defnyddio’r cynllun i dopio i fyny arian y maen nhw’n
gallu ei gael o’r loteri ac yn y blaen. Rwy’n gwybod am
gynlluniau yn fy ardal i sydd wedi elwa o hwn, felly rwy’n
meddwl eich bod chi’n ddoeth i gadw y llinell yna, gan
obeithio y bydd yna fwy o arian yn dod yn y dyfodol.
|
Sian
Gwenllian: Very often people use the programme to top up
funding that they can get from the lottery or other sources. There
are programmes in my area that have benefitted from this. I think
you’re wise to keep that line, hoping that greater funding
will come in in the future.
|
|
[140] John
Griffiths: Diolch yn fawr for that, Sian. Cabinet Secretary,
there is a question, I think, in terms of long-term funding for
youth justice and anxiety that if it isn’t devolved through
the Wales Bill, that Welsh Government might think that it’s
not its role, its responsibility, to provide the sort of funding
that we’ve seen up to now. I know you’ve emphasised
this is a one-year budget, but is there anything you can say in
terms of Welsh Government commitment to funding youth justice
services, given the preventative nature of those services?
|
|
[141] Carl
Sargeant: I’m really concerned about this area, again,
not because of what we’re doing but because of what
others—and the influences of the UK Government. A review has
been done on youth services—the Charlie Taylor
review—who is still holding back his report. I understand the
report makes recommendations for changes in infrastructure about
our operation and I don’t believe that it fully reflects the
issues that we have here in Wales and how it operates in Wales.
That has consequences, because effectively, we deal with services
very differently. We have some great success rates in terms of
reducing our reoffending. Again, it’s about integrating
services between health and education and the voluntary sector, and
local authorities, and that’s a very different model to what
happens in England. I’ve sent a strong letter to the justice
Minister saying that we believe that responsibility should be
devolved because we know we are able to deliver on these services
very well. We’re having some great intervention programmes.
We’re flexing budgets to support youth justice schemes here
in Wales. I believe if we can continue on the same track as we are
currently, we can have great success in the longer term, but
I’m really nervous about some indirect consequences from the
Charlie Taylor review.
|
|
[142] John
Griffiths: Okay—
|
|
[143] Bethan
Jenkins: When is that coming out, then?
|
|
[144] Carl
Sargeant: We don’t know. It’s due. It was due a
couple of months back, but it’s been held back.
|
|
[145] John
Griffiths: We haven’t got a great deal of time today,
Cabinet Secretary, but if you could perhaps provide a note on those
issues to the committee, and what the Welsh Government’s
thinking is if there isn’t devolution of youth justice, and
what that means for Welsh Government funding for the services, that
would be very useful.
|
|
[146] Carl
Sargeant: Happy to do that.
|
|
[147] John
Griffiths: Okay. Thanks very much for that. We have a number of
questions on housing, so we will move to Jenny Rathbone now.
|
|
[148] Jenny
Rathbone: Thank you. I’m interested in the comments you
had earlier about your relationship with the Cabinet Secretary for
infrastructure, and that you were liaising and seeing that housing
was a combined responsibility. So, what discussions have you had in
ensuring that, where housing is due to be developed, the
infrastructure will be there to go with it? Because there’s
no use putting housing in the middle of nowhere with no public
transport.
|
|
[149] Carl
Sargeant: Not so much on the infrastructure regarding that with
the infrastructure Minister; it’s actually a planning issue,
and the issue around making sure that we have the right plans in
place and the right long-term strategic vision about what
we’re going to do. So, if we’re going to build
communities or enhance committees, then you’ve got to make
sure that you’ve got good linkages to public transport et
cetera, as the Member often alludes to. I believe that that is a
planning process that needs to be discussed, and I do have those
discussions with the planning Minister. The planning Minister and I
meet with the Home Builders Federation on a bi-monthly basis, I
think.
|
|
[150] Mr
Howells: Termly.
|
|
[151] Carl
Sargeant: Termly.
|
|
[152] Jenny
Rathbone: Okay. Because where the infrastructure is going to be
put in place, that enables private house builders to see the
opportunity to build around that provided infrastructure.
|
|
[153] Carl
Sargeant: Well, in some aspects, it does. There are some
programmes where we have encouraged private house building and RSLs
to develop in areas where we have good modal shift—the
infrastructure for transport. It’s not always the case, and
trying to incentivise market housing into areas where they
don’t want to build because of the market is really tough.
We’ve got some hotbeds of development. Cardiff and the M4
area and the A55 are places where, generally, the private sector
want to build. Trying to push them into other places is tricky.
|
|
[154] Jenny
Rathbone: Conversely, we don’t want them to be building
in areas where there is no infrastructure.
|
|
[155] Carl
Sargeant: I accept that. I accept that that’s a fair
criticism, but also, there is a need base for housing right across
Wales in communities. It’s about maximising. I’ve
talked with the future generations commissioner about this very
issue, actually. She’s saying exactly the same things as
Jenny is alluding to: how do we plan for childcare, for example.
Looking at childcare facilities, we need good transport links.
Wouldn’t it be good if you could drop your child off on the
bus route and then go into work on the bus et cetera and live on
that same route? It’s a big, big planning issue. I’m
not convinced it’s Ken Skates—but we are all in
discussions.
|
|
[156] Jenny
Rathbone: Fair enough. Okay. Well, so long as we’re
looking at this holistically; otherwise, we’re creating more
problems than we solve. I was interested in your paper
that—on page 12 of your paper you say, at the bottom:
|
|
[157] ‘The
emerging evidence suggests that these new designs of homes can cost
more to build than traditional housing’.
|
|
[158] Well, that’s not been the experience of places
like Pentre Solar where, as I recall, £145,000 of public
investment and six excellent homes for people on the council
list.
|
|
[159] Carl Sargeant: Yes, and it’s something that I’ve tasked
the team with doing something—. You’ll be aware of the
20,000 homes programme we’re seeking to develop. Part of that
is around innovation. A lot of the evidence that is out there is
the market saying that it’s more expensive to build energy
efficient homes, rather than the traditional build with energy
efficiency. I’ve disputed that with my team, and I’ve
asked them to start looking at innovation at scale. I’ve
started discussions with RSLs about how we invest with them to
trial some housing as well, in terms of taking some risks
sometimes, and I’m happy to do that. There are examples: I
think it was in Exeter where they have just developed a housing
solution that is at less than market, and much more energy
efficient than traditional builds here. I’ve asked my team to
go and have a look at that. So, I’m in the same space as the
Member; I can’t for the life of me understand why we are
making significant investment in housing, knowing that the energy
bills will be increasing longer term. Why would we do
that?
|
|
[160] Jenny Rathbone: Indeed. Absolutely. Why would we do that? And so,
therefore, I was a bit surprised to see that only 1,000 of your
20,000 homes are due to be a new design. Hopefully, you’ll be
able to change that.
|
|
[161] Carl Sargeant: I
hope so as well. The numbers that we produced there are
flexible.
|
|
[162] Jenny Rathbone:
Okay. In your discussions with Community Housing Cymru and the
WLGA, how much has this sort of thing come up? Because it seems to
me pretty essential. We’re all endeavouring to build the
homes that people need.
|
|
[163] Carl Sargeant: Well, there is an enthusiasm in this sector. The
housing sector is very agile and, of all the sectors I’ve
worked with, the housing one is the most—they’re great
innovators. The RSLs, as I said earlier, don’t just build
houses, they build communities and they do so much more: the
housing plus scenario, so they’re into communities around
supporting people, tackling poverty, energy efficiency and domestic
violence—all of the things that touch people on a daily
basis—and I’m encouraging them to do more. The WLGA is
a new partner in this compact, which we’ll be singing off, I
hope, next month. So, it’s not a formal pact yet, but
it’s, again, about how they get engaged in the development of
new builds. We have got some authorities that have started building
council properties again. I make no bones about it, I would love
all authorities to start building council properties again.
There’s a financial issue around that, and trying to get
through that with Treasury and borrowing powers, et cetera, is
highly complex, but it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t go
there. In my own authority, in Flintshire, we’ve started
building a 500 council housing programme within that area.
It’s the first time in 40 years that we’ve seen council
properties going up, so I’d encourage authorities to do
that.
|
|
[164] Jenny Rathbone: So, did you say 500 council homes in
Flintshire?
|
|
[165] Carl Sargeant: Over a period of time, yes.
|
|
[166] Jenny Rathbone: Over a period of time. Obviously that’s a
really important contribution to what is a huge need. We’ve
sort of discussed the role of the big six house builders who
don’t want to build where we want to build necessarily, who
don’t want to build sustainable homes on the grounds that
they say they’re more expensive. So, how about your
discussions with other home builders—the made-in-Wales home
builders? Is this something that you are having regular dialogue
with any sort of—?
|
|
[167] John Griffiths: In answering these questions, Cabinet Secretary,
could you indicate how your budget allocations are furthering your
objectives, and taking forward the concerns that have been
specified?
|
|
[168] Carl Sargeant: Yes, okay. For the 20,000 homes we’ve committed
to £1.3 billion of finance over this term of Government. We,
generally, are very lucky with the finance Minister topping that up
at various points through the year, with end-of-year flexibility. I
wouldn’t want to paint the big six in that space of saying
that they don’t want to build in these areas. The big six are
driven by the market and where people want to live, generally, and
that’s the easiest option and the best profit margins
for them. I’ve also had a very difficult discussion with
them, saying that, ‘The bits that aren’t negotiable, it
appears, are your profits—how do we negotiate this?’
That’s a very difficult discussion to have, believe me.
|
|
10:45
|
|
[169] But at the Home
Builders Federation, not only are the nationals represented there,
but some of the SMEs as well. I visited some SME programmes that
are very good. I was with Jehu Construction. They build a lot of
RSL properties—a very good local business. I’ve met a
company in Cardiff that has just built some very high-spec energy
efficient homes, again, but not at scale; they’ve done two or
there. We’re talking about 20,000 units that we’ve got
to construct in some way, whether that is financial or physical.
So, this is a huge pressure, but I don’t think we should get
away from the fact and just do the easy option. That’s why
innovation’s really important. I’ve challenged the
sector to come back to me. I want to do business with people who
want to do that.
|
|
[170] John
Griffiths: Cabinet Secretary, we’re concerned, today, of
course, with the allocations that have been made and I think
Jenny Rathbone also has some questions on
grant funding.
|
|
[171] Jenny Rathbone: I just quickly wanted to ask about rural housing need
and how much you think this is a planning issue, because often,
people want to build even one or two homes in the village and it
proves to be a huge planning issue.
|
|
[172] Carl Sargeant: Huge. It’s a huge issue and that’s why
we’ve got the housing enablers. Everybody wants housing but
nowhere near them, generally. That’s why the rural housing
enabler scheme is a good one, because it builds community
engagement. We’ve seen some successes in that, but
it’s, again, very specific to an area of growth, and building
20 or 30 houses in a community can sometimes double the size of
some of our villages. So, we’ve just got to be very careful
about how we do that.
|
|
[173] Jenny Rathbone: What about bringing back empty homes into
use—you know, some of our historic properties that have
fallen into disuse, because they need modernising?
|
|
[174] Carl Sargeant: We do that. We’ve got the empty homes scheme,
but we’ve also got to be very careful about the
value-for-money exercise, as well. Sometimes, it’s much more
expensive to develop and refurbish an old property than build
anew.
|
|
[175] Jenny Rathbone: Fair enough. Okay. Just in terms of your decision to
bring together the housing finance grant with the social housing
grant, that sounds entirely rational. I suppose the only concern I
have would be around whether it potentially disadvantages the most
vulnerable, for whom the social housing grant has been specifically
targeted.
|
|
[176] Carl Sargeant: We don’t see it like that. Actually, it works
very well in the fact that we can get better value for money just
by blending some funding sometimes and asking RSLs or other
agencies to be partners within the financial structure of that as
well. So, we don’t see this as a disadvantage in terms of the
way the finance operates.
|
|
[177] Jenny Rathbone: Some of the social housing grant has been used to
adapt properties where people need disabled facilities, et cetera.
How do you ensure that councils are maintaining a good record of
where homes with physical adaptations are, so that they can
reallocate them to people with those needs?
|
|
[178] Carl Sargeant: They all now have an asset register, which is much
better than the position they were in a few years ago, but some
could be better than others. It’s something that I’m
still chasing to get some consistency on across Wales, and
understanding who has done what, where. Far too often, we used to
make investments to have a wet room installed and then the next
tenant wanted a bath and you’d switch it around again at huge
cost. There is a better understanding about their infrastructure
now and there is a register on all authorities that carry
that.
|
|
[179] Jenny Rathbone: Okay. Lastly, can I just ask you about the overall
balance of your priorities in terms of your proposal to build 6,000
of the 20,000 homes for people to buy? In the context of the
conversation we’ve just had with Rhianon Passmore about the
numbers of people being chased away from the private sector that
they can no longer afford, how do you square that, given that the
housing need is, unfortunately, increasing all the time?
|
|
[180] Carl Sargeant: I
think it’s a bit of both and we try to balance that in terms
of the fact that there are around 6,000 properties that we’re
seeking to use the Help to Buy scheme for. It’s a very
popular scheme and the sector tells us that its growth has been
based upon, predominantly, a lot of Help to Buy support.
We’ve got to watch that the market doesn’t become too
hot and we start to—. We have no control over this, but
we’ve got to make sure that, when people want to use this
product, they don’t overinvest, and that’s something
that I’m very keen to make sure my team understand when we
are using this product with developers, that we don’t put
people at risk of spending, particularly around inflation. But we
do know it’s a good product.
|
|
[181] It also has a
secondary benefit. It stimulates economic growth as well, so there
are jobs that come out of the back of this as well, in terms of
development, and that regeneration issue that you talked about
before, so you do get some better development as well. I think the
housing sector, both private and public, can do much more for our
communities other than building boxes, so that’s something
that I’m never shy of giving a message about when we make
investments.
|
|
[182] John
Griffiths: Cabinet Secretary, on Help to Buy, I think Joyce
Watson has a particular question.
|
|
[183] Joyce
Watson: I want to keep particularly to the budget on this, and
I see that there are over £103 million financial transactions
that have taken place, and some of that’s been repaid. But
the question I want to ask is a specific question. I’ve seen
the revaluation, but I note, Cabinet Secretary, that we will help
people to buy properties up to £300,000. With all the other
challenges that we have, do you think that that squares with trying
to use finite amounts of money that are reducing for the greater
good?
|
|
[184] Carl
Sargeant: This scheme was introduced a number of years ago when
I was back in housing for the first time, and I remember having a
discussion with the team about what the threshold should be. I
think I’m right in saying in England it’s based on
£0.5 million, and we reduced the threshold in
Wales—
|
|
[185] Mr
Howells: It’s £600,000.
|
|
[186] Carl
Sargeant: It’s £600,000 in England and we reduced
it to half here in Wales. We took advice from the sector as well in
terms of what their profiling was. The actual number of the risk to
us is nowhere near £300,000, and I’m happy to send a
paper to the committee if it’s helpful in terms of where the
average figure lies around in terms of our investments of Help to
Buy versus total price. I’m not averse to reviewing that, if
that’s what the committee thinks, but they’re not all
set at £300,000. Very few are up that end, but I will provide
a paper in terms of what that looks like in terms of average.
|
|
[187] John
Griffiths: Okay. I think Rhianon Passmore has some
questions.
|
|
[188] Rhianon
Passmore: Thank you. With regard to the, what seems to be
considerable, success story of the Welsh quality housing standard,
what is your view, Cabinet Secretary, in terms of the satisfaction
with the programme progress? I believe that 79 per cent of social
housing dwellings are now up to the required standard, so your
overview then of that progress within the—.
|
|
[189] Carl
Sargeant: It’s really successful. We never make enough of
it, actually—trying to celebrate the fact that we’re
refurbishing people’s properties. Unfortunately, it’s
just a case of that’s what people expect us to do, I think,
but, actually, the well-being of the families who live in these
properties is enhanced dramatically. I’m confident that the
four authorities that remain to complete the WHQS will do so.
That’s what they tell me. I’ve visited some of the
schemes. In fact, I visited schemes in the Member’s
constituency a number of months back and I’m encouraged by
the positive effect it has on communities, and it’s a good
investment for us. It goes back to Jenny’s point about making
people have some quality energy-efficient properties, which is
good.
|
|
[190] Rhianon
Passmore: I can vouch for that. I live on one of the largest
council house estates in Caerphilly borough, and it’s making
a real difference. Are there, in your view, around the housing
renewal areas—? Can you confirm, in terms of moving on to the
housing renewal, if there is a budget allocation for housing
renewal areas?
|
|
[191] Carl
Sargeant: There isn’t a further budget on housing renewal
areas.
|
|
[192] Rhianon
Passmore: Okay, thank you.
|
|
[193] John
Griffiths: Okay, Rhianon?
|
|
[194] Rhianon
Passmore: Yes.
|
|
[195] John
Griffiths: No further questions on these matters. We’ll
move on, then, and I think Mohammad Asghar has a question on
independent living.
|
|
[196] Mohammad
Asghar: Yes. Thank you very much indeed, Minister. This is an
independent living and tenant participation question, actually,
related to Care and Repair agencies’ expenditure, which has
been reduced, I think, and also the previous committee, I think,
highlighted a few concerns about delayed performance monitoring and
geographical variation in the quality of adaptation services. What
steps have you taken to ensure that the performance monitoring of
home adaptation is sufficiently robust to demonstrate value for
money in your department?
|
|
[197] Carl
Sargeant: Well, we have the Enable—Support for
Independent Living scheme being rolled out across Wales. Again, we
know that this is another area, similar to Supporting People, where
we make an investment for a family unit or an individual’s
home and it has a great benefit. Examples of that: an investment of
£100 on a handrail can save a slip or a fall and a cost of
£28,000 from a femur fracture for the health service. So, we
know that this is a clever investment in terms of early
intervention and prevention again. This is a long-standing
challenge to ensure that—. In fact I think this committee, or
the previous committee, has done several inquiries into this
programme. We are making progress on this, and maybe it would be
helpful—not that it’s financially based,
Chair—but it may be of use to know about just the position of
where we are in terms of recording of authorities and Care and
Repair, about where they are in the system in terms of progress
from where they were last time, in the last committee report.
|
|
[198] John
Griffiths: Okay, that would be very useful. Thank you very
much. Okay, we move on then. I believe Bethan Jenkins has a
question on independent living and tenant participation.
|
|
[199] Bethan
Jenkins: Oh, do I? That’s interesting to know.
[Laughter.] Obviously you are funding two organisations with
regards to tenant support. I don’t need to declare an
interest, but I’ve done some work with Welsh Tenants in
relation to the bedroom tax, and I think they’ve done very
good work in that regard. But can you tell us, just to reaffirm,
that you’ll be giving one such organisation support
financially to carry out work with tenants in the future?
|
|
[200] Carl
Sargeant: Yes.
|
|
[201] Bethan
Jenkins: And will you be evaluating the work that they do and
then potentially going out to tender in the future on a—?
|
|
[202] Carl
Sargeant: The plan is to do an exercise, so we’ll just be
putting one grant out and we will test how that operates, of
course, as we do with all investments. To be fair, I think the two
organisations are starting to talk better to each other in terms of
what that opportunity may create.
|
|
[203] Bethan
Jenkins: Okay, thanks.
|
|
[204] John
Griffiths: One final question from me, anyway, Cabinet
Secretary, subject to committee members not having any others. The
Housing (Wales) Act 2014 obviously is a significant and important
piece of legislation. Could you tell the committee whether
you’ve had discussions with local authorities in terms of the
ongoing implementation of that Act?
|
|
[205] Carl
Sargeant: As with all legislation, that’s just
part—creating the legislation is one, the implementation is
probably the most important, and we’re having great success
across the housing Act in terms of our intervention and interaction
with relevant authorities. The private rented sector element of the
housing Act—Cardiff Council are running that programme for
us; Rent Smart Wales came into effect last November. They are under
immense pressure at the moment because we are coming to the
deadline of registration. We knew that would happen, and I’ve
had a couple of complaints saying that the helpline’s
blocked, but we’ve been open since last November, funnily
enough. So, we are trying to manage that.
|
|
[206] Preventing
homelessness: again, working with local authorities and the third
sector, great success of the housing Act. All in all, that unit has
been very successful in the parts of intervention. The Gypsy and
Traveller element of that is also working well. We’ve had the
first tranche of assessment deeds in, and it goes from strength to
strength. I think this is making a big impact on the way our
communities are developing.
|
|
11:00
|
|
[207] John Griffiths: Thank you very much. I think Bethan Jenkins has a
further point.
|
|
[208] Bethan Jenkins: I just wanted to ask if you were keeping the
prevention budget within the homelessness budget. I think that
it’s given to Shelter at the moment to carry out that work,
but I just wondered if you were keeping that.
|
|
[209] Carl Sargeant: It’s in the safeguarding element of the
portfolio, but there is an agreement that the prevention element of
housing was based on a reduced budget, year on year, because it was
just a transitional issue for us. But we are still in discussions
with local authorities about how that operates.
|
|
[210] Bethan Jenkins: But it’s being maintained for now, or is it
reducing this year?
|
|
[211] Carl Sargeant: The level that we agreed within the housing Act, when
it was introduced.
|
|
[212] Bethan Jenkins: Okay.
|
|
[213] Carl Sargeant: That’s correct, is it?
|
|
[214] Mr Howells: Yes.
There are two points: there’s support for a range of
organisations and there’s the support for local authorities
as they implement the legislation requirements, and we’re in
the third year of support for that work.
|
|
[215] John Griffiths: Okay. Thank you very much for that, and can I thank
you, Cabinet Secretary, and your officials for coming along to give
evidence today? We look forward to receiving some of the further
information we’ve agreed, and we will write to you in due
course. You will be sent a transcript of your evidence to check for
factual accuracy. Thank you very much.
|
|
[216] Carl Sargeant: Thank you.
|
|
11:01
|
|
Papurau i’w Nodi
Papers to Note
|
|
[217] John Griffiths: Okay, then, that takes us
on to item 3 on the agenda, papers to note. Paper 2 is
correspondence between the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local
Government and the Chair of the Finance Committee, paper 3 is
correspondence from Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council
regarding the violence against women, domestic abuse, and sexual
violence leadership group, paper 4 is correspondence from NSPCC
Cymru regarding its violence against women, domestic abuse and
sexual violence strategy, and paper 5 is correspondence from the
Welsh Local Government Association in relation to post-legislative
scrutiny work on the Violence against Women, Domestic Abuse and
Sexual Violence (Wales) Act 2015. We will be returning, of course,
to issues around the Act later in our consideration today, but are
you happy to note all of those, at this stage? Okay.
|
|
[218] Rhianon Passmore: Can I just ask, Chair:
I’m pretty good on acronyms, but there are one or two that go
past me, and if it’s in here, I apologise, but is there a
sheet that covers some of the acronyms that are in here?
|
|
[219] John Griffiths: Some of the acronyms.
|
|
[220] Rhianon Passmore: For the new Members.
|
|
[221] Ms Wilkinson: In
any paper in particular?
|
|
[222] Rhianon Passmore: I’m just looking at the evidence session on the
violence against women, domestic—
|
|
[223] John Griffiths: Shall we consider the most common acronyms in our
subject area and consider putting together a sheet of information
explaining what they stand for?
|
|
[224] Rhianon Passmore: Yes, even as a one-off.
|
|
[225] Ms Wilkinson: Yes, of course.
|
|
[226] John Griffiths: Okay, we’ll do that.
Thank you very much.
|
|
11:03
|
|
Cynnig o dan Reol
Sefydlog 17.42 i Benderfynu Gwahardd y Cyhoedd o Weddill y
Cyfarfod
Motion under Standing Order 17.42 to Resolve
to Exclude the Public from the Remainder of 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.
|
|
[227] John
Griffiths: Okay, so we’ll move on to item 4 on the
agenda, then, and in accordance with Standing Order 17.42(vi), the
committee is invited to resolve to exclude the public for the
remainder of today’s meeting to discuss the evidence from the
Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Children under item 2, to
discuss strategic planning and inquiry scoping for future work, to
discuss the key issues emerging from the committee’s
post-legislative scrutiny work on the Violence against Women,
Domestic Abuse and Sexual Violence (Wales) Act 2015, and to discuss
the draft letter to the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local
Government on the draft budget proposals. Are Members content to
move into private session for those matters? Okay, thank you very
much, and we will do so.
|
|
Derbyniwyd y cynnig.
Motion agreed.
|
|
Daeth rhan gyhoeddus y cyfarfod i ben am
11:04.
The public part of the meeting ended at
11:04.
|
