Seven points, one Plan C

Leanne Wood recently launched Plaid Cymru's
alternative - but familiar sounding - plan for the Welsh economy.
(Pic : ITV Wales)

During their 2012 autumn conference, Plaid Cymru discussed plans for procurement reform, coinciding with the release of a major review. The party dubbed it "Plan C", but there was nothing concrete put on the table.

Earlier this week, Plaid launched a full Plan C document (pdf) outlining their vision in a bit more detail. It's a seven-point plan, containing measures they believe would improve the Welsh economy.

The current economic picture could be said to be mixed. Unemployment's falling, but economic growth overall appears stagnant. Also, the expansion of things like apprenticeships will have made a positive impact there, but that's likely to be short to medium-term, not long-term - especially if all these new apprentices have no full-time jobs waiting for them at the end of training.

What are Plaid proposing?

1. Full implementation of the Silk Commission's (Part I) recommendations. You probably know what I think about those recommendations. Plaid want to grow the tax base "further and faster" by promoting good economic policies and placing more people in "higher paid work". So they want generate greater tax receipts in the medium to long term, without the need to raise taxes themselves. I think that translates as "closing Offa's Gap".

2. A "buy local" campaign and procurement legislation. This was all "Plan C" consisted of last year, with the aim of creating 46,000 jobs though improving the amount of procurement contracts awarded to Welsh companies. Currently, Welsh companies are awarded with 52% of procurement, Plaid want to aim for 75% (within EU rules) through a mix of measures including improving procurement skills in the Welsh public sector and placing public interest clauses into procurement contracts. If the desired job creation numbers materialised, it could cut Welsh unemployment by a third.

3. "The Bank of Wales" and Business Rate Relief. I've covered this in detail before - and the Welsh Conservative's own plans there. The aim is to get more funds to small and medium businesses (SMEs) by establishing a regional bank run along the model of the German Landesbanken. They want to extend business rate relief to businesses with a ratable value of up to £15,000. They also want to split the business rate multiplier – with higher multipliers for large, out-of-town stores and reduced ones for town centre stores - to boost the "traditional high street."

4. A "Green New Deal". Some of this covers measures outlined in The Greenprint, others are perhaps new. The focus is on improved energy efficiency and expanding renewable energy. There's no specific mention of what renewable sector in particular, more a "mix" - which is sensible. That's similar to what I said recently about developing new green technologies ourselves so we can steal a march internationally.

5. Improved infrastructure and special investment models. "Build4Wales" makes a return – an arms-length not-for-profit company that would borrow capital "off the books" for the public benefit. Plaid also supports the creation of a "Valleys Metro" and improved broadband.

6. Expanding apprenticeships and tackling under-employment. There's particular concerns about youth unemployment – the highest of the Home Nations at 23.6%. Under-employment was recently pointed out as a concern by Alun Ffred Jones AM (Plaid, Arfon) and issues surrounding research council funds by Hywel Williams MP. We're not going to get anywhere with low-paid, low-value work. Plaid would also like to set up a National Science Academy to "spur invention and innovation." There were also proposals for improved child care as one way to encourage more women back into the workplace, as they're another group hit hard by the recession and the UK Government response to it.

7. Promotion of co-operative and mutual enterprise. The Collective Entrepreneur makes an appearance. They would like to see key public services provided along this model – water already is. We also already knew Plaid support the railways switching to a not-for-dividend company when the franchise is up for renewal in 2018. Expanding and upscaling the credit union network in Wales is another proposal here and one I broadly agree with.

Plan C...een it before?

This isn't a criticism, really. Plan C, in the main, is all of Plaid's recent announcements on the economy neatly packaged into a single, easily understandable document. There's nothing we haven't already heard about, but I say that as someone who follows things like this more closely than most people.

I wish Plaid put a paper like this out when they first announced Plan C, as I think it would've made a bigger impact. At the time I said Plaid were "ahead of the curve", but it looks like the Welsh Government have finally caught up.

The Welsh Government announced their own proposals for a special investment vehicle (like Build4Wales) to fund A465 duelling, and they'll look at procurement opportunities to boost the economy too. Plaid also got an expansion of apprenticeships as part of this year's budget deal. So parts of Plan C are already becoming a reality.

I think Plan C's great strength is its simplicity. Barring those areas reliant on further devolution of powers, they're measures that are practical, largely common sense, realistic and can be done now – not always characteristics you would've associated with Plaid.

As you might expect, I'll have to pick out problems. Firstly, point 6. Plan C is good at pointing out issues with regard under-employment, and providing commentary on issues affecting the young and women, but short of ideas compared to other parts of the report. This area's probably the report's only significant weakness.

Secondly, the issue of co-operatives. I'm a convert, and as Adam Price recently said, "We're all mutualists now." The trouble is – and Plan C points this out, to be fair – is co-ops still lack credibility as a mainstream business model. Despite all this support, the Welsh co-operative sector's still only worth around £1billion a year.

We're light years behind the Basques on this, and we desperately need another big Welsh service/company to go the Glas Cymru route. It should've been Peacocks or could be one of the housing associations. It'll probably end up being the railways, but I wouldn't get our hopes up.

I suspect Westminster will stick their noses into it because of the complicated way powers over railways are arranged in Wales. Or, they might try to prevent any new not-for-dividend company taking it over by citing competition/tendering rules, meaning commercial companies would end up having the right to bid too. If a commercial "value for money" bid lost out to a Welsh not-for-dividend, it'll likely end up in the courts.

But yeah overall, Leanne still means business.

Assembly prefects request bigger stick to thrash AMs

Harsher punishments for AMs who "misbehave" are on the cards.
I'll probably be ridiculed, but is all this "hairshirting" going too far?
(Pic : writinglives.org)

The Assembly's Standards Committee published its second report in as many weeks, this time into punishing AMs when they - to use the politically correct term - "bring the Assembly into disrepute" (pdf).

There was only one recommendation – that the Assembly's Standing Orders be modified to include harsher sanctions against AMs who misbehave.

Why have they decided to review it?

This was part of a wider investigation into standards procedures this Assembly term, so not prompted by anything in particular.

Currently, when complaints are made against an AM, the Standards Commissioner – Gerard Elias QC - decides if there's been a breach of the AMs Code of Conduct or Assembly's Standing Orders (pdf - as of May 2013), and refers it to the Standards Committee to make a decision :

• That there's been a breach, but no further action is required.
• That the AM in question should be "censured" by the Assembly.
• That the breach is serious enough to warrant exclusion from Assembly proceedings.

A "breach" refers to whatever the AM has done wrong; things like failing to properly declare expenses, society memberships and interests - and yes, various "incidents". A "censure" is a formal reprimand issued by the Assembly itself.

The Standards Committee drew up a new list of sanctions they thought would be reasonable, and put that out to consultation to AMs, subsequently noting there was "unanimous support" for them.

What are the new sanctions?

The Committee and Commissioner looked at other devolved legislatures' standards procedures to see if revised sanctions were needed. If approved, the Standards Committee will now have several options when a breach has been found, as well as the power to combine them:

• Take no further action, as before.
• "Censure" the AM in accordance with Standing Orders.
• Exclude the AM from Assembly proceedings for a set time without pay.
• Withdrawal of "rights and privileges", like :
  • Denying access to Assembly estates and services.
  • Exclusion from events to which an AM would usually have the right to attend.
  • Removal of representational or ceremonial privileges.

As for permanent exclusion, the Assembly doesn't have that power. So AMs can't be "sacked". Parties can suspend AMs, but the AM in question would still have the right to sit as an Independent for the remainder of their term of office.

How would these new sanctions work in practice?

Sanctions would be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, taking into account all of the circumstances – including whether it was an intentional breach or not. The Standards Committee would have "discretion" when deciding how to apply the rules. So sanctions "may" be applied, not "must".

Repeat offences would, as the report says, "lead to more serious consequences". However, different approaches are needed between a single serious breach and lots of minor breaches that might "show contempt of the Assembly and its rules".

AMs are generally expected to apologise for any mistakes, but there's acknowledgement that it might not always be appropriate – for example, refusing to apologise after making a contentious political statement.

One big change though is that "exclusion" – which has never been used AFAIK – could be applied to a wider range of breaches. The Labour Group in the Assembly proposed it should be a maximum of six months. Instead, the length of any exclusion will be included in censure motions put to the Assembly, seemingly without any set limit.

Turkeys voting for Christmas?

These changes will whiz through the Senedd. Of course there was "unanimous approval". AMs aren't going to oppose something in order to give themselves an easy ride, are they? They know how that would look.

I'll say it instead then - these new sanctions might be too harsh. I guess I'll need to explain my reasoning as you pick your jaws up from the floor.

On the whole, AMs are relatively well-behaved. There've been four serious high-profile sanctions against three AMs in the last few years. I'm not here to stick the boot into anyone, you can figure out who's who yourselves.

One complaint, in my opinion, shouldn't have gone to the Standards Committee. That particular AM set out with good intentions – in fact they had a good idea they wanted to roll out. It seems they had implicit Assembly Commission approval, but got accidentally tangled in the Assembly's rules. They were perhaps let down by the Commission, and should never have been allowed to take on something as ambitious as that - on their own - in the first place.

The other three breaches were what I would consider personal, not professional, misconduct. Two were serious and inexcusable whichever way you look at them. The other was embarrassing for the AM involved and a bit of a non-story.

So only one complaint related to what you could consider "professional misconduct" – and that was spurious, perhaps driven by a single newspaper headline. The others were to do with incidents in their private lives.

Professional misconduct should be the boundary of the Standards Committee's remit. By that I mean anything directly related to their job as an AM or the Assembly's own rules. However, the current Code of Conduct blurs private with public with regard personal conduct.

With expanded sanctions, we could end up seeing harsher penalties for personal transgressions - which would usually have passed with no action or just a censure. That might goad the media, party hacks or individuals into dragging up any sort of "dirt" to lay "one of them" low.

Instead of questioning their actual job performance, I fear we're going to end up with more of this:

"AM destroys child's sand castle with clodhoppers whilst on 'holiday' - Standards Committee suspends them for 3 months without pay.

• Elderly witness dropped ice cream 'in disgust'.
• Anonymous source : 'They were trampling on their little flag, laughing. They're out of touch, aren't they?'
• Child provided with counselling, said to be 'traumatised'.

Editorial : Should AMs look where they're going on taxpayers' money?"
                                                  
Rob15 - Shoud b SACKED    -27

ContLlwfr - NATS, WELSH, WAG    -15

We expect high standards of behaviour from elected officials, but as far as I'm concerned, private lives are out of bounds. Unless they break the law, I don't give a toss how much AMs drink, who they sleep with, what they watch on the telly, what they said on Facebook umpteen years ago or who they punch.

Like all this nonsense about the Green Party member posting poor taste "Good Advice Duck" memes. That's soap opera, not politics. It's at the very least a smear or gossip, and at worst bullying and harassment.

We're in danger of putting politicians on a pedestal, making it look like they're immaculate angels descended from on high, who can't be hurt and are born to do no wrong. All they are in reality is one of us with letters after their name. They're no better than us, a few of them are going to be bad eggs, but so what if they do their jobs properly?

I don't think anything they do on a personal level reflects on the Assembly. A misbehaving doctor or solicitor doesn't reflect badly on the whole NHS or legal profession, does it?

Breaches of "personal conduct" should be treated similarly, and given the same levels of attention, as an ordinary member of the public. Further sanctions for those breaches from their employer - especially if they've already been dealt with outside the Assembly - seem like punishing someone twice for the same crime. Nobody deserves that, and unless the breach is very serious - prison term serious - it's cruel too.

Similarly, nobody deserves to have a mistake they've made dragged up at any and every opportunity after they've been punished or shown remorse. I think we would be riled if that happened to us, wouldn't we? Well, I know this is an alien concept, but "that lot down Cardiff Bay" are people too.

I'd also be annoyed if an AM I elect has their job interfered with, or are suspended, for something they did on a day off, as opposed to corruption or professional dishonesty. In fact, under those circumstances I'd expect them to work harder.

I think that's called "restorative justice". If any AMs believe that's suitable for us, they should practice it on each other too, not wave around a bigger stick or try to fix something that wasn't really broken in the first place.

Wales : The green and grey desert

What are we trying to do to Wales
through "sustainable development?"
(Pic : btaoregon.org)

Following on from my look at census demographics, and three excellent Click on Wales articles, it's worth considering the future of the Welsh economy and fitting that around sustainable development.

Former Plaid MP and AM, Cynog Dafis, wrote about squaring sustainable development with economic development. Cardiff University economics professor Calvin Jones addressed economic growth itself, mooting a "steady state" economy for Wales. Subsequently, Dr Kelvin Mason added to the debate, focusing on sustainable development activism.

No country for young men and women

It's an uncomfortable fact, but the Welsh (or people living in Wales) are amongst the most pig-headed, small-c conservative, cantankerous people in Europe. We generally oppose things for the sake of opposing them because we're used to someone else – historically the British state apparatus – taking whatever they want. In response, we try to "protect what's ours" by keeping things exactly how they are; pristine, green, damp and largely dead.

In many respects, anti-Welsh/anti-Welsh language comments are the same thing with different criteria. There's something in the Welsh psyche about wanting to be the Llywelyn statue in Cardiff City Hall – a raised fist against "something", just not knowing precisely what, and not really knowing why.

Nothing that threatens, as Cynog puts it – the "priceless and unsullied landscape....preserved from development and radical change" - is allowed. Nothing to ruin views from expensive ex-farmhouses. Nothing to make a country seem "alive". So it seems nothing always wins, and a few people get to raise their fists in defiance to make it so.

What remains is a massive folk museum. A slowly fossilising nation that exists like a pensioner sitting in a chair waiting for the Grim Reaper. It's not a country for the young, but – as the census statistics show – we're going to need them.

The only way to keep them is having a functioning economy, coupled with a high standard of living for young families. The former doesn't matter to the retired, their toiling days over and they understandably don't want any excitement. That excitement being anything from wind farms, a new bypass, houses or constitutional change. True, it isn't just the retired either, that's just a stereotype. It's also true that economic prosperity shouldn't be the only measure of well-being.

Sometimes those worries are justified. Open-cast mines are nothing but giant holes that make the land unusable for decades. You can still do things around wind farms, the footprint of which consists largely of the turbine bases themselves.

Nuclear energy has side issues - like waste and decommissioning - that makes it nothing but an expensive, panicked stop gap due to poor long-term energy planning. Nuclear's proven technology, but I'd take biomass or tidal as sloppy seconds every time.

The jury's out on fracking. Based on providing communities with a steady supply of gas over several decades, it might qualify as "sustainable". If it's burnt as quickly as possible in the National Grid to make quick profits (based on Welsh experience, that's what'll happen) then it most certainly doesn't qualify.

Is there room for compromise between "sustainability" and economic development? Is that even desirable? As Prof. Jones points out, should we rethink "growth" itself?

Economy or Ecology?

"Sustainable development" generally means balancing what's taken out – like natural resources - with what's put back (i.e. greenhouse gas reductions) enabling it to be managed at that level indefinitely.

Call me cynical, but "sustainable" has become a meaningless slogan to smooth through unpopular policies. Search any Senedd debate and see how many times "sustainable/sustainability" pops up – regardless of relevance. As a word, it's been raped.

Nothing quite representes the battle between sustainability, conservation of the landscape and economic development in Wales quite like wind farms.

As Cynog Dafis says, the fact we can generate clean energy directly from wind, sun or tides is a miracle of modern technology – even if we've used wind and watermills routinely before.

You can see two wind farms from prominent north-facing hills in Bridgend on a clear day – Heol y Cyw and I think the other's Fforch Nest. They neither add or take anything away from the landscape as most of the time they're shrouded in low cloud. That's different if you're right next to them, of course.

As for noise and health, pylons carrying electricity from Aberthaw can be pretty noisy, and it's unclear if they have a health impact. There's one less than 200m from me while it's practically in the back garden of someone living on the local estate.

I accept it because it keeps the lights on, just as wind turbines play their small part in doing so too. Likewise, agriculture is probably the single most damaging activity humanity's done to the environment, but we accept that because it keeps bellies full and fields full of animals and crops. So, as you might expect, I don't see the point of keeping otherwise unproductive upland moors as they are for the sake of it.

Using the wind farm example, if they're manufactured, replaced and maintained by Welsh companies, and if the energy generated is supplied by Welsh companies or co-owned by local communities, that means jobs and economic benefits for Wales with minimal impact on the ecosystem - "sustainable development".

Lights on, factories working, jobs, money, "engineering graduates required", clean energy, community ownership. No massive holes in the ground. No grey blocks built next to the sea full of burning coal or submerged uranium.

However, as wind farms spring up, the "Welsh/community economic element" is missing – perhaps because no Welsh companies took advantage in the first place because they knew what the reaction would be from the locals.

Environmental protection should be a top consideration for sustainable development, but if you don't match that with economic sustainability too – that means rural and urban Wales paying its way - it doesn't work. It's too one-sided. All you would be left with is the equivalent of a garden full of weeds and rocks. It'll be overgrown with life, but slowly choked off and dying as a result.

Not everybody's happy with change, as opposing it keeps the noise and excitement – subsequently the youthful vitality - well away. I don't know what point it proves, other than leaving Wales an unkempt future graveyard.

I don't fancy living in a graveyard. Look at "brain drain" figures and many others my age have forsaken the vaunted "peace" and "tranquillity" and decided they don't fancy it either.

Post-Growth Problems : The "War on Stuff"

A world without growth is likely to be a world
with less "stuff". Try telling them that.
(Pic : Lunson Mitchenall)

An issue with economic growth is that economists and politicians expect growth to continue forever. They're ill-prepared for disasters like the 1930s, 70s oil shock or 2008.

Economic growth – by and large – is a mirage anyway. London's the wealthiest part of the UK thanks in main to global financial institutions, but that means diddly squat to those living in poverty around Canary Wharf. Ditto areas of rural Wales with sustained below average levels of economic inactivity - thanks in main to the public sector - but low productivity.

It's an economic pulse. It's a good indication of whether an economy's thriving or not, but you can't use it alone to tell if it's well overall.

A lot's been said about Wales benefiting from the green economy because we have the natural assets to take advantage of it. Prof. Jones makes a strong case that these developments aren't enough to meet either "sustainability" or economic growth.

I don't think his argument was Luddite or Malthusian, in fact it made sense. We don't have an ecosystem in isolation. Technology can meet our national targets, but pointless if our half-dozen fossil fuel plants get supplanted by thirty coal-fired power stations elsewhere in the world.

Technology can help, but only if we're smart about it. That could be to develop and export it – proving schemes like the Swansea Bay lagoon work - and show emerging economies currently reliant on fossil fuels that there are viable alternatives. That has to be coupled with global moves to stabilise the population, as well as local actions like energy conservation and changes to how and why we buy and use things.

The chase for "endless growth" is no doubt causing global unsustainability. However, thinking like that makes economics seem a mystical force, not an artificial human construct. Throughout history, when something doesn't work to our benefit, we change how it works – that applies to economics as much as energy generation and manufacturing.

We've seen moves towards practical steps in Wales, like Leanne Wood's Greenprint for the Valleys and The Collective Entrepreneur. But those approaches are still – largely – based on growth, just redefined and repackaged.

With regard "post growth economics" - as mooted by Prof. Jones and others - several problems arise.

Firstly, it's a generational "War on Stuff", and the Welsh like "stuff" as much as anyone else. I loath consumerism, I can't emphasise that enough, but it's hard to picture returning to "the simple days of old" that those acting as Wales' curators are perhaps keen to cling to.

It's twee to believe Welsh people - amongst all others - are going to give up their "stuff" so we can dance through the forest like The Smurfs and live in ecovillages. We'll need to be told to, maybe forced to once exhausted supplies of "stuff" can't meet demand. All that has unfortunate implications.

Next, the elephant in the room – global population growth.

Europe's population is stabilising and ageing, which has problems in itself. It's under-developed nations who'll get shafted (or not as the case may be). That's where population growth – and demand for food, energy and resources - is driven from. The poorest have large families because children die of preventable diseases, and bring in an income via more heads working for very little.

Also, they're not to blame for global unsustainability, but they'll have to be told to have fewer children so we in the developed world can feel more smug about saving them from themselves. Those emerging economies who've spent a century catching up to us will have to take our calls for them to stop with a straight face too.

Then there's the problem of innovation. It's not that a "post growth" economy wouldn't innovate, it's that any viable innovation – no matter how small - will result in some sort of growth.

What would a steady state economy look like? Would growth in one economic sector have to be offset by an engineered decline elsewhere to maintain artificial equilibrium? Hasn't Wales been living through a version of "steady state economics" since the 1980s? Look where it's got us.

I like the idea of rethinking why we work, and the concept of "useful work" – so much so I might come back to it another time. But people doing "useful work" will still want to get paid and buy "stuff" unless they've undergone a mass re-education.

Useful work will be assigned a value. That could be done via a virtual, inflation-proof or negative interest currency, the value of "useful work" based on factors including effort, resources used and (mental & physical) sacrifice. Your nurse could be paid more than a footballer, and your politician can be paid less than a binman.

It works in Star Trek because they have infinite resources via molecular resequencing - the ultimate version of recycling - and infinite energy sources unknown to modern science. "Money" and "wealth" are useless concepts in an economy like that.

Except, we still have finite resources, and scarcity generates "worth" in itself. The only workable, but massively imperfect way of managing that in human history is the market. So far from throwing in the towel on growth, we should probably ensure sustainable products and concepts become cheap, desirable and marketable.

For example, housing. I'd prefer to see low-carbon, modular homes made out of fast-regenerating materials like timber (and "smart materials"), built along walkable grid pattern streets, close to public transport hubs, replace sprawling estates of brick and mortar cul-de-sacs. Keep the individualist concept of "what is mine", but change how that looks and works.

Those advocating stable state economics need to be careful they don't end up on the same side, philosophically speaking, as those opposed to development for the sake of opposition or to "preserve something" - a country photographed for the front of chocolate boxes. A country stuck in a glass bottle, full of tiny waxworks for people to gawp at. A nice country to die in.

We couldn't be bothered to maintain it properly as it was "too hard work". We'd rather sit and stare at it through the window, maybe getting someone in to trim things back every now and again. In the end, Wales ends up a weed-ridden garden.

We'll think the neighbours will sit back and admire that too, and our commitment to letting nature reclaim its own, but instead it's practically an invitation to chuck whatever rubbish they have over the fence.

Further & Higher Education Bill introduced

"Uh...huhuhuhuh....You said 'laid'."

Alright, I'm a little late coming to this but that's how the blog works.

The latest piece of legislation laid in front of the Assembly is another one of those technical laws dealing with administration and governance. You know, the sort of law that makes you glad you're not a politician or working for one of them.

Introduced by Education Minister Leighton Andrews (Lab, Rhondda) last Monday, the Further and Higher Education (Governance and Information) Bill will address issues surrounding finance and governance of Welsh further education colleges, as well as some student finance matters.

The draft Bill itself is available here, and the explanatory memorandum here.

What the Bill aims to address

The Bill intends to "enhance the autonomy and decision-making abilities of Further Education Institutions" by reducing the number of central controls held by the Welsh Government, as well as allow data regarding student grants/loans held by HMRC to be shared with Welsh Government Ministers (or bodies working on their behalf like the Student Loans Company).

Large chunks of the Bill are modifications to existing UK legislation including :

• Further & Higher Education Act 1992
• Teaching & Higher Education Act 1998
• Learning & Skills Act 2000
• Education Act 2002
• Learning and Skills Measure 2009

Regulations governing Further Education Institutions (FE Colleges) and Further Education Corporations

Here, the draft Bill intends to:

• Give colleges the power to modify/replace their own governance arrangements, subject to minimum requirements outlined by Welsh Ministers. It'll include setting out the roles of key members of staff and the inclusion of student and staff governors on governing bodies.
• Give further education corporations the power to dissolve themselves or merge with another body – including the transfer of assets, liabilities, property etc. This would be subject to published proposals and statutory consultations, the requirements of which are outlined in the Bill.
• Give colleges the power to borrow, as well as develop alternative subsidiary running arrangements – i.e limited company, charitable status – without requiring a Welsh Government rubber stamp.
• Give colleges more freedom when planning 14-18 "local curricula". They'll only have to follow "guidance" issued by Welsh Ministers from time to time.
• Remove powers from the Welsh Ministers to :

• Appoint members to college governing bodies
• Amend/replace college governance arrangements
• Regulate higher education (degree-level) courses provided by further education colleges

• However, it will allow Welsh Ministers to intervene and forcefully dissolve a college corporate body if they are being "mismanaged" or "failing", as stipulated in the Further & Higher Education Act 1992.

Supply of data regarding student loans and grants

Here, it replaces "the state" with "Welsh Ministers" (in the Teaching & Higher Education Act 1998) as a body HMRC will be obligated to provide information to with regard student loans and grants.

Student finance and support is a devolved matter, but HMRC are not currently legally obliged to provide information to Welsh Ministers. The change in the Bill means Welsh Ministers (or those bodies/people "working on behalf of the Welsh Ministers") will be included.

It'll mean the Welsh Government (or its associated bodies) will be able to see information on household incomes (important in means testing for student finance) without applicants going through the trouble of providing that evidence themselves.

Cost and Benefits

The "regulatory" aspects – expanding FE college governance powers etc. - will have no costs at all, except those relating to introducing the legislation itself presumably.

One option on the table was to create a "funding council" for FE colleges similar to HEFCW, which would've cost ~£1.8million per year. Obviously the Bill – if it becomes law as it is – will simply give FE colleges more powers themselves in that area instead.

On the student finance side, the Welsh Government could have established a "manual" way of processing household incomes for means testing. The Student Loan Company will have had to employ more staff and would've spent more on correspondence - in total running towards £87,000 per year.

Instead, the Bill's provisions mean that the Student Loan Company will use similar processes used in England. That'll only cost around £30,000 per year, because household income checks will be done automatically without applicants needing to send the info themselves.

Overall impressions

On the surface, this looks pretty uncontroversial legislation, merely tweaking existing arrangements. It's for more eagle-eyed AMs and the committees to decide if that's the case.

I would be concerned that relaxed rules could lead to FE colleges taking more risks than they perhaps should on the financial side of things, or over-stretching in terms of possible mergers. On the whole though, I think it's fairly reasonable.

I'm in favour of FE colleges becoming the sole provider of post-16 education in the long-term – coupled with significant changes to 16-18 qualifications. That's because they'd provide a university-style/adult experience without the expense of going to university itself, as well as a wider range of courses for students because they have the facilities to provide them.

One of the intriguing provisions is a relaxing of regulations on higher education qualification in FE colleges. That could – in theory - result in more degree-level courses, or even degrees themselves, being provided by local colleges (in partnership with universities). That already happens to a certain extent, but it could improve higher education access in parts of Wales that don't have universities "nearby", but do have big FE colleges – Bridgend, Merthyr, Pembrokeshire and Blaenau Gwent for example.

I was initially worried about the student loan data-sharing due to privacy concerns. Apparently though, none of the data would enable individuals to be identified, so there's perhaps no reason for alarm there.

I think on the surface that's going to be the only "controversial" part of this law, as well as the prospect of FE colleges being given the freedom to set up as charitable bodies.

Hmm, charitable bodies. It's not a direct comparison, but that's sounds a bit...."New Labour". A bit...."City Academy", doesn't it?

Ambulance required for the Wales Ambulance Trust

After thirteen reports or audits since 2006 - will the Welsh Government
finally take action on the long-standing problems in the Wales Ambulance Trust?
(Pic : BBC Wales)

A major review into the Welsh Ambulance Trust – chaired by Prof. Siobhan McClelland – reported back last week. You can read the report for yourself here (pdf).

The Assembly debated the findings yesterday, and unanimously approved a – by their standards – pretty strongly-worded, 10-point motion demanding significant actions in response.

Just before that debate, Health Minister Mark Drakeford (Lab, Cardiff West) announced a £9.5million upgrade to the ambulance fleet – no doubt welcome but, for reasons that will become apparent, unlikely to make much of a difference.

The Wales Ambulance Service Trust (WAST)

The WAST was formed in 1998 – so before the Assembly came into being - after a review recommended the four regional ambulance trusts were merged into a national service. The idea was this would remove "artificial boundaries" and be more cost effective. At the time of the McClelland review, WAST employed 2,500 staff and had a budget of £159million, with a fleet of over 300 vehicles and 90 ambulance stations.

We might think of the ambulance service in terms of pure emergency services. However, the WAST provides more than that:

• Unscheduled care – The emergency "blue light" ambulance service we all recognise, responding to 999 calls, as well as occasional urgent transport from GP surgeries.
• Planned patient care services (PCS) – Non-emergency transport to take people to pre-planned/scheduled outpatient clinics. I guess these include the "ambulance buses" you see from time to time.
• Health Courier Services – A sub-section of the PCS work, including moving hospital and clinical items. I'm not sure if this includes urgent organ transplants too.

There are other ambulance services not provided by WAST:

• Wales Air Ambulance – A charitable organisation reliant on a mix of fundraising and state-support from local health boards (LHBs) and the Welsh Government. Its three crews generally act as an ambulance in places ambulances can't go, or for quick cross-country transport to specialists.
• Emergency co-responders and first responders – These are usually volunteers, or specially trained individuals (like firefighters), who provide emergency care until a paramedic arrives on scene.

The Key Issues

Governance & Accountability

After growing concerns about its performance, and the fact it's been under heavy scrutiny since it was established, it's said WAST, "has been reviewed....more than any part of the Welsh NHS." It's claimed there've been at least THIRTEEN reviews or audits of WAST since 2006 – this is the latest – so it's totting up at roughly two a year.

Of those reviews, at least two were in-depth – internal and independent - between 2006 and 2009. There was also an opportunity to look at governance arrangements when the LHBs were reorganised in 2009.

In terms of governance, at the moment ambulance services are :

• Commissioned by the Welsh Health Specialised Services Committee, or WHSSC (never heard of them).
• Accountable to the LHBs.
• Governed by the Welsh Government.

So there are – in effect – three bosses.

Stakeholders said there was a "lack of ownership and co-ordination" of ambulance services due to these confused commissioning arrangements. There were also concerns about a lack of accountability to LHBs – who WAST are contractually obligated to provide services for.

It boils down to the question of who are WAST answerable to? It appears nobody knows. These stakeholders were clear though that they wanted ambulances services to "run locally" but "overseen nationally". Isn't that what the arrangements are like anyway?

Not plugging or anything. I'll just leave this here.

Funding, Management & Staff

In terms of funding, for unscheduled/emergency care the arrangements are pretty straightforward. The Welsh Government funds LHBs who fund WHSSC and eventually money makes its way to WAST.

"Funding per call" is around £195, which is lower than similar ambulance trusts in England. Though staff think they get enough funds to run the service, it's said funding isn't being properly targeted towards delivering desired service outcomes (i.e the 8 minute target) – for example, regional differences in funding, where SE Wales gets 68% of calls but doesn't get 68% of funds.

The management structure is one of these bureaucratic mazes which depress me each time I see one. It's said problems in management haven't been dealt with down the years, despite changes in top personnel. Some concerns were raised about the leadership skills of senior managers too.

There are high sickness levels amongst ambulance staff, which is usually one of the first signs of low morale or poor working practices. Considering the scrutiny they're under, you can understand why. You would expect ambulance service staff to have more overtime, but it's suggested staff rosters are "inconsistent" and "lacked capacity at peak times".

I think it's worth pointing out that nobody blames paramedics or frontline ambulance staff for these problems. They appear to be lions led by donkeys – management and political.

Performance

In the last few weeks, we learned only 53.3% of emergency calls were responded to within the 8 minute target time laid down by the Welsh Government (who aim for 65%).

WAST dealt with 530,000+ calls in 2012-13, and the number of calls they received significantly increased since 2005-06. "Life threatening calls" have increased by 30% alone over that period.

WAST consistently failed to reach the 8 minute target during 2012-13, though they've done better in previous years. They've also failed to reach targets for lesser emergencies that need a response in 30 minutes to an hour.

There are several reasons given for this. Most of them are perfectly reasonable and unavoidable, I'm afraid to say :

• Poor weather hampering ambulances.
• Topography and geography. I think we'll all have seen ambulances on "blue light" calls stuck in traffic jams or narrow side streets.
• Particular problems in sparsely populated areas. You can't guarantee where an emergency call will come from as well as factoring in the long distances travelled.
• Handover delays at A&E departments. Every hour an ambulance is held up at an A&E department is an hour that ambulance is out of action, putting more pressure on the fewer ambulances left on the road.

It's said that while speed is important in some medical emergencies – like a heart attack - an 8 minute target is a "blanket measure". This is a critical point I'll come back to later.

Recommendations

There were four key recommendations, and 12 recommendations overall :

• Emergency ambulance services should be considered a clinical service (focused on unscheduled care), with PCS services separated. I think that translates as, "Stop using emergency ambulances to transport people who can/should make their own way to hospital."
• PCS services should be provided by LHBs themselves. AMs from all parties have backed these first two recommendations.
• Development of a non-emergency "111" service to, presumably, discourage people using 999 for medical non-emergencies. It's worth noting current problems in the English 111 service though.
• A clear need for funding and accountability changes.

Relating to that last point, the report proposes three strategic options:

1. Retaining a national ambulance service as a "special health board" funded directly by the Welsh Government. It would clear up the "three bosses" issue, as ambulance services would be directly accountable to the Welsh Government. However, it might not be fully integrated into locally-run PCS services. Plus there's the problem of setting up a new health board in the first place.
2. A new commissioning model, with ambulance services commissioned directly by LHBs. WAST would remain, but services would be accountable to and funded by individual LHBs, creating a "local focus". Some of the drawbacks include a lack of commissioning skills in the Welsh NHS, and it might not be different enough from current arrangements.
3. Ambulance services run and funded by LHBs alone. WAST would be dissolved and ambulance services locally controlled in their entirety. This is probably the most radical proposed change. It would increase "competition" between LHBs in terms of performance, and the LHB would be entirely accountable for ambulance services. However, there is the issue of staff transfers as well as the prospect of bigger differences in performance between different LHBs.

999 problems

I don't think WAST's problems come down entirely to management and governance. Look at the list of reasons for poor performances. Wales (generally) has poor roads and long travel times to hospitals in some areas – which are set to become even longer (in some cases) thanks to the hospital reorganisations. That's probably why members of the public are worried about downgrading local A&Es.

We don't have the infrastructure to enable across-the-board 8 minute response times. Maybe the Welsh Government's targets are too high, and we need a redefinition of what a "life threatening emergency" is. We're in danger of becoming obsessed with the target, not the standard of care.

An example was given where if an ambulance reaches an emergency in 7 minutes and the patient dies – they've hit the target. If it's 9 minutes and they live – they've missed it.

In terms of the strategic options, I'd go for option three – dissolving WAST and handing ambulance services over to LHBs. It might make it clearer which parts of Wales have problems with response times so the Welsh Government can pinpoint what's causing them and take appropriate action.

The fact there've been thirteen reviews or audits in seven years reflects badly on Cardiff Bay. They must've shelved so many of these things you've got to wonder why they're commissioned in the first place!

This latest review is unlikely to go that way. However, I'm bracing myself for only minimal changes as I have low expectations when it comes to Welsh Government and LHB responses to health issues now. They're either incredibly pushy – as in the case of hospital reorganisations - or ultra-conservative and risk-averse.

The Welsh Government didn't set up a national ambulance service, but it's been their responsibility since 1999 to sort out problems. They clearly haven't, or been too scared to make significant changes for whatever reason.

For all the reviews, questions and motions, the key question remains paramount:

How many people have been put in unnecessary danger because of this?

Lobbyists & Cross-Party Groups under the microscope

Lobbying is an important way of raising the political establishment's
awareness of various issues . The Assembly's Standards Committee
has proposed new rules governing AMs' working relationships with lobbyists
and how Cross-Party Groups are organised and run.
(Pic : Wales Gene Park [Cardiff University])

Last week, the Assembly's Standards Committee reported back on a review – requested by Llywydd Rosemary Butler (Lab, Newport West) last year – into lobbying. The review also looked at Cross-Party Groups, coming up with a total of 8 recommendations.

The report's findings were covered too by A Change of Personnel, Western Mail and Betsan Powys at BBC Wales.

The need for a lobbying review

Lobbyists, or public affairs/political consultants, work to influence decisions on behalf of clients in the public, private and third sectors. Wherever there's power, there'll be lobbyists – no matter how small the Welsh political class is.

I presume lobbyists work by "networking" AMs, ministers and their staff, organising/sponsoring functions and events and generally putting the right people and organisations in touch with one another.

The UK Government are considering a register of lobbyists, taking devolved administrations into consideration, prompting the Llywydd's intervention. However, Westminster are running into problems trying to define what a "lobbyist" actually is.

In Wales, for instance, would an organisation like Cymdeithas yr Iaith count as "lobbyists"? Would trade unions? What's the difference between unpaid grass-roots "campaigning" and professional paid "lobbying"? It's difficult.

Some say lobbyists are parasites, pressurising elected officials into working for special interests which – as a practice - undermines democracy. We don't elect AMs or MPs to do the work of charities, trade unions and companies, we elect them to represent us as the electorate. We'll let them know if we want them to work on something specific or not.

One thing I neglected to mention back in January, was that some AMs complained that because they're readily accessible in the Siambr (via computers) – and on camera - lobbyists see them too and know if they can contact them, even if AMs are busy with something else. There's no escape. I guess that's something that comes with the job though.

However, personally I think lobbying is broadly a "good thing", especially if it means bodies like charities get access to ministers or AMs, who can take up their causes in the Senedd and give them some publicity. Ministers are probably pressed for time too, so lobbyists might "screen" interested parties to make sure there's no time-wasters.

It's another thing entirely if lobbying's used to influence decision-making and policy directly. However, it's worth noting that there haven't been any complaints made against lobbyists in Wales.

*Tin foil hat time*. That could be because our political class, as I've said, is small, with everyone knowing everyone else – "You scratch my back....". Plus, as A Change of Personnel pointed out, there could be "off the record" discussions that haven't been taken into consideration by the review. That might seem slightly conspirational, but no doubt harbouring a few truths.

The review and its recommendations

Both the Standards Commissioner – Gerard Elias QC – and the committee agreed that lobbying is important to democracy, as it makes the Assembly more "open" as an institution, and AMs "available". All AMs presumably have to do is talk to lobbyists or their clients. Whether they take up their concerns or causes is up to them.

The committee make a distinction between lobbying an AM and lobbying a government minister. If you lobby an AM, you might get a question in the Senedd, support for a campaign or closer scrutiny of both government decision-making and legislation in a particular area.

If you try to influence a minister, you might get policy decisions go your way. That's more serious. It's suggested that the First Minister review the Ministerial Code - with a view towards recording meetings between ministers and lobbyists - as well as a review of complaints procedures against ministers.

Even if the committee disagreed with the need for a lobbyist register in Wales – especially as defining a "lobbyist" is so difficult - they note there's "no room for complacency".

They propose a code of practice for AMs' dealings with lobbyists (Annex C in the report), which will be approved by the Assembly. Another recommendation from the Standards Commissioner is improved financial information and record-keeping by lobbyists themselves.

Public Affairs Cymru - which represents lobbying organisations - already has its own code of practice, which the committee welcomed.

Although there haven't been complaints about lobbying, the Standards Commissioner said he had "received representations" about former ministers, AMs and civil servants becoming lobbyists when leaving office. He dubs it a "revolving door issue".

Former ministers and senior civil servants are (generally) barred from lobbying governments for two years after leaving office, but there's no similar requirement for ex-AMs. There's no recommendation here, but the Commissioner said the committee could look at it another time.

Cross-Party Groups

Cross-Party Groups (CPGs) are special focus groups or informal committees. If you wanted to be spiteful you could call them "after school clubs" for AMs. They're linked to lobbying as they allow AMs to discuss matters in a non-partisan environment, with individuals from outside organisations often included as members. The committee say there've been more concerns raised here compared to professional lobbyists.

There are currently around 50 CPGs, covering a wide range of topics. Many are quite specific : local campaigns, disease awareness, economic sectors or representing occupations. Some seem....odd - Cross-Party Group for Beer and the Pub, for example, which amongst its aims seeks to "promote the wholesomeness and enjoyment of beer".  Or even morbid – Cross-Party Group for Funerals & Bereavement.

However, they help AMs (and organisations) come together to discuss issues which might not be important enough to be on the Senedd's agenda, but need an ongoing commitment or special focus. Some can be influential too. The trainspotters in the Cross-Party Group for Rail played a role in setting out the case for electrification, for example.

The problem is that apart from occasional press releases, we don't know what they do or what they discuss. None of the CPGs maintains any record of meetings other than a simple page on the Assembly website with contact details and lists of members.

For all we know, some might meet very infrequently and are there to add lines to AMs' political CVs. Some might be seen as a way for AMs and other members to get "perks" too. I don't think that happens - we would've heard about it by now - but there's clear ambiguity there.

The Assembly Commission already issues guidance for CPGs. To make this clearer, the committee have drawn up new rules (Annex D in the report), summarised as :

• CPGs won't be bound by Assembly Standing Orders, and will be formally separate from the Assembly itself.
• They musn't cover matters covered by existing Assembly committees.
• They must be chaired by an AM, and office holders (i.e secretary) within the CPG must be elected at an inaugural general meeting. Memberships must also be listed when registering a CPG and CPGs must re-register at the start of each Assembly term.
• CPGs will be required to hold an annual general meeting (AGM) and produce an annual report and financial statement (setting out expenses and hospitality).
• CPGs won't take precedence over "Assembly business" and must use Assembly resources sparingly. They won't have access to Assembly staff for instance, and non-Assembly members/staff will need to be escorted through Assembly estates. Some limited funds will be available to "engage with constituents" only – subject to a business case.
• CPGs will need to make arrangements themselves for translation to meet any requirements of the National Assembly Official Languages Act 2012.
• Meetings will be publicised on the Assembly website (with advanced notice) and minutes will need to be published within 4 weeks of a meeting.
• Failure to comply with these rules could lead to the Assembly withdrawing recognition of the group - effectively shutting them down. Complaints against AMs in relation to CPGs will be dealt with the usual way via the Standards Commissioner.

I have to wonder why perfectly clear and sensible rules like these haven't been adopted from the outset?