Who rules the roost?
Posted on Friday, December 5, 2008 at 2:44pm
3 responses
Asylum Seekers
Q7 Bethan Jenkins: Will the Minister make a statement on Welsh Assembly Government support offered to asylum seekers in Wales?
Brian Gibbons: As you know, asylum issues are not devolved. However, the Assembly Government works in partnership with the Home Office to take forward the successful inclusion of refugee and asylum seekers in Wales. The Assembly Government provides significant support to asylum seekers to access devolved services, such as health, housing, education and social services.
Bethan Jenkins: I am sure that you will join me in congratulating organisations such as Asylum Justice and the Welsh Refugee Council on the work that they do in Wales. Therefore, do you, along with your colleague Diane Abbott MP, condemn the recent comments of Phil Woolas MP that those who are working on behalf of asylum seekers are undermining the law and playing the system? Do you think that those comments are unacceptable?
The Presiding Officer:Order. The Minister has wide responsibilities, but I do not think that they include Mr Phil Woolas.
Brian Gibbons: No, certainly not, and that is what I was going to say. We have a very productive relationship and we provide many kinds of support, including financial support, to the Wales Refugee Council, Supporting Others through Voluntary Action, Displaced People in Action and many other organisations involved with refugees and asylum seekers in Wales. Generally, we have a positive and constructive relationship with them, of which we are proud.
…………..It seems that Welsh Labour can’t have an opinion on what their colleagues in Westminster say, but when the MPs want to tread on the feet of their AM colleagues, this is deemed acceptable- take Peter Hain last night on Dragon’s Eye for instance. He seems to think that the One Wales agreement to hold a referendum is an aspiration, not a commitment. Will Labour AMs stand up to correct him or will they let London tell them what to do?
……………………………………………………………………………………….
Ceiswyr Lloches
C7 Bethan Jenkins: A wnaiff y Gweinidog ddatganiad am y gefnogaeth a gynigir gan Lywodraeth Cynulliad Cymru i geiswyr lloches yng Nghymru? OAQ(3)0529(SJL)
Brian Gibbons: Fel y gwyddoch nid yw materion sy’n ymwneud â lloches wedi’u datganoli. Fodd bynnag, mae Llywodraeth y Cynulliad yn gweithio mewn partneriaeth gyda’r Swyddfa Gartref i sicrhau bod ffoaduriaid a cheiswyr lloches yn cael eu cynnwys yn llwyddiannus yng Nghymru. Mae Llywodraeth y Cynulliad yn darparu cefnogaeth sylweddol i geiswyr lloches i gael gafael ar wasanaethau datganoledig, megis iechyd, tai, addysg a gwasanaethau cymdeithasol.
Bethan Jenkins: Yr wyf yn siŵr y byddwch yn ymuno â mi i longyfarch mudiadau megis Asylum Justice a Chyngor Ffoaduriaid Cymru ar y gwaith a wnânt yng Nghymru. Felly, a ydych, ynghyd â’ch cyd-Aelod, Diane Abbott AS, yn condemnio sylwadau diweddar Phil Woolas AS bod y rheini sy’n gweithio ar ran ceiswyr lloches yn tanseilio’r gyfraith ac yn chwarae’r system? A ydych yn meddwl bod y sylwadau hynny’n annerbyniol?
Y Llywydd: Trefn. Mae gan y Gweinidog gyfrifoldebau eang, ond nid wyf yn meddwl eu bod yn cynnwys Mr Phil Woolas.
Brian Gibbons: Nac ydynt yn bendant, a dyna’r oeddwn ar fin ei ddweud. Mae gennym berthynas gynhyrchiol iawn ac yr ydym yn darparu sawl math o gefnogaeth, gan gynnwys cefnogaeth ariannol, i Gyngor Ffoaduriaid Cymru, Cefnogi Eraill drwy Weithredu Gwirfoddol, Alltudion ar Waith a nifer o fudiadau eraill sy’n ymwneud â ffoaduriaid a cheiswyr lloches yng Nghymru. Yn gyffredinol, mae gennym berthynas gadarnhaol ac adeiladol gyda hwy ac yr ydym yn falch o’r berthynas honno.
………..…………..Mae’n ymddangos fel nad yw Llafur yng Nghymru yn medru cael barn ar yr hyn mae eu cyfoedion yn San Steffan yn gwneud, on mae croeso mawr i’r ASau ymyrryd yng ngwaith yr ACau- mae’r hyn a ddywedodd Peter Hain ar Dragon’s Eye yn enghraifft clir o hynny. Mae e’n meddwl bod y darn yng Nghymru’n un sy’n son am refferendwm yn cyfeirio at y ffaith ei fod yn ddyheuad i gael refferendwm, ac nad yw’n gytundeb. A fydd ACau Llafur yn barod i gywiro Peter hain, neu a fydden nhw’n caniatau i Llafur Llundain dweud wrthynt beth i wneud?
3 Responses to “Who rules the roost?” [latest first]
Man Trafod - Rhowch sylwad yma
Discussion Area - Submit a comment
Bydd eich ateb yn cael ei gymedroli, ac ni fydd yn ymaddangos yn syth. Medrwch baratoi eich testun mewn prosesydd geiriau cyn ei roi yn y bocs, ond ni fydd elfennau megis trwmder tecst a lliw yn ymddangos.
Your reply will be moderated and not appear immediately. You can prepare your text in a word processor before pasting it into the box, but formatting such as bold and colour will not appear.
My understanding is that the ratified One Wales agreement says this
“both parties will then take account of the success of the bedding down of the use of the new legislative powers (which came in after last May’s election) already available and, by monitoring the state of public opinion, will need to assess the levels of support for full law-making powers necessary to trigger the referendum”.
There is a conditionality and additional qualifications that lend itself to it being called an aspiration. I wouldn’t have used that word myself, but you are either not reading the same One Wales agreement I am, or just trying to score points. 2011 means nothing in many respects, because it is an artificial timetable if there is not clear support for a ‘yes’ vote.
So there is a two simple questions to answer;
If there is not sufficient support for a ‘yes’ vote, would you demand a referendum before 2011 anyway?
Where in One Wales does it say that a referendum has to be held before 2011? – the aspiration is in the fact that sufficient support needs to be there to proceed.
Your leader is a man with legal training, anyone with a modicum of legal insight can spot the loophole in that wording a mile off – it is exactly why the leadership in Plaid is keeping schtum.
well every opinion poll conducted in the last 10 years - and i mean EVERY opinion poll - has shown a majority of the welsh electorate support the National Assembly having greater powers than it currently has. If that is not a measure of the support for a ‘YES’ vote then i’d like to know what is?
This demonisation of Phil Woolas is just fatuous nonsense. Trying to portray him as ‘nasty’ when he is just dealing with pragmatic reality, and trying to stop the moral hazard of creating another ‘pull factor’ to suck in more immigrants who don’t have a right to be here is just helping to manage their expectations.
The alternative is that they risk life and limb by paying snakeheads and people traffickers to get them here when they won’t be allowed to stay.