05/06/2013 CF99

Good evening and welcome to CF99,

live from the National Assembly in Cardiff Bay.

On tonight's programme:

Thousands and thousands of words and statistics but how much substance?

The Welsh Government's records during the last year.

It's very difficult to say how much they expect things to improve

and also there's no way of measuring how things have improved, if at all.

The Lords support gay marriage,

but will the measure have an easy passage from now on?

And who's to blame for the latest scandal to to with lobbying?

These lobbyists who have been involved in the latest scandal,

they weren't lobbyists, they were fake companies which had been set up by the media.

This problem isn't about the lobbyists themselves,

the problem is the politicians who have taken the bait and the money.

And joining us tonight is Lord Dafydd Elis-Thomas from Plaid Cymru,

the political commentator, Daran Hill,

and in Bangor, we have the journalist and the president

of the Dyfodol i'r Iaith organisation, Bethan Jones Parry.

The Welsh Government has published an annual report.

Plenty of figures and plenty to be proud of, according to Carwyn Jones.

However, the opposition parties say there isn't much substance.

But what about normal voters? Is all this information useful?

And what does it say about the future of Carwyn Jones' administration?

Tomos Livingstone has had a look under the bonnet.

You have to keep an eye on every machine.

Every year, the First Minister's team publishes a detailed report

on every aspect of the Government's work.

The aim is to give the public a full picture of the journey so far

and what to expect next.

I think it's important that we get the message out.

and show what devolution means

and what Wales and this Government can do to help Welsh people

face the challenge we face

because we know that the times ahead could be difficult.

But is there a point to all this measuring and evaluating?

The Welsh Government's latest annual report looks at everything

from the numbers that use the trains

to the expenditure on fishing policy.

There are 400 milestones in all.

But is it possible to have too much data leaving everyone none the wiser

about the state of the car or how to reach the journey's destination?

We've been going through this process now for two years.

All the opposition parties said at the time

that there were no targets to measure success

and that is obvious in this document.

They say things are improving but it's difficult to see

how much they expect things to improve

and also, there's no way of measuring how things have improved, if at all.

But does the annual report have another purpose?

According to one with experience of the Welsh Government,

the vast amounts of data keeps the pressure on those

who have to implement the policies.

It disciplines what the government does

and that includes the ministers and the civil servants, of course.

There is a lesson here for the other parties.

And not everything runs smoothly. Not by a long way.

The report hardly mentions two of the government's main problems.

The failure to reach targets in the health service

and the admission that educational standards

won't improve for some time.

We are facing a challenge with education,

we are facing a challenge with health.

The report is very open about that.

But it shows that policies like Flying Start

and Communities First work within our communities

and help our poorest people.

Carwyn Jones is steering the car on his own at the moment.

The Labour Party doesn't have a clear majority.

According to some, that weakens the Government.

Would sharing the driving with one of the other parties,

as has happened in the past, ease the burden?

That majority needs to be more than one or two

in order to govern Wales effectively.

Ministers are tied to this place instead of being able to go out

and complete their work effectively.

The same is true about anything that is controversial in this place.

Very long discussions with the opposition parties

have to take place in order to ensure that happens.

If there was a coalition, these things could be completed

more quickly and more effectively.

Carwyn Jones says he's proud of what's been accomplished so far.

He acknowledges that the economic situation is difficult

and that there's more to do.

There's plenty of data available

to evaluate the Government's performance.

So perhaps the next question is,

is there enough left in the tank to enable the First Minister

to accomplish more before the next election?

Tomos Livingstone doing his part time job.

Bethan, is there any point having these annual reports?

Several bodies publish them

but are they really just an exercise in public relations?

I think that's what they are, to be honest.

In the end, I think it's people's perceptions that are important.

I think what needs to be looked at

is strengthening the communication side

about the importance of these reports, if there is an importance.

If you don't do that, people's response will depend on their personal perceptions

and not on any statistics in any document.

One of my favourite quotes is by a journalist and academic called David Randall.

He says if you have a story,

you have to stop talking to yourself in the dark.

As the Assembly and the Welsh Government have said themselves,

under the leadership of Rosemary Butler,

the way you tell the story has to be strengthened

or this report will become even less important than it is at the moment.

Daran, in fairness, there's a lot of useful data in this document.

It will be useful to us and to you.

But does a report like this mean anything to voters?

It means something to the voters if other politicians interpret it to them.

It's impossible for voters

to make any sense of 400 different statistics.

It's the job of the opposition parties to pick out a few things

and create the narrative from that.

It's the Government's job to pick out a few things, politically,

and create a narrative from that.

Part of the problem is that, on the whole,

the Government has decided not to set specific targets at the beginning.

So there's no way of telling whether they have succeeded or failed.

Any government which refuses to set targets is doing a very wise thing.

It's much better to measure from year to year

and not hold up some political totem that can fail.

After five years, the people of Wales will have the opportunity

to see which of these 400 statistics have improved

without any kind of target.

A target is not a useful political tool for any government.

Should there be targets?

Yes, in my opinion. Especially in the areas I follow

and the areas in which I try to influence the Government.

Particularly the environment, sustainable development and energy.

I think we have to move back to a situation where we have targets.

There's been a failure throughout the UK and the EU

and especially in Wales, compared to Scotland, to reach targets,

the kind of decarbonisation we have to do on the grid to deal with climate change.

So I welcome data of this kind as the chair of a committee

because it gives us a basis to investigate further

and show the true performance.

Nobody can hide then.

Bethan Jones Parry, what do you make of the point Rhodri Glyn Thomas was making there,

that the Government's accomplishments are restricted

because of the nature of the majority or the lack of majority?

Is that what's responsible for a Government which is managerial in a way?

One that talks about the small things it has done

but has not introduced a huge vision.

I think that's a good point.

After all, why are you doing this?

Dafydd was talking there about the way targets can drive the agenda.

Daran said earlier about the fact that the opposition parties

can create a narrative.

But that is all pretty introverted if this narrative

and the information about the existence of targets and the way they are implemented

are communicated effectively to the voters.

I do feel... I'm repeating myself.

But I do feel that is where the weakness is.

I'm also aware that the Institute of Welsh Affairs

has said that the Government is succeeding politically

but that there's more to do.

What is the point of politics if it doesn't stretch out to the voters?

That is where the weakness is at the moment.

And possibly, because the Government doesn't have a majority,

or because it is not in a coalition,

it doesn't allow it to work as effectively as maybe it could.

If that's the case, it is a weakness.

But it's about communication and stretching out to the voters.

I can assure you, in Pencaenewydd the publication of this report,

despite the fact it's in the Daily Post, is not a big talking point.

It will be forgotten by the time the voters can exercise their right

to keep the Government or not

and hold it accountable for what it has done.

I think we're being very unfair now if we're saying that this Government

hasn't done big things.

In the area of the environment, we have created, during the last few months,

the most influential public body

to do with the environment and the countryside and everything like that in Wales.

Natural Resources Wales has at last combined the Forestry Commission,

the Environment Agency and the Countryside Council.

Could the Government have done more

if there was a coalition and a majority?

-No. It had cross-party support...

-But what about in other areas?

No, I think that is an excuse.

The truth is that my party performed badly

at the last Assembly election.

Otherwise, we would have been in government.

We can't turn around now and say, "Please can we have a coalition?"

Because we failed to perform well enough.

I think we all have a responsibility in politics to perform at our best

in order to govern a country properly.

Turning around and saying we enjoy being in opposition, for me,

is no kind of politics.

Thank you. We have to move on.

In Westminster, the plans to change the law

so that gay couples can get married is flying through Parliament.

Last night, the Lords voted with a clear majority in favour

of allowing the measure to move forward to the next step.

Dafydd was among them and warned the Lords against rejecting the policy.

If this happens, I can promise you my Lords

that this issue will not go away.

We will continue to campaign with Stonewall Cymru and gay Christians

and others for the law of marriage to be devolved

in Wales, as it is in Scotland.

I appeal therefore to this House for all these reasons

and for those of you even who oppose the principle of this legislation

to allow us who want to debate it to debate it further.

Because that debate will not go away

until the equal relationship enjoyed by my son and my son-in-law

will be free for everyone.

Dafydd, we discussed this on Sunday morning on Radio Wales before the vote.

The feeling was that it could have been close, but it wasn't.

Were you surprised about that?

I was in the end but the Holy Sprit was on our side, thank heavens.

Things changed during the two days.

Fair play, the Government organisers, the Government whips,

were very effective in ensuring that the debate developed throughout the two days.

I have to pay tribute to the people who are conservative with regard to economic policy,

but who are liberal with regard to social policy,

people like Norman Fowler within the Conservative Party,

who spoke so clearly.

The reactive elements, as I call then, were then isolated.

What's the point of talking about a second House to reform legislation

if there's no opportunity to discuss the legislation in order to reform it?

I think that argument won the day.

Do you think this was the last big battle

or are there further battles to come?

I don't see how any other arguments with regard to principle can now be raised

as the bill goes through.

We will start on the work a week on Monday and a week on Wednesday.

I hope we'll be finished in three weeks to a month

and that it goes through and becomes a law, certainly by the Autumn.

Daran, it does surprise me a little that it's gone through both Houses

with such significant majorities.

Are the campaigners within Westminster responsible for that?

Or the campaigners outside? Or a combination of both?

I think the campaigners outside have battled clever campaigns

and ones that will be remembered for years to come.

But the speeches that have been made by those in favour have been

thoughtful and have changed the minds of those people sat

next to them.

I think that was true last night at the House of Lords.

I don't understand the politics of the House of Lords, Dafydd is

an expert. But to me is like Anglesey politics,

it doesn't fit in with any other political pattern that I understand.

Fair play.

But like choosing a new Pope, once you see the smoke rising, there is

an understanding and I think that's what happened last night.

And it was interesting,

Bethan, I listened to a lot of the debate on Commons Live

and I got the feeling that maybe a lot of those who

were against had damaged their cause, in that the language and the

way that things were said somehow

don't relate to this century.

Yes, certainly.

I think that those

who spoke against showed their age...

and showed their background.

And it doesn't fit with modern society, certainly.

I was shocked when I found myself appreciating what

Quentin Letts was writing in the Daily Mail.

I thought, "Crikey, if I agree with him then things must have moved on."

I don't think there are factions in the House of Lords who

reflect society as it is.

Their finger is certainly not on the pulse.

Maybe this vote showed that they have their finger on the pulse

a little more than people thought.

I was talking about those who opposed, that there was a

significant group of them. That has attracted a lot of attention.

I think Daran is right.

Strong campaigns have taken place arguing against allowing

same-sex marriages.

But at the end of the day, yes,

maybe you are right in what you are saying, maybe you have a point.

But I also think that there is a

very vocal group that do not

quite understand modern society.

Thank you for now.

Over the years, the image of lobbying and lobbyists hasn't been the best.

Allegations emerged over the weekend that three members of the Lords

and one MP were prepared to carry out parliamentary work for money.

The Assembly's Standards Committee is already

looking at the process of lobbying in the Bay.

And in Westminster, the Government is promising to act.

Well, we asked Lleu Williams of Public Affairs Cymru,

who represent those working in public relations, for his opinion.

The lobbying process stretches back centuries,

where voters were turn up at the House of Commons to lobby

and raise a matter that they felt was important with their MP.

These days, the lobbying process is the process of influencing

government policy and other bodies in order to ensure

that your opinion and what you represent is heard.

These lobbyists involved in the recent scandals -

they were not lobbyists. The press set up fake companies.

And this problem is not with the lobbyists themselves

but with the politicians who have taken money.

There hasn't been a scandal in Wales.

The process in Wales is open and transparent and it

ensures that we have lobbyists working within a strong system.

It's important that the image of lobbying is dealt with.

We need to ensure that the public is confident that the system

and process we have is transparent and open.

There has been talk of creating a register in Westminster.

If that is the right way ahead, then we must wait and see,

but what is important is that everyone has access to the

democratic process, including charities.

But we need to ensure that they can be a part of that process,

they are not pushed out of the process.

And that it is not just a process that keeps people in place,

but also tackles those working in the dark.

Lleu Williams. Daran, you have lobbied during your time.

Are you as confident as Lleu that the systems that

exist in the Assembly ensure that this place is free of scandal.

Well, no-one has found a scandal

and plenty of people have been looking over the years.

And I think that gives some kind of an answer.

I would say that this problem is restricted to certain places

and certain people.

I don't think it should affect the reputations of politicians,

lobbyists, or even the journalists who have been

posing as lobbyists, as part of this.

Saying that, as a lobbyist,

I am content with having some kind of a register.

I am content with people knowing who we as lobbyists are lobbying.

But people who have been elected into public

roles are accountable at the end of the day.

We are covered by legislation regarding bribes and so on.

But the people who have been elected are accountable.

If any rules need to be changed,

then those are the rules that must be changed.

In terms of Cardiff Bay, Dafydd, do we need lobbyists at all in reality?

What I don't quite understand is it is easy enough for anyone

in Wales, pretty much, to phone up and organise to have a cuppa

with an Assembly Member or a Minister.

-This place is open to the public and bodies anyway.

-Yes, hopefully.

But saying that, there is a specific role for people,

especially from campaign groups,

and I deal a lot with businesses regarding the environment

and campaign groups of all kinds,

and getting to speak with someone who represents an opinion

and is professional, like Daran, in his case and the people who

work for him, that strengthens the democratic process.

What I don't want to see happening

and it has not happened here is the creation of a register

of lobbyists that would give certain groups of citizens a higher

status than others, answering your earlier point.

That they could more or less use it to say,

"We are the official moderators."

Yes, and there were talks regarding that.

And I don't think we should be following Westminster,

but I do believe that politicians who receive bribes

or are paid in addition to their salary,

or costs in terms of some others, that they are open to prosecution.

-I don't think it's acceptable at all.

-I agree.

Bethan Jones Parry, there were journalists from the BBC and the

Sunday Times in this case, and the Telegraph - what about their actions?

Are they that pure?

Or do they in reality know that they will catch wrongdoers in any

group of men and women?

There are always those people.

Well, there is nothing wrong with that.

Journalists always fish for stories.

I'm quite pleased to see the BBC, the Telegraph

and the Sunday Times acting as the fourth state.

But if I can quickly return to the previous point

and say that maybe it is easy to pop in for a cuppa,

but you want people that know the corridors beyond that

and that is why we see the importance of lobbying

on behalf of the Welsh language, especially

when it was barely mentioned in the Government report.

Thank you very much and that's it for this week.

We're back next week at the later time of 10.30pm. Join us then.

Until then, good night.