 |
| 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.
What made this interesting were last minute claims from opposition AMs that they had been "bullied" by a third sector umbrella group with 17 member organisations – Wales Violence Against Women Action Group, fronted by former Welsh Government SPAD and professional lobbyist, Cathy Owens – to drop any and all opposition to the Bill, regardless of what that opposition was.
Although the smacking amendment was a headline-grabbing concern, there were equal concerns over the role of the (re-titled) national adviser, compulsory relationship lessons and victims' rights. These are all serious issues that would determine the effectiveness of the law. In some cases the government made concessions, in others they didn't.
Many AMs believed the Bill should've gone to a Report Stage. For the unfamiliar, a Report Stage would've allowed new amendments to be added before the final vote, which is particularly useful for controversial and complicated laws.
Although I'm no expert on legislative procedure, considering the tension over large sections of the Bill I'm surprised that didn't happen, even if it would've added another 2/3 months to the process....which would've pushed it out of the Westminster election cycle, of course.
The first signs of dissent on the opposition benches came from Simon Thomas AM (Plaid, Mid & West Wales), who is quoted via BBC Wales as saying the VAW Action Group were "held hostage" by the Welsh Government, asking AMs to ditch amendments the VAW Action Group were themselves championing! The implication being that pressure was put on the Action Group by the Welsh Government – which provides the bulk of its member organisations' funding. Simon went on to describe it as, "a deeply despondent experience for me as an assembly member".
During the Stage 4 debate itself, Mark Isherwood AM (Con, North Wales) said members from around the chamber "had received a large number of e-mails in recent weeks" calling for them to support the Bill (clip), but he asked the third sector lobbyists to remember "we are the legislature, not the government" and the opposition were "doing its job" in trying to strengthen the law.
Jocelyn Davies AM (Plaid, South Wales East) described the interventions from the third sector (clip) as "attempts to bully us (opposition AMs)....and....from people who should've known better." She went on to say it was far more important to her to do the right thing by the people she represents, not "be a mouthpiece for the third sector".
Peter Black AM (Lib Dem, South Wales West) said the productive partnership approach between opposition and government hasn't been reflected by the lobbyists (clip), saying he was "concerned sometimes by the closeness of the third sector to government and their dependence on them for funding....which can cloud judgement".
The strongest comments came from Antoinette Sandbach AM (Con, North Wales) who supported the Bill and was "delighted" the Conservatives would support it in turn (clip). She addressed the "third sector organisations sitting in the (public) gallery" and told them the tone of their interventions "was bullying....it did you a great disservice, and the people that you represent a great disservice".
She said it was right that if AMs get representations from third sector organisations, they know how much public funding they receive. Antoinette wanted to put that on the record as the whole situation upset her as the focus would now shift from domestic violence outcomes to the lobbying (oops).
Joyce Watson AM (Lab, Mid & West Wales) – who has often worked closely with Welsh Women's Aid and BAWSO – said third sector organisations (clip), which deal with the consequences of domestic violence "day after day, night after night", have a right to make representations on an issue which results in at least 2 deaths a week. "If they can't lobby us....I don't know who has that right."
The New Quangos?
 |
| When a cat does this it's not begging, it's about to bite you. (Pic : becuo.com) |
This can be a good thing, as many of these organisations have first hand experience of dealing with problems ministers and AMs would like to address, so they provide a valuable voice.
Unfortunately, the Welsh third sector has slowly become a client state of the Welsh Government. Housing associations aside, these are not wealthy organisations (though "professionals" make a great deal of money out of them) so they're often reliant on fundraising and government grants to keep going.
You could probably set up a charity campaigning to end to the use of dihydrogen monoxide – one of the most dangerous substances known to humanity - and (if you got away with it) there's an impression that, with the right contacts and campaign mechanisms, you would get access to AMs faster than you otherwise would. If you were really clever you might even get Welsh Government funding out of it.
The amount of money the Welsh Government gives the third sector in Wales as a proportion of its budget is stupendous. In 2012-13 it was £307million – more than the Welsh Government spends on rail services. I don't know if this figure even includes EU structural funds.There's little, if any, scrutiny of this spending.
The third sector maintains a cwtchy reputation as they're always run on a not-for-profit/voluntary basis or as registered charities. Charity, as a word, is almost universally acknowledged as being "a good thing" and people doing charity work - like Jimmy Savile and Lance Armstrong - are "good people".
The reality is not quite so rosy. Many, if not all, third sector organisations, social enterprises and charities are run as businesses. They're as open to corruption as the biggest private companies. If they're religious or new age charities they might even harbour some wacky beliefs. Like private businesses, those that bend the rules will be in the minority, but can do more damage when they get found out.
Although bankers' bonuses and rate-fixing are an affront, they rarely affect ordinary people directly. When a third sector body tries to nobble and gets caught, some of the most vulnerable people in society could find themselves having much-needed support withdrawn – as happened with homeless charity Cyrenians Cymru in Swansea recently.
As a result, nobody dares criticise the third sector because if you do so it's assumed you're criticising their "cause", and for left-wing politicians in particular that damages their "progressive street rep". The cynic in me is pleasantly disappointed that critics of VAW Action Group's interventions haven't been accused of misogyny yet, or anyone criticising Cyrenrians wants people to die on the street, just like anyone criticising AWEMA were racist.
The third sector can, and does, use emotional blackmail to hold a proverbial gun to politicans' heads, and that's why their influence should be kept in check, and why every single AM should routinely question all of the correspondence they receive from such organisations.
We're talking about (in the main) state-funded organisations aggressively lobbying the opposition to vote a certain way on a law to save the blushes of their main bank roller – the ruling party. They got their way. It actually worked. Despite the noble intent of the Bill – nobody argues the Bill is anything but welcome - that's incredibly serious and shouldn't be dismissed as opposition spite.
Perhaps for the first time publicly since the AWEMA scandal, some AMs see that their receptivity to third sector lobbying is being taken for granted, perhaps even taken advantage of.
There's nothing wrong with biting back, and I applaud those in the Assembly who were brave enough to stand up for the legislature's independence.
0 comments:
Post a Comment