Law to support Additional Learning Needs introduced

(Pic : Northampton College)

Having stood down the "picket line", it's worth giving those of you who might've laughed it off a friendly reminder of how much work's done here - just under two hours for this post; no pay, very little if any coverage of this topic anywhere other than the BBC. It's also what's going to be lost in the future; more on that tomorrow.

Read More

Assembly rejects Trade Union Bill

It's a no from the Assembly....
(Pic : BBC Wales)

Earlier today, the National Assembly voted on the UK Government's highly-controversial Trade Union Bill, which most AMs – and the Welsh Government - roundly criticised last year (AMs take swipe at Trade Union Bill).

Read More

AMs take swipe at Trade Union Bill

The post-devolution "partnership working" between unions, employers and employees
in Wales looks set to be threatened by the UK Government's draconian Trade Union Bill.
(Pic : Wales Online)

Shwmae. Yesterday, the Assembly held another backbench members debate, this time related to one of the most controversial laws introduced for a long time in the UK Parliament.

Read More

Tattoos, Bans & Bogs - The Public Health Bill

The Public Health Bill is a wide-ranging law, prompting controversy over
a proposed ban on the use of e-cigarettes in indoor public spaces.
(Pic : BBC Wales)

Earlier this week, the Health Minister, Mark Drakeford (Lab, Cardiff West), introduced what's likely to be one of the most controversial and substantial laws of the Fourth Assembly, instigating one of those rare occasions where Welsh politics has made UK-wide headlines - not necessarily in flattering terms either.

Read More

Assembly Bans Smoking in Cars with Kids

(Pic : Wales Online)

Within the last hour, the National Assembly approved new regulations outlawing smoking in cars when carrying under-18s.

Read More

Pirate Party : Hoisting the Jolly Roger above Wales

Bridgend's voters were faced with a unique choice on May 7th.
Maybe, in future, other Welsh voters will have the option too.
(Pic : via Facebook)

I doubt many people reading this will have heard of The Pirate Party.

"Pirate politics" – the umbrella term used for such parties – is often hard to place on the traditional political spectrum. While the left-wing is mainly focused on inequalities and the right-wing on tradition, pirate politics is based around information : how freely you can access it, who it belongs to and how and why it should be used.

Read More

Devolution : Last Stand of the Human Rights Act?

(Pic : via Flickr)

One Conservative manifesto commitment prior to their election victory was the repeal of the Human Rights Act 1998 and its replacement with a "British Bill of Rights" - possibly including a subsequent full withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) if certain demands aren't met. The task has been passed to new Justice Secretary, the shy and retiring Michael Gove.

Read More

Carmarthenshire : The Rot Laid Bare

The eagerly-anticipated Welsh Local Government Association (WLGA) report into the governance arrangements, culture and practices at Carmarthenshire Council (CCC) has been published (pdf).

Jonathan Edwards MP and Rhodri Glyn Thomas AM (both Plaid, Carms E. & Dinefwr) issued a joint statement. The Western Mail describe the report as "damning", while the Carmarthen Journal put a slightly positive spin on it.

Meanwhile, as you might expect, the Carmarthenshire blogosphere are keen to give their own views. The full list of recommendations is available on Carmarthenshire Planning – as well as Jacqui's thoughts on the report itself. Y Cneifiwr provided an extensive account of the report, adding his scepticism whether things can change due to the political leadership, and Pat Racher from West Wales News Review calls for CCC's councillors to "wake up and take control of the wheel".

The report's 39 recommendations can be summarised as :

• CCC should implement an immediate managerial "cultural change programme" to promote transparency and openness.
• CCC should review its media and public engagement protocols, and promote/support the use of social media by councillors.
• CCC should hold an annual register of interests (published on its website).
• The Local Service Board (LSB) should consider broadcasting its meetings and update its website regularly.
• CCC should introduce a new constitution and provide guides for councillors and the public.
• The new constitution should :
• allow councillors to ask supplementary questions
• relax requirements for signatories for motions
• should not allow motions to be referred to another committee or the Executive Board
• place greater prominence on the role of Chair
• CCC should promote the opportunity for the public to table questions at council meetings, have an online petition system, review its approach to the public gallery and commit to continuing council meeting broadcasts.
• CCC should publish the Executive Board's forward work programme, consider broadcasting Executive Board meetings, allow non-executive members to remain for exempt items and allow non-executive members to be present for decision meetings.
• Executive Board members should only attend scrutiny committee sessions when invited, and their role should be confined to presenting policy and reports.
• CCC should revise its "call-in" procedures.

Culture, Leadership & Values

The report hints at a "leadership clique" that - directly or indirectly -
placed barriers on moves towards openness and transparency.
(Pic : Carmarthenshire Planning)

CCC has a clear commitment to openness and transparency as a result of several internal and external reviews, and this was praised.

However, the report says there were several "behavioural, cultural and procedural barriers to achieving the Council's ambition", and rebuilding relationships will take some time. For starters, the change will have to be councillor-led with officers only offering support.

Interviewees spoke of "internal tensions" between councillors, and a lack of trust was said to be a key theme, partly due to the fact wards, Assembly and UK Parliament seats in the authority are hotly contested meaning the political groups are often at each others throats.

CCC's constitution has contributed to problems, with limited opportunities to "call-in" decisions and ask supplementary questions as well as restrictions on tabling motions. It's said the constitution "is neither conductive to nor encourages challenge from within the council".

In terms of the relationship between the Executive Board (Cabinet) and officers, it's described as "constructive and positive". But it's implied the Executive Board are distrustful of non-executive members and non-executive members were equally hostile to officers, with the role of officers and Executive Board members "becoming confused".

This suggests a "ruling clique", and many responses focused on the role of the Chief Executive, Mark James – who has a much higher profile and role in council affairs than he should, resulting in media attention focusing on unelected officers as opposed to the elected Executive Board. There's a culture of defensiveness, where CCC, "doesn't deal with negativity well", and was "deemed to react....aggressively to challenge, particularly from the media".

Relations with the Media & Public Engagement

"Do you agree or disagree that you can influence decisions in your local authority?"
(Pic : National Survey for Wales)

In case you didn't know, CCC "invests significant resources into public relations". Despite this, there's a "strained relationship" between CCC and the local media, with concerns that press releases were one-sided, politically-motivated and backed by threats to withdraw advertising from certain publications.

There are "a number of local bloggers with a particular interest in the business of the authority" with a "disproportionate interest in the activities and perceived influence of bloggers in Carmarthenshire" amongst interviewees – mostly as a result of the libel trial and its outcome. The report says things like social media can be a double edged sword as it's a tool for engagement, but also the accuracy of reporting is likely to fall short of mainstream media standards.

In terms of wider public engagement, Carmarthenshire residents are amongst the least likely in Wales to say they can influence the authority's decisions and "do not feel empowered" – Bridgend doesn't do much better, by the way.

The Council's Workings

There were concerns about senior officer appointments, especially appointment of senior officers on an interim basis. The current management team is described as "stable", but several senior officers are seeking severance agreements, and this "upheaval" is described as "unprecedented in a Welsh local government context".

Although there was praise for councillor training, the report said it wasn't "member led or designed", with mixed attendance levels at training sessions because they're inconveniently timed. There were also concerns that the Business Management Group was an "unconstitutional decision-making forum" which didn't take minutes and excluded non-executive members.

Council Meetings

Although recent reforms have been praised, the council's constitution
placed unnecessary restrictions on the public and councillors.
(Pic : The Telegraph)

CCC were the first local authority in Wales to record council meetings, and the review team were impressed by the in-depth discussions the council had on various reports. However, the procedural rules within the constitution are not user friendly, though CCC has committed to adopting the Association of Council Secretaries and Solicitors' "modular constitution" (pdf).

Many councillors are dissatisfied with council meetings, and believe they should be the "crucible for local democratic debate" and "focus for public engagement", as opposed to the current stage-managing. Some also believe that meetings should be held at a time that's convenient for the public and should be as long as they need to be (there's a limit of 3 hours, and standing orders need to be suspended to go beyond that).

CCC were praised for starting to take questions on notice, but lack of supplementary questions was described as "peculiar" and "inconsistent with other local authorities".

The rules for motions on notice are described as "restrictive" by requiring seven signatures, while opposition councillors were concerned they couldn't table motions on controversial issues, as the scope of motions was often set out by senior officers.

Then there's the public gallery. CCC infamously take a register of details for people attending in the gallery "for fire safety purposes", which the review team said could be seen as "officious" and "deter people from attending". There was also the issue of members of the public filming meetings – which is allowed in England, but there are concerns that it could be "disruptive".

The issue of the Chief Executive "advising" the Chair was also raised, with varying policies across Wales. Some councils have a monitoring officer to provide constitutional advice, and the role of other officers is to advise on policy. In CCC's constitution the "Proper Officer" – who just so happens to be the Chief Executive – has a role in determining the validity of motions and questions. The review team believe this responsibility should be the Chair's.

The Executive Board & Scrutiny

Carmarthenshire's Executive Board are secretive, hold too much power and
the call-in processes for scrutiny committees were roundly criticised.
(Pic : Carmarthens Journal)

Some councils broadcast cabinet meetings, and although Carmarthenshire's Executive Board are starting to go "on the road", the review team believe online broadcasting should be extended to board meetings held at County Hall.

The Wales Audit Office say the issue of "exempt items" needs particular improvement, with some authorities said to be "working towards a more open approach" where fewer items are considered exempt.

The review team were "surprised" that non-executive members had to leave Executive Board meetings, along with the press and members of the public, during the discussion of "exempt items". Only 5 other councils do this, and of those, some are reconsidering the policy while others say exempt items are rare.

There were concerns over transparency of Executive Board decision meetings, with no opportunity to call-in decisions and seemingly sweeping powers to Executive Board members to approve spending – including the recent "Meryl's Millions" (c/o Y Cneifiwr). There were also concerns that decisions were rubber-stamped during the Executive Board meetings and the real discussions took place in behind closed door "pre-meetings".

Although there were said to be good examples of scrutiny work - and such work was often highly-regarded - there were also major worries.

The arrangements for Executive Board members attending committee meetings seems unclear, with some attending even if not invited, while others are unsure if they should attend at all. Best practice is for Executive Board members to only attend when invited so the relationship between the Board and committees doesn't become "cosy" and impact objective scrutiny.

Scrutiny committees also have the power to "call-in" decisions. However, CCC's call-in procedures are arranged in such a way it makes it very difficult to trigger one, which requires the approval of more than half of a committee's membership within a three day deadline. Other local authorities have more relaxed requirements and longer deadlines, while CCC's is described as "onerous".

Winds of Change?

#DaftArrest marked a turning point that's led to these proposals. Despite being
largely vindicated, "victory" - touch wood - is coming at a heavy price.
It didn't have to be like that.
(Pic : New Statesman)

The first step towards recovery is admitting you have a problem. In many ways the commitment to reform from CCC is admirable, so I won't be too snide.

As Jacqui Thompson said, although the language of the report was "professional and polite", when you read between the lines, the report paints a picture of a local authority that's no longer fit for purpose, stuck in a self-congratulatory bubble and keeps digging itself into holes.

It's a shame its taken court cases, legal injunctions and the full force of the Wales Audit Office to get things done, when Jacqui herself and others (up to and including councillors) have flagged up these issues and have been calling for the measures outlined in the report for the best part of a decade.

If this review had happened years ago, CCC really would be towards the top-performing local authorities in Wales. But there was a breakdown in trust due to the paranoid and excessively autocratic rule of Mark James, the Executive Board and other senior officers.

Ultimately, we're only here because of a domino effect caused by #DaftArrest (perhaps earlier), and because a handful of concerned citizens, politicians and whistleblowers kept picking away at the council's record in the face of legal threats, obfuscation and a distinct lack of action and concern from the Welsh Government.

If – and it's a big if – these changes are implemented then it'll be a (Pyrrhic) victory for long-standing "critics", and arguably the most significant thing the Welsh blogosphere has ever contributed to, as a reformed Carmarthenshire will likely be a model post-Williams Commission local authorities will work from.

Jacqui Thompson and others are vindicated. Although there's not much anyone can do about the libel verdict, if CCC are keen to pursue the reform agenda, they should admit the libel action was on behalf of CCC as a whole (which is unlawful), negotiate a token settlement with the Thompsons which would allow them to keep their home, and allow Mark James to move on to pastures new with a bit more dignity than his Pembrokeshire counterpart.

The libel cases, the bluster in the press and the defence of the indefensible – it wasn't worth it, was it?The political leadership of Carmarthenshire Council now face a critical choice.

On one hand, there's a chance to create a "New Model Council", and after all the mistakes they've made, Kevin Madge et. al. can restore some pride and gain respect by leading the reforms, and perhaps even going above and beyond the recommendations in the report.

On the other hand, CCC can dismiss the recommendations or take a "pic n' mix" approach, which after the positive feedback from the WLGA will result in them losing friends and credibility pretty quickly, and put a return of Dyfed firmly back on the table.

Based on their track record so far, I think you all know which way this is going to go....

Read More

Anything to declare?

"Financial interests" and "politicians" in the same sentence is always combustible,
though proposed changes to National Assembly rules will dampen the fires a bit.

Last week, the National Assembly's Standards Committee and Standards Commissioner, Gerard Elias QC, reported back on possible changes to how, when and why Assembly Members report their personal and financial interests (pdf).

A consultation with AMs began in January 2014, and a preliminary report was prepared by the Standards Commissioner in July 2014.

It's said five (of ten) categories of financial/personal interests were of particular concern:

• Remuneration, Employment, Office, Profession etc.
• Remuneration for other material benefit
• Financial Sponsorships
• Shareholdings
• Public Bodies

The Committee made 15 recommendations in total, which would mostly result in changes to the National Assembly's Standing Order 2 (pdf, latest version). All changes will need to be approved by the Assembly before coming into force.

Employment status of dependent children

At the moment, AMs need to declare the employment status/job of partners, as well as children aged 16-19 (where applicable). The Standards Commissioner considers the requirement relating to children as "intrusive" as it would drag the personal life of AMs' children into the public domain. Currently, the National Assembly is the only legislature in the UK that requires this information to be formally declared.

There are obvious exceptions to this – like an AM employing their own child, and that's dealt with under a separate set of Standing Orders – but the Committee believes AMs should instead make an oral declaration of a "family interest" of this kind where relevant.

The Committee therefore recommended that the requirement to register the employment status of a dependent child aged over-16 be removed.

Receipt of public funds

A separate registration category for "receipt of public funds" was considered, but rejected as it would be a duplication. The Committee agreed that receipt of public funds (grants etc.) should be registered by AMs, but that clear guidance was needed on what would count as "public funds".

They also agreed that pensions should no longer be considered a registrable form of remuneration.
Assembly Contracts

AMs need to register an interest where any company they, or their immediate family, receive money from (including, presumably, things like shareholder dividends) are tendering for, or has won, a contract to provide services to the National Assembly.

The Committee believe this was unfair, as AMs might not always have knowledge of what companies are bidding for what. So the rules will be changed so AMs only have to register an interest when they know for absolute certainty that a company they're involved with has won a contract or is tendering for one.

Shareholdings

There's a general duty on AMs to register shareholdings they, or their family, hold that are worth more than 1% of the total shares issued by a company. There's a recommendation that share options (shares offered to employees in lieu of/in addition to pay) are included as registrable.

The big concern here relates to so-called "blind trusts" where the beneficiaries have no idea what investments are made or where as control is handed over to independent experts. This is an obvious advantage to politicians, who can gain financially from these schemes without attracting scrutiny, as any decisions would be independent of their political careers or unaffected by their political decisions. The recommendation is that AMs declare any "blind trusts" they hold.

Membership of an Assembly-funded body

The issue here was about clarity, specifically what "membership" means. Not declaring memberships of this sort is a potential criminal offence, so some AMs are registering memberships of organisations like the WRU and National Trust to be on the safe side.

The Commissioner believed it was more appropriate to focus on memberships of organisations where the AM's presence would, in itself, "put them in a position to promote a cause" – this includes being a patron of a charity, memberships of governing bodies, trustee positions and any sort of paid executive or administrative role.

The Committee recommended that Standing Orders be changed to narrowly-define what "membership" means, and require AMs to register "where they knew or ought to have known" about Assembly funding.

Financial Sponsorship

The Electoral Commission already requires elected representatives to declare sponsorship or financial donations, so requiring AMs to register again with the National Assembly was "double declaration" and a needless duplication. The Committee recommended that this "double declaration" be removed, and it's suggested they work with the Wales Office, Electoral Commission and Assembly Commission to get this underway – but it might take some time.

Oral declarations

There are rules already in place setting out when AMs need to make an oral declaration in Assembly proceedings if they, or their family, have a financial interest or would be set to gain financially by any decisions made in the meeting.

The Commissioner proposed changing the wording to ensure AMs declare an interest if they would benefit financially from any decision "to a greater extent than the electorate generally". An example's given where an AM who's a landlord might benefit from decisions made with regard rent regulations.

Dealing with breaches

It's a criminal offence for an AM to take part in Assembly proceedings without declaring personal or financial interests as outlined by Standing Orders – this includes both accidental/delayed omissions and deliberate omissions.

The Commissioner believes relations between AMs and the Assembly Commission would sour if  "accidental"/"trivial" cases were referred to the the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) straight away, as set out in Standing Orders.

It was recommended, therefore, where there's a breach of Standing Order 2, the case first be referred directly to the Standards Commissioner, who would then decide – as an independent adjudicator – whether a case needs to be either referred to the DPP, be subject to code of conduct investigations or dealt with informally.

EXCLUSIVE : FINANCIAL INTERESTS ASSEMBLY MEMBERZZZ

You would've thought having "financial interests" and "Assembly Members" in the same sentence would've got the Western Mail salivating, but this was too boring even for them, and only warranted around 100 words from BBC Wales.

This is an important post, just to underline how strict the rules are so people don't get the impression AMs are routinely "on the take". It takes some accounting gymnastics and whopping big lies to get away with it.

I know you all loves a bit of intrigue and scandal, but the reality is that AMs are well-behaved and understand what they should or shouldn't do here. I can't remember any cases where an AM has come a cropper of these particular rules, and I don't believe there's a threat of that happening either.

Most of the recommendations here seem largely about making things clearer, adding the requirement about declaring receipt of public funds, and you could even say the rules have been relaxed a little bit or simplified. Why would we need to know if an AM's son or daughter is flipping burgers, for example?

It's worth pointing out that the consultation with AMs began before the Alun Davies sacking, and it's just very timely that it covers declaration of financial interests.

I don't believe this vindicates Alun at all (as touched on by National Left).

Although it's absolutely right AMs declare all financial and personal interests, it was the manner by which Alun handled it – some tu quoque political posturing which dragged in the civil service (after being warned not to) - that turned what was a perfectly legitimate point into a scandal.

"Keep cooly cool, boy".

Read More

Domestic Violence Bill introduced to National Assembly

There were estimated to be more than 420,000 victims of domestic
violence (both genders combined) in Wales during 2011-12.
(Pic : South Wales Evening Post)

Today's legislative news is dominated by the "flagship" Future Generations Bill, which I'll hopefully come back to at the end of the week.

In other Welsh law news you might've noticed, after an extensive and lengthy consultation which garnered some 150 responses, last week, Local Government Minister Lesley Griffiths (Lab, Wrexham) introduced the Gender-based Violence, Domestic Abuse and Sexual Violence Bill to the National Assembly.

You know the drill. Bill here (pdf), explanatory memorandum here (pdf).

Gender-based violence : The need for a new law

According to the 2011-12 EnglandandWales Crime Survey, in Wales alone :

• 11.7% of women and 5.1% of men say they've been victims of any kind of domestic abuse.
• 3.2% of women and 0.7% of men say they've been victims of sexual assault.
• 7.8% of women and 3.5% of men say they've been victims of stalking.

All of this has an economic impact too; in terms of public spending, sickness rates and police investigations. Based on figures produced in a 2009 report from Lancaster University's Prof. Sylvia Walby (pdf), the cumulative cost (economic, public service and emotional) of domestic violence could be as high as £826.4million in Wales (on a population share figure). That figure doesn't including gender-based violence like female genital mutilation and sexual assaults.

At present, the Welsh Government say that domestic and gender-based violence is a complex issue, with many public sector bodies involved in dealing with it. Indeed, the devolution settlement itself only partially covers it.

The main aims of the Bill – in shorthand – are to : provide leadership from the top through a national strategy, place duties on public sector organisations to correctly report and work together when it comes to possible cases of domestic or gender-based violence, and take preventative measures to prevent such violence from happening in the first place.

What does the Bill propose?

Public bodies - like the fire service and local health boards - will be required under the
proposed law to develop strategies to improve responses to suspected cases of abuse.
(Pic : Eric Jones via BBC Wales)

Strategies & Guidance

The Act will :

• Place a duty on the Welsh Government to :
• Produce a national strategy for domestic and gender-based violence sometime in the second half of 2016, setting out their objectives and timescales for achieving them.
• Set out a number of measurable indicators to determine if they're meeting the goals of their national strategy or the Act in general.
• Submit an annual report on their progress to the National Assembly.
• Place a duty on local government and local health boards to produce their own joint local strategies - along the same lines as the national one - within one year of the next local authority elections (scheduled for May 2017). They'll also have to produce an annual report each financial year.
• Grant Welsh Ministers the power to issue guidance to relevant authorities (local government, fire service, local health boards etc.) - which they must follow - setting out what they should do in terms of preventing domestic and gender-based violence, training staff, sharing information between each other and co-operation. This guidance will need to be approved by the National Assembly.
• Grants Welsh Ministers the power to issue directions to authorities in order for them to comply with the Act if they are failing to do so.

Ministerial Adviser

The Act will :

• Create the post of Ministerial Adviser on Gender-based Violence, Domestic Abuse and Sexual Violence, paid for directly by the Welsh Government.
• Set out the adviser's role as (broadly-speaking) undertaking research and advising ministers (or other individuals/organisations) on issues falling under the Act. They'll also have to produce and publish an annual plan setting out what they intend to do.

The scope of Gender-based Violence, Domestic Abuse and Sexual Violence

The Act broadly covers :

• "Abuse" – defined as physical, sexual, psychological, emotional or financial abuse (property theft, fraud, pressure to spend/misuse money).
• "Domestic Abuse" – "abuse" where the victim is associated with the abuser via : marriage, engagement, civil partnership, live-in relationship, relatives (presumably including step-relatives), boyfriend/girlfriend or through joint parental responsibility.
• "Female genital mutilation (FGM)" – as outlined in the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003.
• "Harassment" – Speech or other action that a reasonable person would consider to be harassment. The Crown Prosecution Service have more specific definitions of harassment and stalking.
• "Sexual exploitation" – as outlined in Part 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

So what's important here isn't the Bill/future Act itself but the proposed national strategy. This could include (based on the content of the explanatory memorandum) :

• "Ask & Act" – Professionals (hinted as meaning NHS workers, social workers, teachers, police and firefighters) will be encouraged to ask people they suspect of being abused if they are being abused, and then – through training and guidance – encouraged to act on that in order to prevent any suspected abuse from continuing.
• Multi-agency forums – Collaboration to ensure there's a consistent approach across the public sector.
• A National Training Framework – New training guidelines will ensure a consistent approach to care of suspected victims of abuse, split into 6 levels. Level 1 training is the basic level that would cover all public service staff, Level 3 covers professionals and specialists who work directly with victims, while Level 6 covers high-level strategy.
• Public information campaigns and education programmes – Compulsory relationship lessons in schools have been dropped from the Bill itself, but that doesn't mean they can't be included in the national strategy, part of training for teachers (under the new training framework) or included as part of the current review of the national curriculum.

How much will this cost?

The new National Training Framework will cost a total of £2.8million over the next four years, with just under £440,000 being spent directly by the Welsh Government, and the rest picked up jointly by public service organisations.

Introducing the training and guidance for "Ask and Act" will cost another £2.8million over four years, with the Welsh Government spending £374,000 directly.

The multi-agency forums will cost £7,000 (to pay a specialist to establish them). The cost of the government adviser will be £244,000 in total over the next four years, including the £11,000 cost of recruiting them. I'm sure there are plenty of "insiders" eying up the job.

The cost of establishing a Commissioner (similar to that for Older People, Children etc.) - which was considered as an option - would've been somewhere between £585,000 and £630,000 per year. This was rejected in favour of the cheaper government adviser post instead.

So the total cost of the legislation – if passed – from 2014-15 to 2018-19 will be £5.61million (~£1.4million per year), mostly borne by the Welsh public sector at large. Based on the statistics given (16.8% of over 16s, or 424,578 people), it works out at around £3.36 per victim of domestic violence per year.

The explanatory memorandum says that it's "not possible" to quantify the financial benefits, but it's worth again pointing towards the estimated total £826.4million impact of such violence and behaviour on the Welsh purse.

The Relationship Lessons, Gender & Smacking Issues
        

The first big change from the original proposal was that, as aforementioned, compulsory relationship education lessons for schoolchildren have been dropped from the Bill.

You would expect this sort of thing to be covered in PSE lessons anyway under the National Curriculum – which, as said, is currently under review. I don't think it's ever been made clear precisely what "relationship education" means in practice, and I suspect the Welsh Government are trying to prevent - what I've called before – a "curriculum by statute" developing where the curriculum is set inflexibly through laws. I wouldn't be surprised though if this ends up back in the Bill after it's gone through committee. It's too valuable as a preventative measure to ignore completely.

The Bill also drew complaints from Wales Violence Against Women Action Group's Dr Mwenya Chimba for not specifically focusing on women - whether titular or in the content of the Bill itself. This law was, of course, originally touted as a "Violence against Women Bill".

The only specific reference to women and girls relates to female genital mutilation (aka. FGM, female circumcision); an issue which I explored in a bit more graphic detail last year (Life, Ethics & Independence III – Circumcision).

It's a matter of cold hard fact that gender-based and domestic violence disproportionately affects women and girls, and the Welsh Government acknowledge that in the explanatory memorandum.

The Welsh Government would've been negligent though if a Bill that focuses on domestic and gender-based violence ignored male victims. I'm not just referring to heterosexual men. The law would've been on shaky ground from the start if, for example, a lesbian couple falls under the Bill's provisions, but a gay couple doesn't. That's before adding transgenders into the mix. This sort of violence and emotional entrapment is wrong regardless of who's on the receiving end or who's dishing it out.

The Welsh Government were, therefore, absolutely right to make this Bill gender neutral, and get a thumbs up from me for doing so, as I'm sure they will from organisations that work with male victims of domestic violence.

I just hope AMs maintain the law's gender neutrality and don't cave in to pressure from the third sector to change it. Also, the strategies themselves should remain gender neutral too - though they could include measures specifically aimed at either gender where appropriate.

Unfortunately, and less complimentary to the Welsh Government, we have this law trying to protect adults from domestic abuse, yet the Welsh Government seem to be fine with hitting children as a form of punishment. This could provide a perfect opportunity for AMs to revisit a smacking ban if they so wish.

A (potentially) good law with no bite

In the absence of any control over the criminal justice side of this
kind of abuse, the outlined measures look limp - but still welcome.
(Pic : BBC Wales)

It's worth saying from the outset that this is the absolute maximum the Welsh Government can do to address the issues under the devolution settlement.

As criminal justice isn't devolved, this doesn't update/alter criminal law or create any new offences relating to domestic or gender-based violence. That's probably the Bill's biggest weakness, and so it reads like a highly technical administrative law that's unlikely to generate much in the way of headlines or public interest.

It looks like it's been stripped down compared to what was originally proposed during the drafting and white paper phases too. It gives the impression of being another "Enabling Act" that gives a lot of power to ministers (via setting the strategy) without clearly outlining within the Bill itself what they're going to do with said powers.

It's also unclear if the perpetrators of violence are going to get the help they need. Supporting victims has to be the priority, but some perpetrators might have undiagnosed or untreated mental illnesses, or grew up in an environment where domestic or gender-based violence was the norm.

Despite all that, at least the Welsh Government are doing something about it, and it genuinely could go some way to helping victims and their families over the next few years. It's often attitudes within key public services that lets victims down – whether it's because abuse has gone unreported or it's not taken seriously enough - and that's the law's focus.

It still needs some work though.

Read More

Booze, Bans & Bogs

The Welsh Government have launched a consultation of their - slightly
controversial - Public Health Bill, which has led to accusations of "nanny stateism".
(Pic : chronicallive.co.uk)

About a fortnight ago, Health Minister, Mark Drakeford (Lab, Cardiff West), unveiled draft proposals for a flagship Public Health Bill, which has been put out for consultation until June 24^th (more details here).

The Public Health Bill will be a key piece in the jigsaw surrounding another (slightly bizarre) law in the pipeline – the Future Generations Bill – which is supposed to address long-term, generational challenges like climate change, the economy, demography, the future of the Welsh language and long-term health problems.

The British Medical Association describe the proposed Bill as a potentially "seminal" piece of legislation.

I've done quite a bit over the last few months covering public health – most notably childhood obesity and drugs – so I'm not going to go into extensive details (heh).

The proposals include measures on obesity, registration of tattooists & cosmetic piercings and community pharmacies. Alongside these, there are three "headline policy proposals" that could make their way into the Bill : minimum pricing of alcohol, a ban on the use of electronic cigarettes (e-cigs) in enclosed public spaces and public toilet provision.

Booze : A minimum price for alcohol

A 50p minimum price per unit of alcohol is included in the draft proposals,
which could see the price of a standard bottle of whiskey set at £14.
(Pic : Daily Record)

This has been discussed in EnglandandWales and Scotland for some time, but finally has some concrete foundations under it.

As I covered last month, there are around 500 alcohol-related deaths each year (mostly men), contributing to liver disease, strokes, high blood pressure and depression. The total cost of alcohol-related disease in Wales is said to be somewhere between £70-85million per year, and there were more than 15,000 hospital admissions related to alcohol in 2011-12.

Although it's said the number of adults drinking to excess has decreased slightly, some 42% of adults report drinking above the daily recommended guidelines (3-4 units for men, 2-3 units for women) at least once a week.

Most of the powers over this are in the hands of the UK Government, and licensing alcohol is a non-devolved matter. The Welsh Government have requested licensing powers, but they've been consistently refused, though the devolution of those powers could be included as part of inter-governmental negotiations arising from Silk II.

The main measure the Welsh Government propose is to introduce a 50p per unit minimum price of alcohol. "Setting a floor" for alcohol prices means it can't be sold for anything less, restricting access to cheap, high-strength alcohol (White Lightning, Special Brew etc.). It's said a 70cl bottle of whiskey would sell for a minimum of £14 under this price arrangement.

The UK Government rejected a similar move to cover EnglandandWales because they weren't convinced it would reduce alcohol consumption, while minimum pricing at 50p per unit was introduced in Scotland in 2012 – though it's currently subject to a judicial appeal from alcohol producers.

The Welsh Government say "there is indisputable evidence that the price of alcohol affects consumption", with a particular affect amongst younger drinkers. They cite research from Sheffield University (pdf) which states a 50p per unit minimum price would reduce alcohol consumption by between 7-11%.

Bans : Use of e-cigs indoors

In a slightly controversial move, the Welsh Government are considering extending current
smoking bans to e-cigarettes. Is this the "nanny state"? Or is it prudent public health policy?
(Pic : The Independent)

I should probably declare an interest here as I know someone who runs an e-cig store.

This is perhaps the most controversial proposal, and certainly caused a stir, with accusations and counter-accusations about encroachment of the "nanny state" (related blog from Peter Black) and the dangers of "normalising smoking".

Without question, tobacco is the deadliest way to take drugs in Wales. As covered last month (again), smoking-related diseases kill ~5,000 people in Wales each year, estimated to cost the Welsh NHS £302million, and a further economic impact of £90million in sickness and smoking breaks. The numbers starting smoking have shown consistent falls, however the number of Welsh adults who smoke remains static at around 23% of the population.

There's nothing Welsh Labour love more than a good ban, proving that not all left-wing parties are as progressive or liberal as they think they are - what I described last month as, "a social conservatism based around wanting to protect people from themselves". I'm certainly a "lefty", but I've come round to disliking this sort of paternalist collectivism as much as the rampant free market.

Recent tobacco restrictions include banning vending machines sales, banning smoking in enclosed spaces and bans on open tobacco displays at point of sale. They also support standardised packaging for tobacco products - which could be introduced across EnglandandWales at some point - as well as a ban on smoking in cars when children are present.

Proposals here include the creation of a register for tobacco retailers, and a ban on "proxy sales" of tobacco (adults buying fags for kids), making it a criminal offence. They are also asking for views on internet sales.

The headline proposal was, of course, a ban on the use of e-cigs in enclosed public spaces in the same way as the current ban on tobacco smoking. Around 14% of smokers use e-cigs. There are no current restrictions on sale, though the UK Government are going to introduce an 18 age limit in line with cigarettes.

The Welsh Government say health authorities are concerned that e-cigs are "normalising" smoking, acting as a gateway to full tobacco, risking "a new generation addicted to nicotine". They also believe e-cigs make it harder to enforce current smoking restrictions and/or make people think they can smoke when they really can't.

Current evidence points towards there being little to no harmful effects from e-cigarettes other than nicotine addiction – which is harmful in itself, but only one small factor in the harm caused by smoking.

Although they'll almost certainly have an affect on the lungs, e-cigs don't contain many of the harmful ingredients found in cigarettes (tar, formaldehyde, nitrogen oxide, carbon monoxide etc.) which causes chronic lung disease. The exhaled "smoke" is mostly steam, though it does contain traces of chemicals and nicotine - albeit to a much, much lesser extent than cigarette smoke. Until more thorough research is undertaken, it's hard to argue that e-cigs are harmful to anyone else other than the user.

E-cigs work the same way as a nicotine patch but used in a similar way to a normal fag, potentially - though not 100% conclusively (pdf, pdf, pdf) - making them powerful tools in getting people to stop smoking, and they're certainly more healthier than fags. The Bevan Foundation's Victoria Winckler (also discussed on Syniadau) argued that the primary goal in any public health policy on smoking should be to reduce the use of cigarettes, and e-cig restrictions would "only have a marginal effect".

I fear this is another case of policy-based evidence making. The consultation reads as though the Welsh Government and health authorities are fishing for evidence from the public in order to say e-cigs are bad. It'll probably take the form of the usual "argumentum ad filium".

There's nowhere near a strong-enough case to ban e-cigarettes in public places (yet). Restrictions would perhaps be medically-sound as nicotine is one of the most addictive drugs, but it's scientific nonsense. Having said that, there is clear need for better regulation, and the British Medical Association have called for e-cigs to be regulated like medicines - which is what I called for in relation to all recreational drugs, so I'd agree with that.

If the Welsh Government are absolutely determined to do it, a ban should be provisional with a "sunset clause", and accompanied by high-level research into the relative risks and harm. If it's proven there's minimal risk to anyone else other than the user from e-cigs, any ban should be rescinded by the Assembly.

I don't mean to be scatological....well of course I do, and I doubt I'll be the first or last person to make this argument....but a paint-stripping, face-melting fart is probably more toxic than e-cig vapour. Methane and hydrogen sulphide aren't things you should breathe in casually. Not wanting to put too fine a point on it, but I'm sure we've all been victims of "passive guffing" in an enclosed public space at some point.

I once experienced one, worthy of The Western Front, in a German class (ironically) during a rather hot summer's day. Portacabins aren't exactly renowned for their good air conditioning, so despite the best efforts to diffuse it, it hung like a mushroom cloud above everyone's heads, raining down sulphur. It was like the River Styx. As a result, all the boys were kept behind afterwards and lectured on etiquette. That just prolonged the misery, as everyone was desperately trying not to laugh and draw suspicion to themselves, enduring something that could only be described as drowning in ass.

I'd rather inhale puffs of strawberry laced with nicotine than be exposed to someone else's dietary issues.

Moving on....

Bogs : Access to public toilets

Public toilets are the forgotten son of public health, but are absolutely vital.
(Pic : BBC Wales)

You don't think about public toilets when you don't need them. You certainly think about them when you do!

Though, of course, men have an in-built anatomical privilege which turns any vertical surface into a urinal. Ahem. But that does public health or general hygiene no good at all.

It's not a particularly pleasant thing to think about, but provision of public toilets is – genuinely – no laughing matter; especially if you're elderly, have young children, have certain health conditions, or brought a catastrophe upon yourself by eating too many sugar-free sweets. It's one of the most overlooked and unappreciated areas of public health, and as a marginal expense, it's under attack due to local government austerity measures.

One of those much-maligned and overlooked short debates in the National Assembly could've played a role in the getting this measure on the table. Kirsty Williams AM (Lib Dem, Brecon & Radnor) held a short debate on the topic last November.

She explained that in rural areas in particular, public toilets are being eyed up for closure due to austerity, or – in Carmarthenshire's case (more from Carmarthenshire Planning) – being offloaded to community councils which have little in the way of resources. This would not only impact public health but also tourism.

One way the Welsh Government and local authorities have tried to address this is by encouraging local businesses – in particular pubs and restaurants – to open their toilets to the non-paying public through grants of up to £500. It's something that hasn't always happened, as it might be considered rude to use the facilities without paying in some way.

The white paper proposes that local authorities develop a strategy for public toilets, and consider the issue "in all aspects of planning". It could lead to clearer signage as to where they are, and planning conditions used to ensure more toilets are provided to the public.

Read More

Never Mind The Bollocks....

Before addressing Silk II, it's worth registering my irritation, anger even,
at Plaid Cymru's backfired attempt to "discipline" Michael Haggett.
(Pic : Syniadau)

All Plaid Cymru had to do was shut up.

They got their man in the Senedd. Beds had been made, and Plaid's anti-nuclear lobby have been tucked in so hard they've been suffocated - whether they realise it or not.

The party top brass weren't satisfied with one of the best constituency performances in Plaid's recent history, embarrassing Labour in the process. They had to celebrate the triumph by flaying those of little faith - Syniadau's Michael Haggett (MH) in their sights.

MH : Deserved Criticism

After the by-election, I said some of MH's language and timing was "brazen", and that Plaid Cymru had a right to be angry "for that reason, but that reason alone". MH had to answer for it.

The sole justification (for a complaint) would be his, "it would be tragedy for Plaid if Rhun (ap Iorwerth) was elected" comment. You wouldn't expect a member to, effectively, hope their party loses an election, regardless of their opinion of the candidate. All parties would treat that seriously, and people have been expelled for less.

Those who volunteered time or money on Anglesey last July have a right to be angry, and perhaps MH owed them an apology. The initial punishment (a written warning with an expulsion suspended for 12 months) even seemed proportionate.

However, you would've expected Plaid to let it go, because any disciplinary actions would've had to have revisited public statements on nuclear energy - except it didn't because the process was an absolute train crash.

If Plaid had disciplined MH fair and square, I wouldn't be posting this. But the whole thing was rendered an injustice by the hamfisted way Plaid got to that position, raising serious questions about how the party is run behind the scenes.

Speaking Truth to Power

Being accused of lying is hardly the most stinging insult towards a politician (however unpleasant) as it's an unofficial part of the job. MH's criticism of Plaid's nuclear policy and its misrepresentation by senior figures in the party stands up - regardless of the tone of his arguments.

Llyr Gruffydd AM (Plaid, North Wales) produced an excellent energy policy paper a few weeks ago, but it was hard to take seriously because – once again – Plaid tiptoed around a controversy for the sake of being everything to everyone. Their "We don't support nuclear power, except...." stance is farcical.

There are plenty of "pragmatic" realpolitik policies Plaid Cymru oppose or oppose when they want to - fracking, opencast mining, large-scale onshore wind farms, moving Trident to Wales, the monarchy, closing small schools, the "bedroom tax", GMOs, toxic waste dumps, drones.... the list goes on.

Based on the Anglesey precedent, if someone proposed a nuclear-powered Aberthaw B or Trawsfynydd B promising thousands of jobs, what would Plaid's position be? Will it be "We don't support nuclear power, except...." all over again? You can't tell.

An issue of little importance? Absolutely not.When it comes to independence - Plaid's "long term aim" - you have to place yourself 20, 30, 40 years into the future, weighing up all variables including nuclear energy. It doesn't matter if it has minute support or not, if it's a "long term aim" of a political party they have to future proof policy with that in mind.

Plaid secured a crushing by-election victory, the price being the "The Party of Wales" backing the construction of a 21^st Century Caernarfon Castle.

I don't have an issue with nuclear power on safety, technological or environmental grounds (unlike MH), even whilst living in the shadow of Hinkley Point. My objections are mostly economic. Even if decommissioning liabilities were shared, it's a long-term bill and liability we don't need.

Wales doesn't need a nuclear power station based on our energy requirements and potential for renewables; the UK does. Construction will likely be undertaken by experienced contractors – not locals, that's why there's talk of lots of temporary housing on Anglesey - while the number of operational and long-term jobs are partly related to decommissioning Wylfa A.
Losing Anglesey Aluminium completely will be the bigger blow to the Anglesey and Welsh economies in the long run. Producing aluminium - a hard product - is worth more in terms of domestic productivity than utilities ever will be.

Even if Wylfa B was going to be steam-rollered through by Westminster, supporting nuclear power in Wales is logically incompatible with both Welsh nationalism and sustainable development – the latter of which Labour continuously pays lip service to as well.

A valid complaint heard in a Kangaroo Court

Maintaining discipline amongst a 7,000+ member organisation is always going to be a tough, thankless task.

Elin Jones AM (Plaid, Ceredigion) can't be criticised for making a complaint. There's nothing wrong with a party disciplining its members as long as the process is fair, objective and the same rules apply to everyone regardless of rank.

The disclosed emails and documents are unequivocal - Plaid bollocksed it up.

At the start, you would've expected an enquiry into MH's comments – which could've then led to a formal disciplinary procedure.

The first question would be, "Have senior members of Plaid Cymru publicly misrepresented the party's nuclear energy policy?" If the answer's yes - and it is yes - then MH is entitled to question the party or candidate's stance. Case closed. His only responsibility would be to express that reasonably, and you can certainly argue he didn't. But the truth is the truth.

If Plaid don't like that, they'll need to change their policies. That's supposed to be the job of the membership, making Plaid "different" from other parties, isn't it?

Instead, key decisions were taken behind closed doors without input from MH (including taking part in the initial investigation), Plaid's Standing Orders relating to discipline weren't followed correctly, records weren't properly kept and even basic things like dates were wrong.

MH was trying to answer a case without knowing : who would be adjudicating, the precise grounds for the complaint so he could properly defend himself, whether there was any potential conflict of interest amongst members of the relevant panels and timetables.

The initial investigation report - seemingly the sole evidence by which the final judgement was based upon - reads as biased in the absence of evidence from MH.

Regardless of your opinion on the rights and wrongs here, condemning someone without giving them an opportunity to defend themselves properly isn't just immoral it's disgusting.

MH was pedantic, but in quasi-judicial proceedings it's absolutely essential rules, regulations and orders are followed to the letter. That didn't happen, and should render judgements null and void.

I'm astonished Plaid had the cheek to restart the process after a successful appeal. An appeal where Michael ripped their position apart. If people don't know what "Kafkaesque" means, MH has provided an excellent example.

If a private company or public body were acting this way there would've been grounds for an employment tribunal. I'm sure Plaid at all levels would vigorously "defend the rights" of those on the receiving end of such disgraceful treatment. The placards would be out in force.

Except for their own.

Respect cuts both ways

When bloggers do something wrong, we should be called out on it. To repeat myself, some of the things MH wrote were unacceptable, and the punishment (had the processes been followed properly) was fair.

But an injustice or attack against one is an attack on all.

Although there are plenty of people and processes that come to the aid of those of higher standing in Welsh politics and society - even when they spout utter bollocks - there's nothing for those of us at the other end of the scale except each other. Call that solidarity if you want.

Yeah, the blogosphere's small, geeky, not very important nor influential. Some commentators (bloggers or those who interact with us) verge on being cartoon characters, whether they're the most strident hard-nationalist or the most uber-Brit anti-devolutionista.

It's fallen out of fashion amongst "Assembly insiders" so it's not seen in the same light it was five or six years ago. However, like it or not it's part and parcel of how Welsh politics is covered - which is in a bad enough state as it is. Summarising party policies or things like the Assembly in detail - for those who are interested but who don't want to read the official stuff themselves - is the sort of thing you don't get here because Wales lacks broadsheet newspapers.

It takes hard work and dedication to get where I am, let alone Syniadau, which for a Welsh politics site has been a phenomenal success. Often - if you're a nationalist - that means being an active member of, or agreeing with, Plaid Cymru. Sometimes it means disagreeing, and hopefully providing constructive criticism or sparking debate.

OK, Michael didn't live up to the "constructive" part, but I would've expected a member of the rank and file with a large audience of readers to have been on the list of people to engage with constructively, not treated as a nuisance.

It's in stark contrast to Scotland's "Fifth Estate". Plaid would fall over themselves to have a Wings over Scotland or Bella Caledonia. It's likely "cybernats" are playing a crucial role in the independence referendum.

Elin Jones speaks for Plaid on internet campaigning as she's the party's Director of Communications. It would've been nice to have known of Plaid's low opinion of blogs sooner, because it would've saved me hours of voluntary work – including more recently, this, this and this - and from a non-member.

To give you a rough idea of how much that's "worth" - nothing to Plaid Cymru it seems - if there were a market for it and it were carried out by journalists, the going freelance NUJ rate is ~£100-200 per 1,000 words online.

Blogs appear out of thin air, but you can't pull posts out of your backside. It can become an unpaid part-time job, and if you're a party member you're effectively volunteering all year round - not just at election time - the number of hours it amounts to bordering on insane. Except, it's never been considered voluntary work in MH's case, has it?

Your public statements are widely-read but don't carry weight.  It's also a risk, with particular problems in Wales - the abuse, balancing things so you don't annoy the wrong person (ha!), litigious local authorities etc. If you get your stuff wrong you publicly humiliate yourself, because you're doing something in your free time without paid researchers and assistants to draft and fact check things for you.

Open debate should be Plaid Cymru's greatest strength, but if criticism is shouted down and critics hounded out, all you're left with is a parade of delusional feel-good fluff with no substance. The party marches off a cliff, high as a kite, because they believe stuffing more letter boxes in safe seats and dishing out more keyrings than they used to means they're heading for government.
MH was abrasive, but honest opinion and advice is absolutely essential to any political party that has ambitions of power, as integrity and fixing policy holes gets them into office. Muddled policies don't. The arsekissers, ladder-climbers and yes-(wo)men will be the first to jump ship when the going gets tough, taking canvassers, memberships and donations with them.

You could say MH is a self-important loose cannon who should know his place.

You can also say he's been a foundation stone of Plaid's online campaigning for five years, with articles - the vast majority fervently in support of the party's policies - collectively read more than a million times. You would've thought that counts for something in terms of "voluntary work" or "party loyalty", and might buy you enough grounds to be treated with a modicum of common decency when you breach discipline.

Even if the complaint was valid, Michael earned the right to be judged properly and to be heard out. People might rightly question his loyalty to the party, but the party showed no loyalty to him in kind.Plaid should take great care in ensuring that, in future, decentralised socialism doesn't translate into meaning the same old centralised bullshit.

Read More