The proceedings are
reported in the language in which they were spoken in the
committee. In addition, a transcription of the simultaneous
interpretation is included.
Dechreuodd y cyfarfod am 09:15.
The meeting began at 09:15.
|
Cyflwyniad,
Ymddiheuriadau, Dirprwyon a Datgan Buddiannau
Introduction, Apologies, Substitutions and Declarations of
Interest
|
[1]
John Griffiths: Let me
welcome Members to this meeting of the Equality, Local Government
and Communities Committee. We’ve had one apology from Bethan
Jenkins, who’s unable to be with us today. Rhianon Passmore
is in heavy traffic, but will be with us very shortly, I hope. No
further apologies have been received, nor substitutions.
|
09:16
|
Ymchwiliad Ôl-ddeddfwriaethol i Ddeddf Trais yn
erbyn Menywod, Cam-drin Domestig a Thrais Rhywiol (Cymru)
2015:
Sesiwn Dystiolaeth 5
Post-legislative Inquiry into the Violence against Women, Domestic
Abuse and Sexual Violence (Wales) Act 2015: Evidence Session
5
|
[2]
John Griffiths: Right; well, let me welcome to the meeting
Rhian Bowen-Davies, national adviser for violence against women,
for our fifth evidence session in our post-legislative inquiry into
the Violence against Women, Domestic Abuse and Sexual Violence
(Wales) Act 2015. Rhian, we’re grateful for your written
evidence and we’ll go straight into questions, if
that’s okay. Let me begin by dealing with implementation,
Rhian. In your view, the aims of the Act in terms of improving the
public sector response, and indeed the consistency of provision, do
you believe that can be achieved with the current pace and
effectiveness of the implementation?
|
[3]
Ms Bowen-Davies:
Wel, bore da i’r
pwyllgor.
|
Ms
Bowen-Davies: Good morning to the committee.
|
[4]
In response to your first question, I think that the Act itself is
potentially groundbreaking in terms of how it’s been viewed
both within Wales and from an international perspective. I think it
provides the overarching principles that could make real
improvements to the lives of survivors and their families in Wales,
and also the response of our public services. However, I feel that,
in terms of implementation, when you look at actually what has been
implemented in the last 18 months since its enactment, in terms of
one piece of statutory guidance, in terms of the appointment of the
adviser, I think, from an external perspective, questions are being
asked in terms of the pace of this implementation. I think,
because, to date, even the national advisory board haven’t
seen a copy of an implementation plan of any significance, I think
it’s really difficult to measure where Welsh Government
expected to be at this point, and where we’ve actually got
to. There are only two timelines within the actual Act itself: one
in relation to the national strategy, due to be published by 6
November, and the second in relation to the publication of local
strategies, for which the timeline is March 2018. So, I think the
lack of timelines that are actually within the Act itself has not
given us that timeline to measure against in terms of
implementation.
|
[5]
In terms of the pace, I believe that there have been missed
opportunities to align the enactment of this legislation with other
key pieces of legislation in Wales. I think that the Well-being of
Future Generations (Wales) Act and the Social Services and
Well-being (Wales) Act, when taken together, could be seen as a
real enabling legislative framework to drive forward some of these
improvements. The principles are the same; so, when we’re
talking about prevention, integration and collaboration long term,
they are absolutely embedded within the Violence against Women,
Domestic Abuse and Sexual Violence (Wales) Act. I think
communication, that opportunity to align, and also for public
services to see how, when they meet requirements in one piece of
legislation, they’re actually contributing across the
others—that’s been missed. So, the population needs
assessments, which are ongoing at the moment, to be delivered by
the end of this financial year, have a core theme around violence
against women, and yet it’s being seen in isolation. My
concern is that this piece of legislation—the Violence
against Women, Domestic Abuse and Sexual Violence (Wales)
Act—is continuing to silo this matter that actually is
cross-cutting across all of the themes. For me, those opportunities
are being missed, and therefore the prioritisation of violence
against women, domestic abuse and sexual violence isn’t being
actually implemented.
|
[6]
John Griffiths: Rhian, in terms of that alignment of the
different pieces of legislation that you mention, I think
you’ve mentioned needs assessments as one area in which
alignment could take place, and I think we heard last week that
training was another. Would they be the two main examples, do you
think, of where alignment is necessary and, perhaps, hasn’t
taken place?
|
[7]
Ms Bowen-Davies: I think they’re certainly two
examples where that could certainly happen, but I think wider as
well, in looking at the governance structures that have been
brought in, certainly with the well-being of future generations and
the public service boards. Actually, my annual plan raises the
issue of governance of violence against women, domestic abuse and
sexual violence, and where that actually sits within our public
services, and I think opportunities to actually look at the
governance structures that have been brought in by the legislative
framework—how can they be used to strengthen governance of
violence against women, domestic abuse and sexual violence as
well?
|
[8]
I think the point around training, specifically—. When
I’ve met with representatives of public services, their
prioritisation—and I understand it from their
perspective—has been around social services and well-being.
Actually, in terms of timelines, my questions always are: where is
violence against women, domestic abuse and sexual violence aligning
with that timescale? Because in terms of resources, releasing staff
for training, if we align those, then there’s potential to
actually reduce the burden on public services around training, for
example.
|
[9]
John Griffiths: Could I ask you as well, Rhian, in the
absence of Welsh Government strategies and guidance, which has
featured in the evidence that we’ve taken, do you have a
concern that local authorities, third sector organisations, are
going ahead and developing their own policies and implementation
that, perhaps, isn’t as consistent as would be the case if
there were Welsh Government strategy and guidance in place? Do you
see a great deal of difficulty in those terms? And if so, could you
give us a flavour of your concerns?
|
[10]
Ms Bowen-Davies: I think in terms of that consistency on a
Wales approach, I’ve been able to engage and work alongside
regions, and they’ve been very keen for me to provide that
sort of national perspective and that expert perspective, with a
background in the sector as well. So, I think where those regions
are actively engaging and wanting to know how they can move
forward, I suppose my involvement is providing some consistency.
But I think, in terms of the lack of guidance that has been issued,
certainly, the multi-agency collaboration guidance, which was
consulted on at the end of last year, provided what I felt were
quite clear frameworks for regions and local authorities, and other
relevant authorities, to be working towards. I think the fact that
that hasn’t been published is an example. I think public
services are wondering what it should look like going forward. So,
I think that uncertainty is definitely there.
|
[11]
There are a few areas that have undertaken a specific violence
against women, domestic abuse and sexual violence needs assessment
to date, and have started to develop their strategies. But of
course that, again, has been without a national strategy in place.
That’s very much being driven by the regions that have
brought those strategies together, and in both those regions they
have acknowledged the critical role of the specialist sector in the
development of those strategies. It’s not that public
services have not wanted that framework, but they just
haven’t had it yet.
|
[12]
John Griffiths: Yes, okay. Finally from me, Rhian, on this
issue of implementation, have you had a role in drafting, or
helping with the drafting of guidance at all?
|
[13]
Ms Bowen-Davies: In terms of the guidance, certainly,
I’ve provided written consultation feedback through the
formal consultation process for two pieces of the statutory
guidance. But, I was asked to provide advice following the
consultation on one piece of guidance that hasn’t yet been
published. I’ve advised and provided that advice, but
haven’t yet seen how that would transmit into the final
guidance document.
|
[14]
John Griffiths: Okay, thank you very much. I think Sian has
questions on the national strategy or on this matter. Sian, this
matter.
|
[15] Sian
Gwenllian: Ie, ar y mater
penodol yma, felly. Diolch yn fawr am ddod atom ni’r bore
yma. Rydw i, fel chi a thystion y cawsom ni yr wythnos diwethaf, yn
pryderu’n fawr am golli cyfle ac am yr arafwch yn y broses.
Rwy’n cymryd, felly, na fyddech chi’n cytuno efo barn
yr Ysgrifennydd Cabinet sy’n dweud bod Llywodraeth Cymru wedi
gwneud cynnydd sylweddol o ran ei dull gweithredu o ganlyniad
i’r rhwymedigaethau yn y Ddeddf. Nid ydych chi’n cytuno
efo hynny, rwy’n cymryd.
|
Sian
Gwenllian: Yes, on this specific issue. Thank you very much for
coming to see us today. I, like you and witnesses we had last week,
am very much concerned about losing an opportunity and the slowness
of this process. I assume, then, that you wouldn’t agree with
the Cabinet Secretary’s view that Welsh Government has made
significant progress in terms of its approach as a result of the
commitment in the Act. I assume you don’t agree with
that.
|
[16] Wedyn, a fedrwch
chi—? Symud ymlaen rydym ni angen ei wneud, rŵan. Beth
ydy’ch blaenoriaethau chi? Beth ydych chi’n meddwl y dylem ni neu y dylai’r
Llywodraeth fod yn canolbwyntio arno fel mater o frys er mwyn inni
gael y gweithredu yma’n digwydd? Petasech chi yn
sgidiau’r Ysgrifennydd Cabinet, beth fyddwch chi’n ei
wneud yn gyntaf a beth fyddwch chi’n ei wneud
wedyn?
|
Then, could you—? We now need to
move on. What are your priorities? What do you think we or the
Government should be focusing upon as a matter of urgency so that
we can get this action ongoing? If you were in the Cabinet
Secretary’s shoes, what would you do first and what would you
do after that?
|
[17] Ms Bowen-Davies: In
response to the first question, I see no evidence that
there’ve been improved responses as a result of the Act being
implemented. I think that there is a will there within the public
service, but, actually, I think the overarching question comes
around resources and what is the expectation to deliver to improve
responses. That’s a consistent message that’s coming
through.
|
[18] In terms of how do we drive
forward these improvements, I think my first priority would have to
be in relation to the draft strategy, as it currently is. I have
concerns around that draft strategy. I know that a member of the
committee, Bethan Jenkins, was at a cross-party group recently
where I spoke about those concerns. And, actually, I am concerned
that—within the very small timescale that we have, my
preference would be very much that we have a robust, strategically
aligned, cross-cutting Government policy that really is going to
set out what is expected over the next five years. I don’t
think we’re there yet in terms of that strategy. I think
there is knowledge and expertise that we have in Wales—our
specialist sector, who have been engaged with that consultation
process and myself, and I know that they feel the same, from their
evidence last week, around, actually, the potential of that
strategy, and I think the expectations of people of that strategy,
as well, the expectations of the sector and the expectations of
survivors in terms of that strategy continuing the momentum from
our Act. They were looking for something ambitious that could
really make improvements, and I don’t think that that
strategy is near that at this time.
|
[19] Sian
Gwenllian: Fe wnawn ni
symud ymlaen at—
|
Sian
Gwenllian: We’ll move on to—
|
[20] John Griffiths: Well,
just before you do, Sian, I wonder if you could clarify, Rhian,
then, are you suggesting that it might be better to delay the
national strategy, so that it is robust and as effective as you
mention in the ways that you mention, rather than abiding by the
set timescale within the legislation and it not being that robust
and effective? Is that your view?
|
[21] Ms Bowen-Davies: Yes,
and I’ve actually raised that in terms of what could be the
grounds—you know, I don’t understand the technicalities
of it, but what could be the grounds on which that could be
postponed. Because I think, in terms of setting a precedent for
violence against women, domestic abuse and sexual violence as well,
I don’t think—. My concern is around how that would be
perceived by our specialist sector, by our public services, if it
was published in its current format.
|
[22] John Griffiths: Okay.
Jenny.
|
[23] Jenny Rathbone: I
just wanted to pick up on your remarks about resources, because I
think we are in danger of having a perfect storm here, as more
people feel confident about coming forward and there isn’t
any more money for the services that people need. I mean,
there’s a housing crisis, counselling services are
overburdened, and we’ve heard from various organisations the
amount of time that people are having to wait, even children having
to wait, after having had a very acute experience that obviously
requires them to get assistance. So, I absolutely understand your
desire that we amalgamate the approach to the social services and
well-being Act, but how are we going to not simply raise
expectations only to shatter them?
|
[24] Ms Bowen-Davies: I
think the point that you raise is absolutely valid in terms of the
increased demand, because I think all the policy priorities within
the Act—so, the national training framework, ‘ask and
act’—are about early identification and intervention.
So, if you’re proactively asking, then that is going to
increase identification, and there’s only one place to
signpost those individuals if it’s around specialist
support.
|
09:30
|
[25]
I think that the sector and myself are very clear that there are no
additional resources, but I think that the resources that are
currently available could be used more effectively, and there are
suggestions around looking at what resources go into violence
against women, not just from the communities and children
portfolio, but looking across Government—so, health
initiatives from the health portfolio in terms of the IRIS project
in GP practices, for example, and the approaches that can be taken
within health, looking at education and the links with
education.
|
[26]
So, it’s not necessarily—. The sector understands that
there may not be an increase in funding, but actually using what
resources we have, and I think it’s looking—. If
we’re looking across Government, it then shows an example to
regions or localities what they can look at across the sector: so,
looking at police and crime commissioner budgets and being able to
actually identify the whole resources that are available, and then
to use them more effectively. I think that sustainable model for
specialist sectors is so important, and the specialist sector is
willing to work alongside Welsh Government and myself to develop
that sustainable funding model.
|
[27]
But I think the specialist sector would also ask questions
on—. There have been increases in budgets to certain sectors
over recent weeks, we’ve heard, and, actually, why is there
not a consideration in terms of violence against women, especially
with the Act requirements? When I sit and hear public services say
that, actually, there is no other investment that goes into
violence against women, domestic abuse and sexual violence services
except for the minimal Home Office grant and Welsh Government
grant—no other funding goes into that, and no funding has
been allocated in future budgets when I’ve spoken to specific
public services—that really concerns me, because they have
legislative requirements and there’s no consideration of how
they’re actually going to implement those at the moment. So,
I think there is a recognition that the sector, even, needs to work
differently to deliver within a sustainable funding model. But,
actually, that commitment to our specialist sector isn’t
within our strategy at the moment, and, if it’s not within
the strategy, then where will that sit in terms of priorities for
Welsh Government funding, and, critically for the third sector, I
think, where will that sit in terms of prioritising funding at a
local and regional level? The consensus seems to be that, if grant
funding is lost, that’s not necessarily going to be picked up
by our public services, and that will have an impact on our
services, potentially, from April next year.
|
[28]
Jenny Rathbone: Is there a
model that you could point to where resources are being used more
effectively in the way that you think would be more
appropriate—either in Wales or in the rest of the UK or
anywhere else?
|
[29]
Ms Bowen-Davies:
There is an example in Wales I’d
like to point out in terms of the substance misuse allocation,
because that is actually an integrated strategy across Government
areas that is also agreed with health in terms of how that will be
distributed. I think, actually, even the governance arrangements
and the resources around the area planning boards are an example
that we could move towards for violence against women, domestic
abuse and sexual violence, because of the governance framework, the
commissioning framework, and that regional approach that’s
been taken for substance misuse. Further afield—not too
further afield, though—Scotland, with their ‘Equally
Safe’ strategy, have looked at how they’re allocating
funding on violence against women, domestic abuse and sexual
violence. They’ve actually looked at a central fund for some
elements of that funding, but then they actually contribute towards
core funding of specialist sector organisations, and they actually
have a higher number of membership organisations in Scotland than
we have in Wales. The Scottish Government have also just committed
an additional £30 million to violence against women, domestic
abuse and sexual violence for those three years up to
2018.
|
[30]
So, I think there are some models that
can be looked at, some around central funding being held by Welsh
Government, and then actually how do we effectively pool resources
at a local and regional level. Those discussions are starting to
happen, but I think, without really strong direction and
leadershipat a national level through the national strategy,
then we risk inconsistency in terms of how that’s going to be
applied across Wales.
|
[31]
John Griffiths: Okay. Thank you very much, Rhian. Yes,
Sian.
|
[32]
Sian Gwenllian:
Jest cwestiwn ynghylch y cyllid. Mi
glywsom ni wythnos diwethaf gan un tyst, ac roedd hi’n
sôn yn benodol am arian ar gyfer FGM. Roedd hi’n
poeni nad oedd yr arian yn dod drwyddo i Gymru, bod yna arian
Swyddfa Gartref nad oedd yn cyrraedd Cymru a bod angen edrych ar y
Barnett consequential o ran hynny. Tybed a oes yna feysydd
eraill hefyd lle mae yna arian yn mynd i blismona ac yn y blaen yn
Lloegr a dylai bod yna arian cyfatebol yn dod i Gymru trwy’r
Barnett consequential sydd ddim yn dod. A oes angen darn o
waith yn y maes yna a ydych chi’n meddwl?
|
Sian
Gwenllian: Just a question regarding finance. We heard last
week from one witness, and she mentioned specifically money for
FGM. She was concerned that the money wasn’t coming through
to Wales, that there was Home Office funding that wasn’t
reaching Wales and that we need to look at the Barnett
consequential in that regard. I wonder if there are any other areas
as well where money is going to policing in England, for example,
and there should be match funding coming to Wales through the
Barnett consequential that isn’t being sent. Is there work
needed in that area, do you think?
|
[33]
Ms Bowen-Davies: I think certainly the issue of equity of
budget has been raised on a number of occasions, when there have
been specific funds for England. The Department for Education is
another example of a fund that’s been released quite
recently, in terms of, specifically, FGM education within schools,
and also Department of Health funding that’s come through to
fund initiatives such as IRIS, and also routine enquiry in terms of
adverse childhood experiences, and that’s been funded through
the Department of Health in England. I think my concern is around
how Wales will access funds that are intended for England and Wales
if the alignment and the connection have not been made and the
relationships aren’t there between officials on a practical
level in terms of what that funding could mean for Wales.
|
[34]
So, a specific example in terms of that is that, for the last eight
or nine years—I’d have to check to be quite
specific—Home Office grant funding has contributed toward the
funding of ISVAs and IDVAs and MARAC co-ordinators in each local
authority area. The Home Office have been quite clear that that
would come to an end at some point, and they gave a very strong
indication in their violence against women and girls strategy,
which was launched in March this year, that funding will come to an
end in March of this year. The Home Office reasoning is around,
‘We’ve provided this funding for a number of years.
Really, it should be looked at how this is being integrated into
local and regional core funding now.’ But the grant fund
that’s being brought in to replace that is called the
transformation fund and will be applicable to England and Wales and
could have real potential in Wales in terms of partnership bids to
drive forward some of the work. My concern is that, if that
integration isn’t there, and if the alignment is not being
made between our national strategy and the Home Office strategy
that still applies to our non-devolved organisations—so, our
police and police and crime commissioners, and other partners in
the criminal justice system, will be looking specifically at that
strategy; that alignment needs to be made so that we don’t
miss that opportunity.
|
[35]
Similarly, there were some concerning views expressed by the third
sector at a recent meeting that I went to—the possible
unintended consequences of our legislation, which embodies
prevention, protection and support requirements. That is being
interpreted by some charitable funds as now statutory requirements,
so, therefore, a possible unintended consequence for our voluntary
sector is that they’re then not able to access funds through
the charitable funds that they’ve relied on to actually
deliver wider services. Now, I don’t have the evidence of
that, and that is something that I am keen to explore, because this
was so recent. But, if that is an unintended consequence, then
that’s a real threat to our specialist sector, because that
actually underpins a whole lot of other resources—the
statutory resources. The voluntary sector bring in a huge amount of
that grant funding and, if they can’t access that because the
interpretation of the charitable funds is that prevention,
protection and support are now a statutory requirement,
that’s really concerning for the future of our services.
|
[36]
John Griffiths: Okay. Thank you very much, Rhian. Sian, I
think the national strategy is our next area.
|
[37]
Sian Gwenllian:
Rydych chi wedi cyfeirio’n
barod at y diffyg strategaeth genedlaethol. Rydych chi wedi dweud
nad ydy hi’n ddigon cadarn fel mae hi ar hyn o bryd ac rydych
chi wedi awgrymu efallai y dylid gohirio cyhoeddi honno. Fy mhryder
i efo hynny ydy bydd y gwaith ym mynd ar ei hôl hi hyd
yn oed yn fwy, ond rwy’n gallu gweld y ddadl bod yn rhaid ei
gael yn iawn, neu efallai na fydd y gwaith ddim yn llifo ohono fo
yn y ffordd iawn. Beth oedd eich rôl chi fel cynghorydd wrth
ddatblygu’r strategaeth?
|
Sian
Gwenllian: You’ve already referred to the lack of a
national strategy. You’ve said that it’s not
sufficiently robust as it is and that perhaps we should delay the
publication of that. My concern with that is that the work will
slip even further back, but I can see the argument that we need to
get it right, or perhaps the work won’t flow from it in the
right way. What was your role as the adviser in developing the
strategy?
|
[38]
Ms Bowen-Davies: As the adviser, I have provided advice,
information and my expert views from the sector to inform the
strategy, and I have continued to do that throughout the
consultation period, and even now, because there are some elements
of the strategy that, without further consideration and inclusion,
I think are very worrying and could be really problematic in terms
of connectivity with the Home Office and international work
that’s ongoing—specifically around the definition and
the UN definition. I know that you heard from witnesses last week
their views in terms of that, but for me—. I do understand
that the definitions within the Act are the definitions within the
Act, and they need to play a part in the strategy, but the UN
definition is the internationally recognised definition, and
without that as part of the strategy, there doesn’t seem to
be anything that’s connecting the strategy. There’s
nothing to link things back to. So, when we talk about FGM, forced
marriage, rape, sexual violence and domestic abuse, the UN
definition provides the foundation for the whole element of
violence against women, domestic abuse and sexual violence, and
therefore the absence of that—and especially because it was
included within the Right to be Safe strategy. So, Wales’s
first integrated strategy was founded on the UN definition, and I
am concerned how, internationally and globally, Wales would be
perceived if that is not within the strategy.
|
[39]
I think that, in terms of the wider strategy, survivors and the
views of survivors, and the recommendations that were made by
survivors in terms of the recent engagement and consultation
event—. Survivors were consulted so that their views could be
listened to and included in the strategy. And, although there are
quotes included in the strategy, the actual
recommendations—and I have heard, and I have listened and I
understand that some people say that 66 survivors were engaged
with, and that only one of those was a man, throughout the
consultation process. But, actually, on those recommendations,
having worked in the sector for seven and a half years, I would
challenge anybody to think that wasn’t what survivors would
be speaking about. It’s around specialist, dedicated support
for all survivors and children and young people. It is around
raising awareness and training our public services, and it is
around what community interventions are available, and it’s
also around how we stop perpetrators and hold perpetrators
accountable for their behaviours. If those recommendations
don’t underpin our national strategy, then what message does
that send to our survivors, who’ve given their time and
who’ve given their recommendations, but they’re not
coming out as central to our national strategy?
|
[40]
I think that the strategy as it currently stands isn’t
specific enough. For me, it doesn’t give the strategic
leadership that our Act did give, and gave that expectation and
ambition. Therefore, without the specific expectations and national
leadership about what are the expectations of our public services
then, again, we risk that inconsistency. And yes, things need to be
different on a local and regional basis, they need to respond to
needs and demographics, but actually, the overarching principles
need to come from our national strategy, and I think that’s
why things like the commissioning guidance—and, again, I
don’t have a timeline for that commissioning guidance, but I
have provided some initial advice in terms of what other areas we
should be looking at in terms of that guidance. But without that
guidance, local, regional committees and forums that are looking to
commission and public sector organisations that are looking to
commission—they’re not being mandated with regard to
the principles of what they commission.
|
09:45
|
[41]
Commissioning is happening now, and I think that, in terms of
sustaining our specialist sector, again, that is a risk if we
don’t have national principles to drive forward the
commissioning. And although we’ve had other guidance come
in—so, we’ve got the Lloyds Bank Foundation
commissioning toolkit, which is, I feel, an excellent resource, and
has been distributed to all commissioners, but that’s not
statutory; it’s good practice. And I, and I don’t think
Welsh Government, can mandate anybody to go to best practice
resources. So, I think, in terms of some of the key messages for me
around the strategy—the definition, an integrated
cross-Government approach. It has to be, it can’t just be
about the commitment of communities and children. It has to have
cross-Government support of all Cabinet Secretaries, who actually
commit to what their portfolios are going to deliver as part of the
strategy. The Home Office strategy has that commitment, so why
can’t ours reflect that as well? Survivors need to be
central. Objectives need to be SMART. We have to have that national
leadership in terms of relevant authorities and our public
services. We have to have that connection and that alignment with
Home Office strategy that is integral to our non-devolved
organisations. And I just feel that, as it currently stands,
it’s not ambitious, it’s not visionary, it’s not
the expectation that we had from our Act and the expectation that
we had on our Act.
|
[42]
Sian Gwenllian:
A gaf i ofyn i chi pam rydych
chi’n meddwl bod hyn wedi digwydd—pam na wrandawyd ar y
cyngor roeddech chi’n ei roi? Mae’n ymddangos, beth
bynnag, eich bod chi wedi bod yn cynnig argymhellion, ac yn cynnig
beth ddylai fod yng nghynnwys y strategaeth, ac nid yw hynny wedi
digwydd. Hefyd, mae’n ymddangos nad ydy argymhellion
goroeswyr ddim yna, er eu bod nhw wedi cael eu cynnwys i raddau,
ond nid yw beth roedden nhw’n ei ddweud ddim yn treiddio
drwodd. Pam fod hyn wedi digwydd? Dyna fyddwn i’n hoffi ei
wybod. A oes yna reswm penodol? A oedd yr amserlen yn rhy dynn ar
gyfer gwneud hyn? A oedd digon o adnoddau’n cael ei roi iddo
fo, yntau diffyg gweledigaeth cyffredinol? Mae’n rhaid i ni
fynd i wraidd pam fod hyn wedi digwydd er mwyn helpu i’r
dyfodol, mae’n debyg. Beth yw’ch barn chi am
hynny?
|
Sian
Gwenllian: Could I ask you why you think this has
happened—why the advice that you gave wasn’t listened
to? It seems that you did offer recommendations, and offer what
should be included in the strategy, and that hasn’t happened.
Also, it seems that the recommendations of survivors aren’t
there, even though they have been included to an extent, but what
they said hasn’t flown through. So why has this happened?
That’s what I would like to know. Is there a specific reason?
Was the timetable too tight for doing this? Was there not enough
resources given to this? Or was this a lack of general vision? We
have to get to the root of why this has happened, in order to help
for the future. What’s your opinion on that?
|
[43]
Ms Bowen-Davies: I think, firstly, the timeline. The Act was
brought into force in April 2015. The expectation of the national
strategy, to be published in November 2016, has always been very
clear within that timeline. I understand that, within that period
of time, we’ve had the small matter of Assembly elections,
and the change in terms of Cabinet portfolios, and Cabinet
Secretary, but, actually, both the previous Minister, and this
Cabinet Secretary, have been very outspoken about their commitment
to this area of work. So, I don’t think that is a factor. I
think there has been considerable change within the civil servants
group, who were responsible for taking the Act through, and a new
team effectively now, who have taken this work forward from the end
of this year. I’m not a civil servant; I don’t work
within that environment, but even I have found it—. How can
you expect a new team to pick up and drive this work, which I think
is even more—? I suppose, in terms of why that advice then
hasn’t been taken on, not only from myself, but the
specialist sector, who have been key in terms of advising on this
process, I don’t have that answer. I’m not privy to
what happens after that advice, and I haven’t had any reasons
why those are not central to our strategy.
|
[44]
Sian Gwenllian:
Ocê, achos rwy’n deall,
er enghraifft, bod cynnig gan rai o’r mudiadau i ffurfio
grŵp tasg a gorffen er mwyn hwyluso’r broses, ac ni
wnaeth hynny ddigwydd. Rŵan, mae yna bethau anffodus wedi
digwydd yn fan hyn, ac mae’n bwysig ein bod ni’n deall
a’n bod ni’n drilio lawr i weld pam fod pethau wedi
mynd o chwith. Ac efallai na fedrwch chi ateb y cwestiynau i gyd,
ond cawn gyfle efallai i holi’r Ysgrifennydd Cabinet. Diolch
i chi am fod mor agored yn y ffordd rydych chi’n ymateb
i’r cwestiynau yma. Rwy’n rhannu’r un pryder
â chi, ac rwy’n meddwl bod cael y strategaeth
genedlaethol yma’n glir a derbyn argymhellion y goroeswyr a
pheidio â bod mewn seilo yn bwysig ofnadwy ac efallai bod
angen meddwl, felly, am ohirio—nid wyf yn
siŵr.
|
Sian
Gwenllian: Okay, because I understand, for example, that there
was a proposal by some organisations to form a task and finish
group to facilitate this process, and that didn’t happen.
Now, there are some unfortunate things that have happened here, and
it’s important that we do understand and drill down to see
why things have gone wrong. And perhaps you can’t answer all
the questions, but we’ll have an opportunity perhaps to ask
the Cabinet Secretary. Thank you for being so open in the way that
you’re responding to these questions. I do share the same
concerns as you, and I do think that making this national strategy
clear and accepting the recommendations of survivors and not
working in a silo is very important and perhaps we need to think
about delaying—I’m not sure.
|
[45]
Rwy’n meddwl ein bod wedi
sôn am y materion yr oeddem ni angen eu trafod o dan bennawd
y strategaeth genedlaethol, os nad oes gennych rhywbeth arall. Mae
hwn yn bwysig, onid ydy—cael hwn yn iawn?
|
I think that we
have discussed the issues that we needed to discuss under the
heading of the national strategy, unless you have something else.
It is important to get this right, isn’t it?
|
[46]
Ms Bowen-Davies: It is absolutely vital in terms of where we
are going in Wales and driving the improvements that we need to
see. As it currently stands, it doesn’t reflect an
understanding of violence against women, domestic abuse and sexual
violence and the complexities and dynamics of that. I think,
without that understanding, people then question: ‘Has that
been prioritised; is that included?’ It goes back to, again,
that UN definition, which provides the context, and you build upon
that context and actually that knowledge and understanding derives
from that definition and from that expert knowledge that you have
in Wales.
|
[47]
John Griffiths:
Okay, thank you very much. We now move to
education. I think Joyce has a question.
|
[48]
Joyce Watson: Yes. Good morning, Rhian, and thanks for coming back
again. I’m sure you’ll be here yet again. I want to
ask, particularly, because education is such a critical part in
everything you’ve just mentioned—so I won’t ask
you to mention them all again—if you’ve got any further
information about why the auditor general intends to carry out a
study on how councils and their partners are tackling this issue.
Do you think that’s related to education particularly, or do
you not know?
|
[49]
Ms Bowen-Davies:
I think the context, from my
understanding of the auditor general’s study, is that he did
a consultation event at the end of last year, where he asked public
services what were the key themes that were going to come up over
the next couple of years, when the consultation responses were
considered. Violence against women, domestic abuse and
sexual violence was one of the key considerations; so therefore, it
went into the study programme for 2018-19. So, the call for
evidence that has gone out recently is to further inform that
study. More than that—. And of course I’ve offered my
support to the auditor general in terms of looking at that work,
but that’s my understanding of the timing—that this
actually comes from consultation at the end of 2015.
|
[50]
Joyce Watson: We know that we’ve got the Donaldson review and
we’re hoping that that will make a major change. Are you
confident that it will make the change that we’re hoping for
in terms of this agenda?
|
[51]
Ms Bowen-Davies:
I think there’s potential with the
new curriculum. Combined with the other work that’s going on
around education, particularly with violence against women,
domestic abuse and sexual violence, I think particularly in
relation to the curriculum reform—. I sit on the stakeholder
reference group for the ‘Qualified for life’ curriculum
for Wales and I have met both with the officials that are leading
on the curriculum reform and with the Cabinet Secretary for
Education specifically around this matter, because my understanding
is that education around healthy relationships and gender equality
will be part of the areas of learning and experience that come out
of the four purposes.
|
[52]
However, my further understanding is that those areas of learning
and experience need to be flexible and that they can be optional
for schools in terms of which of those they will adopt in terms of
their approach to the curriculum. I think it’s in that
flexibility and optional approach that the potential may not be
realised, because that is the approach that we have at the moment
in terms of our Spectrum programme, which is the Welsh
Government-funded programme in schools, as well as the STAR
programme that is delivered in Wales. But they are optional, so
therefore, that’s very much down to the leadership of
individual schools as to whether they recognise this as a priority
and whether it should be delivered within the schools.
|
[53]
When I’ve spoken to the officials,
and the Cabinet Secretary, for me, it’s critical that this is
aligned with the purpose around healthy, confident individuals
because we know that, in terms of primary prevention,
education is absolutely critical, but for those children and young
people who are already experiencing violence and abuse at home,
it’s also critical that they’re identified and can be
signposted for support. I just think that links with education, as
you rightly point out, are so intrinsic, not only for the
curriculum, but the national training framework and how that
relates to schools, and I haven’t seen any evidence of how
that is being picked up yet in terms of schools specifically. But
also in terms of the good practice guidance, the review of
resources that has happened, and also the resource that we are
expected that has been developed by children and young
people—so, both with Welsh Women’s Aid and the
children’s commissioner. There are resources there to support
schools, but, as my written evidence says, I don’t know how
they’ve been distributed, with what expectations, how
they’re going to be monitored, and, therefore, for me, there
is a danger that a lot of work can go into developing a programme
with the specialist sector that could fit into those areas of
learning, but, actually, unless that is mandated to be delivered as
part of the wider curriculum, then, actually, that’s going to
be inconsistent and potentially not have the impact that
we’re looking for.
|
[54]
Joyce Watson: I know that there are schools at the moment
that invite some providers into their schools to deliver packages,
and I know that I’ve invited schools for years now to take
part in in the White Ribbon Campaign, and some have, and one in
Llanelli particularly really took it to heart. And the point
I’m making here is that it was because those
teachers—the headteacher and the deputy head—felt
comfortable doing that, and they felt able to support the young
children who would undoubtedly disclose that there were issues, and
I think that’s going to lead me to my next question, because
that will happen. There is no question, if you raise an issue with
young people, they will say, ‘That’s my life’,
and they might, up until that point, have thought it was a normal
life and that everybody else’s life was like that, and then
they realise maybe it’s not.
|
[55]
So, my next question, leading on through education, is about, I
suppose, two things. You can put it on the curriculum, and you can
let young people, rightly, know that it isn’t how their life
should be, but then you’ve got to protect those children and
move in pretty quickly at the same time. So, how do you see those
two things working effectively? In the case that I’ve just
said, I know they were working effectively. And how do you think,
then, we ought to, because there’s a whole training element
here, backfill that training element for teachers?
|
[56]
Ms Bowen-Davies: I think you’re absolutely right in
terms of, if a whole-education and a whole-school approach is
adopted, then there will undoubtedly be disclosures, and not
only from pupils, I feel, but also from staff who are in that
school as well. I think that’s why it would be critical that
the policy that surrounds that in terms of safeguarding—and
we know that schools already have the safeguarding policies and
procedures in place, and this should already be embedded within
those policies and procedures. If there is a child at risk, or if
there’s a child in need of safeguarding, that should be done
through the safeguarding process anyway. But I think that it has to
be that whole approach.
|
10:00
|
[57]
We are awaiting the evaluation of the Spectrum programme, but I
think the good practice guide gives that whole perspective, so it
is around having the policy, it is around having support of the
leadership, it is around staff having that training. In the two
pilot areas that are looking at training specifically, education is
not included in those, so I’m not sure how, actually, this is
going to be rolled out. But in terms of the reporting requirements
that are within the Act in terms of sections 9 and 10, then,
actually, education will have to report on this and, actually, what
support is being given to education to actually embed this now
through the pioneer schools, for example? And I haven’t seen
any evidence of this being delivered in pioneer schools. I know
that there was really good work done in some schools as part of the
good practice guidance and as part of their leadership identifying
that it was really important. I don’t have evidence of that
happening in pioneer schools. That may be something that education
officials may have. Again, it’s about integrating it.
It’s not about violence against women, domestic abuse and
sexual abuse being siloed when we think about education. It’s
so connected with other things around gender equality, around
respect, around consent, and around relationships. I think there
are real opportunities to integrate this into programmes that would
be developed mandatorily within schools. You heard last week from
witnesses. I think the danger with it being within areas of
learning and experience, which I understand are not being developed
in any detail until this autumn—if they’re optional,
then we could be no better off than what we are at the moment.
Without our specialist sector there to support schools, again, the
role of the specialist sector is critical to ensuring that that
education approach is maximised.
|
[58]
John Griffiths: Okay. Jenny.
|
[59]
Jenny Rathbone: I just wanted to pick up on something you
said earlier about the fact that if it is not in the national
strategy, schools may choose not to do it. I just want to question
you: why wouldn’t schools want to do it, given the problems
they’re already grappling with? Revenge porn is a problem
across all secondary schools. They are all having to try and
grapple with it in one way or another. So, that, surely, is an
alert for them that they have got to be dealing with this in the
round.
|
[60]
Ms Bowen-Davies: I think I would ask, if that was the
case, then why is it not being done now? The resources are there,
and lots of schools are in contact with the specialist sector. So,
if this has been identified—. The issue is that it is not
consistent. So, you will have schools in some areas that really get
this, therefore their children and young people are having the
opportunity to learn about healthy relationships and equality and
actually be signposted to it through experiences. But there could
be children and young people in the same area who go to a different
school who won’t have that. For me, it’s really
important that every child and young person has that opportunity to
have those messages.
|
[61]
Jenny Rathbone:
So, in shaping the strategy that schools
should adopt, how much do you think this needs to be a top-down
approach, and how much should it be shared learning from good
practice within the school sector? There are lots of good things
going on, but, I agree, it’s not consistent.
|
[62]
Ms Bowen-Davies: I think that good practice is definitely
there, which is why the good practice guide was developed. I think
that, with the development of the resources toolkit, it gives even
more practical usage to schools to use. I think there could be an
element of concern from schools around when they start talking
about these matters: how are teachers supposed to respond, and how
can they best support the children and young people? They possibly
don’t have the support mechanisms in place with the
specialist sector at the moment, for example. When you speak about
resources for releasing teachers for training, how is that going to
happen? What is the practicality for teaching staff and
non-teaching staff to engage with the national training framework?
That’s a considerable resource expectation, and, yet, without
that training and awareness, teachers may not have the confidence
or the knowledge to respond to disclosures, or even to ask those
questions within schools. So, I think there is a balance. I think
it needs to come from leadership, nationally, as well as within the
education sector—so, at a local and regional level—that
this is important—they may well have reporting requirements,
and they are going to have something to report on—and that
the concerns and experiences of teachers and non-teaching staff are
also listened to in terms of how best to integrate this.
That’s my understanding of the approach with the curriculum
reform—that the pioneering schools are looking at the
learning that’s available and the good practice.
There’s that opportunity there; I’ve just not seen that
happening to date.
|
[63]
John Griffiths: Okay. I think we’ll have to move on
now to the role of the national adviser itself, Rhian. I think,
Sian, you have a question.
|
[64]
Sian Gwenllian:
Mae yna rywfaint o bryder nad ydych
chi, fel cynghorydd, yn gallu ymwneud yn llawn â gweithrediad y Ddeddf.
Beth ydy eich ymateb chi i
hynny?
|
Sian
Gwenllian: There is some concern that you aren’t, as an
adviser, able to be involved fully with the implementation of the
Act. What’s your response to that?
|
[65]
Ms Bowen-Davies: I think my written evidence supports that
in terms of—. This is a part-time adviser role and that was
made very clear in terms of the Act and also the recruitment
process. But I still felt that the role had real potential to
support and work alongside Ministers, Government and other public
services to actually deliver the changes that were needed. I think
that, in practice, the reality of being able to do that within
three days when there is a demand for the national adviser to be
sitting alongside regions as they transition to regional
arrangements—what their needs assessments are going to look
like and what their strategy is going to look like—and I
absolutely think that it’s the adviser’s role to be
there, to be providing that informed perspective, but in three days
it’s very difficult to do that. It’s not just the three
days to do that: we’ve all had to travel around Wales and
know the travelling time that that requires, and with the best
diary management in the world—.
|
[66]
I have raised that point in terms of capacity and solutions have
been explored, and there was the offer and the provision of the
part-time support of a civil servant. But, as I said in my written
evidence, I am very aware, therefore, of what I would want that
individual and allow that individual to support me with, because,
actually, the independence of my role is absolutely critical to me.
Therefore, there is that balance. The administrative support that
releases some of my three days a week is really helpful and
welcome, but to deliver the potential of this role, and I do think
it has huge potential, then the infrastructure to support this
role, the capacity of the role, the resources that are applied to
this role—. Actually, now that we are 18 months into the Act,
I think it’s the right time to consider those and the right
time to be able to say, ‘Did we get that right?’, and
to reflect and, actually, if things need to change to be able to
change them. I think that’s far more productive for Wales
than actually maintaining an adviser role on three days a week,
when these things have been raised, and not deliver the potential
of the role.
|
[67]
Sian Gwenllian:
Felly, rydych chi wedi gorfod
blaenoriaethu o fewn yr amser cyfyng sydd gennych chi ac rydych
wedi gorfod tynnu ochr y gweithrediad i lawr y rhestr
blaenoriaethau mewn ffordd—agwedd gweithrediad y
Ddeddf—ac rydych chi wedi blaenoriaethu’r ochr
strategol a’r ochr gweithio efo rhanbarthau, fel yr ydych
wedi dweud, i rolio’r Ddeddf allan yn hytrach na’i
gweithrediad?
|
Sian
Gwenllian: So, you have had to prioritise within the limited
time that you have and you’ve had to put the implementation
side further down your list of priorities in a way—the
implementation of the Act—and you have prioritised the
strategic side and the element of working with the regions, as
you’ve said, to roll out the Act rather than its
implementation?
|
[68]
Ms Bowen-Davies: I think the adviser role itself, in terms
of advising Ministers and others, is something that I have
proactively done. But I think, in terms of some of the other
requirements of the adviser role, in terms of research and in terms
of reports, then, actually, being able to look at when is the right
time to do that and what resources could be made available to even
do that—. I’m very conscious that being independent in
my views, my perspective and my advice, when I look at my annual
plan, there are differences there as to what nationally may be
priorities. And, therefore, without resources, how can some of that
work be driven forward when, actually, there are no resources
allocated to the adviser?
|
[69]
Sian Gwenllian:
Sut fyddai Llywodraeth Cymru yn gallu
cosbi unrhyw awdurdod perthnasol sy’n torri
rhwymedigaethau’r Ddeddf? Pa bwerau sydd yna ar gyfer hynny a
beth ydy’ch rôl chi yn hynny?
|
Sian
Gwenllian: How would the Welsh Government be able to penalise
any relevant authority that breaches the obligations of the Act?
What powers are there for that and what is your role in that?
|
[70]
Ms Bowen-Davies continues: The Act itself doesn’t
provide any of those enforcement powers, and in terms of the
adviser role in that, the adviser can ask for information but there
are no sanctions or enforcements that the adviser could put into
place if that information wasn’t provided, or indeed if the
adviser felt that a relevant authority was not complying with the
requirements of the Act. I think that that was something that was
raised when the Bill was going through its progress, in terms of,
‘Where are the teeth to the Act?’ So, we’re
asking for local strategies. We’ll have the statutory
guidance, but actually, if relevant authorities weren’t to
actually comply, what would those steps be? We have our first
timeline quickly approaching in terms of 31 March. All relevant
authorities are expected to have submitted the training needs
analysis for the national training framework. So, actually, if
those are not produced by 31 March, what will those responses be? I
don’t know.
|
[71]
John Griffiths: Okay. Well, thank you very much for your
evidence, Rhian. That brings us to the end of this evidence-taking
session. You will be sent a transcript to check for factual
accuracy. Thank you very much for coming along today.
|
[72]
Ms Bowen-Davies:
Diolch yn fawr.
|
[73]
John Griffiths: Okay. The committee will break until
10:30.
|
Gohiriwyd y cyfarfod rhwng 10:11 a 10:29.
The meeting adjourned between 10:11 and 10:29.
|
Ymchwiliad Ôl-ddeddfwriaethol i Ddeddf Trais yn
erbyn Menywod, Cam-drin Domestig a Thrais Rhywiol (Cymru)
2015:
Sesiwn Dystiolaeth 6
Post-legislative Inquiry into the Violence against Women, Domestic
Abuse and Sexual Violence (Wales) Act 2015: Evidence Session 6
|
[74]
John Griffiths: Okay. May I welcome Members back after our
break? We move into evidence session 6 in our post-legislative
inquiry into the Violence against Women, Domestic Abuse and Sexual
Violence (Wales) Act 2015. I’d like to welcome Carl Sargent,
Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Children, and Martin Swain,
deputy director of community safety with the Welsh
Government.
|
10:30
|
[75]
We’ll start off, Cabinet Secretary, with implementation of
the Act. I’ll begin by asking whether or not you would agree
with some of the claims we’ve heard that the implementation
of the Act has been a missed opportunity to radically change the
approach of public authorities in Wales.
|
[76]
The Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Children (Carl
Sargeant): Thank you, Chair, and good morning to committee.
That’s an interesting opening comment, Chair. I probably
wouldn’t agree with you in terms of those comments. What I
would suggest is that the Act is novel; it’s a new piece of
legislation that introduces a very different way of working across
the public sector and I think it’s an exciting opportunity.
But also, it’s been challenging. I don’t say it’s
a missed opportunity, because we aren’t in that space,
actually, we’re working towards delivering a very, very
effective Act with collaboration across the public sector. This is
a piece of groundbreaking legislation that is going to have
challenges in the way it’s set up, but I recognise that the
teams are doing some incredible work out in the field. Working
together, across organisations—public, third sector
organisations—does present opportunities but also
challenges.
|
[77]
John Griffiths: In terms of progress, then, Cabinet
Secretary, over the last 20 months, could you tell the committee
your view as to the adequacy of that progress over that period of
time?
|
[78]
Carl Sargeant: I think the implementation is starting to bed
down. I suppose the best thing for me to do is share with you the
difficult bits and you can assume from that that the other bits are
reasonably good. The thing that I see as challenging: finances are
always challenging, but that’s because of the settlements we
get. Having a long-term, sustainable financial settlement for the
sector is a difficult one. Although I’m working with the
sector now and this isn’t a different situation to what we
were in three years ago prior to the Act; finance was always going
to be difficult. We’re trying to understand what a
sustainable financial model for the sector is.
|
[79]
The implementation of elements of the Act around training is
ongoing. I think, again, as I said, we’re going beyond what
the Act says, so we’re starting to train in housing
associations and that’s not in the Act, but it’s been
adopted by other organisations seeing that this is a positive
document, a positive intervention. So, progress has been a
challenge, but we are getting there.
|
[80]
One of the time frames that I’m struggling with is the
implementation of the strategy. It says in the Act about delivering
this six months post election. I think, in hindsight, that’s
far too quick; I think we need a little bit—. To do this
better, I think it would be much more effective if we had more time
to do that. I don’t want to put a strategy out that could be
better, based on the time frame that we are legislated for. So,
those are the warts-and-all of what I see the challenges are with
the Act. But, in general, we’re in a relatively good position
and it’s starting to do the job that we expected it to
do.
|
[81]
John Griffiths: Does that mean, then, Cabinet Secretary that
you intend to delay the publication of the final national
strategy?
|
[82]
Carl Sargeant: Well, unfortunately, I can’t, because
the legislation says that I must publish it. But I’ve spoken
with my team and I do intend to publish a document, but with the
knowledge that I intend to publish an overall strategy, but with a
delivery plan underneath that, and I think the detail gives us a
bit more flexibility, then, for the delivery end of this to be
within the delivery plan. So, I’ve got no choice. I had
considered delaying the strategy, but I just can’t; the legal
provisions in the Act don’t allow me to do so.
|
[83]
John Griffiths: Could you share with the committee, then,
Cabinet Secretary, what your understanding is of the legal
consequences of not publishing the national strategy in line with
the timings in the Act?
|
[84]
Carl Sargeant: I can give the committee a note in terms of
that, but effectively, I’m breaching legislation and I
can’t be in the position to do that. But, I’m happy to
give the legal definition in letter form to the Chair. It is
something that I have considered and it just puts me, as a
Minister, at risk. I can’t breach legislation.
|
[85]
John Griffiths:
We’ve heard the view from more than
one evidence giver to this inquiry, Cabinet Secretary, that, in
their view, it’s more important to get it right in terms of
that national strategy than it is to get it published on time, if
it were a choice between those two things. So, I think the
committee hears what you say about the legal requirements, but, in
terms of what you said about perhaps a high-level, overarching
national strategy and then a more detailed delivery plan, are you
confident that those two together will achieve that
getting-it-right that’s obviously so important?
|
[86]
Carl Sargeant: Yes, and I’m grateful for the opportunity to
explain. I had the same concerns that delivering a strategy that
wasn’t ready or wasn’t detailed enough could be
troublesome. That’s why, I believe, we can deliver a very
high-level, overarching, principle strategy that meets the
legislation requirements, but actually the detail of delivery will
be in the delivery plan underneath that. I think that’s a way
of getting through the legal challenge on not delivering the
strategy at the appropriate time.
|
[87]
In hindsight, looking back now, the
timeline for creating the strategy within six months is just too
tight. Maybe that is something the committee might want to advise
me on, or reflect on, in terms of modifications of the Act in the
future. But I think it’s just a time frame that is
challenging.
|
[88]
John Griffiths:
Okay, thanks for that. Jenny.
|
[89]
Jenny Rathbone:
Are you saying that, therefore—?
It’s after every general election, so, in five years’
time, there will need to be another six months, but surely
it’s not so challenging once you’ve got a strategy in
place and local or regional plans—it’s not going to be
a revolution, whatever is produced by an incoming
Government.
|
[90]
Carl Sargeant: Of course, and I think you’re right in terms
of, every general election, the strategy has to be redeveloped.
Now, there are a couple of considerations there. One is, if
it’s a consistent Government, then there probably
wouldn’t be much change in that process. Once you’ve
done it once, you’re, hopefully, in the right space, and you
just continue that process. But, if you’re starting from
scratch, which we are, this is a new piece—. Maybe subtle
drafting of the legislation should have given a period of time a
little bit longer to start the first one, but I think this
six-month period for developing this, with a new Government and a
new piece of legislation, has been extremely challenging for the
team. I want to get this right, and that’s why the
flexibility I have now is to deliver a broad strategy, but with a
delivery plan underneath. That’s my way that we can get
through this.
|
[91]
Jenny Rathbone:
So, with that proviso, you think
you’ll be able to get it right, using the delivery plan for
the detail.
|
[92]
Carl Sargeant: I have come to this portfolio with good intent of
getting this right. I could put a strategy out that people
don’t like, and the delivery plan—I can tick the boxes
if you wish. But I have a genuine interest in this, and I want to
make sure this is right. I could say to committee, ‘The
strategy’s fine’, but I know that it’s
challenging, and I think that is partly because of the timescales
we have to develop that.
|
[93]
One of the issues is consultation. One is
about information sharing from the sector. There’s just not
enough time to do that.
|
[94]
Jenny Rathbone:
In terms of the challenges around
financing, which are challenging over the piece, what consideration
have you given to amalgamating the training and needs assessment
elements of this Act with the social services Act and the future
generations Act? Because that’s something that’s been
put to us by various witnesses.
|
[95]
Carl Sargeant: I think it’s too early to consider that. I
think there is a tendency to chase money where there are pockets of
finance. I am more interested in trying to understand the needs of
communities and how we have a sustainable funding model for that.
I’ve, over the summer, refreshed the advisory board that
advises the Minister—I’ve strengthened that with not
just domestic violence and sexual violence professionals;
I’ve also got some finance professionals on there so that I understand that. For a long
time—. It’s not sector driven, either. It’s
typical, but, particularly, I understand the importance of this
service. We’ve had a long discussion about sustainable
funding models. I’ve asked the sector, ‘What does that
mean?’ And, if I’m honest, they’re struggling,
too, in terms of trying to understand what that means. So,
I’m going to be tasking the advisory group to look at service
provision and, hopefully, a sustainable funding model that we can
all work to and agree. I think it’s a really important
principle—‘What are the services that we want to
provide and how are we going to deliver on
those?’—rather than a shopping list and, hopefully, the
money’s there.
|
[96]
Jenny Rathbone:
No, no, no. I think that’s not
really what I was focusing on nor, I think, the witnesses, because
financing it means resources, and resources are people. The report
from the coalface is that statutory bodies are having to get to
grips with the requirements of all three Acts and do the day job,
if you like. So, what they’re saying is it’s going to
be extremely difficult to release people in sufficient numbers to
do separate training. What do you think about the practicalities of
that? This isn’t about chasing money; this is about actually
how we manage to deliver this without people falling
over.
|
[97]
Carl Sargeant: I’m sorry, I misunderstood your question. I
think there are very specific elements of the Act that require very
specialist services. So, I think there is a—. Again, the
advisory group—I’m really interested to understand,
from the front end, from survivors and from people delivering
services, operationally, how this best works. I think for far too
long Governments have always said to people, to organisations,
‘This is how we want you to do this,’ rather than
saying, ‘Actually, this is the way it works better.’
So, if there are opportunities with the WFG Act or with the social
services and well-being Act, I’m more than happy for them to
tag on to that process. But there are things like the ‘ask
and act’ programme, which is very specific training, that
don’t lend themselves to either of the other elements or
other parts of legislation. But I think there possibly could be
synergies.
|
[98]
These will be peer-reviewed by my
advisory group, because I’ve come into this portfolio with
historic knowledge, but, actually, I’m really excited about
opportunity, as well. So, I’m starting to glean
back—the FG Act has helped me look at problem solving in a
very different way, so it’s a solution-based approach from
the sector and people, as opposed to Government solution. So,
often, when I meet people now, I say, ‘Don’t come to me
with a problem. What’s the solution as well?’
That’s a very tough question for some people, because,
generally, they think the solution is money. I don’t agree
with them in most cases. But I think it’s really important
that we understand what we’re trying to deliver here and how
do we do that, and people on the front line are the best people to
do that generally.
|
[99]
Jenny Rathbone:
Your national adviser, whom we’ve
just heard from, is quite clear that there is a real danger that,
as we increase the number of people who are reporting domestic
violence, we have a shortage of facilities to cope with them. How
do we get around that whilst everybody’s learning how to
implement the Act? One of the ways in which she pointed to was the
substance misuse strategy, which has a lot of joined-up governance
and joined-up budgets across the different organisations that are
relevant.
|
[100]
Carl Sargeant: I agree with her. I think the reporting
structures—we’ve seen a significant increase.
We’re in a very different space from where we were
five—very much different from 10 years ago, where reporting
of DV is becoming the norm. People are accepting that this happens
and reporting. We must have a pathway through that. We’ve got
some programmes already that we are integrating with health and our
department; I’m looking at the financial model. As I said
earlier, I’m really interested in making sure my advisory
group can get a handle on this, so we’re already looking at
the financial work streams that we’ve got in Government,
about how they link up, because I’ve got Supporting People
with funding for domestic violence. I’ve also got the
domestic violence portfolio, and
I’ve got finance there. How do we link these up? How do we
link these up with other departments as well so that we get best
value?
|
10:45
|
[101]
You’ll have heard me talking about
adverse childhood experiences in my communities
brief—it’s general—and one of the ACEs is around
domestic violence. So, that’s an incident that has a
long-term impact on people. So, I’m looking again, through
Flying Start, Families First, at what we do in this space.
That’s why the piece of work that the advisory group will do
for me is about looking at that shopping list of services process
and then the financial model underneath that and how do they link
in. So, we are thinking very differently: rather than a silo
approach to a service, who delivers what, where, better and how can
we integrate with that, or do we not do that and let somebody else
do that, and we finance them for it? So, I think there’s a
new approach to service delivery, which I’m really interested
in, and this Act and the FG Act are pieces of legislation that lend
themselves really well to a different direction of service. But the
big problem of different models of service is change, because
people don’t like that.
|
[102]
John Griffiths:
Okay. Joyce, I think you have a question
in this area.
|
[103]
Joyce Watson: [Inaudible.]—on change. I think the
biggest change, Minister, here, is that everybody has to own this,
whoever they are, if they’re in contact with people. And it
goes back to the financing. That being the case, they also have to
own a little bit of the financing of their responsibility. So,
I’m trying to come back to this question: if we take health,
we know that they have to train their front-line professionals to,
first of all, identify violence against women in all its forms, and
then report it and then pass it on. So, in terms of the financing
argument that we’re seeing, are you finding that there is
recognition in the wider community that provides services that they
all have a part to play, both in recognising, then solving, but
also financing?
|
[104]
Carl Sargeant: I think, across Government and the public sector, and
the private sector—so the registered social landlords in that
space as well—we have regular conversations about what do we
do, and it’s an interesting concept that RSLs, actually, they
do much more than just build homes, they build communities and they
have resilient communities. We’ve got some great RSLs out
there that are doing some great work on domestic violence. I think
what we’re all starting to understand is about people and
pathways to people. So, the early intervention and prevention
message of early identification solves financial problems in the
longer term. One of the problems is we’re doing the day job
as well. So, trying to move into the space of prevention and early
intervention is generational. So, we’ll start to see an
impact in 10 or 15 years’ time, perhaps, in terms of what we
do today in a positive way, but we’ve still got to deal with
people here and now as well. So, it’s balancing the model of
funding about how we do that.
|
[105]
I spoke to all my Cabinet colleagues and
health are absolutely on board, but, with the pressures within the
system as it is, moving resources to a prevent approach is
challenging, but we are doing that, and this is just one example of
where other organisations see that their investment, perhaps in the
housing division, not as bricks and mortar, but as doing a
community resilience exercise, has a huge benefit for their
community and organisation long term. So, yes, people are in a
different space. And, as I said earlier, from five years ago or 10
years, particularly, the whole sector has moved on significantly in
terms of knowledge, influence, and the opportunities that they see.
But, also, the negative—the indirect consequence of the
positivity of a campaign or intervention is that you get more
people coming through the system, so there is a cost in that. So,
that’s why you’ve got to change the culture and shift
the feeds coming through. We’ve got to move it to a place
where this is just not acceptable and this just doesn’t
happen. But we are moving to that place, I think.
|
[106]
John Griffiths:
Okay. Rhianon.
|
[107]
Rhianon Passmore:
Firstly, I’d like to welcome very
much the principles that underpin the national strategy, and I
think we need to recognise that that is innovative, before we move
on, but how will this national strategy now be changed in
terms of the concerns that have been highlighted? And, secondly,
you’ve mentioned that you’ve tasked the refreshed
advisory board—what timescales will they be working forward
in terms of the delivery plan?
|
[108] Carl
Sargeant: Okay. The discussion we had earlier about the
strategy is challenging, because I do understand also—.
I’ve had correspondence and discussions with people in the
sector who have concerns still with the draft strategy. I think, in
most of the concerns that are raised by external bodies, I believe
it’s an interpretation of what the draft strategy says
currently. I think we can work through, with them, about what that
means, and I think there are many things that we’ll be able
to iron out. I’m confident we can do that. If I can’t
change the strategy because we’re time prohibited, what I do
commit to is looking at the delivery plan on how we can implement
the issues that are raised within the delivery elements of this,
within the delivery plan. I am committed to doing that, and I
genuinely am wishing to work with the sector. I don’t
underestimate their knowledge, and I don’t underestimate
their commitment, and I think, actually, they’re the
professionals and we should use them. So, the strategy may
disappoint some, partly on a time issue, partly on an
interpretation issue, but I actually think we can get through that.
If we collectively have a vision of what we’re trying to
achieve here, I don’t think it’s not sustainable
through a delivery plan either.
|
[109] Rhianon
Passmore: So, in terms of the changes that you envisage by
either extending that timescale, or not, in terms of the—
|
[110] Carl
Sargeant: Not in the strategy. I’m tied in with the
strategy. I will present the committee with a legal note, but in
terms of the strategy, we are tied to deliver that, and it
won’t be perfect for some people, of course it won’t,
if it can ever be perfect. But what I can do, and I will commit to
this committee, and to the sector, is: through the delivery
programme, we will look at—. That gives us more flexibility
for change, and, actually, sometimes, the more detail that’s
in the strategy, it ties you down. This is a moving feast.
Technology is moving. There are interventions moving forward.
We’ve got to get that right. So, I think the delivery plan is
somewhere where we can have some more flexibility, a little bit
more time, more consultation, and more involvement from the sector.
I’m going to seek more advice from my advisory panel, so that
we get the delivery element of this absolutely right. And I’m
hoping to publish that probably early/mid next year, and that will
give us enough space to be able to understand better the quality of
services that’s required, including the funding model
that’s needed for the long term.
|
[111] Rhianon
Passmore: Okay. So, outside of the funding model, at this
stage, and at this point in the conversation, there’s been
criticism that the delivery plan wasn’t consulted upon
alongside the strategy. So, is there a concept of what needs to be
different within the delivery plan at this stage,
without—
|
[112] Carl
Sargeant: Yes. I’m new to the post and I’m
committed to delivering—. Look, sometimes we don’t
always get things right, on both sides, whether that’s
Government or third sector, or other bodies. Where there is
challenge in the system, I think we should address that, and
I’m very open and honest with the sector, and I say ‘If
there are problems, if you perceive problems, then let’s get
around the table and sort this out’. I’m tied into
legislation, so that’s the difficult bit, but that’s
where I see the delivery plan as giving me opportunity to make
amendments, to make some changes. And I hope that they can see my
commitment to doing that. I just think the legislation is a
framework, but the six-month challenge of developing the strategy
has thrown up some issues.
|
[113] Rhianon
Passmore: I think that’s quite clear. In terms of
national indicators, as outlined within the Act, would you envisage
that the delivery plan is the vehicle or the mechanism for tying in
that?
|
[114] Carl
Sargeant: Well, I—
|
[115] John
Griffiths: Cabinet Secretary, before you answer that, I wonder
if you could also tell the committee about the status of the
delivery plan, because, obviously, the delivery plan is going to be
very important, in terms of whether it’s statutory and
whether it’s part of the national strategy officially. What
will the status be of that delivery plan?
|
[116] Carl
Sargeant: Martin will give you the legal definition of that, if
that’s okay, but the principle of—. We’re in
development of the delivery plan, but, as I said to you earlier on,
Chair, I’m in a different space to previous administrations
in terms of where we want to see this moving to. The future
generations Act has been an important principle-setting tool for me
and I believe that we should be looking from a bottom-up approach
of policy development. That’s why, subject to the legal
framework of me being allowed to do this, I want to get as much
advice in from the sector—from advisers and
professionals—in terms of shaping the way that we do
business, with the understanding that there is a financial
framework that we operate within too. So, it’s not a case of,
‘We present you with a list of things that we think are the
services that are required, and you need to find the money to
deliver that.’ The discussion will be: what are the services
that we can provide and need within the financial framework that we
can deliver and can we make that sustainable? I think that’s
a different conversation than we’ve had in the past.
We’ve tended to, as I said, deliver services. I’m
saying to the sector, ‘What is it we need here?’ But,
there’s a lot of self-interest and there are some
organisations that will not willingly want to change funding
models, but we’ve got to have that conversation and
that’s why I think it’s really important that we drive
that from within the sector. You own this, and Joyce Watson was absolutely right: I can’t, on
my own—and, as a Government, we cannot—change cultural
shift to a place where domestic violence doesn’t happen.
It’s got to be owned by communities and by people.
That’s the only way we’ll do that. I think the sector
have an important part to play and that’s why they should be
in that development process of the policy as well—and
I’m in that space.
|
[117]
John Griffiths:
Martin, did you want to tell us what
status the delivery plan will have?
|
[118]
Mr Swain: I think we’ve got options, Chair. The Act would
allow us to issue statutory guidance, so we could issue guidance in
terms of a delivery plan. The intention is that the delivery plan
sets out what services we want to see and how we want them to be
delivered, which, in our view, would make a strategy far too
clunky, so we want it separated out. If the view in discussion is
that it’s actually better to make that statutory guidance,
then the Act will allow us to do it. The only issue there is that
it creates a little less flexibility. So, if we have a delivery
plan that we could flex quite easily with our partners—. And
I think, certainly, I’ve been talking to every local
authority about where we’re taking this agenda, and their
view is, ‘Give us as much flexibility as you can. We
understand the statutory framework, but give us flexibility to be
able to move and shift services’. So, it would be something
that we could discuss, but we’ve got the ability to do
it.
|
[119]
Rhianon Passmore:
So, would that include the national
indicators?
|
[120]
Mr Swain: National indicators come afterwards and that’s
a requirement in the Act.
|
[121]
Rhianon Passmore:
Yes, exactly.
|
[122]
Mr Swain: The sequencing of this is: the national strategy sets
out Welsh Ministers’ objectives; the delivery plan gives a
clear indication to our partners in the sector what types of
services we want to see in future to support the delivery of the
Act and how we want to see them delivered, which includes some of
the stuff around training. The national indicators would then set
out how we would measure success in terms of how well we’re
doing and then the next part of the sequence is the needs
assessment by local authorities and health boards and their local
plans in 2018. So, that’s the sequence of steps from the
Act.
|
[123]
John Griffiths:
Okay. Sian.
|
[124]
Sian
Gwenllian: Cyn inni symud i ffwrdd o’r strategaeth genedlaethol,
rwy’n meddwl ei fod yn bwysig inni graffu’n ddyfnach ar
rai o’r agweddau a beth sydd wedi mynd o’i le, mewn
gwirionedd. Rwy’n cytuno efo chi fod gennym ni Ddeddf
flaengar fan hyn, ond rydym mewn peryg gwirioneddol o golli cyfle
ac rwy’n gweld bod ein strategaeth ddrafft, fel y mae hi ar
hyn o bryd, yn sicr angen ei diwygio. Pam bod hyn wedi digwydd? Pam
nad ydy’r strategaeth, fel mae o—? Yn eich geiriau chi,
mi allai fod yn well. Beth sydd wedi mynd o’i le? Pam na
dderbyniwyd argymhellion goroeswyr? Pam na dderbyniwyd cyngor y
cynghorydd annibynnol wrth lunio’r strategaeth? Pam na
dderbyniwyd y cynnig ar gyfer grŵp tasg a gorffen, a ddaeth
gan rai o’r mudiadau trydydd sector, i helpu i greu’r
strategaeth? Rwyf yn meddwl ei bod hi’n bwysig
inni fel pwyllgor ddallt beth sydd
wedi mynd o’i le fan hyn er mwyn dysgu gwersi i’r
dyfodol. Rydych chi’n dweud eich bod chi’n mynd i drio
cyhoeddi strategaeth efallai na fydd y math o strategaeth y byddwn
ni’n hapus efo fo, ond eich bod chi yn mynd i drio cyhoeddi
strategaeth. Wel, mi fyddwn i’n pwysleisio’r angen brys
i geisio cael y strategaeth yna mor gadarn ac mor addas i’w
phwrpas â phosibl o dan yr amgylchiadau rŵan, neu rydym
ni mewn perygl o golli ffydd a cholli cyfle gwirioneddol
efo’r Ddeddf.
|
Sian Gwenllian: Before we move on from this issue of the national
strategy, I do think that it’s important for us to drill down
in more detail on some of the aspects of the strategy and what has
gone wrong. I agree with you that we have a very progressive Act
here, but we are in danger of losing an opportunity and I see that
the draft strategy, as it currently stands, certainly needs to be
amended. So, why has this happened? Why isn’t the strategy,
as it stands—? In your own words, it could be better. What
has gone wrong? Why weren’t the recommendations of survivors
accepted? Why wasn’t the advice of the independent adviser
accepted in putting together the strategy? Why wasn’t the
proposal for a task and finish group, suggested by some of the
third sector organisations, accepted to help create a strategy? I
do think that it’s important for us as a committee to
understand what has gone wrong here so that we can learn lessons
for the future. You do say that you’re going to try to
publish a strategy that perhaps won’t be the kind of strategy
that we would be content with, but you’re going to try to
publish a strategy. Well, I would emphasise the urgent need to try
to ensure that that strategy is as robust and as fit for purpose as
possible under the circumstances, or we’ll be in danger of
losing faith and losing a genuine opportunity with this Act.
|
11:00
|
[125] Carl
Sargeant: Thank you, Sian, for your question. I don’t
perceive it as a missed opportunity or a failure in any way. I
think, actually, we look at this—. You made some general
comments about how the system has failed and, you know, we’ve
got to where we are. That’s your view, perhaps, but
it’s not mine. We did have survivors’ voices listened
to within the implementation of the draft strategy. We did listen
to the national adviser, and the national adviser and the advisory
panel are part of that process in terms of developing that. Now, I
also have seen correspondence where there is disappointment from
the sector that there aren’t specific elements that they
informed us on in terms of shaping the draft strategy. That is a
matter still to have further discussions with the organisations and
with the advisory group, and that’s why, over the summer
period, I refreshed my delivery group—I’ve added more
people into that to give me solid advice on what should be taken
forward.
|
[126] I’ve been
very open with you this morning about saying about the draft
strategy that it could be better and, under the time constraints of
the Act, I am duty-bound to publish a strategy. Now, I could
publish this strategy—in fact, I’ve even considered
doing this—as a one page, overarching principle of what this
strategy may or may not be, a ‘principles of
Government’, but, actually, I think we can do a little bit
better than that and put in more detail in, but I’m bound by
the time, and I’ve been open about that. I think the resolve
of this is that the details of the delivery plan can resolve the
issues that the third sector organisations or members of the
advisory panel still have concerns about—they can be
addressed in the process. But I don’t accept that the
development of the strategy has been a disaster by any means.
|
[127]
Sian Gwenllian:
Nid wyf yn meddwl fy mod i wedi
defnyddio’r gair ‘trychinebus’ o gwbl.
Rwy’n cytuno â’ch diffiniad chi: mi
fuasai’n gallu bod yn well, ac rwyf i jest yn trio ffeindio
allan beth ydy’r broblem. Rydych chi wedi dweud bod yna
ddiffyg amser, ac, iawn, efallai bod hynny’n rhywbeth, yn
sicr, i edrych arno fo o ran bod rhywun yn cynnwys digon o amser y
tro nesaf, felly. Ond, mi wnaeth y cynghorydd annibynnol siarad
â ni y bore yma, ac roedd hi’n gweld problem yn y
ffaith syml, mewn ffordd, fod dau dîm wedi bod yn gweithio ar
hwn. Roedd yna dîm o weision sifil yn gweithio ar y mater, ac
mae’r tîm yna yn dîm gwahanol erbyn hyn, ac roedd
hi’n gweld hynny fel problem yn y ffordd y datblygwyd y
strategaeth. A ydych chi wedi holi ymhellach ynglŷn â
beth yn union sydd wedi mynd o’i le efo creu strategaeth sydd
yn ddigon robust?
|
Sian
Gwenllian: I don’t think I used the word
‘disaster’ at all. I agree with your definition: it
could be better, and I'm just trying to find out what the problem
is. You said that there is a lack of time, and, fine, perhaps
that's something, certainly, that could be considered, in that
somebody could include enough time the next time, so that these
things could be done. But, the independent adviser spoke to us this
morning, and she saw a problem in the simple fact that two teams
have been working on this. There was a team of civil servants
working on this matter, and that team is now a different team since
the election, and she said that that was a problem in the way that
the strategy has been developed. Have you made further enquiries
into what exactly has gone wrong with creating a strategy that is
robust enough?
|
[128] Carl
Sargeant: Well, you’re making the assumption that I think
the strategy is a bad strategy or a—
|
[129] Sian
Gwenllian: No; ‘could be better’ were your
words.
|
[130] Carl
Sargeant: Yes, and I think it could.
|
[131] Sian
Gwenllian: So, if it could be better, what’s gone
wrong?
|
[132] Carl
Sargeant: The issue, as I said earlier on, is a time frame for
me. I think we need some more time to articulate the issues of
change needed within the strategy, but I’m just running out
of time. Because, in the conversations between the advisory group,
the sector and ourselves, the time frame just hasn’t lent
itself to the development of this. This is a very complex process,
and I’m sure you understand that, but a six-month period just
doesn’t help.
|
[133] With regard to
the national adviser’s position, the national adviser is
there to advise me. So, I’m a little bit taken aback. The
fact is that the national adviser, outside of the forum where she
would advise me, is telling me that she is not able to advise me,
if that’s what you’re suggesting.
|
[134] Sian
Gwenllian: No, I’m not suggesting that at all. What
I’m saying is that she told us this morning that she had
actually advised you about the strategy, but she seems to think
that that advice hasn’t been incorporated into the strategy.
The same with the victims and the organisations from the third
sector. They feel that, yes, there has been some consultation, but
their actual recommendations haven’t come through in the
strategy. You’ve got an opinion about the strategy, but the
overwhelming opinion that we’ve heard here in committee, from
a vast array of different people involved in this area, is that the
strategy is not good enough. And that is holding back the whole
process because, without a robust national strategy, you
can’t then develop the local strategies, and the whole thing
is losing momentum and we are in danger of going backwards with
what was an innovative Act that we were all proud to see when it
was passed. So, there is frustration out there, and I share that
frustration, having heard lots of evidence from lots of different
quarters, and they’re all saying the same thing.
|
[135] Carl
Sargeant: They’re a very strong sector and long may it
last, in terms of the way that they operate. They’re a very
good, solid body of people that does give me advice. But I
don’t see it in a negative way—that this is prohibitive
to making the changes that we need to do. I think the strategy is
one document that is important. I’ve been saying to you this
morning that the challenges within that document aren’t
insurmountable in terms of other opportunities that we have within
that. My personal view, with ministerial responsibility—and I
have said this to the team very clearly—is that we have to
involve people more.
|
[136] We have a
strategy. Some like it and some don’t. But I think the
process that I’ve put in place over the summer period is to
show that we have an engagement process that is robust enough to
give me the right advice for the delivery of services. So, I
don’t think there is the potential to go backwards. There are
recommendations that we have accepted. There are some that we
haven’t included. Some of those are around legal definitions
as well. I’m giving that some further consideration, but the
timeline that is around that is prohibitive for me. I suggested to
committee earlier on—and it may not crop up like Jenny
alluded to earlier; it may not happen again—that this is the
start of a new procedure and new strategy. I think that the initial
starting of this process has been troubled purely on a timeline
basis. I have to define this and I have to publish, but it
doesn’t mean that we can’t resolve some of those
problems at a later point in time, in terms of the delivery
plan.
|
[137]
John Griffiths:
Jenny.
|
[138]
Jenny Rathbone:
Can I just move this on slightly? I
appreciate that everybody’s anxious about what is actually
going to be in the plan that you’re going to publish on 4
November. I’d like to look more at the relationship between
the statutory sector and the voluntary sector. You’ve given
roughly £2 million to local authorities and £2 million
to the third sector. Is that about the balance that you expect to
see in the future in terms of specialist services, which are mainly
provided by the voluntary sector, versus statutory services, which
obviously do a wide range of services for the whole
population?
|
[139] Carl Sargeant: ‘I don’t know’ is the answer. I
don’t know the answer to that because, partly, I want to test
the system to see whether it’s right. That’s why
it’s important for me to get the advisory group looking at a
very specific piece of work. I said earlier that the conversation
has not changed, from three years ago when I was in this portfolio,
about sustainable long-term funding and services. What I’ve
said to the team and to the national adviser—and
they’ve started some work on this but the new group will
build on this—is: what do you mean by sustainable funding;
what do you mean by services; who commissions them; and how are
they commissioned? It’s a new conversation and a new approach
to service delivery. It may be that the current position and split
between the finances is right, but I don’t know. I
can’t commit to the future funding model. We’ve
got the same amount of finance, but I don’t know how that
will be split or how it should be commissioned, but I will take
advice on that. It won’t be me saying, ‘This is how it
should be’.
|
[140] Jenny
Rathbone: What’s your view of the effectiveness of the
Scottish model, which gives longer-term core funding?
|
[141] Carl
Sargeant: I’d love to be in that position—I’d
love to be. I actually agree with the sector: long-term sustainable
funding is the key. You can plan services and plan change. We
announced the budget yesterday and we’ve got the local
government settlement later on this afternoon, but it’s a
one-year funding model and we do that because we just don’t
have any long-term security around finance. But it’s less
than helpful in terms of delivering services.
|
[142]
John Griffiths:
Cabinet Secretary, could I ask you about
the commissioning guidance and when that will be published and
whether you’ll see any problems with organisations going
ahead and commissioning services in the absence of that
guidance?
|
[143]
Carl Sargeant: I don’t see the problem because the finance
will still be there. The commissioning guidance will be issued
around April of next year. When I came to this post I took a
root-and-branch review of the department and particularly this part
of the department. I’ve asked the team to give me confidence
that we’re doing the right things with the right people in
terms of this process. So, I’ve got a lot of work going on in
this field and that’s why the discussion about the Act is
important, but, actually, what we’re going to do for the
future is incredibly important. I want to make sure that
we’re planning for the future properly.
|
[144]
So, another piece of work we’re
looking to do is—we’ve got the financial model, so how
do we get long-term financial sustainability? Part of that is
commissioning services and that’s where the sector are a
little bit nervous because we commission services from them, or
commissioned services are from the sector. That’s why I want
to give a broader look in terms of whether we’re
commissioning the right services and what the services we need are,
and then how we do that. Cardiff are looking currently at a
different commissioning model that is very interesting, and
interesting to me, and it may be a model that we would like to
replicate across Wales. But, again, it’s a nice test piece,
actually, because it’s a piece of work that they’re
doing. They think it’s the right to do, but I’ve not
had sight of outcomes yet. But it is an interesting model. So,
commissioning guidance will follow and it may feature around what
Cardiff is doing, but the advisory group will, again, give me some
more detail on that.
|
[145]
They’ve got a big task, the
advisory group. I think it’s an important task that
they’ve got because they’re the professionals.
They’re the people with the knowledge in the sector about
delivery. My team, respectfully, are professionals in the work that
they do, but in terms of the actual knowledge on the ground,
it’s important that we glean that back from people, survivors
and particularly sector-led organisations.
|
[146]
John Griffiths:
Okay, thank you very much. Cabinet
Secretary, in terms of Home Office funding, I wonder if you could
tell the committee what discussions you’ve had. We’ve
heard from witnesses that there are worries about the
discontinuance of Home Office funding, for example, with regard to
the IDVAs, the independent advisers on domestic violence, and a
transformation fund is significant but, obviously, Wales needs to
be keyed in to the decision-making processes and the timelines, and
I just wonder what discussions you’ve had.
|
[147]
Carl Sargeant: My understanding is that the UK Government have
decided to stop funding that process. I haven’t had a
discussion with the UK Government yet on that, but I will be
writing to the UK Government over that. I’m sure Members
recognise in this arena that influencing the UK Government on
financial matters when they are seeking to reduce funding is one
that’s always an interesting discussion. But I will make
representation to the UK Government on this issue. We have done in
the past but the UK have decided that they are no longer seeking to
do that.
|
[148]
Rhianon Passmore:
Chair, can I ask a question on that?
[Inaudible.]—funding the domestic violence
co-ordinators and is it within the remit of this committee to write
to the UK Government to say that this is a retrograde
step?
|
[149]
John Griffiths:
We can certainly write. I don’t
know whether the Cabinet Secretary would’ve had discussions
that would make that—
|
[150]
Carl Sargeant: No, I think it’s just a financial decision made
by the UK.
|
[151]
Rhianon Passmore:
But in terms of this committee’s
mandate and in terms of the area that we are looking into, I would
like to propose that.
|
[152]
John Griffiths:
I think we can discuss that when we
discuss the evidence that we’ve received and we can take
matters forward, then, Rhianon. Joyce.
|
11:15
|
[153] Joyce
Watson: Just on this very question about Home Office funding
and direction. Are there opportunities there for Barnett
consequentials that we need to be examining and are we following
them?
|
[154] Carl
Sargeant: Well, through your evidence sessions, my team were
listening to some of the evidence given by some of the witnesses. I
was interested about the issue regarding some finances compared to
Scotland or England. We did a quick calculation in terms of our
investment into the sector, and, by far, if we run it through the
Barnett system, we invest in domestic violence services much more
than any of the other sectors in England or Scotland
proportionately. Are we seeing anything, going back to your
question, in terms of consequentials? We’re not aware of any
new money, so some of the money that’s been reinvested in
England is not new, it’s money being delivered differently.
So, there aren’t any consequentials, actually, to Wales, but
we are conscious of that. Martin.
|
[155] Mr Swain:
Just to add, I think a lot of the transformation fund UK-wise will
go via the police. So, we wouldn’t normally receive a
consequential in those circumstances—
|
[156] Joyce
Watson: Police commissioners.
|
[157] Carl
Sargeant: Yes.
|
[158] Sian
Gwenllian: But there should be a consequential.
|
[159]
Joyce Watson: But it’s going to the police.
|
[160] Sian
Gwenllian: I know—.
|
[161] Carl
Sargeant: To be fair, I’ve met with the police and crime
commissioners twice since the Government has been set and they are
all on board in terms doing some more work. We’re doing some
joint commissioning around public relations and communications and
also looking at programmes as well where we can interact, bearing
in mind they are non-devolved functions. So, we’ve got
to—it is about just the relationships that we build with the
police commissioners. To be fair, the four new commissioners are
very engaging in what they want to do.
|
[162] John
Griffiths: Cabinet Secretary, we’re going to move on to
education now, and I know Joyce has some questions. Before we do,
though, I wonder if you could provide us with a legal note in terms
of the delivery plan, the status of the delivery plan and the
legislation that allows you to do what you intend to do in terms of
the significance in the status of the delivery plan. Thank you very
much. Joyce, on education then.
|
[163] Joyce
Watson: On education, Minister—it is obviously a critical
part of taking this forward. So, I want to ask, really, where you
think you are in terms of rolling out some training, and in
particular we need to be looking at the Donaldson review and
healthy relationships.
|
[164] Carl
Sargeant: I’ve already met with Kirsty Williams, the
Cabinet Secretary for Education, to start discussing what
we’re able to do and what her intention is in terms of
curriculum. I’m in agreement with the Member in terms, I
think, of early intervention and education being critical to start
building healthy relationships. We already have some programmes in
place. I’m really keen to get consistency. I’ve asked
Kirsty Williams to keep my team informed in terms of information
around Donaldson and what the curriculum may or not look like for
the future. On a broader spectrum, not just at the early years end
of education, I’m also asking Kirsty Williams to look at some
of the colleges and HE/FE sector settings about how we can also
have discussions with students and employees about how we get this
message out as well. So, it’s about healthy relationships
from very young right the way through the system. And Kirsty
Williams has been very helpful in terms of offering opportunities
to do that.
|
[165] Joyce
Watson: There are already 120 pioneer schools and that is
great—you know, the fact that we’ve put that in. Do we
know whether they’re going to be using the new curriculum as
a good practice guide for the healthy relationships, because you
mentioned consistency?
|
[166] Carl
Sargeant: I think it’s usually—we get effective
results when we’ve got good-quality teaching and people who
understand what they’re doing. So, we’re looking to
enhance that by some education packs as well, so that we can start
to disseminate some of that further information. We’re
learning a lot from the 120 schools. I will come back to committee
when we’ve got some more detail in terms of outcomes and what
their views are. I take a step back again because the department of
communities is an integrated one, and I touched on adverse
childhood experiences before. You will have seen the announcement
around children zones, which we mentioned in the statement the
other week. We’re looking again about the intervention around
ACEs—so, ACE-approved schools, which is an interesting
concept that they’ve done in America, where they look at
individuals and how they’re challenged with ACE profiling,
and then how we intervene there. There is a significant amount of
challenge within the school setting of academic attainment
pressures caused by domestic violence. You can’t expect a
young person to have good-quality exam results when they’re
in a home that has a violent relationship going on. It just
doesn’t work. So, Kirsty Williams and I understand that;
we’re trying to make sure that we’ve got the well-being
of an individual as the priority. From there, we’ll hopefully
get better educational attainment as well.
|
[167] Joyce
Watson: If I can put pressure just a little bit further, when
we’re talking about education and school, I suppose there are
two things. The first thing is the ability of teachers or
professionals—they might be dinner ladies, or men—to
recognise behavioural change, because that’s usually the
first indicator: a child doesn’t want to go home, or they
arrive at school not looking like they did normally and that
something has changed at home. Running alongside that, as I
understand it, is the duty to report. So, what work are you doing
to prepare those responsible in delivering their responsibility for
that?
|
[168] Carl
Sargeant: Two areas. First of all, within the school setting,
that’s an important principle, and that’s what the 120
schools is about: supporting individuals to recognise and then
signpost and support young people. The other element of this is
moving on. I referred to it earlier on with regard to ‘ask
and act’. We have started to train public professionals, so
that’s within schools and within other settings, about the
ability to ask and act appropriately where people are in a setting
of domestic violence. We’re having great success with the
health service. There’s a programme called IRIS operating in
Cardiff now—actually, originated in Bristol—where GPs
are now—. It’s a common checklist process for them to
say, ‘Are you suffering from domestic violence?’
Probably more subtle than that. The disclosures have been
significant because we are asking and acting on it. The same goes
for the principles in schools as well.
|
[169] Joyce
Watson: Just one final question, Chair, because it’s
important. This is the children’s element of it. There are,
of course, lots of people engaged in the health sector with
children—just pre-school—and I’m going back to
your children zones. Health visitors go into homes. They are, in my
opinion, probably one of the best resources we’ve got for
identification. We’ve all heard it. How are you getting
around the sharing of data and the issue that very often comes up,
which is confidentiality, whereby there could be forewarnings? I
know that I’m asking questions, but we’ve got to
constantly remind ourselves that two women a week, and some
children, get killed as a result of domestic abuse.
|
[170] Carl
Sargeant: Yes. As long as you’re here, Joyce, you keep
asking those questions as well because they’re important
ones, and a constant reminder of why we should do something about
this. In terms of data sharing, the social workers or health
workers are important. They’re one part of the jigsaw.
We’ve got so many people that go over the threshold of a home
that can be involved in this programme. I met this morning,
coincidentally, with Huw Jakeway, who is the chief fire officer for
south Wales. They’re doing a fantastic job. The fire
service—and I understand, actually, that you’re going
to an event with them. He mentioned it to me this morning.
They’re also doing work over the threshold. So, they’re
not just firefighting; it’s about community safety. So, when
they go into homes making assessments of people: are they safe, are
they well in general? Is it a social services risk or is it a
domestic violence risk? So, the reporting of this is the fire
service, social workers, and anybody who crosses the threshold. And
that’s why I mentioned RSLs before. They’re also
training their direct labour organisation departments in terms of
where the workmen go out and fit a new pane of glass into 20 High
Street every Saturday morning; it’s generally not the ball
that’s going through the window, there’s something else
going on. The operational staff of the housing associations are now
also asking the question, ‘Are you safe?’ and again,
the reporting numbers are significant. So, we are pushing that
agenda out very hard, because we understand that the simple
mechanism of just asking can trigger many things.
|
[171] Rhianon
Passmore: With regard to the importance of Donaldson and the
areas of learning experience around health and well-being, and the
great responsibility that is attached to that in terms of the
preventative agenda, I really wanted to just ask, from your
perspective, what the interface is with the Cabinet Secretary for
Education and how that’s brought back, then, to the advisory
group, in terms of it being used as a key platform in terms of that
agenda moving forward.
|
[172] Carl
Sargeant: I’ve only just started the dialogue with Kirsty
Williams in terms of trying to understand where Donaldson sits
about the implementation of the Act in terms of broadening that out
through her sector. I’m fortunate enough to be the Minister
responsible for developing the childcare pledge, and Kirsty
Williams is very close to that, too, because the settings could be
school settings for some too. So, we’re very close on
understanding what we mean by quality and what we mean by service
delivery. So, the conversations are very open. Both her and myself,
and actually across the Cabinet—the conversation is not just,
‘What do we do with our finance for housing or for the fire
service?’ It’s ‘How can we double up our money,
what do we get from this, what more can we get from the investment
that we make?’ That’s why the conversation with Kirsty
isn’t just about her problem of reaching academic attainment.
We’ve had that conversation of, ‘You’ll not reach
these’. With this very hard-to-reach cohort, actually, we
need to understand the people, tackling the issues around ACEs and
support mechanisms for the home. That, hopefully, will get some
more academic attainment, and Kirsty gets that.
|
[173] That’s why
the conversations about what I do in my department have an impact
on education too. Interestingly, she’s looking at her
education funding system, so it may not just be about teaching, but
the support mechanisms that we need in classrooms for individuals
too. So, we’re looking at different pathways to support
people, so we’ve got a focus on individuals.
|
[174] It’s
nothing to do directly with this inquiry, Chair, but I
visited—and I’m sure you’ll be
interested—the youth justice board in Wrexham the other week
about a programme with the very hard-to-reach young individuals who
are reoffending on a regular basis, with very high rates of
offending. The teams looked at this very differently. They applied
a psychological profile—I don’t like the term, but
that’s what it is—and they look at the individual and
the background. They say, ‘We can’t fix the offending
bit, but we can fix the other bits’, and they did a profiling
of them on ACEs. They said, ‘At this point in time, little Mr
X had domestic violence or substance misuse in his lifetime; we
need to fix that bit.’ And they’ve done that with the
20 people up there and their reoffending rate has either stopped or
dropped off significantly. So, there’s something about early
intervention and prevention. It’s absolutely the right thing
to do and that’s what we’re going to be doing in
schools. There’s a subtle link there in terms of the DV
stuff, but it’s very prevalent.
|
[175] John
Griffiths: Could I ask you, Cabinet Secretary, about the good
practice guide, whether you know how many schools are using that
guide and what monitoring takes place in terms of its use?
|
[176] Carl
Sargeant: I don’t have the stats for that, Chair, but
I’m more than happy to write back to you with the detail of
that. I will talk to Kirsty Williams as well, in terms of
understanding that detai
|