Growing Pains: Senedd demands specialist arthritis service

(Pic : stephencataldo.com)

Arthritis is perhaps stereotyped as an "old person's disease" caused by joint wear and tear, but there are a number of arthritis and arthritis-like conditions that can strike at any age such as juvenile idiopathic arthritis, lupus and fibromyalgia.

Read More

Right to Buy ban "needs explaining"

(Pic: The Guardian)

The Communities Committee published their Stage One report on the Abolition of Right to Buy Bill yesterday (pdf). In summary, their recommendations were that:

Read More

FMQs: No Love Lost

The increasingly fractious row over Carmarthenshire Council's decision to make Llangennech School Welsh-medium-only continues. Plus, other questions on climate change, scams/cold calling and the Welsh Government “leaning” on lobbyists and the Third Sector.

Read More

FMQs: Brexit, Trains & Disability

There are two big non-FMQ related stories today. Firstly, the Senedd voting on a Legislative Consent Motion (LCM) for the Wales Bill. It's expected to pass and there's little to add. Just cross your fingers and hope AMs haven't been sold magic beans (either way).

Read More

Woodpeckers, Tits & Choughs

(Pic : Centre for Ecology & Hydrology)

In the last few weeks an alliance of environmental, conservation and ecology groups published a State of Nature report for 2016 (pdf). It didn't make good reading when it comes to protecting native Welsh species, with some spots of hope. There's more from the Assembly's Research Service here.

Read More

The Big Brexit To Do List

Before Brexit can happen, we need to know what needs to be done beforehand.

I'm getting as fed up with the endless hot air surrounding Brexit as much as you probably are. This will be my final post on Brexit for the foreseeable future. I'm also considering ignoring any future statements/questions on this in the Senedd as nothing's actually happened yet and nobody seems to be in a rush to make anything happen either.

Read More

A Guide to the Welsh Third Sector

(Pic : Barnardo's)

I'm going to guess most people reading this know what the Third Sector is as it's been in and out of the headlines – directly and indirectly – for many years, having become a friendlier face of private involvement in public services and alternative to top-down state planning.

Read More

Fourth Assembly Review : Key Failures

Like last time, these are in no particular order :

Read More

Minister updates Senedd on refugee response

(Pic : Al-Jazeera)

The Syrian refugee crisis has slipped off the front pages in the last fortnight due to Russian military intervention in the conflict, the latest catastrophic brain fart from the US Air Force and party conference season.

Read More

Poverty Inquiry : Poverty & Inequality

The modern image of poverty is something like the above, but it should also include
low-paid care workers, part-time shop assistants and people priced out of housing.
(Pic : Swansea Sound)

Earlier this week, the Assembly's Communities & Local Government Committee launched the first report of a four-part inquiry into poverty in Wales (pdf) - and a 10-page summary (pdf). Each strand of the inquiry has its own terms of reference, and this first report focuses on how poverty is measured, defined and generally dealt with at a national level.

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

Gissa Job : Assisting Young People Into Work

An Assembly committee has investigated the barriers facing young people as they enter the
world of work, as well as assessing Welsh Government actions to reduce youth unemployment.
(Pic : The Guardian)

Another tome, I'm afraid. All part of the service.

Last week, the Enterprise & Business Committee published their report into how young people find  work (pdf). This is particularly important as quoted statistics underline how hard young people have been hit by the recession - up to 18% of 18-24 year olds were unemployed in 2014 compared to just 4.4% of 35-49 year olds.

Read More

Legally High

Earlier this week, the National Assembly's Health & Social Care Committee published their inquiry report (pdf) into new psychoactive substances (aka. NPS, "legal highs"). It was an extensive and wide-ranging inquiry which took evidence from a huge list of witnesses and focus groups around Wales.

Read More

Third Sector "bullying" criticised by AMs

Third Sector lobbying at the National Assembly is nothing new and has become a key
part of Welsh civic life. However, over the past week things took an unpalatable turn.
(Pic : The Women's Institute)

Following last week's Stage 3 debate on the Violence Against Women, Domestic Violence & Sexual Violence Bill, the National Assembly held the final Stage 4 debate yesterday. The Bill was passed unanimously and awaits Royal Assent.

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

Wales : State of Innovation? Or doing the wrong things better?

In the last few weeks, a report entitled State of Innovation (pdf) - authored by Nesta's Matthew Gatehouse and Adam Price - was published as part of the Welsh Public Services 2025 programme.

It sets out a vision of a more innovative Welsh public sector which, considering it's proportionally large impact on the Welsh economy, could well become necessary if we want to see public services delivered more efficiently, and more imaginatively, in the backdrop of public spending cuts.

Why the public sector needs innovation

The report highlights a "triple vice":

• Public spending cuts and austerity – The impact is likely to last for at least five years, probably more, affecting the general Welsh economy (due to more public sector employees). There's also the issue of "Offa's Gap" – a gap in economic productivity between Wales and the rest of the UK. So public services can't be based off the back of continuous economic growth filling coffers anymore.
• An ageing and ill population – Rates of child poverty and chronic illness remain above UK averages. Wales also has a proportionately older population too, with the number of over-75s expected to increase by up to 80% by the 2030s.
• Environmental and social pressures – We increasingly expect to do activities "on demand" and "on the fly" since the advent of things like social media - expecting the same flexibility from our public services. We're still using more than our fair share of natural resources despite commitments to "sustainability". This impacts the public sector, as much as the private sector and individual households.

What does public sector innovation actually mean?

The report says, "new ideas that work at creating public value". In English, I think that means improving how things are run, instead of simply throwing money at problems and hoping that'll work –  the usual way of doing things. "Working smarter", then.

The report describes three different types of innovation :

• Incremental – Smaller changes to existing services over a longer period of time.
• Radical – Significant changes to existing services, without altering the underlying purpose of those services.
• Transformational – "Ripping the whole lot up and starting again", with completely new services or methods of service delivery.

I think it's safe to say that the Welsh Government and civil service often opt for "incremental" change, or even not bothering with change at all, and rarely make the step up to "radical" innovation. Those "transformational" changes require new technologies, mind-sets and skills; so they might sound seductive, but might not always be the best option on the table.

Present Welsh public service innovation

Foundation Phase is given as an example of where the
Welsh public sector has been "innovative". Similar examples
are fleeting, however.
(Pic : npted.org)

Devolution is said to have been delivered off the back of "Made in Wales" solutions to long-standing problems in areas like the economy and health. However, there's lament at the lack of innovation. Instead – and I think we all know this, except the people at the top – we ended up with Westminster policies simply being "tuned" to Welsh needs. The civil service got used to doing things a certain way, without being as "stand alone" as Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Innovation in Wales extends to freebies and subsidised schemes. Low-hanging fruit, sometimes cheap to deliver, and politically successful for Welsh Labour. In other cases, there've been more dramatic changes, like the introduction of Foundation Phase, and the proposed organ donation opt-out law.

One key factor in all this was the Welsh Government's adoption of "partnership and persuasion", instead of aping the more hostile relationship between Westminster and those delivering public services on the ground in England.

There are said to be two "defining strengths" with regard innovation in the Welsh public sector :

1. Political cohesion – Welsh public services are "closely knit", with the potential for a highly co-ordinated system for innovation, helped by pan-Wales bodies.
2. Social sciences – Welsh universities produce "world-leading" social science research – for example, Cardiff's School of Planning. This has been added to via the creation of things like the Public Policy Institute, as well as independent bodies like the Bevan Foundation and Institute of Welsh Affairs.

However, there has been frustration in Cathays Park at the lack of progress made in delivering at a local level by councils and various public bodies. There are an awful lot of other roadblocks too, namely :

• Organisational thinness – We haven't got the numbers to develop the "big" institutions needed to develop the right skills.
• Lock-out – Small-c conservatism and insularity in the Welsh public sector, where everything is done "on the inside" since the "Bonfire of the Quangos".
• Lack of citizen engagement – Service users are best placed to point out how things could work better, but aren't being asked, or aren't bothered enough to care.
• Fragmentation – There's no single system to highlight successful innovations and share them between different parts of the public sector.

What are the barriers to public sector innovation?

These are all things anyone who follows Welsh politics closely will agree with. It makes for depressing reading, but most of you will be nodding along I'd expect.

• Hierarchies and "silo mentalities" – Seeing radical ideas from "outside" as a threat, and operating in a way that creates barriers to sharing ideas between different parts of the public sector. There's very little mixing of academic research with practice.
• Risk aversion – Public services staff seeing innovation as a threat to their job, or a challenge to the comfy status quo. The need to be accountable and a need for "certainty" means there's a disincentive to make major changes that could have a big pay off, but might not work.
• No rewards – "If it ain't broke...." mentality, meaning if a service is trundling along fine, it won't be tampered with by managers. Also, radical changes are often flagged up by the media and then opposed by service users, trade unions and politicians.
• Short-termism – Public service staff work to fix immediate pressures and on administration, instead of "taking a step back and seeing if you can do things differently".
• Politics – Contributes to short-termism by "demanding instant results" rather than more effective longer-terms solutions. The Foundation Phase is cited as an example, where the results won't be known for perhaps another decade.

Although these are general barriers that can happen everywhere, there are more Wales-specific problems too :

• Higher proportion of people working in the public sector, who don't get rewarded for innovation and might fear their job is at risk by adopting riskier, untested methods of service delivery. Because of lower private sector employment, they might worry they won't find another job.
• A lack of creative leadership in public management, who end up perpetuating the above.
• Innovation is seen as a "distraction" from service delivery in Wales compared to England.
• Auditing compares public services with existing "good practice" rather than taking into account radical and untested/unproven schemes. Staff said they end up trying to meeting audit checklists rather than coming up with new ways to deliver services. This might result in services improving, but only because of "doing the wrong things better."

What can be done?

That's actually the wrong question. One of the key tenets of the report isn't, "What could be done?" But more, "Wales is doing a lot already, it just isn't being exploited as it could be." It contained plenty of examples, but I decided not to go into them for the sake of brevity (LOL!).

In terms of specific proposals, there's a national action plan outlined as :

1. Bringing "social science research and public service practice" closer together, with greater collaboration, generating the evidence base needed to put forward the case for more radical public service reforms.
2. Making innovation skills a key part of public management training, in order to "create a cadre of leaders in Wales who create a new vision for public services." This would help turn innovation into workable projects.
3. Engaging more independent bodies in public service innovation, to create a more "entrepreneurial culture" to drive up productivity, and develop enterprises to provide services within local communities.
4. Incentivise partners in the private sector – especially technology – to turn Wales into a "global test bed" for innovations in public services. Examples include digital education and developing new technology in reaction to an ageing population.

There are also other proposals and unanswered questions, like :  funding innovation as a proportion of public sector spending (in the same way private companies invest in R&D), prizes for innovation and changes to how performances are measured to make "taking risks" more attractive.

Can Wales become a State of Innovation?

Ultimately, you'll have to ask Carwyn and the civil service. He's made small steps in that direction through the establishment of the Public Policy Institute, as covered by A Change of Personnel. I still remain sceptical about the remit of the "think tank that can't think", but I don't question the First Minister's sincerity. Maybe this report will be picked up there, who knows?

It's another report that, as Prof. Dylan Jones-Evans bemoans on Click on Wales, largely went under the radar. In all honesty though, it's incredibly hard to make reports like these interesting for the media or relevant to the public - even if said reports are excellent or important.

If posts like this get picked up by other people who have a bigger audience, or make people understand things better - great, I've done my job. That rarely happens as I'm preaching to the choir. I have the luxury of being able to do that, though – the mainstream media don't. But isn't that the problem in the first place?

And, "Doing the wrong things better" is the best summing up of Wales since devolution I've ever come across.

Read More

What Wales gets from the European Union

It's bloated. It's bureaucratic. Its budget is yet to be (formally) decided.
What does Wales actually get from EU membership?
(Pic : capreform.eu)

I don't think issues surrounding the European Union are, really, at the forefront of most people's minds. It does look as though an agreement on the EU budget for 2013 is imminent after an EU Commission climbdown, but the agreement for the budget between member states for 2014-2020 remains at an impass. These matters impact Wales whether we like it or not.

The EU budget

A few weeks ago, Conservative backbenchers and Labour MPs voted against a rise in the EU's budget, and passed an amendment calling for a real-terms cut. You can argue this is a reasonable stand – if national governments have to make sacrifices, shouldn't Brussels?

The relationship between Wales and the EU is slightly different than many other parts of the UK. Although the EU failed to agree a budget at their last summit, any cuts or freeze will be noticeable here. A failure to agree to a budget would put long-term projects at risk.

Plaid Cymru MEP, Jill Evans, spelt out some benefits of Wales within the EU, working out that every Welsh person is getting back £40 more than is put in. That roughly works out at Wales being £120million better off as a whole.

That doesn't sound like much, but I think the benefits are much wider. It's also fair to say that some of this money may well have been (perceivably) mismanaged. I said this a few months ago:

"EU-funds appear to be used for things like public realm improvements, or incredibly niche schemes, spreading funds far too thinly. In the period 2007-2013, £1.5billion has been spent on the public sector (mainly universities), £99million on the third sector (including ~£6.1million to the likes of AWEMA), and just £23million in the private sector."

It's also worth pointing out that the EU's own strict guidelines, regulations and rules mean that an awful lot of effort needs to go into getting the funds in the first place. That doesn't mean that some of the people bidding for these funds are always suitable. Note Jac o' the North's account on that.

It's also right to point out that seeing grants as the be all and end all solution in Wales, or a natural "Welsh way of doing things", is perhaps creating an incredibly damaging, short-term, dependant mindset.

A Jocelyn Davies AM (Plaid, South Wales East) motion passed the Senedd – including support from Welsh Labour AMs – that pressed the Welsh Government to "make representations" to the UK Government, opposing the budget cut.

Are (UK) Labour equally concerned about the "threat" posed
by UKIP as the Tories seemingly are?
(Pic : The Times)

Now, I don't know why Westminster Labour have decided to lurch towards euroscepticism-lite. Maybe they're just hardening their stance to appear "tougher on Europe" than they were in government to stave of a UKIP threat amongst the working class.

I don't have any truck with UKIP's views, but in terms of public debate, they've opened a window – even if it only lets in muck spreading wafts. They're eccentric - with a Colonel Blimp jingoism and a twee view of the UK's place in the world – but deserve to, and will, be taken seriously in 2014 and 2015. However, I think it's too soon to be building them up as an electoral force. Due to FPTP, the chances of them gaining MPs will be slim.

Welsh Labour are, seemingly, more pro-Europe that the Westminster party. They might be disciplined on the surface, but there's a history of differences causing "tensions". The first chinks in Tony Blair's armour came from Wales in the shape of Rhodri Morgan.

If Carwyn Jones were taken seriously as a head of government by his own party, instead of being seen as a loyal provincial governor, I'd put £10 on him verses Ed within two rounds.

It's also heartening that Welsh politicians can debate these matters of importance in a reasoned and mature manner, while British politicians try to out-clown each other in the Westminster lobby on News 24 trying to prove who wants to cut the most.

How does Wales benefit from EU membership?

Broader benefits

Jobs – The First Minister acknowledges that at least 150,000 jobs were based wholly or entirely on EU membership, and 50,000 were employed directly by companies from other EU member states. You could also suggest EU membership imperils Welsh jobs – especially if operations move to more attractive places in eastern Europe. It's also fair to say these jobs wouldn't disappear overnight if the UK left.

Free trade & membership of the world's largest economy – As I highlighted back in September, Wales is less reliant on the EU for our exports than the UK as a whole. But having free and open access to a market of half a billion people in one of the wealthiest parts of the planet (in spite of what's going on) is a no-brainer.

Carwyn Jones recently said that 50,000 people in
Wales were employed by companies based elsewhere in the EU -
including ~500 at (German-owned) Siemens Diagnostics in Llanberis.
(Pic : Daily Post)

Free movement – Although the UK isn't part of the Schengen agreement, being able to move visa-free between large economies like England, Germany and France - as well as faster-growing economies like Poland - should be considered a huge benefit. It's a shame we tend to focus on those coming in instead of thinking about going out – in business terms especially. It also has spin offs like guaranteeing free health care in EU nations.

Peace & political stability – The timing of the EU being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize was...."amusing". The EU has developed a strength in its diversity - when it was once a weakness. Instead of Europe's great powers using smaller nations as chess pieces in their quest to dominate the continent (or further afield), disagreements are now thrashed out around negotiating tables in Brussels and Strasbourg. There's also a strong commitment to liberal democracy in all member states – though that's starting to slip in places like Hungary. It's just a shame the European institutions are so cumbersome, but maybe they need to be.

Harmonised pan-European regulations – Whenever we hear about EU laws, they are usually BS about straight bananas and weights and measures. What about mobile phone roaming? Environmental regulations? Standards on chemical safety and water quality? Car and air safety standards? Veterinary and agricultural standards? Cross-border crime fighting? It's also important to point out that the much-maligned European Court of Human Rights isn't part of the European Union.

Specifically important benefits for Wales

Agricultural Programmes – Includes the European Fisheries Fund, European Agricultural Rural Development Fund (worth about £195million to Wales between 2007-2013) and Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). The CAP alone is said to be worth £350million to Welsh farmers every year.

The Common Agricultural Policy is due for reform, but
without it, would Wales have much of a farming industry left?
(Pic : BBC Wales)

You can argue that farms shouldn't need subsidy, and should be encouraged to become more commercially viable – that's supposed to be amongst these funds main aims. These funds are in desperate need of reform – especially since EU enlargement - and make up a sizable chunk (€270billion) of the EU's total budget. I think attempts at reform have probably been blocked by the French and Spanish, who benefit disproportionately from the current arrangements. The UK does too, it has to be said.

Convergence Funds – Commonly referred to under the umbrella of "Objective One", or the more grand European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). These funds are worth up to £1billion over a 6 year period. It looks like West Wales & The Valleys might qualify again in 2013. That's not really good news, as convergence funds have to be match-funded by the Welsh Government and are a sign of a weak economy.

These funds have had a big impact on the university sector in particular. Jill Evans mentioned using EU funding to electrify the north Wales mainline recently, and that's the sort of project you would expect this money to be spent on. However, as noted earlier, I believe many of the projects over the last few decades have been well-meant, but haven't delivered anywhere near the outcomes – especially in terms of economic development and infrastructure – that West Wales & The Valleys desperately need.

"Objective One" is probably the most visible
sign of the EU in Wales. But is the money
being invested wisely?
(Pic : Ceredigion Council)

European Social Fund – Another branch of "Objective One". This is worth around £690million over six years. These funds are used on the "social schemes". For example : reducing economic inactivity, "social justice", up-skilling. But it also makes its way to the third sector, who haven't covered themselves in glory of late. The rules are incredibly specific and so full of hoops, that I doubt much money makes it to the front lines.

Specific Investment Funds – This includes the JESSICA framework (funds aimed at developing urban areas). It could be considered a branch of the main convergence funding. The Welsh Government have set up and Urban Development Fund and the Regeneration Investment Fund under this EU framework. It's supposed to be used on regeneration projects. In fact, a chunk of RIFW's cash is going to be spent on Neath town centre over the next few years. Again, the outcomes and management should be questioned. The JEREMIE initiative also helps/helped the Welsh Government's finance arm (Finance Wales) support small and medium businesses. It was/is worth £150million.

Erasmus– A pan-European exchange programme. Although it's said only 630 students (and 112 staff) from Wales have participated in the programme last year, compared to the all-UK figure (~12,000 participants) that's roughly what you would expect – perhaps slightly more than our population share. Cardiff University also hosted one of the largest overseas Erasmus contingents in the UK. Even brief periods living and studying in another EU state would obvious help cross-cultural understanding and – hopefully – international relations should they grow up to become business or political leaders.

What we also get, and what we'll get in the future

London Mayor, Boris Johnson, recently mooted a "pared down" relationship
with the EU - citing Switzerland and Norway. That might suit London, but
would it suit Wales, or the UK as a whole?
(Pic : BBC)

Bone-crushing levels of bureaucracy. No (Welsh) voice at the top tables. The pointless spectacle of moving between Strasbourg and Brussels. The ongoing "will they, won't they" fiscal union debacle. Nigel Farage. Uninspiring leaders at European level. And a voice for lunatics on the far-left and far-right in the European Parliament.

And it's fair to point out that there's significantly more subvention/subsidy from the UK that there is from the EU. We might be £40 better off in Europe, but thanks to leaky submarines, West Ham's new stadium and RBS – and other, more important things like social security – we're estimated to be about £4000 "better off" in the UK. Even if most of that is borrowed via the Treasury's credit card.

So although I clearly believe there are benefits to Welsh membership of the EU – via the UK at the moment – there's a need for reform.

The Lisbon Treaty went a long way towards doing that. It merged several institutions and created, in effect, a European constitution. But I think things are coming to a head due to the eurozone's fiscal problems.

My hunch is that the worst of the Euro fiscal crisis is behind us, but there's nothing ahead but a decade of stagnation. I think a new treaty is inevitable – probably creating a full fiscal union between eurozone members – and, ultimately, a "two-speed Europe".

Guess who'll be trundling along in the outside lane, indicating to take the next exit - with Wales in tow. Would that be in Wales' interests? It's a big question, and one that's perhaps too difficult to answer at the moment.

But, at the end of the day - whether you're Welsh, Slovene, German or French - we're all Europeans aren't we? If you even consider the British Isles a part of Europe. It appears the Leader of the Opposition in the Assembly doesn't.

Stronger together....

Read More

AWEMA - No Taffioso deals, but some questions unanswered

Last Thursday, the Wales Audit Office published their long-awaited report into AWEMA, following the charity's liquidation. More on this at : National Left, Jac o' the North, Peter Black AM, A Change of Personnel, Inside Out, Betsan Powys and Gareth Hughes.

Firstly, we need to get the Labour issue out of the way. The report found no evidence of outright political interference, saying that although "the full basis of some of the Welsh Government's funding decisions were unclear" there was little evidence of "inappropriate ministerial involvement." (p31)

By that, they mean there were no deals in smoky rooms, or ministers going out of their way – on record - to accommodate Naz Malik. In fact, AWEMA didn't always get what they asked for.

The report highlights who was responsible for what over the period (Appendix 5). Three names feature prominently throughout - Jane Hutt, Carl Sargeant & Edwina Hart – with a few others, such as Carwyn Jones, Sue Essex, Brian Gibbons and Andrew Davies playing minor roles. Also, between 2007-2011, Ieuan Wyn Jones played a significant role as minister responsible for the European funding , but his name doesn't feature as often.

So, this was a primarily Labour-led systemic failure, but neither Plaid, nor the Lib Dems (Mike German's brief involvement circa 2000-2001 & Lib Dem AWEMA trustees), come out of this completely smelling of roses (heh).

Welsh Labour conspiracy theories are entertaining – no doubt harbouring truths - but a scandal would have to be really big and bad to make an impact. It also distracts from the key issue – poor governance. The way to dent a party's credibility, is that when they're crap at the job they're elected to do, it gets reported as widely as possible.

On that, the findings were more damning. You could sum up the rest of the report in one sentence : In handling AWEMA, the Welsh Government, parts of the European Funding Office and civil service have been vain, disorganised and shown poor leadership.

Vain - The report says that the Welsh Government's equalities unit issued advice to Jane Hutt and Rhodri Morgan that they were worried about the "impact on the Welsh Government's reputation among....minority ethnic groups, were it to cease funding AWEMA." (p40)

When the wider scandal broke in 2011, and the organisation's existence was threatened, AWEMA  did play the race card. So civil service warnings were, perhaps, vindicated. So what? Fearing the reactions to "controversial" decisions is no way to run a government or civil service. It's vanity. To quote The Thick of It from the weekend, "This is the result of a political class that's given up on morality and simply pursues popularity at all costs."

Disorganised – The report highlights major errors in grant funding, citing lack of stability in the equalities unit, and brushing aside the findings of a specially commissioned report. Edwina Hart wasn't even sent a submission about new funding arrangements, despite commissioning the review in the first place and being responsible for funding (p41).

The equalities unit "did not rigorously follow up concerns about AWEMA's governance arrangements" for a period of five years (2005-2010) and didn't take allegations, by the chair and acting chair in 2007, into consideration. The European Funding Office had no concerns about AWEMA's EU projects, but "didn't apply sufficient rigour in monitoring these projects."

Poor leaders – The Welsh Government were warned no fewer than eight times between 2000-2011 about AWEMA (Appendix 3), including former Plaid AM, Dai Lloyd and Peter Black AM (Lib Dem, South Wales West) as recently as 2010.

The Welsh Government were satisfied with many of AWEMA's projects, but too lazy in monitoring them – a recurring theme. They didn't respond to specific allegations, had poor communication between departments, failed to follow-up concerns or "get to the heart of issues" when concerns were raised. (p71-72)

The report says that "management of....funding to AWEMA by the Welsh Government....has often been poor." There's praise, however, for how the Welsh Government reacted in 2011 .Shame it couldn't have been said earlier.

It's also unclear how much this has cost. Direct payments from the Welsh Government totalled £7.15million between 2000-2011. The Welsh Government claimed a debt owed to them of around £900,000. AWEMA disputed this, and the figure was reduced to around £545,000. Naz Malik denied there were any missing funds on ITVWales' Sharp End. It's unlikely AWEMA's creditors - including the Welsh Government - will see any of that money again.

Some important questions remain partially, or wholly, unanswered. So this hasn't been flushed yet.

Bethan Jenkins pressed Finance Minister, Jane Hutt (Lab, Vale of Glamorgan) to release documents from the equalities unit, to little avail. The change of Permanent Secretary might be a legitimate excuse for that, and might delay backbench AMs getting answers too.

We partially know why funding kept going to AWEMA – the Welsh Government/civil service didn't want to be accused of racism – but it's worth hearing the reasons from the ministers themselves. We now, also, have a good idea about who was involved. Will we get any apologies?

Other issues and questions I don't think have been satisfactorily cleared up include:

• What were the precise failings which resulted in the answer to the (2006) written question by Dai Lloyd and Peter Black AM being "incomplete and inaccurate"?
• Why, despite concerns raised in the 2004-05 report, was funding to AWEMA increased in subsequent years?
• Why did the Welsh Government "fail to act" in response to the 2007 accusations from the acting chair and vice-chair of AWEMA?
• What, precisely, did the Charities Commission do in relation to the 2007 allegations?
• Where are the Home Office  records relating to their £346,000 grants to AWEMA?
• What was particular about the 2011 disclosures that convinced the Welsh Government to act compared to prior warnings?
• What actions are the Welsh Government and civil service taking to prevent this from happening again?

It's been reported that several urgent questions have been submitted for tomorrow, and today, the Assembly's Public Accounts Committee heard that the Welsh Government had "no way of highlighting that AWEMA was high risk." I think it's time ministers were upfront, or lines will never be drawn under this.

Read More

Social Services Bill consultation

Social services in Wales are due to undergo a major shake-up.
(Pic: Click on Wales)

Deputy Minister for Children & Social Services, Gwenda Thomas (Lab, Neath), launched the Welsh Government's consultation on a Social Services Bill last week. It's arguably the first "meaty" piece of legislation to be proposed as part of their legislative programme.

The consultation is open until June 1^st and all the information is here.

The Bill is expected to be laid in front of the Assembly in October this year, scheduled to become law in the first half of 2013. Once that happens the new Code of Practice and Regulations (outlined below) will be drawn up by the Welsh Government.

What's proposed?

• A new duty to enhance "wellbeing of people in need" i.e. Assess social care needs and arrange social care services for individuals.
• People "in need" will be given a legal definition and will include : children in care, adults reliant on social services, disabled children or a person (adult or child) in need of safeguarding.
• A new "code of practice" will be provided to local authorities regarding provision of services to people in need.
• A simplification of social service arrangements, as well as a legal definition of "social care services".
• Local authorities will be required to "provide information" to improve access to services and work with other agencies to deliver services, including the NHS.
• A statutory right to an "assessment of need" for individuals who require social care.
• Place a legal duty on local authorities to accept the needs assessment of a patient from another local authority within Wales, as well as arrange for the transfer of information, and cooperate with the NHS and other "delivery partners" to help smooth over a transfer of a service user between authorities.
• There'll be a legal duty placed on local authorities, and service providers, to prepare a "care and support plan" for a person assessed to be in need. Welsh Ministers will have the power to set regulations for this process.
• The creation of a "single eligibility threshold" for social services.
• Existing carer's legislation will be drawn together to create a single piece of law that enshrines carer's rights and the duties of local authorities in supporting them.
• Existing legislation on Direct Payments for social care will be drawn together. Welsh Ministers will be able to decide the clients and circumstances under which Direct Payments can be used, as well as regulations for them.
• The Public Service Obundsman for Wales will have their powers expanded to cover complaints against care homes, domiciliary care agencies and independent palliative care services.
• There'll be a general duty on Welsh Ministers to : encourage improvement in social care and social services, publish a review and statement of national outcomes in social services, specify performance standards , issue guidance on standards and prepare a Code of Practice for social care providers.
• Local authorities and care providers will be required to report publicly on their performance and appoint a Director of Social Services.
• Partnership and pooling of resources between local authorities will be strengthened. Welsh Ministers will be able to make regulations on local authority partnerships.
• A National Independent Safeguarding Board will be established, with executive powers and a national remit. Six Local Safeguarding Children Boards will also be established, alongside existing Adult Protection Boards.
• A new legal framework will be established for adult protection in Wales, including new legal definitions of "at risk" and "at harm" adults. There'll be a duty to investigate, intervene, share information, co-operate and report on allegations of abuse or harm.
• Social care workers will require professional regulation, with existing Care Council for Wales powers extended to cover care workers. Welsh Ministers will have the power to make regulations to reserve power to certain care staff, as well as regulations to decide what services are subject to inspection by social care regulators.
• Social care service providers will be required to register with the social care regulator. A new social care services public register will be set up. Welsh Ministers will also be able to require registered social care service providers to publish reports at specific times.
• "Minimum standards" will be removed from the Care Services Act 2000, to "move beyond a focus on a minimum standard of service delivery."
• A National Adoption Service will be established, formed from all local authorities, to provide certain adoption services.
• Welsh Ministers will be able to make regulations regarding continuing care for disabled children up to the age of 21.

What are the purported benefits of the new law?

• It gives a legal definition to "adults in need", so services would be integrated for both children and adults, changing it to "people in need".
• It should be clearer for people to understand what services are available should they need them.
• Individuals should be able to make clearer, informed choices about their social care needs.
• Assessment of need should lead to a clearer understanding amongst patients and care professionals and lead to reduced administrative burden on local authorities - including fewer complaints.
• When a person receiving social care/social services moves from one part of Wales to another, the transfer should be a lot easier and smoother. It should lead to administrative cost savings.
• Inconsistencies in care and support plans should be removed, more easily tailored to an individuals requirements and there'll be a much more simplified legal framework.
• A single eligibility threshold should provide greater transparency, uniformity and coherence across Wales when considering a persons eligibility for services.
• Changes to Direct Payment legislation will give individuals "more control over the design of their care packages."
• Those making complaints against independent palliative cares services would have access to advocacy services.
• Widening duties on Welsh Ministers and local authorities should lead to better targeted policy development, and a better targeting of resources at both local and national level.
• A new Code of Practice should have a positive impact on all social care users.
• Clearly appointed Director's of Social Services would lead to "more accountable" local services.
• There should be "great savings" in encouraging local authority partnerships.
• Day-to-day decisions on safeguarding will be independent and taken away from Welsh Ministers.
• Regulation of care workers should lead to increased professionalism, improved outcomes, improved standards and better training and resources.
• A public register will allow users to have up to date information on care services.
• The National Adoption Service will enhance efficiency, quality and equity. It will allow an early referral system to eradicate waiting lists for potential adopters.

Are there any other issues?

• Additional costs will fall on local authorities, but the impact is expected to be eased due to the integration of child and adult social services, which is hoped will provide cost savings.
• "Widening access" to social services will have an initial cost set up.
• The Carers Strategies (Wales) Measure 2010 will need to be amended, and new carer's rights will have additional costs – possibly outweighed by the social and financial gains of carer's being properly supported.
• A widening of the Public Services Obundsman's duties will have a cost impact.
• Changes to "transitional services" of disabled children until the age of 21 could have "unintended adverse affects" on any benefits they may receive - which are non-devolved.
• The Bill will have an impact on businesses, in particular those involved in social care. It would also have a significant impact on the public sector, especially local authorities. There will be some impact on the "Third Sector", but they are expected to broadly welcome the Bill.

Read More

AWEMA - someone in Cardiff needs to own up

More on this at Jac OThe North, Inside Out, National Left, The Western Mail, Betsan Powys, Gareth Hughes and Wales Home.

It's been a point made elsewhere but Martin Shipton and his team at The Western Mail (as well as BBC Wales and the South Wales Evening Post) need to be congratulated for this excellent piece of investigative journalism. It's shows the true value a solid national press has for Wales and the vital role it plays in holding TPTB to account.

The latest report from the Welsh Government and Big Lottery Fund was published last week into the goings-on at All Wales Ethnic Minority Association (AWEMA). We've had things called "scandals" in the past (Nick Bourne's Ipod, The Lib Dem 2, second homes in Penarth and Rosie Butler's table), but I'd agree with Daran Hill that this is "perhaps the biggest scandal around the use of public money since devolution began". However, we have to put this in perspective. It's still small fry compared to some of Westminster's shenanigans.

You probably already know about what happened but here's a summary of the allegations from the latest report:

• AWEMA didn't submit any accounts to Companies House or the Charity Commission for the year 2010-11 and no management accounts exist having "not been produced for some time".
• There's an "absence of key policies and procedures within AWEMA", for example an expenses policy, conflict of interests register or register of hospitality's given/taken – this was taken advantage of (mobile phone bills paid, greetings cards, parking charges) although the sums were small and backed with receipts.
• Creditor information was not available - said to be vital to give assurance of solvency.
• Naz Malik (the CEO) hadn't been subject to a performance appraisal since 2006.
• ABOMA (the board of management) held no regular meetings or were done so on an "ad hoc" basis with big gaps between them – sometimes as long as 11 months.
• Naz Malik's decisions were only given retrospective approval by ABOMA.
• Expenditure from AWEMA's funds included £2,100 on gym membership, £800 on rugby and cricket tickets and one of Naz Malik's parking tickets worth £110. None of these were disclosed to HMRC and it's unclear if these were funded from public money.
• Naz Malik relied on the Financial Director for details of financial processes, when as CEO he should have "a key duty in overseeing these processes".
• The AWEMA payroll system was "seriously inadequate". The three directors salaries were "high in comparison to other members of AWEMA" though action has now been taken by ABOMA.
• Naz Malik's daughter reported to him as a director, a "clear conflict of interest" and her salary increased from £20,498 in 2008 to £50,052 in 2012 with Naz Malik present at meetings of ABOMA (when approving salary increases) both as CEO and an ABOMA member.

The most damning statement of all is that there can be "no assurances" that there were "appropriate arrangements in place to safeguard and make proper use of Welsh Government (£105k), Wales European Funding Office (£5m) or Big Lottery Funds (£523k) entrusted to AWEMA". That's a potential (and I have to stress potential) misuse of some £6million in public funds.

But it gets worse.

As you probably know, the Welsh Government were warned about AWEMA in a 2004 report (found by a Lib Dem researcher – more on that at Gareth Hughes's blog) that suggested all public funding was stopped there and then.

So it's taken the Welsh Government 8 years to act, after they commissioned their own report into AWEMA, after the resignation of their acting chairman in 2007 and after that report rung whacking great big alarm bells that AWEMA had issues.

We needn't dwell on the fact that the Malik family are prominent Labour members and supporters. I don't buy that this was a conspiracy - just a toxic mix of negligence, arrogance and old fashioned cronyism. In fairness Labour were quick to suspend them and appear content to stall things for now while distancing themselves from the Malik's and AWEMA. No doubt they'll want to "move on to the important issues that matter to the people of Wales blah blah blah"  - and they'd have a point.

However this going to be hard for them to shake off for the following reason.

Somebody, somewhere, signed off public money to AWEMA back in 2004 (probably with the best of intentions) while ignoring independent advice wilfully or accidentally. Presumably a social justice, European affairs or equalities minister, a deputy minister or a senior civil servant.

Only the anoraks who follow Welsh politics closely are really interested in this and we're comfortably out-numbered by those who aren't. However I think we'll all be more forgiving if that person (or persons) owned up instead of hunkering down hoping this will blow over. If it turns out public money they signed off has been abused in any significant way, a dent in their pride by taking ownership of their mistake should be the least of their concerns.

At the very least that person(s) has to come out with an apology, explain the reasons why they ignored the original report and cooperate with any new investigations. The sooner the better. We don't know what any possible criminal investigation could reveal though I suspect the worst of it is already public knowledge.

I'm not going to speculate on who that could be.

Of course that's small comfort to those losing their jobs or having their schemes/funding/programme under threat by AWEMA's demise. I hope that all those who had nothing to do with this can move on to better things.

I also hope someone in Cardiff Bay or Cathays Park is having their conscience tugged before someone else tugs it for them.

Read More