Wednesday, July 06, 2005
The good, the bad and the inane
The joy of the weekly First Minister's question time is that we never know what mood he will be in, will he be bouncy and witty or tetchy and crabby? This week he had obviously decided that he was not going to take any nonsense, especially from Liberal Democrats. Accordingly, he picked at every one of our questions and even got personal when he felt it was necessary. Thus, he accused Kirsty Williams of asking questions in a funny way:
Kirsty Williams: The business community that I talk to is becoming increasingly baffled by the way in which your Government is bringing the WDA into Government. After the announcement of the decision we had a consultation about it, and, last week, we had the perversity of the Minister for Economic Development and Transport, whose department has allegedly been overseeing the work of the WDA, announcing a due diligence report, effectively admitting that he had done the equivalent of buying a house and deciding to carry out the survey on it a year later. In seeking to do that report now, the Minister has, effectively, conceded that he was either duped by the WDA or negligent in monitoring its work. Which do you think that he was guilty of?
The First Minister: That was a false contrast, ignoring third, fourth and fifth possibilities. It is not either one or the other, it is a third. The chief executive of the WDA decided to do his own in-house review of certain divisions of the WDA , which produced some extremely interesting data. In response to that, Andrew Davies decided to extend that review to the whole of the WDA under standard due diligence principles, not excluding the Wales Tourist Board. However, it was all started from an internal report by the chief executive of the WDA. Perhaps next time you ask me a question, you will consider the facts, as well as your funny ways of putting questions
Kirsty's questions of course are normally perfectly correct in form and structure so Rhodri could only have meant that he did not agree with her premise. If so, why didn't he say? Admittedly, my question was equally as confrontational but it certainly was not inane as Alun Cairns made clear afterwards:
Peter Black: Recently, two of your Ministers expressed a complete lack of confidence in the management of the Swansea NHS Trust, and, in doing so, presumably, also a lack of confidence in the political masters of the trust, namely the Government in which they serve. Do you share their lack of confidence in the management of the trust?
The First Minister: I know that it is the end of term, but that is a pretty daft question. Did it not occur to you that Ministers are also individual constituency Members, who occasionally have the right to take up issues of concern, as backbenchers, on issues that directly affect their constituency? I am staggered by the inanity of the preamble to your question. When Ministers make it clear that they are acting as backbench individual constituency Assembly Members, they have a right to do so. I cannot imagine what you think you are gaining by that question, other than displaying your own inanity.
Alun Cairns: I am quite astounded by the Minister’s double standards. Why did the constituency Assembly Members referred to not highlight concern at the beginning of the financial year, when the chief executive—
The Presiding Officer: Order. I ask Alun Cairns to reconsider and rephrase the words ‘double standards’ more felicitously.
Alun Cairns: I am staggered by the First Minister’s and his colleagues’ inconsistency in choosing, from time to time, to act as constituency Assembly Members, in relation to their Ministerial responsibility. Why did they not highlight their concerns at the beginning of the financial year when the chief executives of Swansea NHS Trust and Cardiff and Vale NHS Trust, among other chief executives, highlighted their worry about the need to cut services as a result of the budget squeeze that the Minister for Health and Social Services imposed upon them? Why are they now prepared to criticise when, at the time it mattered, they were not prepared to fight in the Cabinet for the interests of their constituencies?
Still at least the Education and Lifelong Learning Minister had nice things to say about me:
The Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning (Jane Davidson): In the interests of clarity, I need to confirm that Peter Black is entirely accurate in his understanding of the review.
Should I be worried?
Kirsty Williams: The business community that I talk to is becoming increasingly baffled by the way in which your Government is bringing the WDA into Government. After the announcement of the decision we had a consultation about it, and, last week, we had the perversity of the Minister for Economic Development and Transport, whose department has allegedly been overseeing the work of the WDA, announcing a due diligence report, effectively admitting that he had done the equivalent of buying a house and deciding to carry out the survey on it a year later. In seeking to do that report now, the Minister has, effectively, conceded that he was either duped by the WDA or negligent in monitoring its work. Which do you think that he was guilty of?
The First Minister: That was a false contrast, ignoring third, fourth and fifth possibilities. It is not either one or the other, it is a third. The chief executive of the WDA decided to do his own in-house review of certain divisions of the WDA , which produced some extremely interesting data. In response to that, Andrew Davies decided to extend that review to the whole of the WDA under standard due diligence principles, not excluding the Wales Tourist Board. However, it was all started from an internal report by the chief executive of the WDA. Perhaps next time you ask me a question, you will consider the facts, as well as your funny ways of putting questions
Kirsty's questions of course are normally perfectly correct in form and structure so Rhodri could only have meant that he did not agree with her premise. If so, why didn't he say? Admittedly, my question was equally as confrontational but it certainly was not inane as Alun Cairns made clear afterwards:
Peter Black: Recently, two of your Ministers expressed a complete lack of confidence in the management of the Swansea NHS Trust, and, in doing so, presumably, also a lack of confidence in the political masters of the trust, namely the Government in which they serve. Do you share their lack of confidence in the management of the trust?
The First Minister: I know that it is the end of term, but that is a pretty daft question. Did it not occur to you that Ministers are also individual constituency Members, who occasionally have the right to take up issues of concern, as backbenchers, on issues that directly affect their constituency? I am staggered by the inanity of the preamble to your question. When Ministers make it clear that they are acting as backbench individual constituency Assembly Members, they have a right to do so. I cannot imagine what you think you are gaining by that question, other than displaying your own inanity.
Alun Cairns: I am quite astounded by the Minister’s double standards. Why did the constituency Assembly Members referred to not highlight concern at the beginning of the financial year, when the chief executive—
The Presiding Officer: Order. I ask Alun Cairns to reconsider and rephrase the words ‘double standards’ more felicitously.
Alun Cairns: I am staggered by the First Minister’s and his colleagues’ inconsistency in choosing, from time to time, to act as constituency Assembly Members, in relation to their Ministerial responsibility. Why did they not highlight their concerns at the beginning of the financial year when the chief executives of Swansea NHS Trust and Cardiff and Vale NHS Trust, among other chief executives, highlighted their worry about the need to cut services as a result of the budget squeeze that the Minister for Health and Social Services imposed upon them? Why are they now prepared to criticise when, at the time it mattered, they were not prepared to fight in the Cabinet for the interests of their constituencies?
Still at least the Education and Lifelong Learning Minister had nice things to say about me:
The Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning (Jane Davidson): In the interests of clarity, I need to confirm that Peter Black is entirely accurate in his understanding of the review.
Should I be worried?
