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

Short Circuit

The goodwill shown towards the proposed Circuit of Wales
is quietly turning into suspicions and doubts.
(Pic : Click on Wales)

After numerous delays and bubbling controversies, it's worth returning to the Circuit of Wales saga.

I briefly outlined what the project involves in Formula One, Motorsports and Wales. Jac o' the North also covered it in Vroom, Vroom – The Next Gravy Train? In short, the project proposes a motor sports track, a karting track, various related facilities (hotels etc.) and an industrial park at Rassau to the north of Ebbw Vale in Blaenau Gwent.

The total cost of the project is currently estimated to be in the region of £280million, and is being led by Heads of the Valley Development Company (HVDC). Concerns about some claims made by the developers prompted a BBC Wales Week In, Week Out investigation last month (though it's no longer available on iPlayer), and also an angry response from established motor circuits like Silverstone, Brands Hatch and Donington Park, who fear the project could receive illegal state aid.

As I was preparing this post, news broke yesterday that the EnglandandWales Planning Inspectorate are going to hold a four-day public inquiry in June to determine whether the project will go ahead.

The Jobs Issue

Job creation figures have been criticised by industry experts as wide of the mark - although,
of course, any job creation is going to be welcomed in the Heads of the Valleys.
(Pic : frequency.com)

Last summer, estimates regarding the number of jobs created from the project's backers and developers were in the region os 4,000 construction jobs and 6,000 operational jobs - a total of around 12,000. Following Week In, Week Out, HVDC said the figures are 2,300 construction jobs and between 4,000-6,000 operational jobs.

Yeah, the figures are suspect. But the proposed business park could make an excellent base for the automotive industry (Ebbw Vale is an automotive enterprise zone). It's historically been one of Wales' economic and manufacturing sector success stories and would provide highly-skilled, relatively well-paid engineering jobs.

Prof. Garyl Rees of the Wales Automotive Forum, told Week In, Week Out estimates that the project would create 6,000 operations jobs requires "incredible multipliers" and "doesn't do any good to anybody". He hints the real figure is closer to 1,000 jobs – which is still significant in the Heads of the Valleys, don't get me wrong - meaning the original estimates are only 600% out.

If estimates on jobs are that far out, I doubt it's the only area where there are "issues".

Promising jobs in an economically depressed area is always going to win hearts and minds – rightly or wrongly. Just be sure the numbers add up, because I suspect Prof. Rees is right based on historical precedents.

The Money Issue

There's no deal in place to secure a major event (MotoGP), while the apparent
request for state assistance has been angrily criticised by established circuits.
(Pic : aqueduct.co.uk)

Last August, when discussing the project's finances, I said this :

"There's....the question of how events will be attracted to this new circuit in the face of competition from established circuits - and how much that might cost. It would almost certainly require some sort of capital funding from the Welsh Government at some point."

Although the developers claimed they had the money to build the track itself, the begging bowl has promptly come out, hinting towards a £30million investment from the Welsh Government and possibly up to £20million from the UK Government – a total of £50million in public funds (~18% of the total cost). I don't think it's beyond the realms of possibility that the next round of EU funding will be eyed up too.

The project has already been awarded a £2million loan from the Welsh Government, prompting Antoinette Sandbach AM (Con, North Wales) to call for a Wales Audit Office investigation before any more public funds are put into it.

All this is wasted money if we end up with a track with no events. As of yet, the developers have no deal in place to host the British leg of the MotoGP championship from 2015 – which would move from Silverstone. It's also unclear what other events the Circuit of Wales aims to attract.

It's claimed the Circuit of Wales could generate 750,000 visits a year. MotoGP would probably attract ~250,000 people over a three-day race weekend - a third of the visitor estimates in just three/four days. What about the rest of the year? The only other motorsport event that comes close to those figures is Formula One, and there's no chance of that moving to Wales. Are the visitor figures another very optimistic over-estimate?

You can argue the business park is more economically important than the race track, as at least it would be used all-year round and provide more than temporary hospitality and race-day jobs. So surely the business park should be the priority development, with the race track a nice add-on, not the other way around.

There's feudal remnant at play too. As the Western Mail and Daily Wales recently reported, the Duke of Beaufort (a distant cousin of Bet Windsor – net worth circa £135million) stands to make several million pounds out of this development, as he's the landowner via a claim to the title of Earl of Glamorgan dating back to Chuckles II. The Earldom of Glamorgan is a courtesy tital only used to address the direct relatives of a peer, so AFAIK shouldn't have any value in itself.

Also, as Jac o' the North said, only one person on the HVDC board of directors has any experience in motor sport – and that's as a motorcycle racing manager.

What started as slightly tangy whiffs in the air that make you check your shoes, is turning into a full-blown farmer's field pong.

Here comes the muck spreader....

The Environment & Planning Issue

A Natural Resources Wales u-turn on their objections to
the project has been called into question.
(Pic : Chris Hatch via Gwent Wildlife Trust)

The development is on common land, which means any land lost has to be replaced like-for-like on adjacent upland moors. It's a process the EnglandandWales Planning Inspectorate says could take up to a year, leading to significant delays in planning and – subsequently – construction.

When the plans were first submitted, Natural Resources Wales (the joint environment body established in April 2013) registered an objection, which should've/could've led to the scheme being "called-in" by the Welsh Government and possible further delays.

Correspondence between Welsh Government officials, agents working on behalf of HVDC, and Natural Resources Wales (NRW), were released via a Freedom of Information request last September. The important documents are Nos. 18-18c, which is NRW's response to a request for further advice.

NRW say in 18a (pdf) that, "....from the outset, we have had serious concerns over the scale, location and nature of the scheme as submitted and the likely resultant environmental impacts."

They go on to say that they wanted to work with the developers and Blaenau Gwent Council to ensure the environmental impacts would be mitigated, adding that a lot of work went towards that goal – though all the relevant information should've been provided from the start. They then conclude that the project no longer needed to be called-in by the Welsh Government. A near complete u-turn.

Since then, it's been revealed by BBC's The Wales Report that internal NRW e-mails suggest they've been put under pressure not to object to major developments. Morgan Parry – a well-respected NRW board member who died in January – is quoted as saying :

"I don't know who wrote our submission or how high up the hierarchy it was escalated, but I know that staff are finding it difficult to do anything other than give the same answer as we would have done before....

"The only way our advice on issues such as Circuit of Wales is going to change is if we are directed by (Welsh) government to have regard for other factors over and above the environmental ones. And that, I believe, would be a very sad day."

That day came.

Coincidentally, the minister in charge of the environment, Alun Davies (Lab, Blaenau Gwent), is also the local AM. Quasi-judicial decisions and all that. He is, however, quoted as dismissing criticism of the Circuit of Wales u-turn as possibly the work of "one disgruntled employee".

Big Projects, Big Problems

With all the talk of improved cross Irish Sea connections, has Wales
imported something rather unpleasant from the Irish.
(Pic : tee2i.org)

Personally-speaking, I have no objection to these flagship "big projects". They should be judged on their individual merits and strength of their business/economic case – weighed against the environmental impacts (which should be offset). I don't see the point of protecting every single scrap of  moorland, which is about as unnatural as it comes as it should, ideally, be covered in forest (sheep farming aside).

So in principle, I support the Circuit of Wales. It's just the execution of the project and sheer number of unanswered questions that risks bringing the whole thing down. That's not something limited to this project either, it's almost becoming standard practice in Wales.

For "big projects", the whole process – from planning to construction – has to be transparent.  Figures shouldn't be plucked out of the sky, and key decisions shouldn't be made behind closed doors in a manner that could compromise the independence of major public bodies. An example of good practice here would be the proposed tidal lagoon in Swansea Bay.

If developers think they'll need public money, they should be up-front about that from Day 1, not drop politicians in it just as the public momentum builds behind a project. It's an underhand tactic, and bounds politicians and other decision-makers to support them in order to avoid becoming public enemy number one. It puts them in a difficult position, so it's not fair on them or fair on us.

We've seen it with RIFW (which has yet to reach a conclusion). Lest we forget Valleywood? We've also seen it with some of the schemes proposed for restoration of open-cast mining sites (like the Teletubby Village at Margam), and Carmarthenshire's dealings with Llanelli Scarlets (also something related from Y Cneifiwr). On a smaller scale, we've seen it in the case of the suspected fraud in the Milford Haven regeneration scheme.

Wales can't afford to become a nation of - what the Irish would call – gombeens; which roughly translates as shady wheeler-dealers with political connections. Labour would be wise not to perpetuate their position as a gombeen-enabler, shoring up their strong claim to be a Welsh version of Fianna Fáil.

Read More

Senedd Watch - March 2014

• The second Silk Commission report, published on March 3^rd, recommended devolution of policing, youth justice, teachers' pay, some transport powers/budgets and raising the limit for Welsh Government energy project consent from 50MW to 350MW. The report also recommended a reserved powers model and an increase in the number of AMs to 80. The report rejected devolution of broadcasting, but called for a review of devolution of the criminal justice system between 2018-2025.
• An academic study found 4 in 5 workplaces in Wales were dominated by one gender, with 91% of skilled trades occupied by men. The Electoral Reform Society also backed calls to increase women's representation on local councils, setting parties a target of 40% of winnable seats having women candidates at the 2017 local elections.
• Health Minister, Mark Drakeford (Lab, Cardiff West), announced changes to how mortality statistics are recorded following concerns about mortality rates at Welsh hospitals. Shadow Health Minister, Darren Millar (Con, Clwyd West), said the answer was to, “look at the problems, not blame the data”.
• The National Assembly granted Kirsty Williams AM (Lib Dem, Brecon & Radnor) leave to introduce a Minimum Nurse Staffing Levels Bill. She said the Mid Staffordshire scandal in England highlighted how low nurse-patient ratios were a threat to patient safety and care, and her law will, “ensure that we have safe staffing levels in our hospitals".
• Welsh exports rose by 11.2% in 2013 to stand at £14.8billion, significantly outperforming than the rest of the UK (+0.4%). The First Minister said it, "demonstrated the overwhelming success of our approach". Plaid Cymru Shadow Economy Minister, Rhun ap Iorwerth AM (Plaid, Ynys Môn), said his party would establish an Overseas Trade Initiative to further improve export performances.
• The National Assembly's Public Accounts Committee published a critical report into Welsh NHS Finances, calling for greater transparency and more flexible financial planning. The NHS Finance Act 2014 – which comes into force in April – will give Local Health Boards three years to plan their budgets instead of one.
• The Assembly's Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee inquiry into Welsh roles in EU decision-making called for a focused EU strategy, and a review of "soft diplomacy" used in Brussels. Committee Chair David Melding AM (Con, South Wales Central) said, "it was more difficult to make yourself heard in debates which affect your interests" within the EU.
• Education Minister, Huw Lewis (Lab, Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney), launched an immediate investigation after GCSE English language results in January 2014 were lower than expected, following course changes as a result of a marking row in summer 2012.
• On March 12^th, the minister announced Glasgow University's Prof. Graham Donaldson had been appointed to undertake a "comprehensive, wide ranging and independent" review of the curriculum and assessments in Wales.
• On March 18^th, the WJEC announced they would re-mark 300+ papers, but said an internal review found marking was "consistent" with "no sizable disparities".
• Plaid Cymru held their Spring Conference in Cardiff, where leader Leanne Wood told voters to "reject Europhobia" in the forthcoming European Parliament elections, saying UKIP's politics "had no place in our country, not now, not ever". Plaid floated policies such as a £300million full-time childcare scheme and also ruling out lowering the top rate on income tax should tax-varying powers be devolved.
• Dafydd Elis-Thomas AM (Plaid, Dwyfor Meirionnydd) was sacked from his roles as transport spokesperson and chair of the National Assembly's Environment Committee on March 13^th, after describing Plaid's attack on UKIP as "facile" and criticising the wording of a press release.
• Local Government Minister, Lesley Griffiths (Lab, Wrexham), told BBC Wales that the public should have access to information on senior executive pay in local government, following a series of critical reports from the Wales Audit Office and scandals. New guidance will be issued to local authorities in April.
• The National Assembly's Communities, Equalities and Local Government Committee inquiry into sports participation said more needed to be done to overcome barriers amongst women, girls, the deprived and ethnic minorities. It also called for better statistics gathering and a Welsh Government review into their free swimming scheme.
• The Welsh Conservatives launched a year-long consultation on changes to higher education, including proposals for two-year bachelor degrees, which is said would enable students to enter the workplace faster and cut student debts.
• Bethan Jenkins AM (Plaid, South Wales West) launched a consultation on the Financial Education & Inclusion Bill, revealing that financial education provision varied wildly in Welsh schools, ranging from 270 hours to "nothing". The Welsh Government said they had reinforced financial education in the school curriculum, believing legislation was unnecessary.
• A row broke out between the Welsh and UK Governments on electrification of railways in south Wales, after the First Minister suggested Westminster would pay for rail electrification, while the UK Government insisted costs would be eventually borne by the Welsh Government - despite rail infrastructure being non-devolved.
• The National Assembly approved the Social Services and Well-being Bill at Report Stage on March 18^th by 53 votes to 5. The Welsh Liberal Democrats voted against due to concerns about the legislative process. Deputy Minister for Social Services & Children, Gwenda Thomas (Lab, Neath), said it will, "make a real difference to the lives of those who need care and support".
• Plaid Cymru accused Labour of " blatant hypocrisy" for rejecting their amendment to outlaw zero hour contracts for social care workers, despite Labour's public criticism of the contracts in other walks of life.
• Unemployment in Wales saw another large fall – by 12,000 – in the three months to January 2014, with the unemployment rate at 6.7% compared to 7.2% for the UK as a whole.
• The UK Chancellor announced the budget on March 18^th, with changes to pension and saving rules, compensation payments for energy-intensive businesses – like Port Talbot steelworks – and an announcement that the Wales Bill on financial devolution would be introduced. The Welsh Government's budget will be increased by £36million over the next two years.
• The Welsh Government announced £8million in loans towards two housing schemes in Tonyrefail and Newport, which are said to be worth £225million to the Welsh economy and could create up to 2,300 jobs. Business Minister, Edwina Hart (Lab, Gower), said the schemes will, "help transform brownfield sites into thriving communities".
• The Wales Audit Office questioned the benefits of a £90million Welsh Government project to move civil service jobs out of Cardiff, saying the benefits were "uncertain". However, the project was said to have delivered "all its objectives" overall.
• The National Assembly approved the Education Bill on March 25^th by 37 votes to 4 with 11 abstentions. The Education Act will harmonise term dates and create a new professional body to oversee teaching in Wales. In a significant change to the original Bill, special needs education provisions were removed and will instead be included in separate legislation.
• Ambulance responses within target times saw a sharp drop in February 2014, falling 5.5% to 52.8%. Welsh Lib Dem leader, Kirsty Williams, described it as a "national disgrace", saying ambulance services "had reached crisis point". The Welsh Government announced they would change the targets in order to show clinical benefit, not pure response times.
• The Assembly's Children & Young People Committee inquiry into childhood obesity said children were having to wait until adulthood to receive obesity treatment. They also called for better monitoring of government health programmes and outcomes. In 2011, around 35% of under-16s in Wales were either overweight or obese.
• BBC Wales reported concerns from within Natural Resources Wales (NRW) that they were put under pressure by the Welsh Government not to object to developments – pointing towards the Circuit of Wales development in Blaenau Gwent, where NRW opposition was withdrawn. Natural Resources and Food Minister, Alun Davies (Lab, Blaenau Gwent), said the body was "independent" and had "achieved a lot" since it was established in 2013.
• Opposition politicians criticised Welsh Labour after AMs blocked Ann Clwyd MP (Lab, Cynon Valley) – a vocal critic of the Welsh NHS - from giving evidence to the Health Committee. It follows a row over the care her late husband received at University Hospital Cardiff, the First Minister telling the Senedd she had "produced no evidence" of poor care.
• At Welsh Labour's spring conference in Llandudno, the party said they would offer "Scottish-style" taxation powers and a reserved powers model if they win the 2015 UK Election. The First Minister admitted his government "could do better" on the NHS, but said his party was, "on the frontline in the Tory war on Wales".

Projects announced in March include : An extra £4.2million towards flood repairs after winter storms, a £21million extension of the Sêr Cymru science investment scheme, a £1.8million fund towards physical literacy in schools, £1.7million towards credit unions, a pilot scheme for a project to provide training places for youngsters in workless households which could eventually help up to 5,000 individuals, and a £15million package to cut business rates.

Read More

Towards a Cornish Assembly?

Cornish nationalist party, Mebyon Kernow, recently launched a
consultation on the format of Cornish devolution.
(Pic : Western Morning News)

While most of the constitutional focus in Wales has been on Silk II, and constitutional focus across the UK on the Scottish independence referendum, the fifth nation of the UK has thrown its own hat into the ring.

Cornish nationalist party, Mebyon Kernow (MK), launched a consultation document on proposals for a devolved Cornish Assembly on March 5^th – St Piran's Day. It's available here (pdf).

Fifty thousand Cornishmen will know the reason why

As I've covered before (The Case for Cornwall), Cornwall meets most of the standard requirements and historical precedents to be considered a nation rather than an English region or county. Back in 2001, more than 50,000 signed a declaration calling for Cornish devolution. It was Liberal Democrat policy, with the closest Cornwall coming to devolution being a backbench Government of Cornwall Bill (pdf) introduced by Dan Rogerson MP (Lib Dem, North Cornwall) in 2009.

As I post this, the Lib Dems have made it official party policy again.

Many of the problems facing Cornwall are very similar to those facing
us in Wales  - especially in terms of economic development
and demographic change.
(Pic : BBC)

With the UK constitution now in flux, MK believes "there needs to be a mature, respectful and wide-ranging debate about the future of the whole of the UK and how it is governed." A constitutional convention then - something our First Minister and others in the National Assembly would no doubt agree with.

If it's agreed that Cornwall should see devolution, and a detailed proposal fleshed out, MK supports holding a referendum.

Many of the challenges facing Cornwall are all to familiar to us in Wales : an ageing population caused, in part, by in-migration of retirees; high house prices in rural areas, a relatively weak economy (Cornish GDP per capita was 61.2% of the UK average in 2012, compared to 72.3% for Wales) and "peripheral neglect" by being so far from Westminster.

Except, of course, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland have their own devolved legislatures to deal with some of these issues to varying degrees of success (or failure).

MK believe a Cornish Assembly would "be in a strong position to built a more prosperous economy....support Cornwall's traditional and emerging industries, build on Cornwall's sense of place, it's unique brand, and maritime potential".

Chuckles' "Prince of Wales" title is exactly that - a title and nothing more.
His role in Cornwall, however, is significantly more hands on
- perhaps to Cornwall's detriment.
(Pic : The Telegraph)

The party also believe that Cornwall suffers from a "democratic deficit" as they only have 123 councillors serving a population of 534,000 in a single unitary authority. Devon has two and a half times the population but four times the councillors, while Somerset has 1.7 times the population and 3.5 times the number of councillors.

A National Assembly would also reinforce Cornwall's national status, with 73,200 people describing themselves as Cornish in the 2011 census, despite it not being on the official census form, working out at around 14% of the population. Also, 46% of children in the 2013 school census described themselves as Cornish (more from Cornish Republican).There's a very specific bone of contention too involving the Windsor clan. Chuck Windsor (and presumably in the short to medium term, Billy Windsor) enjoys near-feudal rights as Duke of Cornwall. MK believe devolution will make it easier to hold a full inquiry into "Cornwall's ambiguous constitutional relationship with the Crown and contradictions between this....and administrative arrangements".

What would a National Assembly of Cornwall look like?

Mebyon Kernow propose something for Cornwall near enough identical
to what we have in Wales, with some key differences - in particular the voting system.
(Pic : cornwallvsf.org)

• Devolved powers – Effectively the same powers as the Welsh Assembly (agriculture, tourism, health, education, culture, housing, local government etc.) - including primary law-making powers from the start. They also want the power to vary income tax, perhaps in light of what's on the table for Wales and Scotland.
• The Cornish Assembly – 40 Assembly Members (AMs) elected in multi-member constituencies by Single Transferable Vote (STV). This works out as roughly 1 AM per 13,350 people. The exact arrangements and constituencies will be decided by a special commission. Cornish AMs would sit in committees and work in a similar way to our AMs. Although there's nothing in the proposal about where a Cornish Assembly would be based, you would presume it would be at the existing Cornwall Council buildings in Truro without the need for a new building.
• Cornish Government – Made up of between 4 and 6 ministers with "a small number of junior ministers". It would be headed by a First Minister along the same lines as the Welsh Government and supported by a civil service.
• Finance – Cornwall would be funded via a Welsh-style block grant via a needs-based settlement, which MK estimate at being in the region of £4billion. They also want control of EU Structural Funding (Objective One), which Cornwall receives in the same way as West Wales & The Valleys, except it's administered from London and Bristol.
• Local Government Reorganisation – The single local authority covering Cornwall would be rescinded and replaced with four new councils, each with 35-45 councillors, set out by legislation. These councillors would also be elected by STV. Some decisions could be devolved further down to community and parish councils.
• External Relations – Cornwall should have representation on the British-Irish Council, and should have its own MEP, with offices in Brussels. Cornwall should also have its own Commonwealth Games team and the Cornish should be protected via the Convention for National Minorities in the same way as the Welsh and Scottish.

Devolution : Go for it, but don't repeat our mistakes

If a Cornish Assembly were formed,  these signs might have
more than a little bit a truth in them for once.
(Pic : libdemvoice.org)

Wales stands testament to the fact that while devolution does bring a means to make sometimes significant policy changes, it doesn't guarantee success, and is far from a "magic bullet" in itself.

Believe it or not, Mebyon Kernow have been "inspired" by some of the achievements of our National Assembly over the past 15 years (and the Scottish Parliament), picking out :

• Scrapping prescription charges and hospital car parking charges.
• Protection from the "creeping privatisation of the NHS in England".
• Statutory waste and recycling targets with an aim of "zero waste".
• Allowing suspension of "right to buy" in areas facing housing pressures.

So there are plenty of things the Cornish can learn from devolution elsewhere in the UK, but there are also plenty of mistakes they would do well not to repeat. I would pick out mismanagement of EU funds as the biggest lesson Cornwall could learn from Wales, as well as timidity in policy making and having too small a legislature to allow effective criticism of the executive.

Politically-speaking, a Cornish Assembly could throw up some interesting things.

If you want to compare it to Wales, it's likely the Lib Dems and Labour would swap positions, with Cornwall becoming a Lib Dem hegemony and Labour being a minor party that would struggle to get more than 3/4 seats in a 40-seat legislature. It would make the machinations of an STV system interesting for psephologists I suppose – and it's sensible that Mebyon Kernow have proposed that system from the start.

As to how to get in the position of being able to hold a referendum, MK would have to secure their "Gwynfor moment". By that I mean winning, or seriously challenging for, a Westminster seat. Then the party would probably have to become a major force on Cornwall Council, being in a position to form a government or some sort of coalition with the Lib Dems in order to get Cornish devolution on the Westminster agenda.

Read More

Silk II : The Wrath of Paul

On Monday, the second and final part of a wide-ranging review into Welsh devolution was published by the Silk Commission – available here (pdf).

The first part looked at fiscal powers, culminating in the current Wales Bill. This second part, however, looked at the National Assembly itself and its devolved powers, as well as other issues like the Welsh civil service and cross-border cooperation.

It was difficult to decide how to approach this, so I decided to split it into one chunk looking at devolved powers, another at key powers taken off the table and another looking at changes to "the machinery of government" (civil service, the Assembly etc).

What further devolved powers does Silk II propose?

The headline proposals are to devolve policing and youth justice, though
without wider criminal justice powers at present.
(Pic : BBC Wales)

Policing – The headline recommendation, which includes crime prevention and community safety. Devolving the police would mean the National Assembly would have legislative competence for the "governance and administration" of the police in Wales – the only emergency service not currently devolved. Things like the National Crime Agency would remain non-devolved. In terms of funding, the current Home Office grant would transfer to Wales, with an estimate £2-3million bill to set up a specialist Welsh Government policing team. Policing should be devolved by 2017.

Youth Justice - This covers the "treatment and rehabilitation" of those aged 10-17 who commit criminal offences. Many of the factors here are intertwined with devolved and local government services like education, social services, training and health. So it's recommended administration of youth justice services be devolved by 2017, which would cost around £300,000.

Transport – There's a package of powers here, the big ones being devolution of Network Rail funding and the Wales & Borders rail franchise, which is what the Welsh Government and Enterprise and Business Committee have long called for. Also included is ports development, which is important for the economy. Elsewhere in public transport, there are proposals to devolve Traffic Commissioner functions as well as regulation of bus and taxi services. In terms of road transport, there's a recommendation to devolve speed limits and drink-drive limits – in line with what's happened in Scotland.

Energy Project Consent – Because the energy needs of Wales (a net-exporter of electricity) would be out of kilter with wider UK needs, the full devolution of energy consent was rejected – however the limit for the Welsh Government to consent to energy projects would be raised to 350MW from the current 50MW (more from A Welshman's Blog).

Water (Partial) – Powers over sewerage should be devolved, and the boundary for legislative competence should be aligned with the national borders, with a formal inter-government protocol on cross-border water issues.

Local government elections – Including their administration and rules of conduct. Technically speaking, the local government electoral system is devolved, but I imagine this recommendation includes that too.

Teachers' pay – In line with Scotland and Northern Ireland, however pensions devolution has been rejected as it would discourage cross-border movement of teachers between England and Wales. The Scottish and Northern Irish education systems are a bit more independent than the Welsh system anyway.

What devolved powers did Silk II reject?

The Commission rejected the devolution of broadcasting, but included
measures that will give the National Assembly an enhanced role.
(Pic :outcasting.org)

Criminal Justice (for now) – This includes the court system, prisons, legal aid, sentencing guidelines, public prosecution and probation services. The costs of creating a Welsh judiciary are much, much smaller than I was expecting - £2million – but the additional cost of a Welsh court system would be £10million. The Commission say the Assembly should instead start off with powers that impact the "day to day lives" of people (policing). So it's rejected now, along with prisons, but something that "should be contemplated in future", with a full review into devolution of criminal justice taking place between 2018-2025.

Further economic powers – The report rejects further devolution of economic powers. Amongst those proposed were DWP work programmes, consumer protection, regulation and inward investment. Instead, the report says there should be better cross-border coordination in policies which overlap (like training programmes).

The Crown Estate – Instead of transferring responsibility for the Crown Estate to Wales, its recommended Wales have similar status to Scotland, with an appointed Crown Estate Commissioner and Crown Estate office.

Broadcasting – As expected, and as I predicted back in September last year, devolution of broadcasting has been rejected due to opposition from both Welsh and UK governments. However, the National Assembly "should take an enhanced role in broadcasting" with a devolved governance body (Welsh BBC Trust), public funding for S4C should be devolved (which doesn't matter as it's moving to whole scale licence fee funding) and appointment of S4C Authority members should require Welsh Government approval. Ofcom should also have a board member with "specific responsibilities for Wales".

Social security – "Social welfare" is devolved to the National Assembly, that includes things like social services and child protection. Social security – aka. the benefits system – isn't, and isn't even devolved in Scotland or Northern Ireland. 46-51% of people polled believed the National Assembly should control the benefits system, however it's rejected because it's an important part of the social and economic union, and the Welsh Government were concerned about exposure to budgetary risks.

What does Silk II outline for the machinery of government?

In addition to reserved powers, by 2021 will this
be home to an 80-member Welsh Parliament?
(Pic : National Assembly of Wales)

Reserved powers – Arguments in favour of a reserved powers model are :

• Certainty in what powers the Assembly has, meaning they can "legislate with confidence".
• Schedule 7 of the Government of Wales Act 2006 is "unclear", because the whole thing has to be consulted before laws are made, while it's obvious in a reserved powers model which powers are explicitly off the table.
• It would "be more stable over time", meaning no challenges to Welsh laws as we've seen in (currently) three cases. A reserved powers model would also reduce the risk of such litigation.
• It would "bring greater consistency" with the rest of the UK, as a reserved powers model is used in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
• It would enable the devolution settlement itself to be redrawn along "clearer and more logical principles" and it would be simpler.

Inter-governmental relations – Welsh and UK governments should share good practice, with a statutory code provided in a new Government of Wales Act. A Welsh-UK Government intergovernmental committee should be established with a new arbitration system for disagreements between the two governments.

The National Assembly itself – Some proposed solutions to the "scrutiny gap" and demands on AMs time have included "smarter working" (which I've covered before) adding co-opted unelected members to Assembly committees (as in local government) or the creation of a second chamber. However, the Commission say it's "convinced the Assembly requires more backbench members....to scrutinise policy and legislation more thoroughly." They therefore propose an increase in the number of AMs from 60 to 80 at a cost of approximately £5.3million. Don't cheer all at once.

Also, the (pseudo-colonial) right for the Welsh Secretary to participate in National Assembly sessions would be removed. The Assembly should also be able to regulate its own financial procedures with the door left open on a possible name change to "Welsh Parliament" – though I don't see the point, personally.

The National Assembly should also be recognised as "permanent" as long as it's the will of the  people of Wales.

The Civil Service & Civil Society – There are no proposals to "devolve" the civil service, and the Commission believe that the Welsh Government should continue to be staffed as part of the "Whitehall" civil service. UK Government departments should also be "clearer about the extent of their responsibilities for the different parts of the UK."

Timescales & The Referendum Question

The proposals will not only mean an increase in responsibilities,
but also an increase in the devolved budget.
(Pic : BBC Wales)

The big thing to note is that the Commission rejects holding a referendum on these extra powers (other than the proposed income tax powers as outlined in the Wales Bill). Instead, it should be a matter left for individual party manifestos in the 2015 UK Election and 2016 Welsh General Election.

I'm not entirely sure I agree with that, for reasons I outlined in Marching out of lockstep.

Some of the proposals can be introduced without legislation, mainly those powers relating to improved inter-governmental working, or things that can be transferred by Orders in Council.

The other powers, and a reserved powers model, would require a new Government of Wales Act. A Bill would be published in autumn 2016 and enacted by summer 2017. If the Bill passes, then the National Assembly would have a reserved powers model following the 2021 Welsh General Election.

Full devolution of rail and policing would result in the devolved budget increasing by £500million, and full devolution of criminal justice would increase that to £800million. If you include the £300million "fair funding" then I guess that takes it to £1.1billion.

Conclusion : A golden mean?

The shelves must be creaking under the weight all these reports...and the dust.

(Pic : Click on Wales)

I'll come back to the political reaction when this is inevitably debated in the Senedd over the next couple of weeks/months.

Silk II has been argued in a logical, pragmatic manner. It's much better than Silk I and undoes a lot of the mess Peter Hain left in 2006. However, at the same time there's also very little on the table. The powers are similar to those devolved to Scotland under the Scotland Act 2012. Copy and paste, almost.

The question there is if Scotland votes no in September, and as a result acquires further devolved powers or devo-max, Wales will be left behind yet again when - based on this report - Wales is tantalisingly close to achieving parity with Scotland (if criminal justice powers were devolved in future).

A lot of the things have been mentioned so many times before – like devolution of the Wales & Borders franchise, policing, youth justice, reserved powers and teachers' pay – that it's a bit of a damp squib, albeit welcome.

It would've been exciting, and really made a difference to the National Assembly's standing, if we got criminal justice powers alongside that, but we'll have to wait until the 2020s if it's to happen. It's sensible for it to be reviewed thoroughly, but it seems like a largely unnecessary delay.

Having control over policing without criminal justice powers is a bit like like having control of the ambulance service without running hospitals.

Returning to the Assembly itself, it'll be hard to justify 80 AMs until after the devolution of criminal justice powers because those powers really will increase the workload for AMs above and beyond what they currently have. The current 60 should be able to cope with these powers (like policing, teachers pay etc.) as long as they find ways to – as the report puts it, and as myself and others have put it before – "work smarter".

So I'd say I'm neither blown away nor disappointed - it's pretty sensible on the whole. However, as history has shown us, the final versions of visions of grand commissions often end up watered-down. This is going to have to remain a whole package, as I don't think there's any room for compromise here that won't undermine its intent.

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

Bandits control the Wild West

Carmarthenshire folk don't take kindly to varmint auditors.
(Pic : via angelfire)

We've already seen Pembrokeshire Council's (PCC) Indians protect their chiefs - another round of that next week - but Carmarthenshire's cowboys and cowgirls (CCC) had an opportunity to restore natural order to their territory earlier this week.

The council instead hanged the sheriff by choosing to "note" – effectively reject - the Wales Audit Office (WAO) report into unlawful indemnity funding, whilst accepting they made mistakes on that and the pension payments – with nobody taking responsibility, naturally.

The broad message coming out of the meeting was identical to that of Pembrokeshire - "We haven't done anything wrong, but we won't do it again."

Y Byd ar Bedwar

Ahead of the meeting, S4C's Y Byd ar Bedwar provided a decent summing up of the issues in Pembrokeshire and Carmarthenshire (available here with English subtitles), with contributions from Carmarthen Planning's Jacqui Thompson and Y Cneifiwr. Both Mark James and Bryn Parry-Jones had an opportunity to put their side of the story across but turned it down.

Former Chair of CCC, Cllr. Sian Thomas (Plaid, Penygroes), said she "could see the erosion of democracy within the county council". Although it was her job to ensure councillors could have their say, she feared she would be corrected or overruled by the executive.

To put that in context, imagine if the head of the Welsh Government civil service attended meetings of the National Assembly, was looking over the shoulder of the Presiding Officer, telling her who should and shouldn't speak, for how long and on what basis.

Although it's standard practice for senior officers to attend council meetings, that's how bad things have been in Carmarthenshire for many years. But don't worry, because they're the best local authority in Wales.

"At the end-a the day...."

Outfits from Debenhams....
(Pic : lightmasterstudios.co.uk)

This was my first experience of Carmarthenshire Council live. You can watch it for yourself here.

After a failed attempt by Cllr. Emlyn Dole (Plaid, Llannon) to – under CCC's constitution – remove Tim Kerr QC from proceedings, it moved on to statements on behalf of the WAO and Tim Kerr himself.

The auditor, Anthony Barrett, said "the law is very clear" that no funding can be provided for a counterclaim, there were failures in governance and procedure, and he called on CCC to withdraw the indemnity.

Tim Kerr QC – not as cheery as he was in Pembrokeshire, this was Serious Tim – repeated the assertions in his November 2013 legal advice (covered here).

That being :

• the WAO doesn't have an authoritative voice in law.
• the Welsh Governments 2006 Order didn't remove powers to indemnify officers under Section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972.
• CCC wasn't "a litigious council" because they were sued.
• there were no procedural flaws.

Cllr. Darren Price (Plaid, Gorslas) said officers failed to be cautious, adding that the public would expect someone earning £200k to fund legal proceedings themselves. He said guidance clearly prevents individuals undertaking legal proceedings,and that by ignoring it, CCC were questioning the legitimacy of Welsh Government. He posed the question - "Was it really worth it?"

Cllr. Sian Caiach (People First, Hengoed) argued that officers had been used as a proxy to undertake a libel case on behalf of the council through a legal loophole. This action undermined both free speech and the authority of the Welsh Government.

Council Leader, Kevin Madge (Lab, Garnant), tried to make a statement, but proceedings were interrupted as CCC invited Sunn O))) to perform an impromptu concert.

                              

After some bowel-loosening drone metal, he continued, saying he wanted to set up cross-party group to overview governance, led by the WLGA (aka. "Form a committee" - Welsh solution to everything).

Kevin was "appalled and disgusted by some of the things said about Mark James", and it was right - as an employer - to support him as part of their duty of care. The court judgement backed that decision, and only the courts can determine the interpretation of law with regard the legality of the indemnity.

Then the leader of the "Independents" - Cllr. Meryl Gravell (Ind, Trimsaran) – admonished the "disgraceful content on blogs", saying five defamatory blogs constituted "exceptional circumstances" (when it was later confirmed that "exceptional circumstances" has no clear cut definition and evolved from case law). She wagged fingers at people around the chamber, saying that it was all those who committed the grievous crime of speaking to the media who brought the council into disrepute.

Later, Cllr. Giles Morgan (Ind, Swiss Valley) – Martin Bell minus ethics – described the Thompson case as a "crusade against council officers", saying people who talk about the council as if they're down the pub are "reprehensible" (unless they're actually down the pub, I presume - or is that where CCCs lawyers are heading next?).

Though Giles did accept that Mark James should've left the meeting. Which....would render the process unlawful on its own. Which means having to accept the WAO report.

An impassioned speech from Cllr. Glynog Davies (Plaid, Quarter Bach) said the "plain English" guidance cautioned against awarding the indemnity and bans using funds to undertake a claim. The Executive Board say they didn't get independent legal advice because of their "knowledge of the blogger", and he asked whether the decision was morally correct?  Cllr. Linda Evans (Plaid, Llanfihangel-ar-Arth) asked if advice from the barrister representing Mark James – Adam Speker – counted as "independent advice"?

The answer to both questions was, of course, "yes".

CCC moved to "note" the report, suspend part of constitution relating to indemnity funding, and called for Welsh Government to clarify the law. As a result, there's an outside chance the WAO could take the council to the High Court.

The pensions and no-confidence debates were staid. However, it was broadly accepted CCC got things wrong - even by Meryl Gravell.

Cllr. Anthony Jones (Lab, Llandybie) said senior executive pay was "out of kilter" and immoral, calling for the Welsh Government to intervene and issue clear guidance. It's worth pointing out that the National Assembly's Public Accounts Committee are undertaking an inquiry into senior management pay.

Kevin Madge's broad defence was, "I was doing it all in good faith."

The no-confidence debate had something to do with bungalows and Debenhams. Also, it included one of the most bizarre statements I've ever heard - that Carmarthenshire was "unscathed by the recession". This report from the Wales Rural Obervatory (pdf) – sorry, Jac – indicates otherwise, with Carmarthenshire suffering relatively badly compared to other rural authorities.

Although the mother hens of the Independents looked as though they were "Waiting until Great Birham Wood to high Dunsinane Hill shall come against him", Kevin Madge et. al - as expected - saw off the no-confidence vote comfortably.

Plaid left with their tail tucked between their legs having "stood up for taxpayers", Labour-"Independents" rallied behind themselves, but ultimately CCC remains led by someone who can't command gravitas however decent, if misguided, a bloke he comes across as.

"Where seldom is heard a discouraging word"....

Mark James wasn't there in person, but he was in spirit.
(Pic : via photobucket)

Considering the finer points of law and statute, it's clear neither CCC or PCC did anything that was explicitly prohibited. Neither did Caerphilly Council either.

When you weigh up the sums of money involved, the lack of any reimbursement, disregard for normal procedure, the bloody mindedness of both authorities in the face of public criticism and most importantly of all - basic morality - they're guilty as sin. That often counts for more.

The reason Carmarthenshire has gone so far down this road is because small mistakes haven't been acknowledged properly or corrected, officers and senior councillors come to think they're always in the right, then the mistakes get bigger and bigger and bigger - what Pat Dodd Racher described on West Wales News Review as "a bubble of self-congratulation".

CCC had a golden opportunity to start its healing process by taking full accountability for what they did, but they fluffed the test.

If those at the top had done the decent thing and resigned, still co-operating with any cross-party investigation into procedures at the council, that would've been praiseworthy and honourable.

Instead, far from drawing a line under the matter, I suspect they've just made things worse.

If Gloucestershire Police and CPS decide there's a criminal case to go forward, CCC have just done something monumentally stupid. I'd also be surprised if Carmarthenshire survives local government reorganisation now, because they've publicly undermined the Welsh Government's authority.

We're talking about one of the largest local authorities in Wales effectively slipping into administrative anarchy by forming their own interpretation of Welsh Government guidance and orders, even when it's been made crystal clear that what CCC has done was contrary to them.

They've made AMs and MPs from all parties look like chumps. They blatantly disrespected Anthony Barrett and the Wales Audit Office. They've spat in Lesley Griffiths' coffee, farted in Carl Sargeant's face and kicked Carwyn Jones in the balls. They've made the National Assembly look like muscleless wonders and left a flaming bag of dog poo on the steps of Cathays Park.

The Welsh Government can either restore good order themselves by sending in more sheriffs, or they can let it go, giving other local authorities in Wales a green light to try the same thing in future.

Read More