COMMISSION ON THE POWERS AND ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY FOR WALES

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS

of the

EVIDENCE OF:

ROUND TABLE DISCUSSION - AGRICULTURE

held at

THE INTERNATIONAL PAVILION, THE ROYAL WELSH SHOWGROUND

on

8 MAY 2003

In Attendance:

Lord Richard, Chair, Richard Commission

Meinir Wigley, Wales Young Farmers’ Clubs

Julian Salmon, CLA

Peredur Hughes, NFU Cymru

Jim O’Rourke, URDD Gobaith Cymru

RG Parry, FUW President/Llywydd UAC

Meuric Rees, Royal Welsh Agricultural Society

Peter Sturrock, Royal Welsh Agricultural Society

Rees Roberts, Meat Promotion Wales

Gwyn Howells, Meat Promotion Wales

Ted Rowlands, Richard Commission

Malcolm Thomas, NFU Cymru

Vivienne Sugar, Richard Commission

Siôn Aron, FUW

Peter Price, Richard Commission

Barrie Jones, FUW

Huw Thomas, Richard Commission

Sir Michael Wheeler Booth, Richard Commission

Tom Jones, Richard Commission

Paul Valerio, Richard Commission

Eira Davies, Richard Commission

Lord Richard, Chair, Richard Commission

Thank you very much. It is very kind of you to say these nice things about us and also to make available these facilities which to me at the moment seem to be absolutely as they should be.

Can I welcome everybody here who is here to give evidence to us this morning? What we have done in previous evidence sessions is first of ask people if they would be kind enough to identify themselves for the record, so that we have got it on the transcript, and then ask each organisation to, in effect, open up their own preoccupation for perhaps five minutes each, and then rather than each individual organisation have 10 minutes in which we question them as well. But if everybody has a go to start off with, says what they want to say, and then perhaps we can as a Commission follow up any issues that we would think appropriate.

So, I don’t know whether we start to the left or the right, actually. Start on the right then.

Hello, I am Meinir Wigley, Chairman of the Wales Young Farmers’ Clubs. Wales Young Farmers’ Clubs have a membership of around 6,000 who are young people between 10-26. We have 12 county federations and 172 clubs throughout Wales. Even though the name of the YFCs refers to the agricultural sector, we do have membership and draw members from all walks of life and from all areas of Wales, but with the aim really of giving rural life a colour and opportunities in rural areas.

We arrange a very varied programme of training, of community projects, overseas travel, and all sorts of events for young people through the year, which of course increases their experiences and opportunities, and also complements perhaps their formal education. The recent programmes we have had are things such as drug awareness, leadership training, occupational skills, bilingual awareness, all sorts of drama, and enterprise scripting competitions and training, and of course this sort of complements the weekly club meeting, where various activities will be held at a local level.

We also have a very active Rural Affairs Forum, which I think has fed into a lot of the policies of the Assembly, and we have been very grateful really for those opportunities to be able to give the voice of young people in Wales a chance. I think that is one of the main strengths of the Assembly really, is the fact that we have been able to do that, that the Assembly is open to us rather than Westminster, because you know it is down one level, isn’t it? You can have opportunities at the committee stage and task force stage to feed in perhaps the views of young people who are the future of rural Wales.

There are of course disadvantages in the Assembly as it works at the moment. The main thing is perhaps the disparities of powers that they have. In fact, we know that youth work has been devolved to the Assembly and, you know, extending entitlement is something that we feed into regularly, and we are glad for the contribution, but there are other areas of work perhaps where the role is still with Westminster. Things like licensing, entertainment laws; these are things that perhaps will affect young people as they arrange their activities in rural Wales. It is hard really to know who does what. We are probably lucky at a national level to be able to do it, but when a club or community wants to lobby or to get involved, it is quite hard to understand who they should go to.

We have probably seen more of a problem – going on to the division of powers between Cardiff and Westminster – perhaps more of a division between the National Assembly and the local authorities. Even though the Assembly has made policies and are very supportive of us, the local authority structure perhaps is a bit more patchy and does not always take up the policies of the Assembly. I know the Assembly has been financially supportive of the YFC, but that has not filtered through to all the local authorities. The support that we get is quite patchy in places.

As members, we like the informality of the Assembly and feel that we do have an opportunity to say our piece, which is great, but again, you know, with more powers perhaps more could be done for young people. We have been lobbying a young entrants scheme, for example, and if the Welsh Assembly would have that power we could perhaps implement some of those things, above and beyond the extra opportunities that young farmers have in Farming Connect, for example.

Another perhaps potential problem that we have seen is the rapid changing personnel of the Assembly. For instance, we have had three Agriculture Ministers, which I am sure people here will come to talk about. Education: we have had two Ministers, plus the education remit then being split into education and into culture. It is building up a relationship with Ministers and PT chairmen that takes a long time, but then this rapid change of succession does pose a problem for us. As a voluntary organisation we have paid members of staff, but a lot of the work is done by volunteers, so this succession is not conducive really. I think I will leave it there and perhaps come back after some other members have spoken.

Lord Richard

Thank you very much indeed.

Julian Salmon, CLA

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, my name is Julian Salmon. I am Director of the CLA, the Country Land and Business Association for Wales. We have a membership of approximately 5,000, covering a whole range of land ownership and management issues through agriculture, forestry and small businesses in the land-based sector. We also provide advisory services to our members and expertise through professionals we employ, as well as political lobbying and consultation on policy issues affecting the rural economy.

Participant

Excuse me, can you just speak up?

Julian Salmon

Do you want me to start again?

Participant

No, I’m fine.

Julian Salmon

Our principle activity is advice to members as a membership organisation and lobbying on policy issues and providing input into consultation documents, etc. The advent of the Assembly for us was a nervous moment. I think as an apolitical organisation – which I should confess we are, I speak apolitically – we felt the rural agenda might be subsumed by a more urban agenda, but in fact I think you can say after the first term that our fears have been unfounded. In fact, the rural agenda has received a lot of attention. As a comment and as an observation, I think we have probably had a more sensitive approach to these issues in Wales than we would have had from Defra in England, which is a compliment and should be taken as such.

The 60 Assembly Members, as opposed to the divisional Welsh Office; we obviously have a more crowded kitchen, which works both ways for us. It is an opportunity for us to get our message across to more people, but admittedly it adds an expense and puts a strain on our resource to do that.

As far as issues are concerned, I think a lot of our agenda is influenced really by policy, which is determined largely outside of Wales for a variety of historic reasons; namely, through the UK in Westminster and Brussels in the rural economy, which also controls a lot of the money. So, that does limit in a way the opportunity for our issues in Wales to be influenced and the outcomes to be affected. Having said that, I think the territorial governments have had an ability to influence Westminster, which again from a Welsh point of view is to our advantage, although as I say the outcome perhaps is not what we would like in Wales because the money and the policies have been directed outside of Wales’ control.

As far as legislation is concerned, the delivery of certain issues have been better in Wales as a result of devolution, where secondary legislation has allowed – and that is in the implementation process. As examples I would quote the CROW Act (the Countryside and Rights of Way Act), planning issues, which again is an ongoing consultation. Wales has been able to reflect a more local and sensitive approach which again our colleagues across the border have not had such an effective administration, which again I think is the advantage.

Whether that comes down to primary or secondary legislation – on the issue of primary powers – we are ambivalent. I think primary powers are probably not the issue because if secondary legislation allows the implementation of the act to be determined by the territorial governments, then I think that could be addressed, because one of the things that actually affects our membership probably more than anything is the fear of ever-increasing bureaucracy and administration, and regulation which undoubtedly increased governmental activity always brings with it. I think I have probably said enough for now. I will offer further questions as and when the debate develops.

Lord Richard

Thank you very much.

Peredur Hughes, NFU Cymru

Good Morning. Peredur Hughes; I am President of the NFU in Wales. I believe that the NFU is the leading democratic organisation for farmers and growers in Wales. We have to defend the interests of some 15,000 agricultural businesses. Our central objective is to promote the interests of those farming businesses, producing high quality food, drink, and non-food products for customers and markets both at home and indeed abroad.

The NFU Cymru therefore welcomes this opportunity to submit its views, and we have a particular interest in the consultation because agriculture is one of the areas where the National Assembly has some powers and responsibility over. NFU Cymru has representation both in the National Assembly of Wales, Westminster, and indeed in Brussels. We believe we have an excellent understanding of the overall political and government system.

The Assembly has, during its first term, set about establishing itself by exercising and fostering its powers, both through a Labour-led government, and then a Lib-Lab coalition, and now it seems we have a Labour government just about again. The NFU Cymru would support in principle the Assembly gaining more powers, but we ask that the Assembly justify why they need more powers and how they would implement those powers to bring benefit to the people of Wales.

During the last four years, agriculture has derived both benefits and indeed the negative aspects of devolution. Benefits could include the principle of TIR GOFAL that is a Wales-only environmental scheme, Ministers are more accessible than their English counterparts in Parliament, and that there has been a general transparency of function for the efforts of the Assembly in creating a more open government.

The negative effect of the lack of powers has never been more prominent as felt by the Welsh agriculture industry during the foot-and-mouth crisis of 2001. The function of controlling animal health has not been fully devolved to the Assembly. Bovine TB in actual fact is the only disease for which the Assembly is responsible, and that was actually found out by accident. During the foot-and-mouth crisis, the Assembly’s role was to act as an agent for MAFF, well it will be Defra now. Whilst the Assembly sought to input and influence the central decision-making process, it does not have the prerogative to offer decisions of government; neither could it change the agriculture policy to reflect the particular needs of a livestock industry in Wales. On occasions where that was sought, to bring flexibility to interpretation, they were overwritten by Defra. That to my mind is unacceptable.

NFU Cymru advocates in our response to the Assembly, lessons to be learned that there is a need for an early and detailed review of the powers of the Assembly in disease control. Whilst we recognise the fact that animal disease respects no political boundaries, NFU Cymru remains convinced that had the National Assembly for Wales had greater discussion to tailor the eradication and containment strategy to meet particular needs of farmers in Wales, a more focused solution would have been found. There is evidence that the Scottish Executive were able to exercise some policy differently. Any further devolution of powers in this or any other sector will inevitably lead to a requirement for more personnel and more resources. What we do not wish to see is an increase in bureaucracy. Any additional funding must come from Central Government. I will leave it at that for now. Thank you ladies and gentlemen.

Lord Richard

Thank you very much indeed.

Jim O’Rourke, URDD Gobaith Cymru

May I speak in Welsh?

Several Voices

Yes

Jim O’Rourke (In Welsh, then interpreted)

Jim O’Rourke, rydw i’m gweithio i Urdd Gobaith Cymru, sydd â 50,000 o aelodau a thua 170 o aelodau staff. Rydyn ni’n sicr yn croesawu’r Cynulliad a’r gwaith sydd wedi ei wneud ganddo. Rwy’n credu bod y Cynulliad wedi cael argraff fawr ar waith ieuenctid. Mae ein cydweithwyr wedi cyfeirio at welliannau yn y strategaethau a lefel y trafod sy’n digwydd. Rwy’n credu y gallwn ymfalchïo yn y canolbwyntio a lefel y proffesiynoldeb mewn gwaith ieuenctid sydd wedi datblygu dan ddylanwad y Cynulliad. Mae’n gam mawr ymlaen.

Rwy’n credu yn gyffredinol y gallwn weld ym myd addysg fod y Cynulliad wedi gwneud gwahaniaeth. Rwyf wedi cyflwyno papur. Nid af i ailadrodd y pwyntiau a wnaed yn y cyflwyniad hwnnw, ond rwy’n credu’n bennaf ei bod yn rhaid i sefydliadau fel ni a’r Awdurdodau Lleol drwy gymryd rhan yn y Partneriaethau Ieuenctid mewn Awdurdodau Lleol wasanaethu dau feistr. Delir â rhai agweddau yng Nghaerdydd a rhai agweddau yn y Swyddfa Gartref yn Llundain. Dydy hon ddim yn sefyllfa yr hoffem ei gweld yn parhau: byddai’n well pebae materion sy’n ymwneud â’n gwaith ieuenctid i gyd yn cael eu datganoli i Lywodraeth y Cynulliad Cenedlaethol.

Rwy’n credu i ryw raddau y dylai rhai agweddau gael eu symud o reolaeth llywodraeth leol i reolaeth y Cynulliad. Byddwn hefyd yn hoffi gweld swyddogaeth ychydig yn fwy strategol i’r Cynulliad yng Nghaerdydd.

Mae un enghraifft i’w gweld yng ngweinyddiad cronfeydd Loteri Y Gronfa Cyfleoedd Newydd yng Nghymru; i gael arian i ddatblygu’n cyfleusterau, roedd yn rhaid i ni fynd drwy’r 22 awdurdod lleol, ac yn y diwedd buddiannau awdurdodau lleol oedd yn bennaf, yn hytrach na’r darparwr cenedlaethol.

Un mater arall y dylwn gyfeirio ato yw proffil y Cynulliad. Rwy’n credu y gallai’r Cynulliad wneud lawer iawn mwy. Mae yna 100 o weithwyr y Cynulliad yn agos i’r fan lle rydw i’n byw, ond dydy hynny ddim yn amlwg – does dim arwyddion na baneri. Ble bynnag y bydd y Cynulliad yn symud ei weithwyr allan o Gaerdydd, rhaid i’r Cynulliad werthu’r ffaith ei fod yn gweithio yn yr ardaloedd eraill hyn a chodi ei broffil ar hyd a lled Cymru. Yn gyffredinol rydym yn edrych ymlaen at ddatblygiad Llywodraeth Cynulliad Cymru yn y dyfodol.

Interpretation:

Jim O’Rourke, I work for URDD Gobaith Cymru, which has 50,000 members and approximately 170 staff members. We certainly have welcomed the Assembly and the work which is being done by the Assembly. I do believe the Assembly has made a great impression on youth work. Our colleagues have made reference that they have seen improvements in the strategies and level of discussion taking place. I think we can be proud of the focus and the level of professionalism involved in youth work which has developed under the influence of the Assembly. It is a great step forward.

I think generally in the world of education we can see that the Assembly has made a difference. I have submitted a paper. I will not actually repeat the points I made in that submission, but certainly I believe primarily that organisations such as ourselves and the Local Authorities through our participation in the Young Peoples Partnerships in local Authorities must serve two masters: some aspects are dealt with in Cardiff and some aspects are dealt with in the Home Office in London. It is not a situation we would like to see continue in the future, it would be better if issues which relate to our youth work were all devolved to the Welsh Assembly government..

I do believe to some extent that some aspects should be moved from Local government control to the Assembly I would also like to see a slightly more strategic role for the Assembly in Cardiff.

An example can be seen in the administration of the NOF Lottery funds in Wales; to get funding to develop our facilities we had to actually act through the 22 local authorities, and ultimately it was the interests of local authorities that were primary rather than the national provider.

One other issue I should refer to is the profile of the Assembly. I believe that the Assembly could do much more. There are 100 workers for the Assembly located where I live,but, it is not evident – there are no signs or banners – wherever the Assembly moves its workers, out of Cardiff the Assembly must sell the fact that they exist in these other areas and raise its profile across Wales. Generally, we look forward to the future development of the Welsh Assembly Government.

Lord Richard

Thank you very much.

RG Parry, FUW President/Llywydd UAC

Bob Parry, President of the Farmers’ Union of Wales. I have been President for the last 12 years, so I have had some dealings with Defra, or with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food as it was called then, and then of course with the Assembly, so I have had the experience of working right across both sides on this subject.

The Farmers’ Union of Wales was established in 1955. We devolved ourselves from the National Farmers’ Union that we had in Wales at that time and formed a totally independent Farmers’ Union for Wales representing and promoting the best interests of traditional farming businesses in Wales. Our policies are determined by our grassroots members and we never compromise to satisfy the different views of farmers outside Wales.

We were the only farming organisation to support the Assembly before the referendum because we believed it was vital for Wales to have its own voice. Maybe things have not worked out the way we wanted them to be, but I am sure that this Commission will look closely at the areas and at things that need to be done to make the Assembly more accountable to rural Wales.

We had the crisis of foot-and-mouth in 2001 with tragic results to many farmers in Wales. There has been a great deal of debate over the lessons to be learned from this tragic episode. One lesson, which we sincerely hope the Richard Commission will address, is that of granting the Assembly legislative powers as in Scotland and Northern Ireland. During the course of the foot-and-mouth outbreak, a number of decisions crucial to Wales were either delayed or implemented ineffectively by Defra due to a lack of understanding of the nature of Welsh agriculture. You have got to remember that Welsh agriculture is different to the agriculture that we see over the border.

We believe that there is a fundamental weakness in the Government of Wales Act in that in Wales, despite the devolution of executive and secondary powers, together with powers of investigation and debate, not one single area of responsibility has been transferred from Westminster. Instead what has happened is that the Assembly has inherited the powers that previously belonged to the Secretary of State. Over the years the Secretary of State was given these powers, which at first were very limited, but over a period of time responsibilities were added to this remit but on an ad hoc basis. In Scotland the Scottish Parliament is responsible for the areas including agriculture, police, transport, education, health.

There is also the confusion about what power the Assembly does have. It is at many levels. We saw that even with the civil servants during the foot-and-mouth crisis. The general public would like to see more specific power given to the Assembly. We believe that there should be no need for the WAG to seek parliamentary time, via the Secretary of State for Wales to pass legislation essential to Wales.

When we look at the Committee structure, we believe that there are not enough Assembly Members to give adequate time to consider legislation that is coming through. Compared to the Scottish Parliament, they have 128 members; granted, there is five million population in Scotland. The National Assembly for Wales has 60 members; a population of three million. Northern Ireland has 108 members; the population of Northern Ireland is one million. It means that Assembly Members are sitting on more than one subject committee; they cannot give that enough time. We have seen the Agricultural & Rural Affairs Committee – which we are very proud of – not being able to give enough time to some of the important agricultural legislation coming through.

The transfer of animal health powers to the National Assembly is vital in our view, because we need those powers in the way Peredur referred to TB. There are other things that we have seen where the Welsh Assembly has moved quicker. One of them was the burial of animals which was made illegal by a regulation which came into force on 1 May. What we need now is more powers. I will also say that as a Union we believe and we accept that the Assembly has been of benefit to Wales in the first four years and we are looking forward to the future. We are hoping of course that there will be more stability with our agricultural Minister in the Assembly.

Lord Richard

Thank you very much.

Meuric Rees, Royal Welsh Agricultural Society

If I may introduce, I indicated at the beginning that I welcome the setting up of the National Assembly for Wales. Many of us in many organisations had extreme doubts about another tier of government being imposed on us – or being introduced, if that is a better word. But I, like many like myself in Wales, are happy that it has come about, we accept the Assembly and appreciate what has been done through the Assembly for Wales and for the agricultural and the rural scene.

As your hair gets whiter and you get older, the demands of bureaucracy get a bit more worrying. But I think that applies to every administrative organisation. We have to weigh on the other side the benefits we receive from that extra bureaucratic element imposed. One of the things I feel about it personally is that by having that tier of government fairly close to us in Cardiff, and I might add – and I know this does not come into your remit – that although I live in North Wales I think Cardiff is the only possible capital we have in Wales when you look at its resources. But linked to that living in the north, I think that something should be done about communications to the rest of Wales. In the interests of a democratic and effective government, it is really necessary.

We get Ministers visiting us at our show – we are very pleased to see them – and they give a personal impact, not just a signature or a name, but meeting people personally is very important. I think with the tier of the Cardiff government, or Cardiff Assembly, we are able to get that personal contact, which I think is important for all of us. It is a two-way thing; we put in and also receive back from them. On the other hand having said that, I hope we would not have to increase the numbers at all, either Members or civil servants. As I mentioned, bureaucracy is something that seems to be never-ending; it seems to grow and grow and grow. It is a worry for all of us.

Devolution: I think the Assembly is very effective and it fits into that pyramid of responsibility in government: from local government, through Cardiff and Westminster to Brussels. That is particularly important as far as agriculture and the rural scene goes. In some ways, I think that we in this country benefit by having part of the decision-making in Brussels. The proportion of agricultural members in France and some other countries is much higher and I feel that sometimes our influence there, in farming matters, is important to us here. So, we are very pleased with the links both ways: down from Brussels to us and the other way.

With regard to devolution, which my farming friends have mentioned, I think control needs to be more effectively given to Cardiff in the vetinary aspect. The experience of Foot & Mouth and BSE is still a very real and frightening one and decisions need to be taken quickly and more locally.

Lord Richard

Thank you. Mr Sturrock?

Peter Sturrock, Royal Welsh Agricultural Society

Peter Sturrock, Royal Welsh Agricultural Society. I would only just like to back up what Meuric Rees has said and indeed to welcome you here today.

Lord Richard

Thank you.

Rees Roberts, Meat Promotion Wales

Rees Roberts, Chairman of Hybu Cig Cymru. What it is in fact, the hard edge of devolution in Wales. We are probably the most recent body in Wales. We have had contributions from all the well-established bodies in the industry that have taken part in that devolutionary process and part of that has been the creation of this body. It is not a new idea; it is made up of the organisations that were there before: which is Welsh Lamb and Beef, MLC, and the WDA and the food partnership remit. Hybu Cig Cymru was established, not as the FUW and NFU many years ago, but in 2003. It does actually have more members than all the rest put together in that there are 28,000 farmers in Wales and each one of them we would argue is a stakeholder within that promotion of the Welsh product. The remit for Hybu Cig Cymru is to do with promoting our excellent Welsh product. We are all beneficiaries of communicating with stakeholders and consumers, and trying to push the development of the industry forward.

We see the devolutionary process as being a very positive move in that context, not only in the creation of the body – and hopefully it will develop – but also in the remit that it is given. We see a very positive value in it all. Devolution has made a major difference to the agriculture sector in Wales. We would argue there is a series of positive aspects in the National Assembly. We feel it is a strategic government. Evidence of that is the comprehensive strategy for Farming Wales that was undertaken in the last four years by the Government which brought forward a Farming for the Future document which underlined all the 50 objectives that the industry could undertake.

Hybu Cig Cymru was a result of that vision for the future in a strategic sense; in other words, to integrate all the efforts that were made in the past and move them forward. So, Hybu Cig Cymru is a beneficiary of the devolutionary strategic sense of the Government. It is also more responsive also, we feel, in that we have had genuine dialogue not only with the politicians but with the civil servants on a number of issues. We have underlined in the document which I refer to you. You have already had evidence of much of that.

We have enjoyed a good working relationship with those politicians. We feel it is a transparent government also and it ensures political decision-making is either collectively by the politicians or in open forum, which is something that was not the case in the past. A notable area of advance has also been a more approachable government we feel; not only the civil servants and the politicians, but also the whole raft of anybody that is involved in the agriculture industry. We seem I think to – very often, not always – be singing from a similar hymn sheet.

And it is also more imaginative. Since devolution we have had policy formulation that has been specific to Wales and has listened to much of the attention that has been given to it. So, we are confident in saying that the attitude and actions of the National Assembly for Wales has looked favourably on the agriculture industry. Evidence has already been given today of that. It is crucial that the economic and social values of the agriculture industry are recognised in Wales. As I said, there are 28,780 holdings in Wales; we have a major contribution to the GDP of Wales, and account for 4.6 of the workforce of Wales, which is far greater than the average for the UK. So, agriculture in rural areas is very important to Wales and promoting its product is important for us of course.

Looking to the future, we recognise that – and devolution is a process, of course, not an event –additional powers and responsibilities have thus far meant transfer of functions orders. This is evidenced in the work that has been referred to in the animal health sector. I will not go into that; we referred to it in our contribution. That is a mechanism that has brought some of the powers into Wales that have been necessary. We would argue that it can occasionally be slower and more ponderous. That is not necessarily a disadvantage sometimes. When on occasion perhaps there are certain things that need something to be more rapid and stronger legislative powers are something we would argue for, something for the future. But, there is no point in having stronger legislative powers without the mechanism behind it, so that, as part-and-parcel of any move towards that there would have to be a mechanism to facilitate it.

Wales and Westminster and Europe we refer to in the paper too. Better and greater representation is absolutely vital in Wales; that we have, from our perspective, we have factors that affect supply. There is certain critical mass needed in Wales if we are to export food, and particularly sheep meat. Therefore, it is absolutely vital that the Welsh voice is heard not only in Westminster, but in Europe. We welcome the fact that that has actually taken place and we look forward to taking this issue further when today, probably, we hear who our new fourth Rural Affairs Minister is to be.

In conclusion, we reiterate that the impact of devolution on our organisation and the people we serve has been extremely positive. I referred to some of the advantages. We do not find that there are problems as such with the settlements, so long as development is allowed to take place in a logical way and those possible powers that may be used to have an effective implementation of the remit. Part of this logical progress is of course the devolution in the food industry and the promotion of Welsh red meat. They must include those powers must be used to facilitate what is needed.

We do not feel that it is our remit to comment on the electoral arrangements, but we have found in our dealings that others have had plenty of opportunity for representation. I will leave it at that and look forward to contributing later.

Lord Richard

Thank you very much. I wonder if I could just make a point. On page three of your document, you say that in giving formal evidence you would bring further materials on the experience of using primary legislative powers in Scotland. Is there anything specific you would like to add?

Rees Roberts

I will refer you to my colleague here, Gwyn Howells.

Gwyn Howells, Meat Promotion Wales

We will not provide any actual hard evidence, but what I would say is in terms of the devolution process of what our business and interests are standing for, in terms of promotion of the industry and development of the industry, that has happened in England, obviously in Wales with Meat Promotion Wales – Hybu Cig Cymru – and in Scotland with Quality Meat Scotland. Quality Meat Scotland have actually changed their remit whereby they are accountable to Scottish Ministers directly, whereas a structure such as we have in Wales are accountable to the Minister in Defra.

Lord Richard

You are accountable to Defra?

Gwyn Howells

Sorry?

Lord Richard

You are accountable to Defra?

Gwyn Howells

Through the Accounting Officer, yes. The actual difference is an important one to consider; given the comment on we are a food exporting country, we are competitive to a degree with our colleagues in Scotland and in England. I think we need to be accountable as a body to the process in Wales so that we can actually get closer to our stakeholders by way of communication in that respect. I think that is the logical progression that we would be perhaps seeking.

Ted Rowlands, Richard Commission

Can we ask who funds you? How are you funded?

Gwyn Howells

The funding is public sector funding, and it is a two-stream funding: one from the Meat and Livestock Commission levy, which is raised from producers and abattoirs in Wales on cattle, sheep, and pigs; and secondly from a grant mechanism from the Welsh Development Agency.

Lord Richard

Listening to what you all have to say, there seems to be certainly strands emerging and certain questions remain hovering. It seems that everybody is agreed that the Assembly is more open, that it is more accessible, that it is more transparent, that it is closer, perhaps, than Westminster or the old Secretary of State structure was. Could I ask you something specific? Everybody has mentioned the foot-and-mouth outbreak and everybody has said, ‘Well, if Wales had had powers it would not have been as bad in Wales.’ I would like that proved, please. I do not mind which of you starts, but convince me as a Devil’s Advocate that if it had been devolved, that the trouble would not have been as bad. Tell me what went wrong with the existing mechanisms.

Malcolm Thomas

Perhaps an actual example, a stark example, first of all from a member waiting to get his stock slaughtered. He gathered his stock in the morning, had them ready for slaughter – no slaughterman. That involved a phone call to Cardiff and then a further phone call to London to find out whether the Defra vets would give approval for another slaughterman to come along. That was not forthcoming, his stock was turned loose. You can imagine the trauma that guy was going through. Three times he gathered his stock: one was the slaughterman, the second time there was no transport available. The annoying – is putting it mildly – the annoying feature was that he was having to ring London. It was not feasible for the chief vet in Wales to say, ‘Go ahead.’ I mean, that is totally unacceptable.

I think, on a wider front, looking at foot-and-mouth overall, there were occasions when the industry – and many of us were at that table – would meet in Cardiff with the Minister. I am thinking of things like the common land, the problems of common land and the problems of sheep returning to the hills after being over-wintered. The industry and the Assembly were in total agreement. There was a clear, sensible plan available to us, which we were all agreed on, and at the end of the meeting the Minister was telling us, ‘Well, that is fine. I will take that up with Defra now.’ We would return the following week and the week after – and in one case three weeks – before the plan that all of us had agreed was finally...

Lord Richard

Yes, what was the issue?

Malcolm Thomas

Common land was one and the question of sheep returning to the hills was another. Both are crucially important here in Wales. Again, I think annoying is putting it mildly; that we were having to wait three weeks to get clearance from somebody in Defra when not only the industry but the Assembly as well had discussed it, looked at it, and come to a solution.

Vivienne Sugar, Richard Commission

This does not sound very different to other emergency situations where there may be shared responsibilities, like the petrol crisis where local authority planning officers were having to go to the Home Office in London. It took a while to find systems of co-ordination so that you could have properly prepared and planned reactions to an emergency. How much is cross-border issues, something which would mean that there would always have to be co-ordination between Cardiff and London?

Malcolm Thomas

I think that we all accept that there has to be co-ordination. Perhaps the best way of answering your question to say that similar problems arose in Scotland on common land and on over-wintering. They dealt with them immediately. I think that is the best example in answer to your question; that the Scots, with the extra powers that they have, were able to – in much the same way as we did – discuss with the industry, reach agreement, and implement it.

Lord Richard

The common land was a big issue.

Malcolm Thomas

We were having to wait for two or three weeks to implement exactly the same decision, a decision that we had all agreed on two or three weeks before. And, you know, two or three weeks during a period of spreading disease inevitably led to probably tens of thousands of animals being slaughtered in Wales unnecessarily.

Lord Richard

But now, the common land one was a big issue. Are there other big issues like that?

Malcolm Thomas

I think common land and I think over-wintering of sheep; and perhaps as well, another one that caused a lot of problems in this area was finding definitive boundaries in order to release areas of land, or perhaps to designate it in the first place. Again, there was an occasion when the Assembly and ourselves in the industry agreed a split within Powys which would have made conditions on the ground a great deal easier for farmers, and indeed for Assembly and Defra vets policing the situation, but we were having to wait two to three weeks again for a decision that when it eventually came was the one that we had agreed on. So, I think that was the main experience I think that came across for us all as an industry during that time was frustration, that we were having to wait two or three weeks to implement agreed policies, when we could see Scotland – with the extra powers that they have – being able to put those plans in place immediately.

Lord Richard

Mr Parry, do you want to comment on this?

RG Parry

Yes, I would agree with Malcolm on that point. Another issue of course was licences for the movement of animals. Again, we were sitting round the table; we were there virtually every other day in the beginning. You know, we were putting the case for Welsh farmers every day exactly the same. This was the frustration of having agreed the way forward and you know there was a wait then until a decision was made by Defra. If the Rural Affairs Minister had had the power that would have been implemented straight away, because it did mean a lot of hardship; it meant extra animals being slaughtered. It also meant hardship for the lives of farmers as well. It has always been said that, you know, the stress during that time on the agriculture industry was tremendous, having to wait days and weeks for a decision to come from Defra, when we knew virtually what the decision would be.

Ted Rowlands

Could I ask, I mean, the principle of the transfer of function order now has been agreed virtually, as I understand it. Are there difficulties now – and I think it has been poorly addressed from a practical point – problems now of identifying the resource that has got to be transferred with it? Is it now not an argument about the principle of transfer of these powers, but it is whether the resource that has got to come with it?

Malcolm Thomas

I think we understand that there is broad agreement between the Assembly and Defra in terms of the foot-and-mouth situation, and you are absolutely right: I mean, the one thing that the Assembly cannot afford – as neither can we an industry cannot afford – is to have the powers transferred without the accompanying resources. I think that is an issue that cuts directly across I would have thought all of your deliberations, that the transfer of powers is one thing but unless you can do it with the necessary resources, then in fact you are creating an even bigger problem.

Ted Rowlands

Have you been involved through the Assembly officials in identifying the natures of the resource and helping to assess exactly what resource should be transferred? What is the nature of the resource that needs to be transferred?

Malcolm Thomas

We have not been involved directly in assessing what element of resources in terms of what funds, manpower, and personnel would be required. We were consulted in the course of the exercise in terms of, you know, is this desirable and if so, what is needed? I think we all made the point that what we do not want is a transfer of powers but without the resources. That would be the worst of all worlds.

Barrie Jones

The point I would like to make is it has to be borne in mind that in the last foot-and-mouth crisis we were actually looking at powers in the Animal Health Act (1981). In fact we now have a new Act, which has far wider powers. For me, I must say that there are still problem areas. I will just cite one example in Part 4 of the Act, whereby provisions are made for a national contingency plan. Now in the case of foot-and-mouth, that is the joint responsibility of the Minister in England and the Assembly here in Wales. Now how that would pan out I am not sure. In the case of other diseases though, it is the Assembly which has sole responsibility, so I think we need to consider this issue in that particular context.

Lord Richard

Somebody said in one of the papers that the fact that the Assembly was responsibility for Bovine TB was only discovered by accident. I do not know what the story behind that is.

Siôn Aron

I think this reflects the confusion which exists. We are industry bodies specialising in our subject areas. God only knows what the public believe to be the situation as to who is responsible for what. And I think from a farmer’s perspective, there was a real excitement in establishing the Assembly that we were going to see decisions made in Wales for Wales, and the decision-making process coming closer to the member of the public to the farmer.

I think there has been a lot of frustration from farmers’ point of view in approaching Assembly Members, in approaching civil servants, and approaching ourselves as industry organisations. When a problem exists, very often the Assembly Member or the civil servant has to reply that that particular power, that responsibility has not been devolved and the power lays elsewhere. I am sure from a legal perspective you are also aware of the confusion which exists within the Assembly legal department; perhaps not the confusion, but the time taken to study the Government of Wales Act and to actually establish what is involved and what is not involved.

Barrie Jones

Can I follow that up, Lord Richard? Because if one looks for instance at the first Transfer of Functions Order, effectively you are talking about a long list of statutes which are not even in alphabetical order. It is a matter of trawling through each Act to consider which section is applicable to the Assembly. I can well imagine how even experts in the field are scratching their heads to determine whether they were able to act in any particular instance. I understand that the Cardiff Law School is currently undertaking an exercise to provide subject headings and I further understand that process will be complete by the end of the year, which will certainly be a great help. But certainly the difficulty in ascertaining what are the functions of the Assembly has created problems and it does not rest easily with the laudable aim of an open and accessible Welsh Assembly Government.

Peredur Hughes

Can I sort of add to that how we actually came about finding by accident that TB was the responsibility of the Assembly? When TB became a real problem about two years ago, we went to meet the Minister down in Cardiff: ‘Well, yes, it is the responsibility of Defra.’ We went along to Defra and they said, ‘Well, it is the responsibility of the Assembly.’ That is how actually how we found out that it was, by trawling through all the Acts. And it was by accident that we actually found out. I think we need to define better the powers that the Assembly has.

Peter Price

I would like to see how far the kind of problems you have identified can be remedied simply by a transfer of further executive powers and how far they are attributable to legislative powers – I am talking about primary legislation. There are four examples that have been cited. Possibly one of them is in a slightly different category. Three that seem much in the same category where the day-by-day decisions during foot-and-mouth like: the slaughterman issue, the issue of the sheep returning to the hills, and the licensing for the movement of animals; they seem to be in one group and appear to be all matters of executive decision.

Do you come back to any sort of legislative difference? Here I come back to the Scottish point that you have raised; was there legislation put in place by the Scottish Parliament at any point which made the situation easier to handle, or was it just that you had this single tier, much more accessible tier, of government taking executive decisions faster?

The other example, the fourth example, which you quoted was about common land. I am not quite sure, although this was raised in the discussion about foot-and-mouth and overlaps it a bit, am I right in thinking that that issue has much wider ramifications going well beyond the specifics that you just talked about and possibly does have some legislative impact of major importance? Can we disentangle the legislative from the executive, and where does common land fit into this pattern?

Malcolm Thomas

I will try. I think part of the problem that we all have – and I accept that it was an emergency situation, as somebody mentioned earlier – is that there was no clear distinction between what was an executive power and what required legislation. I think at the end of the day, probably most of it fell into the executive decision category, or indeed Ministerial decision – which is what they were. What we were finding in our discussions with the Assembly – and that was at the Ministerial level – we could reach agreement on the broad areas that we had discussed. We could do that fairly quickly but everything needed approval from Defra. And in effect, that was the major sticking point.

Common land you rightly raised as perhaps being separate. In this case it was not. It was how we treated common land in relation to animals returning, and fencing, and separation, and all these issues. It was not the much broader issue of common land, which I think you are absolutely right is one which should require primary legislation be imposed. For the purposes of this exercise, it would have been in foot-and-mouth terms. So, I think that it was clearly a developing situation for everyone, but what we found was there was a concentration of the ability to say ‘yes’ and ‘no’ effectively with [inaudible] and effectively with the Minister in Defra.

Lord Richard

Mr Jones.

Barrie Jones

Over the past six months I have been a member of the National Stakeholder Working Group, which has looked into common land issues on an England and Wales basis. We are wrestling with a piece of legislation, the Commons Registration Act (1965), which quite frankly is inadequate for the needs and purposes of present-day farming. There are many defects, in my humble opinion, in that legislation. The Working Group has considered a whole range of measures as to how the Act should be updated and what measures need to be implemented to correct those deficiencies. One particular issue, for instance, is the severing of grazing rights from the dominant holding. It is hoped that that is an issue that can be looked at urgently.

From the discussions I was present in, what is clear is that there are clearly features here in Wales which perhaps deserve separate consideration. To begin with, we are talking about 10% of the total land area in Wales being common land; that in itself is a remarkable figure. We are talking of perhaps approximately two-thirds of the common being near to urban areas; again, it is a significant feature. What I would also submit, working within a farming organisation, is that here in Wales, common rights form an intrinsic, vital part of the traditional farm, whereas perhaps that is not necessarily the case across the border. Certainly we have similarities with common land areas in the north of England and perhaps to a certain extent in the West Country, but what has come through to me loud and clear is that common land is an area where the Assembly should have far greater control and exercise a far greater function.

Lord Richard

Mr Salmon, would you like to comment on this?

Julian Salmon

I am not a real expert. We have our own experts involved in the same forum this gentleman talks about. I guess common land is an involved and historic set of legislation. It is beyond my expertise I am afraid.

Ted Rowlands

Would Mr Jones go as far as to have a separate legislative legal arrangement for common land in Wales, or does he want an England and Wales common land with provisions that will obviously cover the special interests of the north of England, the West Country, and Wales?

Barrie Jones

I think it is a two-stage process. Certainly I think initially we need to look urgently at the executive powers in this country exercised by the Assembly. But, in the long term, I think it would be valid and proper to consider that the Assembly itself should have primary legislative powers in the case of common land. Certainly a case could be made for that, although we are just talking about one specific area of agriculture.

Vivienne Sugar

I would just like to come in about this further primary legislation for agriculture. You made the case about the Assembly having powers over common land. There is a reference in the Hybu Cig Cymru paper to this MRC levy. I did not quite understand why that needed primary legislation to change it, but are there any other examples? Because what we are talking about here is changing the constitutional settlement of devolution in order to accommodate issues that are undoubtedly very important you and large sectors of the rural population, but we have got to ask ourselves: are they substantial enough to unpick the devolution settlement. How much is achievable through existing executive powers and how much really can only be done by primary legislation?

Rees Roberts

The MRC levy is linked to the 1967 Agriculture Act. And, as we understand it, I am not a legal expert, the Scots had to use their legislative powers to change that. But, you know, that is something which needs further research. There are other aspects which we have not mentioned; that is, research and development. There is a big, big dollop of money within Britain: England and Wales in this context and Scotland separately for research and development. We have a big research and development sector within Wales but the control over that is at the Defra level. We feel that Wales has specific interest in the direction research and development goes, because we have different priorities. Further control over that is important. R&D is another subject that we would argue requires further powers.

Vivienne Sugar

Can I press you on this? Surely it is simply a matter of policy, an executive decision has to be made to give an R&D function to you.

Rees Roberts

That is something I cannot be specific about. As I understand it, legislative powers are needed to make that happen.

Vivienne Sugar

I think we would be grateful if you could pursue that outside this meeting and actually give us chapter-and-verse on why that is the case. We are collecting all instances where we need to build the case to say: these are the specific needs where primary legislative powers are needed.

Rees Roberts

Could I just finish on this one? I emphasise that all this talk is about hopefully giving Wales a competitive edge. We are talking about commerce and, as I mentioned earlier, we are a food-exporting nation. These hindrances, if you like, can have an economic impact. Many of these powers are linked to giving Wales an advantage, I believe. If it can be proved that it will give us that advantage, it is worth pursuing.

Malcolm Thomas

Can I just follow on the point that Mr Price was making, and that is: I think it became clear to us all that although we were all working under the same legislation in Scotland, England, and Wales during the course of the foot-and-mouth, the Scottish Parliament clearly felt empowered – for want of a better word – to take decisions affecting Scotland without recourse to Defra on every occasion.

So I think, coming back to your original question, it may well be a case of defining clearly what executive powers are available to the Minister at Assembly level, because clearly during the foot-and-mouth outbreak our experience as an industry was that we were left behind in comparison to Scotland. They were doing things, taking decisions two or three weeks before us even though we had reached agreement with the Assembly at the same time. So, I think there was certainly – in terms of the foot-and-mouth outbreak – a need for far greater clarification as to what the Minister was able to do. And then I am afraid we are down to individuals; the Scots felt that they could press on and do it; the Assembly took a more cautious approach.

Huw Thomas, Richard Commission

I would like to sort of move away from foot-and-mouth. Everyone has emphasised the fact that there is a distinct nature of the agricultural industry in Wales, and may touch on the Brussels issue. Throughout the early months of the agriculture industry’s relationship with the Assembly, there were tensions slightly: ‘Yes, we would like to do this but we are stopped by Brussels.’

We have also heard separately about the volume of secondary legislation which the assemblies have passed because it is coming out of Brussels, leading me to asking the question: to what extent do you feel as an industry that the Assembly with its current powers is actually equipped to represent your case in things like the Common Agricultural Policy reviews, for example? Or do you feel that the Assembly is dependent still on the Defra lead?

Malcolm Thomas

At the moment, the Minister who sits at the table is the Defra Minister, and that is the agreed procedure at the moment. I am sure there are occasions when our Minister could as well sit at that table and perform the same function, but that would require not only looking at legislation here but presumably at the European level as well. I think that what is important, so far as we are concerned as an industry, is that we have a voice that is clear and forceful enough in determination of policy at a UK level before it goes to Brussels. I think there is a tier before we reach the Brussels level which you talk about.

Once you reach the level of Brussels, I think there is the facility for our Minister to attend Brussels whenever he or she chooses, and indeed the First Minister. Obviously, as an industry we make it clear to the Minister when we feel he should be there. I have to say that during the first four years, I would say, the school report is probably, ‘Well done, but could do a little better.’

There are two levels to the argument. The first is: what is the strength of the ministry arguing at the UK level, and then the whole question of representation in Brussels?

Sir Michael Wheeler Booth, Richard Commission

Could I just follow that one up? Do you think that the links in your organisations and Defra, as opposed to the National Assembly, are satisfactory? The impression we are getting, I think, is that they are not altogether satisfactory and that you would much prefer to have to deal with the National Assembly Government as the first port of call.

If I could link with that the question about the relationship between your organisations and, well, Government. In England, on agricultural matters the relations between the NFU and what used to be MAFF and now is Defra are exceptionally close, as is well-known. And the NFU, from time-to-time, buys in a senior civil servant to work for them. This works very effectively. I mean, as a pressure group, the English farmers have been historically exceptionally effective on matters, many of which are, in the long run, are controlled from Brussels. It is a double question I am asking.

Malcolm Thomas

I am sure that we all strive to achieve the same level of expertise that you have just ascribed to the NFU in England. I think we would all agree that the relationship that we have established with senior civil servants and the Ministers that we have had at Assembly level in its first term have been very good, particularly in view of the terrible incidence of foot-and-mouth which inevitably threw us together perhaps far more than either side would have thought. I do not think we can fault the relationship with the National Assembly. It has progressed very well in a very short space of time.

I think we are all acutely aware that we are only talking about a fledgling organisation. It has just reached its first birthday, in effect, and is about to embark on its second term. I would hope that the relationship that we have will certainly maintain at its current level and indeed grow. I think there is everything to be gained from the expertise that sits up this table being shared as openly and as regularly as possible with the Assembly. There is no monopoly on wisdom on either side.

Siôn Aron

You are absolutely right. I absolutely agree. Since the expensive translation is here, I will…

Siôn Aron (In Welsh, then interpreted)

Yn ddiamau, mae ein perthynas fel undeb â Gweinidogion a gweision sifil yng Nghaerdydd wedi bod yn berthynas adeiladol a chlos ac wedi bod yn llesol o ran sicrhau bod ffermwyr yng Nghymru yn cael llais cryf yn llywodraeth Cymru. Rydym eisoes wedi mynegi’n dymuniad i weld penderfyniadau’n cael eu gwneud yn nes at y ffermwyr. Mae’n ddrwg gen i orfod dychwelyd at glwy’r traed a’r genau, ond yn sicr pwyslais Defra ar y pryd oedd fod rhanbarthau yn Lloegr yn gweld hyd at 70 o achosion bob dydd mewn mannau fel Cumbria.

Yr hyn roedden ni’n ei weld yma yng Nghymru oedd cyfanswm o 70 o achosion, yn hytrach na 70 y dydd. Felly, roedd yn naturiol i Defra roi’r pwyslais ar y rhannau hynny o Loegr a oedd yn dioddef fwyaf oherwydd yr afiechyd. Fel undeb, rydym wedi cymryd rhan flaenllaw mewn cyfarfodydd yn Llundain gyda Defra a Gweinidogion Amaethyddiaeth yn Llundain, a rydyn ni wedi ymdrechu i sicrhau bod y gweision sifil a’r Gweinidogion hynny’n ymwybodol o’r problemau penodol yng Nghymru. Cyfeiriwyd eisoes at anghenion penodol Cymru, ond yn sicr roedd y problemau roeddem yn cyfeirio atynt yng Nghymru yn cael eu trin fel rhai eilradd – i siarad yn blaen – i flaenoriaethau Lloegr.

O ran ein perthynas ag Ewrop, creodd y Cynulliad - yn answyddogol, a does dim sail ddeddfwriaethol i’r cytundeb hwnnw - goncordat cydweithredol bod Defra yn gwrando ar rai o anghenion ffermwyr Cymru, yr Alban a Gogledd Iwerddon, felly, byddai gennym rywfaint o ddylanwad ar y polisïau sy’n cael eu dilyn yn Ewrop. Ond rydym yn gofidio bod gan wlad fel yr Alban brif ddeddfwriaeth a’i bod mewn gwirionedd wedi llofnodi cytundeb gwleidyddol gyda rhanbarthau cyfansoddol ym mis Mai 2001. Gan fod gan yr Alban brif bwerau ac yn cydweithredu â rhanbarthau tebyg yn yr UE, mae’n cael mwy o sylw neu well sylw gan yr UE. Mae yna berygl y bydd Cymru’n cael ei gadael ar ôl am nad oes gan y Cynulliad y math hwnnw o ddylanwad ym Mrwsel.

Interpretation:

Without a doubt, our relationship as a union with Ministers and civil servants in Cardiff has been a constructive, close relationship and has been beneficial in terms of ensuring that the farmers of Wales have a loud voice in government in Wales. We have already expressed our desire to see decisions to be made closer to the farmers. I am sorry to return to the foot-and-mouth disease or outbreak, but certainly Defra’s emphasis at that time was regions of England that were suffering outbreaks of up to 70 cases of the disease on a daily basis in places such as Cumbria.

What we were experiencing here in Wales was 70 cases in total in Wales, rather than 70 cases per day. Therefore it was natural for Defra to place the emphasis on those areas of England that were most affected by the disease. As a union, we have played a prominent role in meetings in London with Defra and with agriculture Ministers in London and have endeavoured to ensure that those civil servants and Ministers are aware of the particular problems that existed in Wales. The particular needs of Wales have already been referred to, but without a doubt the problems we were referring to in Wales were actually treated as secondary – to speak bluntly – to the English priorities.

As regards our relationship with Europe, the Assembly – unofficially, and there is no legislative basis to this agreement – created a collaborative concordat that Defra listens to some of the needs of the farmers of Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, so we would have some influence on the policies that are pursued in Europe. But we are concerned that a country such as Scotland does have primary legislation and that they have actually signed a political agreement with the constitution regions in May 2001. Because Scotland has primary powers and are cooperating with similar regions within the EU, they then are receiving more or better attention from the EU. There is a risk or danger that Wales will be left behind because the Assembly does not have that kind of influence in Brussels.

Lord Richard

It does not have that kind of influence in Brussels because there is only one member state, and that is the UK. But as I understand it, I have been quite surprised by the level of influence we have on it. Most people on the Assembly seem rather satisfied with the extent to which Wales was represented at meetings of the Council of Ministers. Indeed, on occasions the Welsh Minister who was there – the Assembly Minister – actually speaks for the UK as a whole. We did not get any great complaints, let us put it that way, saying, ‘Hey look: we have to have a different relationship with Brussels.’ I would be very interested to know whether there were any specifics which you could say that if the Assembly had greater powers, then they would have been in a stronger position to put a particular point of view. We have not had any specifics.

Siôn Aron (In Welsh, then interpreted)

Ein pryder yw nad yw presenoldeb y Cynulliad efallai’n ddigon cryf yn y cyfnod pan gaiff deddfwriaeth ei drafftio, cyn iddi ddod i fodolaeth.

Interpretation:

The concern that we have is that perhaps the Assembly’s presence is not strong enough in the period when legislation is drafted, before it comes into existence.

Lord Richard

That has nothing to do with Assembly powers; that is the Assembly having a more rigorous representation in Brussels itself. I mean, anything about the Commission in Brussels is that it is open; you can go and talk to them. They are very easy to talk to. I do not know who is representing Wales in Brussels, but that is the time at which you can feed it in. When it actually comes to the decision-making process – I am open to being convinced otherwise – but on the evidence we have had so far I think most people think that in European terms we get a fair crack.

Tom Jones, Richard Commission (In Welsh, then interpreted)

Yn y lle cyntaf, rhaid i mi ddatgan diddordeb. Dyna pam nad wyf wedi bod yn gofyn cwestiynau manwl. Rwy’n datgan diddordeb personol - uniongyrchol neu anuniongyrchol – ym mhob un o’r sefydliadau sydd wedi eu cynrychioli yma. Gaf fi ddiolch i chi bob un am ddod. Fforwm ar gefn gwlad yn gyffredinol yw hwn, a dweud y gwir. Hoffwn fynd â’r drafodaeth ymhellach, ond i gau ar y pwynt olaf am ddeddfwriaeth. Os oes gennych unrhyw dystiolaeth sut mae gan Lywodraeth yr Alban fwy o ddylanwad am fod ganddi brif bwerau, fel ei bod yn gallu mabwysiadu a gweithredu polisïau’n fwy effeithiol, os oes gennych enghreifftiau, byddem yn falch iawn cael clywed amdanynt.

Mae’r trafodaethau gyda’r Cynulliad nawr yn golygu y gallwch rwydweithio’n gyffredinol, nid gydag amaethyddiaeth yn unig fel pwnc, gan ryngweithio â Llundain. Polisïau gwledig sy’n cael eu trafod nawr, ac mae nifer o adnoddau eraill ar gael. Oes gennych chi enghreifftiau o broblemau’n tarddu o faes yr economi wledig yn benodol, neu ym maes twristiaeth? Os oes gennych unrhyw bwyntiau am yr economi ehangach, byddem yn falch iawn clywed amdanynt. A chyda phobl ifanc, roedd Jim yn cyfeirio at gysylltiadau.

Interpretation:

In the first place I would declare an interest. That is why I have not been asking detailed questions. I declare a clear personal interest – direct or indirect – with each one of the organisations represented here. May I thank you all for attending? Really this is a forum on the Welsh countryside generally. I would like to take the discussion further, but just to close on the last point on legislature: if you have any evidence on how the government of Scotland has more influence because they have primary legislative powers, so they are able to adopt and implement policies more effectively, if you have examples we would be very pleased to hear about them.

The discussions with the Assembly now mean that you can network generally, not just with agriculture as a subject, interacting with one ministry in London. It is rural policies that are now being discussed and there are many other resources available. Do you have examples of problems arising in the field of the rural economy generally, or in the field of tourism? If you have any points regarding the wider economy I would be very pleased to hear them. Also, with young people Jim was referring to links.

Malcolm Thomas

Perhaps if I could kick off then. I think one thing that the Assembly has done is to bring the concept of partnership to a level in Welsh public life which it certainly has not enjoyed before. In terms of the rural areas, I mean, it has established the Wales Rural Partnership which brings together some 45-50-odd organisations representing everything connected with rural life. The concept is fine; the practice is awful. We end up with 40-50 people in a room, many justifying their existence by saying a few words. As I said, the concept is wonderful but I would like to see the body working – being proactive rather than reactive, in terms of how the Assembly is handling it.

I think there is a huge amount of goodwill and knowledge and co-operation at the partnership body itself, but I would like to see the partnership body being made to work, rather than having the Assembly present papers to it and seek comment. What we should be doing as a partnership, we should be saying, ‘Here is an issue. Here is our view on it. Here is what we think are the answers. Here you are Minister. Now give us your views on it.’ I think that there is certainly a capability for that body to become very effective and to achieve a lot of good profile for our rural areas, but it does need to totally recast the way it currently operates.

Sir Michael Wheeler Booth

I am sorry. You want the lobbyists to be more proactive and to get together better and put forward positive proposals that reform?

Malcolm Thomas

The Rural Partnership represents everybody with any connection with our rural areas. There are only 40-50 bodies represented. And the meetings to date have consisted of – in the main – the Assembly presenting papers to us all as bodies, seeking comment, and that is the end of the game. Presumably it enables the Assembly to say that it has spoken to all the rural interests.

My personal view is that that needs to change. The Partnership is a wonderful idea, but what there is now a need is, for the Assembly to let the Partnership come forward with concepts, ideas, and answers to various problems, so that there is if you like an avenue for us as the rural bodies to put issues to the Minister directly. I think many of us are starting to realise that, but I think the body in a sense is a good creation, but it now needs to amend itself to grow after its first term. That is how I see the way ahead for that body.

Lord Richard

It is nothing to do with Europe, though.

Malcolm Thomas

No, no, I was answering Tom’s question.

Tom Jones

Do you have to deal with any other UK departments – of the economy, environment, and so on – since devolution? Has the relationship changed, or are all the powers you need for general rural economic development in the Assembly?

Julian Salmon

Taxation we do not have in the Assembly, and that is an important issue in the entrepreneurial arena. Just to go back to Europe for a second, I endorse everything – as I did in my earlier introduction – about the accessibility of the Assembly on agriculture and rural issues. But the Achilles Heel of the European debate, for example, is though in Wales we have these tensions versus the outer layers in England and possibly areas in the Southwest and North of England and Wales.

At the end of the day, the outcome is determined by the money. A lot of the future of agriculture in Europe will come from changes in the CAP, which we all know about, which will mean a shift in the way money is applied. It is all going to rely on this awful thing of ‘match funding’ which takes us back to HM Treasury, which again is outside the domain of us. In Wales, the Achilles Heel of everything we want to do is the fact that we cannot get the funding to make it the success we want it to be. That is the inherent tension here and I do not know how you solve that.

Ted Rowlands

I wonder if I may broaden it out by asking the Young Farmers’ representatives; you have testified – as so many others from the voluntary sector to us over many months – how more accessible, you know, easy it is to talk to Ministers, to get your point across, the openness and transparency of it all, and therefore the positive side of it. Why do you think, if that is the case and all of the voluntary organisations are achieving this relationship, there is still a seemingly very wide gulf between the Assembly and the broader Welsh electorate, in the sense that only 33%, or 38%, of it turned out on Thursday? Have you got any thoughts, representing young people, as to why there is this apparent dichotomy between the openness – you know, the positive nature of the relationships you have had over the past four years – and the kind of gulf that exists between the electorate as a whole and the Assembly’s activities?

Meinir Wigley

I think it goes back to what Jim said. It is the profile of the Assembly and the marketing of the Assembly. I mean, yes, we are very fortunate in the fact that we have been able to go to the Assembly, but when you think of the actual percentage of members who sit on our subcommittees, they would be 20-40. The people who actually sit on those and come into contact with them are perhaps a small percentage. We did produce packs for our members when elections were held, encouraging all our members to vote and to question their prospective AMs.

Other than that, I think it is imperative of the Assembly to make their presence felt throughout Wales. And thinks like rural recovery money and certain projects did help, but the sign-posting of them perhaps was not the greatest. And I think that is perhaps the biggest thing: perhaps the lack of profile on project work and on actual concrete things rather than just the discussions that we have.

Malcolm Thomas

Could I just add to that? I think the other hugely missed opportunity in terms of giving the Assembly an identity throughout Wales is the regional committees. I mean, I might as well be honest: they are dreadful.

Ted Rowlands

It is a unanimous view, because in fact we have had that told to us by others here.

Malcolm Thomas

It is in effect the public face of the Assembly within the various parts of Wales and they have been a disaster. I think there is an urgent need for...

Ted Rowlands

Can you illustrate the disaster?

Malcolm Thomas

Yes. I went to a meeting of the West Wales Committee, where I think of a total membership of 11 at the most there was three, and at one stage there was one Assembly Member. Now, I think if regional committees are meant to be the public profile of the Assembly in its constituent areas of Wales, they all should be there. It is as important for Assembly members to be within their regional committees, I would say, as it is to be sitting in a plenary session in Cardiff.

Vivienne Sugar

You are resuscitating then; you think the model of a regional committee is a good one; it is just the attendance or the content of the agenda?

Malcolm Thomas

The point that Mr Jones makes is a good one. The subject committees tend invariably to sit in the Assembly for fairly obvious reasons I suppose, in terms of ease of administration, but there may well be a case perhaps for giving them a far higher profile throughout Wales as well. Regional committees: let us be honest: the regional committees were sold to us as giving the Assembly a public face throughout Wales and a chance for people to see their Assembly Members, particularly the list members who are not directly accountable, within their various areas, and they have not worked.

Sir Michael Wheeler Booth

May I follow that one up? The trouble is the way it was laid down in the Government of Wales Act. The regional committees are one of the ones which were specified in the Act and it was evident from the first time I read the Act, or the Bill, that their role was going to be footling. Actually, to really make it much better you would have to go back and amend the Act. The same is true of the legislative committee.

Malcolm Thomas

If I may say so, then, as a Commission you have answered one question of your own. The question was: why did so few people turn out? The reason is there is no identity; there is no formal profile in many of the other parts of Wales outside Cardiff. One of the main reasons for that I contend is that the regional committees, which have a real opportunity to present the public face of the Assembly, simply do not work.

Paul Valerio, Richard Commission

This is going to lead on to a point made by Mr Parry, where he was saying that we do not really have enough AMs. One of the things is that the existing composition seems to work. When we come to our deliberations, we may consider saying there should be more – we may not. But if we were to take that consideration, how would we tinker with the formula? Do we need another five, 20, do we need twice as many? In your illustrations you mentioned Northern Ireland, which you might concede is a slightly different situation; the Scottish example is probably more comparable. The problem with changing it is that the existing formula, whilst not being perfect, is reasonably acceptable.

What suggestions have the members here today to put to us that we should consider? Do we want to continue with the existing 40 on first-past-the-post and a proportion of PR, or should we consider something like having 80 Members with two per constituency? Or splitting constituencies into two? We could go on forever, because there are all sorts of different formulas, but it would be interesting to have a specialised interest group such as today’s, their views on it.

RG Parry

I introduced this in my evidence. Can I first of all say why we believe that there should be 80 members? The reason I am saying that is having worked on County Councils, and having worked on scrutiny committees, and public sector committees as well, we found out that we did not have enough members, you know, to give them ample time to do the scrutiny work. I believe that in the new system of government, whether it is in the Assembly or in County Council, scrutiny committees are important. You need to sit down and look at a particular subject thoroughly. The problem is that you have 40 Members in the Assembly, they have to sit on two, maybe three committees. That does not give them enough time to do their constituency work and also give them enough time to read the papers they are looking at. We would say 40/40: 40 elected, two from each constituency, and two from regional lists.

Eira Davies, Richard Commission (In Welsh, then interpreted)

Hoffwn gyfeirio cwestiwn at Meinir neu Jim. Yn eich cyflwyniadau roeddech yn sôn am Fesur yn ddiweddar, sef trwyddedau ac adloniant. Nawr mae hyn yn ddatblygiad led ddiweddar. Beth yw’r oblygiadau a’r problemau y gall hyn eu hachosi i chi, yn enwedig mewn ardaloedd gwledig?

Interpretation:

If I may address a question to Meinir or Jim: in your submissions you mentioned a recent Bill which is licenses and entertainment. Now this is quite a recent development. What are the implications and the problems that this may cause for you particularly in rural areas?

Meinir Wigley (In Welsh, then interpreted)

Wel, bydd y gost yn anferthol i fod yn onest, oherwydd mae yna wahaniaethau mawr iawn rhwng yr awdurdodau lleol. Mae’r darlun yn wahanol iawn mewn amrywiol ardaloedd yng Nghymru. I ni yn Llanfair-ym-Muallt buom yn rhedeg pentref ieuenctid yn ystod Sioe Frenhinol Cymru, er enghraifft, a chostiodd y drwydded £38 i ni am yr wythnos. Eleni mae wedi codi i £2,300 a’r flwyddyn nesaf bydd yn codi i fwy na £4,000. Mae hyn yn rhoi pwysau rhyfeddol arnom, oherwydd wrth gwrs hwn yw’r digwyddiad lle gall aelodau wneud cyfraniad gwirioneddol a phan allwn ddenu aelodau newydd.

Mae hi bron yn amhosibl cynnal y digwyddiadau hyn dan bwysau felly oherwydd: 1) maen nhw’n dod ag arian i mewn, 2) maen nhw’n fforwm i aelodau ac yn dod â phobl allan o’r ardaloedd gwledig, pan fyddwn efallai yn dymuno iddyn nhw beidio ag aros yno yn ystod y Sioe; rydyn i am ddod â nhw i gyd at ei gilydd mewn un ardal. Gall fod problemau eraill gyda digwyddiadau lleol i godi arian, er enghraifft, cyngherddau. Os ydyn nhw i gael eu cynnal mewn mannau cyhoeddus, bydd angen trwydded, ac felly bydd oblygiadau mawr i ddigwyddiadau mewn ardaloedd gwledig, o ran dod â phobl ifanc at ei gilydd mewn un ardal.

Interpretation:

Well, the cost is going to be astronomical to be honest because there are very great differences between the local authorities. The picture is very different in the various areas of Wales. To us in Builth Wells we ran the youth village during the Royal Welsh Show, for example, and a license cost £38 for us for the week. This year it has gone up to £2,300 and next year it will increase to over £4,000. This places an incredible strain on us because of course this is the event where the members can actually make a contribution and from which we can attract new members.

It becomes almost impossible to sustain these events under such pressures because: 1) they actually bring in funding, 2) they actually provide a forum for members and bring people out of the rural areas, where maybe we actually do not want them to stay in those areas during the Show; we want to bring them all together in one area. There might be other problems of local fundraising events, for example: concerts. If they are to be held in public areas then they will need a license, so it is going to have great implications for events in rural areas, just in terms of actally bringing young people together in one area.

Eira Davies (In Welsh, then interpreted)

Pa fath o gyfle gawsoch chi i gyfrannu at y broses hon?

Interpretation:

What kind of opportunity did you get to have an input in this process?

Meinir Wigley (In Welsh, then interpreted)

Wel, buom yn annog ein haelodau i gyd i ysgrifennu ac ymateb i esbonio beth oedd y sefyllfa leol, ac yna fel corff Cymru gyfan daethom â’r holl dystiolaeth hon ynghyd a’i hanfon at Peter Hain, ac wrth gwrs at Aelodau’r Cynulliad. Ond mae yna ddau fath o drwyddedu; dyna’r brif broblem. Mae yna lawer o straeon am y busnes hwn o drwyddedu a does neb yn rhyw siwr iawn sut y bydd yn gweithio neu a fydd yn gweithio. Mae wedi bod yn anodd gweld beth yw’r sefyllfa. Dyna oedd yr anhawster mwyaf.

Interpretation:

Well, we did encourage all of our members to actually write and respond to explain what the local situation was, and then we as an all-Wales organisation brought all of this evidence together and sent it to Peter Hain and of course to Assembly Members. But there are two types of licensing; that is the main problem. There is a lot of myth surrounding this business of licensing and nobody is quite sure how it is going to work or if it is going to work. It has all been difficult to actually ascertain the information. That was the greatest difficulty of all.

Eira Davies (In Welsh, then interpreted)

A yw’ch profiad chi yr un fath, Jim?

Interpretation:

Is your experience the same, Jim?

Jim O’Rourke (In Welsh, then interpreted)

Yn sicr, o ran trwyddedu. Soniais am y Loteri Cenedlaethol yn gynharach, lle mae rhai agweddau ar ariannu – fel ar gyfer y celfyddydau a chwaraeon – yn cael eu rheoli yng Nghymru, ac yna agweddau eraill sy’n gorfod dibynnu ar arian y Loteri y tu allan i reolaeth Cymru. Rwy’n credu y dylai arian y Loteri fod dan reolaeth y Cynulliad Cenedlaethol am fod yna strategaethau sy’n berthnasol ar lefel y DG, ond efallai fod nifer nad ydyn nhw mor briodol yng Nghymru.

Un o brif ganlyniadau bodolaeth y Cynulliad Cenedlaethol ar ardaloedd gwledig yw hyrwyddo Caerdydd fel prifddinas. Mae mudo ymhlith pobl ifanc o ardaloedd gwledig i Gaerdydd yn sylweddol. Efallai y dylem fod yn falch bod pobl yn mynd i Gaerdydd yn hytrach nag i Lerpwl, ond mae goblygiadau cyflymu mudo gan bobl o ardaloedd gwledig i Gaerdydd – oherwydd atyniad gweithio yng Nghaerdydd – yn cael canlyniadau cadarnhaol a negyddol.

Rwy’n credu bod gwersi i’w dysgu ac mae angen i ni fonitro’r sefyllfa. Mae yna berygl y bydd yr un peth yn digwydd yng Nghaerdydd ag sydd wedi digwydd yn Nulyn, ond nawr mae gan Iwerddon Galway, ac mae ardaloedd economaidd eraill yn atgyfnerthu etholaethau gwledig. Rwy’n credu bod angen i ni ddatblygu’r mathau hyn o bethau yng Nghymru mewn mannau lle mae mas critigol, lle mae angen cydbwysedd â Chaerdydd. Ond mae syniad pobl ifanc o Gaerdydd fel prifddinas ac fel dinas sy’n ddeniadol iddyn nhw wedi newid yn sylweddol yn ystod y pum mlynedd diwethaf.

Nawr, rydw i’n credu bod dealltwriaeth nad oes gan y Cynulliad yr un statws ymhlith pobl ifanc ag sydd efallai gan Senedd yr Alban, er enghraifft. Mae’r niferoedd sy’n pleidleisio mewn ardaloedd gwledig wedi bod lawer yn well nag mewn ardaloedd trefol, ac yn sicr yn y Gorllewin roedd y niferoedd lawer yn uwch nag yn y Dwyrain. Rwy’n credu bod y rhesymau y tu ôl i hynny’n ymwneud â pha mo berthnasol mae pobl yn credu yw’r Cynulliad iddyn nhw. Efallai fod y pleidiau wedi ymddangos yn agos iawn yn y pleidleisio a hwyrach fod y canlyniad ychydig yn fwy diddorol. Ond yn gyffredinol rwy’n credu y gwelwn y Cynulliad yn datblygu yn syniadau a diddordebau pobl, er nad oes gan bobl ifanc ar hyn o bryd fawr o ddiddordeb mewn llywodraeth ar unrhyw lefel yn y Deyrnas Gyfunol.

Interpretation:

Well, certainly in terms of licensing. I mentioned the National Lottery earlier, where some aspects of funding – such as for the arts and sports – is controlled within Wales, and then other aspects must rely on lottery funding from outside of the control of Wales. I do think that lottery funding should be in the control of the National Assembly because there are strategies which are relevant at a UK level, but many are maybe not as appropriate in Wales.

One of the main results of the existence of the National Assembly on rural areas is the idea and the promotion of Cardiff as a capital city. The movement of young people to Cardiff from rural areas is substantial. Perhaps we should be proud that people are actually going to Cardiff rather than Liverpool or London, but the implications of the speeding up of the movement of people from rural areas to Cardiff – because of the attraction of working in Cardiff – is one result which has positive and negative consequences.

We think there are lessons to be learned and we need to monitor the situation. There is a danger that exactly the same thing will happen in Cardiff as happened in Dublin, but now Ireland has Galway and other economic areas are strengthening in rural constituencies. I do think we need to develop these kinds of things in Wales in places that have the critical mass, where there needs to be a balance with Cardiff but the perception of young people is of Cardiff as a capital city and as a city which is attractive to them has changed substantially over the past five years.

Now, I do think there is an understanding that the Assembly does not have the same status with young people as for example the Scottish Parliament maybe has. The turnout in rural areas has been far better than it was in urban areas, and certainly in West Wales the turnout was far better than in East Wales. I think the reasons behind that are involved with how relevant people feel the Assembly is to them. Maybe the parties may have seemed to be very close in the polls and the result may be a little more interesting, but in general I think that we will see the Assembly developing in people’s perceptions and interests, although young people at the moment do not have much interest in the government at any level in the UK.

Eira Davies (In Welsh, then interpreted)

Hoffwn ofyn i chi ymhelaethu ar y sylw a wnaethoch am y ffaith fod rhaniad polisïau rhwyng San Steffan a Chaerdydd, a sut mae hynny’n creu problemau i awdurdodau lleol?

Interpretation:

May I ask you to elaborate on the comment you made regarding the fact that there is a split of youth policies between Westminster and Cardiff, and how that creates problems for local authorities?

Jim O’Rourke (In Welsh, then interpreted)

Mae gwasanaethau fel y gwasanaethau cymdeithasol yn atebol yn bennaf i’r Swyddfa Gartref. Mae yna enghreifftiau lle mae ariannu’r cynlluniau Tîm Troseddwyr Ieuenctid (YOT) sy’n rhan o Bartneriaeth Pobl Ifanc (YPP) ym mhob Awdurdod Lleol yn dod o un cyfeiriad, ond y dylanwad ar y polisi yn dod o gyfeiriad arall. Y Swyddfa Gartref mewn gwirionedd sy’n gyfrifol am ariannu YOT. Ond mae’r Cynulliad yn ceisio dylanwadu ar yr hyn maen nhw’n ei wneud.

Interpretation:

Services such as social services are primarily accountable to the Home Office. There are examples where the funding for the Youth Offender Team (YOT) schemes which are part of Young People’s Partnership (YPP) in each Local Authority – the funding comes from one direction - but the influence on the policy comes from another. The Home Office are actually responsible for funding YOTs but the Assembly is trying to influence what they do.

Huw Thomas (In Welsh, then interpreted)

Ydych chi wedi gweld problemau penodol gyda hynny?

Interpretation:

Have you seen specific problems with that?

Jim O’Rourke (In Welsh, then interpreted)

Oes, rydw i wedi cael sylwadau gan bobl sydd ar YPP mewn ardaloedd penodol.

Interpretation:

Yes, I have received comments from people who are sitting on the YPP in particular areas.

Barrie Jones (In Welsh, then interpreted)

Yr hyn sy’n bwysig i ni ei ystyried yw’r hyn sy’n bosibl i’r Cynulliad ei wneud fel y mae ar hyn o bryd. Rydym wedi sôn am broblemau gweithredol yma mewn gwirionedd, ac mae’n hanfodol i’r pwerau gweithredol mewn unrhyw bwnc fodoli yn y Cynulliad. Wrth gwrs, rydym wedi cyfeirio at fyd amaethyddiaeth, ac yn anffodus nid yw’n gweithio lle mae’r pwerau hynny’n cael eu rhannu â San Steffan. Mae’n holl bwysig i’r Cynulliad gael yr holl bwerau yn eu cyfanrwydd i weithredu’n annibynnol.

Interpretation:

What is important for us to consider is what is possible for the Assembly to achieve as it exists at present. We have talked about executive problems here really and it is crucial that the executive powers in any subject actually reside in the Assembly. We have of course referred to the world of agriculture and unfortunately it does not work where those powers are actually shared with Westminster. It is all important that the Assembly has all the powers in their entirety to act autonomously.

Lord Richard

Well, can I thank everybody for coming, can I thank everybody for their diligence? I found it quite a stimulating morning. We have learned a lot. Thank you very much indeed.