Environment Bill introduced

Carrier bags, greenhouse gas emissions and biodiversity are amongst the areas
targeted by a wide-ranging Environment Bill, which was introduced this week.

Now that the election excitement is dying down, it's time to turn to more mundane matters.

Hot on the heels of the Heritage Bill, Natural Resources Minister, Carl Sargeant (Lab, Alyn & Deeside) introduced the latest Welsh law. Bill here (pdf), explanatory memorandum here (pdf).

Read More

The Abyss Staring Back at Wales

The National Assembly has voted in favour of a moratorium on opencast mining.
Whether there'll actually be a moratorium is a different issue.
(Pic : The Guardian)

• The Parc Slip Monster
• Libraries, Bus Cuts, School Moves & Parc Slip II

As promised on Wednesday, I come back to another members debate, this time on opencast mining, which is a controversial issue in the South Wales Valleys in particular. There's a map of current and former sites available from the Assembly Members Research Service blog (here).

A cross-party motion called for the Welsh Government to :

• Introduce a moratorium on opencast mining to allow for a strategic review into whether current measures are properly protecting communities.
• Respond to research into opencast restoration failures, addressing concerns about MTAN2 (the official guidance) and the recommended 500 metre "buffer zone" between mines and homes.
• Support local authorities that undertake legal action to force restoration.

Lynne Neagle AM (Lab, Torfaen) started by applauding the cross-party support for a moratorium on opencast mining during an election campaign (clip). A pause on opencast mining was needed to give space and time for the Welsh Government to undertake a strategic review on the impact of mining, with the cost of lengthy public inquiries leaving planners "stuck between rock and a hard place".

Lynne mentioned the Varteg proposals, where despite more than a decade of protest, mining companies propose to opencast 100m away from homes and a primary school. Although the original application was rejected, another application (near enough unchanged) has been submitted, so MTAN2 isn't meeting the needs of constituents. Alun Davies AM (Lab, Blaenau Gwent) made a point that the Assembly voted through the Wellbeing of Future Generations Act 2015, and opencast mining was contrary to the spirit of the law.

The Assembly are waiting for a Petitions Committee report into whether MTAN2 should be made law, and although there are disagreements, we can't afford the current confused situation to continue. She cited Garn Lakes near Blaenavon as an example of where restoration has worked, so she didn't want to tar all mining companies with the same brush. However, the "dodgy dealings" have "cast a shadow on the industry", and companies shouldn't be allowed to develop new sites to cover the cost of existing obligations.

William Graham AM (Con, South Wales East) reminded everyone that the motion called for a moratorium, not a ban on opencasting, and a pause will allow time to consider amendments to the Planning Bill (clip). He listed a number of sites in his region - including Ffos-y-fran in Merthyr and Varteg – as well as their controversial planning histories.

William said the 500m buffer zone was agreed by the Assembly, but Welsh Government draft policy proposed a 350m buffer zone; and although the government has said the buffer has to be given appropriate weight in planning applications, words were not enough. He suggested local authorities should be able to reject retrospective applications so developers are aware that the buffer is an absolute condition, not optional. William proposed that sub-standard restoration can be resolved through the use of restoration insurance bonds to prevent companies avoiding their liabilities towards restoration.

William Powell AM (Lib Dem, Mid & West Wales) started by paying tribute to the United Valleys Action Group (clip). It was vital to see a "consistency of approach" in planning, particularly technical advice notes, and proposals that breach planning conditions need to be properly justified. The market conditions for coal have changed, leaving "colossal" shortfalls in funding for restoration, meaning companies are "unable to finish projects they've started".

He called for greater public consultation with regard mine closures and their after-use, listing come of the common knock-on impacts nearby residents face such as poor air quality, noise, and declining property prices. He ended by saying the motion consistent with commitments to develop renewable energy.

Gwenda Thomas AM (Lab, Neath) said her constituency was built on coal, and it defines the area's past, but if carbon capture technology is proven viable, coal could have a future (clip). She doesn't oppose responsible mining but supports the motion anyway. Gwenda previously called for a presumption against new mining applications unless communities are properly protected, and subsequent events reinforced her views.

Gwenda described the legal actions between cash-strapped local authorities and mining companies - who can afford £250,000 for a single barrister's view - as a David vs Goliath battle. The people of Cwmllynfell, which borders East Pit, have been promised restoration for three generations, but now they're told "there's no money" and they must have a lake, which involves constructing a wall to hold back tens of thousands of cubic metres of water.

Celtic Energy and Oak Regeneration have made a string of promises relating to
restoration of former mines - like East Pit above - but they've all fallen flat.
(Pic : Wales Online)

David Rees AM (Lab, Aberavon) also acknowledged the historical and current importance of coal, though despite providing jobs, it contradicts carbon reduction policies (clip). He described how Parc Slip has been off limits since 1947 (technically incorrect as the eastern half has been restored), and how the ownership transferred from British Coal to Celtic Energy in 1997, who in turn transferred ownership to offshore company, Oak Regeneration, which has caused more problems in trying to recover costs. David also questioned what has happened to levies raised from coal privatisation?

Natural Resources Minister, Carl Sargeant (Lab, Alyn & Deeside), accepted that opencast was an "emotive issue", acknowledging the context of a moratorium (clip). Although he was sympathetic, he said it wouldn't resolve the situation or secure restoration. Opencast isn't a new industry, unlike fracking, and is "deeply embedded in communities" with live planning applications.

The Minister placed the blame on "market-driven" privatisation of the coal industry, which was rushed through with no consideration given to the effect it would have on communities. Companies retain the rights of a state-owned company but with none of the obligations. Peter Black AM (Lib Dem, South Wales West) said Scotland was pursuing the UK Government for restoration funds, and Carl agreed that the UK Government can't shirk its responsibilities.

He praised some aspects of MTAN2,  described as "wide-ranging" in a number of factors, including taking the track record of the company and future restoration plans into consideration with regard planning applications. David Rees intervened to say he believed there had to be upfront guarantees of restoration, as Parc Slip was more expensive to restore than was predicted.

Carl said the Welsh Government couldn't take action which "results in restoration solutions being taken off the table" simply because people live in close proximity to the mines. He did confirm that the Welsh Government will support councils taking legal action, and that he would host a summit with "stakeholders" on the future of opencast.

In reply, Bethan Jenkins AM (Plaid, South Wales West) called for a "fit for purpose system" that's made in Wales, rejecting comparisons with Scotland as Welsh communities generally live closer to pits (clip). The findings from Welsh Government research were imperfect but its call to strengthen MTAN should be enacted, even if the report "pities developers" and doesn't address communities.

In terms of policy proposals, Bethan suggested creating a mineral planning centre of excellence, ex-miner liason panels to provide technical assistance unavailable to planners and compel local authorities to retain minerals planning officers – despite having four mines, Neath Port Talbot has no expert planners. In the longer-term, workers should be retrained in renewables, saying Plaid Cymru would support creating a Green Skills College.

On specific cases, in particular Parc Slip, she said companies should own the land they mine as it's hard to hold an offshore company like Oak Regeneration to account, with Celtic Energy only acting as an operator and subsequently refusing to take responsibility. Bethan also said the exceptions in MTAN2 are too broad, like "economic development", which could mean anything to anyone.

Although welcoming the proposed summit, Bethan revealed that a FOI request (I presume it's this - pdf) showed there has been no correspondence between the UK and Welsh governments on opencast mine restoration for five years.

The motion was agreed by 36 votes to none with 16 abstentions from the Labour frontbench and some backbenchers (recorded vote here).

Where next?

If you went to the Parc Slip nature reserve today, you wouldn't believe you were walking
on a former opencast mine. When you reach the other end of the reserve, you see this.

It's a non-binding vote. The Assembly agrees that a moratorium should happen, but the Welsh Government isn't obliged to follow through with that - just as there were premature celebrations over a fracking moratorium earlier this year. As William Graham said, it's right to remember that the motion called for a temporary pause on opencasting to allow for a review, not an outright ban, which would be a knee-jerk reaction.

Nevertheless there's a serious issue here that's failed to be addressed adequately by local authorities, Welsh and UK governments. The mining companies have them by the proverbial balls, and with so many tricks and loopholes, they've done them up like kippers.

It's highly likely Parc Slip will never be restored to how it was. The stark contrast between Parc Slip nature reserve and the void tens of metres away serves as a perfect historical artifact, marking the difference between state-ownership and regulation of the mining industry, and privatisation, where companies have figuratively "f**ked 'n' chucked" the land.

If the mining companies had a good track record of restoring sites, boundaries were properly enforced and the law was robust enough to ensure all that happened, opencasting would be less controversial. Now, it's not unreasonable to say opencast mining deserves to die out in Wales.

The remaining problem is that we still need coal. Wales and the UK retain coal-fired power stations and everyone except David Rees and Bethan Jenkins forgot that coal is a vital ingredient in steel-making (Assembly takes a ride on Heavy Metal) – Parc Slip supplied Port Talbot steelworks; Ffos-y-fran, Cwmgrwach and Tower supply Aberthaw power station and the steel industry.

As Bethan was also keen to point out on Twitter, only a fraction of the coal Port Talbot steelworks is obtained via opencast, the rest is imported (along with iron ore etc.)

The best hope for opponents is closure of Aberthaw power station and replacement with a renewable scheme (like a second tidal lagoon in Cardiff Bay) or something like gas or biomass. I'm also sure none of the AMs advocate closing steelworks, but if you want to "keep coal in the ground" permanently, that's what has to happen.

Digging coal up safely, locally and moving it by rail is better than importing it, which just shifts the problem elsewhere and increases the carbon footprint. Despite improvements to mining techniques and underground safety, I doubt anyone other than reactionary socialists want to see a return of shaft mining either.

This issue could turn out to be an important milestone in the decarbonisation of the Welsh
economy, but politicians should be honest about the hit Wales would take as a result.
(Pic : © Copyright Robin Drayton and licensed for reuse under this Creative Commons Licence)

So which way are we going to go? It would be a mistake to rely wholly on the green economy to replace jobs lost during the de-carbonisation of Wales.

Even though the numbers employed in opencast are a fraction of those employed in deep mining, very few forms of renewable energy are as labour intensive as fossil fuels or heavy industries like steel-making or chemicals. You put up a wind turbine, fit solar panels, insulate a home or build a tidal lagoon and apart from routine maintenance that's it – job done. The same goes for nuclear. The number of jobs required to run a station are a fraction of those needed to build it.

One of the reasons deep mining collapsed is because while demand for coal was holding up, the industry employed so many people it became uneconomical. Green technology has the opposite problem in that it employs too few people and often requires government subsidy.

Although its true to say opencast costs jobs too - in agriculture/land management (obviously), and more abstract cases like the Richards & Appleby cosmetics factory in the Rhymney valley - politicians should at least be honest and say that the main goal of renewables is clean energy production and energy efficiency, not long-term mass job creation or traditional economic growth. How they sell that is their problem.

Read More

The Green, Green Glas of Home

The National Assembly's Public Accounts Committee have said that while the Glastir
scheme is well-intentioned, there are problems with how it's been managed.
(Pic : Nanhoron Estate)

I don't normally cover farming issues, mainly because such posts often go unread and I don't know anything about farming in the first place.

Read More

The Parc Slip Monster

Celtic Energy's inability to fill a hole they dug has left
a murky "lake" for local communities to deal with.
(Pic : BBC Wales)

Just before Christmas, the issue of open-cast mining in south west Wales reared it's head again after an intervention by a group of Assembly Members, worried about faltering restoration plans at two former mines.

Caerphilly-based Celtic Energy – listed on the recent Western Mail Top 300 as the 56^th largest company by turnover in Wales - transferred ownership of four open-cast sites to British Virgin Islands registered subsidiary, Oak Regeneration. The two largest sites are Parc Slip near Kenfig Hill - which straddles the border between Neath Port Talbot (NPT) and Bridgend (BCBC) – and East Pit near Cwmllynfell in the Amman Valley.

Oak Regeneration are tasked with restoring the two sites following the expiration of mining licences. They propose to develop a garden village at Parc Slip and a resort at East Pit. In order to fund these works, Oak Regeneration were pressing for further extensions to mining licences.

There's a huge coal seem stretching from Margam to Pencoed. Most of it is under the Cefn Hirgoed Common and Sarn, so the only realistic extraction point is towards the Margam end, which has either been open-cast already or is farmland.

Extensions to mining licences are often highly-controversial and strongly opposed in local communities as it's a particularly dirty and noisy industry and renders previously open-access land useless for decades (more at the end of Digging deep into deals done dirt cheap).

Perhaps Oak Regeneration hoped the "ambitious" restoration proposals would swing licence decisions and public opinion in their favour, to the point that some local councillors were won over by the plans. Both NPT and BCBC dilly-dallied on issuing enforcement notices (as the respective planning authorities), which would legally-bind the company to immediately start work on restoring the sites back to normal. Mining even continued at East Pit after the licence expired.

The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) intervened and several Oak Regeneration directors found themselves in court accused of attempting to defraud Bridgend, NPT and Powys councils. In February 2014 the case was dismissed, and an attempt to restart the case failed late last year. By the looks of it the SFO tried altering the charges after the case went to court, but because no money changed hands there was little hard evidence to implicate the defendants.

The cost of restoring both mines is estimated to be £157million, but Oak Regeneration are reported to have only set aside a paltry £8million. Unless extensions to mining licences are granted, it's likely that the resulting enforcement notices would bankrupt Oak Regeneration, and the cost of restoring the mines will fall on NPT, BCBC and the Welsh Government.

Although she wasn't mentioned in relation to the intervention, Bethan Jenkins AM (Plaid, South Wales West) is one of the few AMs who has spoken out consistently on this and has campaigned on open-cast mining since she was first elected.

It's also right to say she's often given short shrift by Welsh Government ministers – usually Carl Sargeant (Lab, Alyn & Deeside) and previously John Griffiths AM (Lab, Newport East) – when pressing for answers in the Assembly.

Since it's become more obvious that the sites are unlikely to be restored, the rest of the AMs in South Wales West have caught up Keystone Cops style – up to and including Carwyn Jones himself (though he did know about this).

The AMs are calling for Celtic Energy - Oak Regeneration's parent company - to stump up the restoration money. Celtic Energy have sung from the same hymn sheet as Oak Regeneration : extend mining licences to raise restoration funds. In light of falling coal prices it's unlikely to raise enough.

It isn't limited to this part of Wales either. Although Bethan's the most prominent campaigner on this issue in the Assembly, others – like Lynne Neagle AM (Lab, Torfaen) - have expressed concerns about a proposed open-cast mine near Fart Egg in her constituency, while protests against the Ffos-y-fran mine on the outskirts of Merthyr have rumbled for the best part of 25 years.

This isn't a particularly popular industry, regardless of whether it provides jobs or not.


This is why Wales can't have nice things....

Is this what we're getting?
Nope, think again....
(Pic : bridgendbites.com)

There's been a clear lack of foresight by the local authorities, the mining companies and the Welsh Government which - unless a solution is found - could leave a scar on the landscape that will last generations.

Open-cast mines can be and are restored successfully, demonstrated (ironically) at Parc Slip.

The eastern half of Parc Slip open-cast, on the outskirts of Tondu, was fully restored in the 1980s-1990s and is now a popular nature reserve (pictured above). If you went there today you would barely know it used to be a mine. To the west, there's a poorly fenced-off moonscape and a massive hole filling with water. I don't know what East Pit is like, but I'm presuming it's similar.

There are obvious safety concerns. Depending on the rocks around it, the water is likely to be either very acidic or very alkaline, so there's no way it can be treated to become a pleasant "lake". It'll either have to be back filled or pumped out and disposed of properly. The water's also so blue it looks like a tropical lagoon, but anyone tempted to take a dip during the summer would be swimming in bleach.

Back in 2013, Cllr. Luke Ellis (Lab, Pyle) warned people to stay away after reports of trespassing, but the water's even higher now. So greater efforts will need to be made to keep people away.

Then there's the flooding risk. It's taken about 5 years to fill 60-70 metres of mine workings. Judging by what I've seen there's only another two to three years left until there's a real threat the "lake" will be over-capacity.

If the "lake" breached, the River Kenfig (which is right next to the mine and the only obvious place for the water to go) is too small to cope, so it could cause flooding downstream in Pyle and North Cornelly. That's bad enough on it's own, but it would be an ecological disaster too, as polluted water will head for Kenfig Burrows - a Site of Special Scientific Interest.

Open-cast mining is safer than drift and deep mining at the expense of the environment. Having said that, as long as power stations like Aberthaw and key industries like the Port Talbot steelworks continue to need coal, it's better to source that coal locally and move it by rail than import it.

In the medium to long-term, Aberthaw power station (and other coal-fired power stations around the UK) will either be replaced or close due to poor emissions standards, while TATA are/were considering opening a drift mine in Margam. Therefore, it looks as though open-cast doesn't have much of a future.

Celtic Energy and Oak Regeneration have been underhand, having sold NPT, BCBC and the Welsh Government magic beans. The latter can't say they weren't warned either.

This has always been about extending mining licences. The regeneration projects are a pipe dream that companies are under no obligation to deliver. Housing developments, which Celtic Energy have been plugging since the AMs' intervention, are moot. Nobody seriously thinks Oak Regeneration - a company without a pot to piss in - would be able to oversee a garden village (which would probably cost £450-500million) at Parc Slip, do they? We'll be lucky if they grow trees there again.

So you can see what's going to happen. It'll either be left as it is for the foreseeable future and become a potential serious environmental hazard. Or, there'll be no choice but to extend mining licences to prevent NPT and BCBC, probably the Welsh Government too, being left with a massive clean up bill as Oak Regeneration go bust. I wouldn't want to see that happen because costs will be be passed on to taxpayers.

A Machiavellian part of me does want that to happen though, because the Welsh Government have been complacent on open-cast mining for years (minerals policy is devolved - MTAN). A nice big bill to bail out a dodgy offshore company would be just the kick up the backside they desperately need.

This is why I get annoyed when politicians say "sustainable" because, as the Welsh Government often prove, they don't practice what they preach. There's absolutely nothing "sustainable" about what's happening at Kenfig Hill.Maybe they won't see open-cast as such a neighbourly industry anymore and start to think about proper regulation, including absolute cast-iron guarantees (perhaps backed by legislation) of financing for restoration projects before mining licences are granted.

Ultimately, the reason why governments introduce so much of the "obstructive red tape" businesses complain about is because some companies continuously breach the trust of local communities this way.

Right, what are we going to call it?

"Lake Sargeant"? "Llyn Carwyn"?

Read More

Wales : The Next Generation

"Make it so".

What could be one of the most significant pieces of legislation this Assembly term was introduced earlier this week by Communities & Tackling Poverty Minister Jeff Cuthbert (Lab, Caerphilly) to "great fanfare" : the Well-being of Future Generations Bill.

When I try to summarise a new law I usually read the text of the Bill (pdf) and then use the explanatory memorandum (pdf) to either confirm my own understanding of what's written or clear things up.

This was a challenge. I was pinned down by jargon. Charlie tossed a few buzzword grenades and through the dense vegetation of management speak all I could hear were voices calling out, as English was abused with all the enthusiasm of a 1970s national treasure. I developed the thousand yard stare of legislative shell shock.

That's the sort of living hell I have to put myself through to bring you blogs like this. You don't know, man! You weren't there!

I guess what I'm trying to say is this is a very dense – dare I say it – slightly bizarre law. Having said that, the National Assembly's Members Research Service have done a good job of summarising the underlying principles of the Bill over at their In Brief blog.

The Goals of the Future Generations Bill

(Pic : xkcd.com)

I'm not fibbing when I say that if you wanted to sum up the Bill in one sentence it would be that it's "trying to improve everything by gently predicting and guiding future events". You name it, the Bill sets goals to improve it. All this is under the umbrella of "sustainable development" – something the Welsh Government and National Assembly are obliged to factor into their decisions by statute.

I suppose the clearest definition of "sustainable development" would be actions that would meet current human needs (like economic development, housing, transport) without putting pressure on the natural environment, and - importantly - being able to maintain that balance indefinitely.

The Bill was joined by a high-profile national conversation - launched by Michael Sheen back in February - called "The Wales We Want", which intends to outline what the people of Wales, of all ages, want the country to be like in 2050. An interim report (pdf) was published alongside the launch of the Bill.

The findings highlighted that the biggest single concerns were : climate change (26% of respondents), skills & education (16%), natural environment (14%) employment (13%) and governance (7%).

Here's a word cloud of the responses from postcard submissions :

(Pic : The Wales We Want interim report - click to enlarge)

Notice that "sustainability/sustainable" and "social justice" are tucked away. It's worth pondering whether "sustainability" is the Wales they (government and associated groups) want, not the Wales we (the public) want.

"Sustainable" is the single most annoying buzzword in Cardiff Bay. It's used so often, you would think AMs were piously green woodland creatures that make absolutely no impact on the planet in action or thought.

If you take statements and Senedd debates at face value, everything our AMs propose or support is "sustainable"; whether that's building a race track on an upland moor with no races, building houses in the middle of nowhere, prioritising a whacking great big motorway across the Gwent Levels over public transport or supporting a nuclear power station Wales doesn't even need - at present or in the future.

Don't get me wrong, everyone behind this – including the Welsh Government – has gone into it with the best possible intentions, but it's built on soft foundations. We never seem to get aggressive actions, only aggressive talk in an attempt to make "sustainability/sustainable development" mean whatever decision-makers and opinion-formers want it to mean.

I don't see that changing, and here's why....

What the Future Generations Bill proposes

There are six very important long-term goals the Bill aims to focus attentions on
- but the rest of it is all too familiar.
(Pic : The Wales We Want)

The broad aim of the Act will be to place a duty on all public bodies in Wales (Welsh Government, local health boards, local councils, national parks, fire and rescue services, directly funded government bodies like National Museums Wales etc.) to improve the well-being of the population by following the "sustainable development" principle : meet today's needs without compromising the needs of, and resources available to, future generations.

Well-being Goals

The Bill sets out six core well-being goals it expects every public body in Wales to pursue.

1. A prosperous Wales – A low carbon, innovative economy that creates jobs, wealth and provides skills to the workforce.
2. A resilient Wales – Healthy ecosystems that support social, economic and ecological resilience and can adapt to change.
3. A healthier Wales – A society where physical and mental well-being is maximised and behaviours that improve future health are understood.
4. A more equal Wales – A society that enables people to fulfil their potential regardless of background.
5. A Wales of cohesive communities – Attractive, safe and well-connected communities.
6. A Wales of vibrant culture and a thriving Welsh language – A society that promotes, protects and encourages participation in culture, sport, heritage and the Welsh language.

• These goals may be added to, removed or amended by the Welsh Government (after consultation and Assembly approval).
• Public bodies and Welsh Ministers must publish their own objectives to achieve these well-being goals in accordance with the sustainable development principle.
• The Welsh Government must publish indicators to measure progress towards achieving these goals and lay a copy in front of the the National Assembly. They'll also have to publish an annual report on their progress.
• Within 12 months of every Welsh General Election, the Welsh Government will need to publish a "Future Trends Report" that outlines future trends in the economic, social and environmental well-being of Wales – including relevant statistics where appropriate.

Future Generations Commissioner

The Bill :

• Establishes a Sustainability/Future Generations Commissioner (which already exists but as a non-statutory position).
• Outlines the broad role of the Commissioner as :
• Promoting the "sustainable development principle" by safeguarding the needs of future generations.
• Encouraging public bodies to take the long-term impact of their decisions into consideration.
• Monitoring how public bodies are meeting their well-being objectives.
• Encouraging best practice amongst public bodies and promote awareness of sustainable development.
• Undertaking research or studies into sustainable development.
• Making recommendations to Welsh Ministers and public bodies on sustainable development goals. Those bodies will have a duty to follow any recommendations from the Commissioner unless they have good reason not to, or they come up with a better alternative.
• Places a duty on the Commissioner to publish a Future Generations report outlining what actions public bodies can take to meet their well-being objectives, after consultation with public bodies, the advisory panel (below), trade unions, businesses and anyone else the Commissioner deems appropriate.
• Establishes an Advisory Panel made up of other Commissioners (Chlidren's, Older People's), chief officers (i.e Chief Medical Officer) the chair of Natural Resources Wales and other members appointed by the Welsh Government.
• Bars elected representatives or peers from being appointed as Commissioner.

Public Service Boards

The Bill :

• Establishes Public Service Boards in each local authority area (post-merger?) made up of the local council, local health board, fire and rescue authorities and Natural Resources Wales.
• Places a duty on these new boards to invite other key participants, like Welsh Ministers, chief constables, Police & Crime Commissioners and bodies representing voluntary organisations ("Third Sector"). Other partners include community councils, Community Health Councils and Assembly-sponsored bodies (i.e Sport Wales).
• Grants powers to the hosting local authority's overview and scrutiny committee to review and scrutinise the public service board's functions and governance, and also grants them the power to report failings to the Welsh Government.
• Grants powers to Welsh Ministers to merge public service boards or direct them to collaborate if it would be beneficial.

The functions of the Public Service Boards are :

• To improve the economic, social and ecological well-being of their local area in accordance with the sustainable development principle.
• To publish an assessment of the well-being of their local area within one year of establishment.
• To develop local well-being plans to meet any decided local well-being aims in accordance with the sustainable development principle.
• To fully include community councils which have an expenditure of over £200,000 per year, which will – in turn – have to play a role in meeting the well-being aims set by the public service boards at a community level.

How much will the Future Generations Act cost?

The explanatory memorandum provided a very detailed breakdown of the potential costs based on various policy options. I'm only basing this off the Welsh Government's preferred option in each case.

The costs of the new levels of reporting, as set out in the Bill, will be just under £1.8million per year between 2015-16 and 2019-20, with an initial upfront cost of around £1million. The total costs will be spread across all the public bodies involved, ranging from £600,000 to the Welsh Government, to £40,000 (combined) for 73 community councils affected by the Bill (~£550 per council). The total cost of the reporting/monitoring well-being goals, between 2015-2020, will be around £10million.

The Future Generations Commissioner will cost £1.46million per year. This includes payments of up to £350 per day to members of the advisory panel, staffing costs (£948,000) – which will include plenty of "officer level" appointments - and general office running costs. Over the five year projections that's a total of around £7.3million.

The Public Service Boards will cost between £2.3million and £2.93million per year for the five years after the passing of the Act. Most of that will go towards partnership support and developing well-being plans themselves. It's expected each of the service boards will lay out around £414,000 per year on public engagement. Based on the figures provided, the total cost of the Public Service Boards between 2015-16 and 2019-20 is around £13million.

So the total estimated cost of any Well-being of Future Generation Act, over five financial years, is at least £30.3million.

A sustainable water-saturated miniature pyrotechnic device

An all too familiar Welsh way of doing things : talk in offices, ticks in boxes.
The launch of a flagship law should've been a cause for celebration,
but the response has been near-mute.
(Pic : Sustainable Cities Collective)

This is – Human Transplantation Act 2013 aside – the Welsh Government's flagship law of the Fourth Assembly. I suppose you can say it's been set up to be the lasting legacy of this generation of Welsh Ministers, and what they want to be remembered for once they retire, hence the Bill's title.

I presume this was supposed to be the Welsh Government's "big announcement" before going into recess (along with the local government white paper), its intention being to leave us all wanting more and to get the chattering classes pondering it over the summer.

This is supposed to be a radical, progressive, generation-defining law that "Wales is going to be famous for in the future".

If it really were that though, it would be everywhere right now. The world's media would be paying attention to little old Wales, while those at the other end of the M4 will be actively trying to learn from what we're attempting to do here.

In a way, this is another victim of the Alun Davies scandal. It hasn't been Carwyn's week, has it?

Aside from Click on Wales articles (here, here) and this blog today, it's barely made a ripple. The Western Mail had a negative spin, but was truthful - their Assembly correspondent Graham Henry (who, like myself, is no fan of Assemblese) described the Bill's launch event as "the closest we will come to a jargon nirvana" on Twitter. BBC Wales focused on the Wales We Want public attitudes survey. ITV Wales – as far as I can tell – didn't even bother. There are pretty good reasons for that.

Let's review what we get from this Bill : a Commissioner (whom already exists but is being put on the statute books), another collection of unelected patronage-based committees hovering above local government (with obligatory involvement of the Third Sector), and a set of rather broad catch all goals that you would expect any government in any liberal democracy to want to work towards.

Yeah, this is definitely Welsh Labour's baby alright.

A focused sustainable development law might've been boring, but it would've been a bit more intellectually honest than this.

That doesn't mean it's all bad. I like the idea of a once-a-term "Future Trends Report", for example. That could be incredibly useful. It looks like community councils are going to get a beefed-up public role too, and I don't really have a problem with another Commissioner.

If you're bored now though - it's not as if many of you are going to plough through everything written above - I'm going to make this a bit more interesting.

You could, in a twisted way, interpret this Bill as being an embryonic written Welsh Constitution. It sets out clear long-term goals and establishes a set of core principles "the Welsh state" will be obligated to work towards.

However, while constitutions and long-term goals are nice, they're not policy and they often don't warrant legislative measures.

The Bill could potentially throw up some very nasty situations if passed too. There's the question of what would happen if two or more of the well-being goals clash - housing (communities) and the Welsh language (culture) for instance? Which would win out? Are some of the six well-being goals more important than others?

"Klingons off the starboard bow"
It's all very well the Welsh Government setting well-being goals, but they've
completely neglected the impact this lot can do to torpedo those goals.
(Pic : The Guardian)

Also, while the Welsh Government and public bodies are going to be subject to this law, it doesn't seem to take into consideration actions by the UK Government or private sector which could have a negative impact on the six Welsh well-being goals. Westminster's primacy says hello.

For example, most energy powers rest with the UK Government, so they could - theoretically – unilaterally dump nuclear waste from around the UK in Wales if no community comes forward, or open up as much land as possible for fracking. That could, in the worse circumstances, trash many of the Welsh well-being goals (like ecological resilience and health). Yet the UK Government or private companies wouldn't be subject to this law because areas like defence and nuclear energy are non-devolved.

The Welsh Government would in a farcical position of being bound by this law not to do the same thing in their own territory, nor would they be able to prevent another government running roughshod over it. It's the equivalent of a "No Bombing" sign in a swimming pool.

What would happen if there's another round of welfare reform which would negatively impact the well-being goal to improve equality of opportunity? Would the Bill - from a subordinate legislature - override Westminster's sovereignty and force Whitehall to reconsider their actions? It wouldn't, would it? In that situation, sadly, the Bill's completely and utterly worthless. The very unbalanced nature of the Union - something Labour are keen to protect - could sink the Welsh Government's own "legacy law".

So in one swoop the Welsh Government might've just made the best legal and social justice argument for Welsh independence. They didn't think of it like that though, did they?

You would expect me to be pleased with that, but – alas - in its current form, the Bill should be rejected. It needs to go back to the drawing board and become a straight-up Sustainable Development Bill, or possibly merged with the proposed Planning Bill.

That's not because it's poorly thought through, but because - aside from more committees and a new Commissioner - there's absolutely no way in hell any Welsh Government, of any colour, will ever live up to the well-being goals.

It should be rejected because - until they can prove that they can back words with deeds - it's too optimistic a vision of the future for our politicians to work towards. That's a sad thing to say, but it's true. And believe me I wish it wasn't so.

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

New law to rein in abandoned horses

A lovely horse, and some not so lovely horses.
The Welsh Government are cracking down on illegal fly-grazing via a new law

There've been instances across Wales of horses being left to fly graze on public land or farmland illegally, and for some time, the Welsh Government have wanted to clamp down on abandoned horses.

Bridgend and the Vale of Glamorgan are, in fact, picked out as "hot spots" for fly-grazing.

In 2011, more than 250 stray horses and ponies rampaged around Laleston and Coity, some managing to get onto the M4. In 2012, stray horses in the Bryntirion area of Bridgend took over playing fields and invaded both the local secondary school and people's gardens. Byron Davies AM (Con, South Wales West) has also raised concerns about ~200 abandoned horses in the Gower.

Horses can be temperamental, so can be dangerous to anyone who isn't used to handling them. It's usually the fire service and police who deal with the horses themselves, but local authorities have complained that the powers they currently have are "inadequate to enable them to tackle the issue."

In response, last week Natural Resources and Food Minister Alun Davies (Lab, Blaenau Gwent) introduced the Control of Horses Bill to the National Assembly.

A bit of controversy

Once again, the Welsh Government have sped up legislation, this time bypassing the first committee stage, which usually includes evidence from interested outside parties and experts. The Bill's fairly short and easy to understand so I don't think they're trying to pull a fast one, but you've got to wonder if the Welsh Government are starting to bypass legislative stages out of habit.

Ironically, Welsh Conservative leader - and farmer - Andrew Davies (Con, South Wales Central), might've provided the impetus by suggesting in previous debates that a fly-grazing law "could be required this winter" if it's harsh enough to put animals at risk. He believed the Welsh Government should "reach out to opposition parties to try to instigate a speedy passage of the Bill".

So they did, and the minister says he received concrete cross-party for it. That's the clear party political view, but - putting aside unrelated criticism of Alun Davies over the last 48 hours for a moment - it's not the view shared by the Assembly's committees.

Respective chairs of the Environment & Sustainability and Finance Committees - Dafydd Elis Thomas AM (Plaid, Dwyfor Meirionnydd) and Jocelyn Davies AM (Plaid, South Wales East) - criticised the decision at some length during the first debate on Tuesday.

Simon Thomas AM (Plaid, Mid & West Wales) - speaking on behalf of the Constitutional & Legislative Affairs Committee - said they didn't have a chance to scrutinise the legislation beforehand and that the committee "didn't like working this way."

A William Graham AM (Con, South Wales East) amendment to the debate motion "regretting" the decision to bypass the first committee stage failed to pass by just two votes.

What the law intends to do

The law covers "all equine animals".
(Pic : zoochat.com)

Bill here (pdf), explanatory memorandum here (pdf).

The Bill :

• Gives local authorities the power to seize, impound and dispose of horses which are either :
• On highways or in public places without lawful authority
• On land without the consent of the landowner/occupier ("landowner" includes local authorities themselves)
• Places statutory duties on local authorities to:

• Give written notice at the point of seizure and to the police within 24 hours.
• Take reasonable steps to find the horse(s) owner and inform them in writing within 7 days of seizure.
• Keep a public register of all horse seizures.

• Will mean horse owners are liable for the costs of any seizure of horses under this law, and the local authority won't be obliged to return a horse until payment has been received in full.
• Will mean if the horse owner, or someone on their behalf, hasn't been found/come forward with 7 days, local authorities have the power to arrange for the "disposal" of the horse, including euthanasia.
• Outlines that if money made from disposal falls short of the costs of seizure then the owner will be liable to make up the difference, but also if the disposal exceeds costs of seizure then the local authority will be required to pay the owner the difference.
• Places a duty on Welsh Ministers to draft regulations for an appeals process.
• Repeals/supersedes clauses relating to wild horses in previous local government legislation.

"Horse" for the purpose of the Bill is defined as a horse, donkey, pony, mule, hinny (whatever one of those is) and "any other equine animals". Zebras of Wales - not just the Treorchy kind - have been put on notice then, while somewhere there's a zoologist crying.

I know I'm talking theoretically here, but you can imagine what the public reaction might be if a zebra escaped from a travelling circus, zoo or sanctuary, wasn't recovered in time, and was (somehow) set to be put down under this law.

The Assembly's Finance Committee have asked for updated estimates of how many horses the Welsh Government would expect to be destroyed should the Bill become law. It's also said in the explanatory memorandum that the law will be reviewed two years, or sooner, after it becomes law.

What the law means

The explanatory memorandum says the Bill has been welcomed by animal welfare organisations and equine societies such as RSPCA, Redwings and Blue Cross,  who've seen sharp increases in the number of horses seeking re-homing or being abandoned.

The overriding goal of the law is clear cut, and it's obvious the Welsh Government are getting tough with fly-grazers.

Horse owners would have a week to reclaim their horse(s) if seized by a local authority. If not, the horse will either end up re-homed or in a knacker's yard, with the owner facing a hefty bill for their trouble.

7 days might seem harsh – previous limits were 14 days - and it was raised by Joyce Watson AM (Lab, Mid & West Wales) in the Environment & Sustainability Committee, while Julie Morgan AM (Lab, Cardiff North) had concerns about the potential impact on gypsies and travellers.

You've also got to wonder if disposal is the best solution, when compulsory microchipping of horses - in the same manner as dogs - might be better in the long-term.

Alun Davies told the committee he would expect "any responsible horse owners to check their horses on a daily basis". Negligent horse owners might have also seen the old limit as 14 days of free food for their horse(s) at the expense of someone else's land.

Some existing laws – like the Animals Act 1971 and Animal Welfare Act 2006 – place duties on owners to ensure the welfare of animals they own, and gives landowners the power to detain livestock that stray onto their land. Legislation specific to some old counties of Wales also granted local authorities the power to seize stray animals, however those provisions don't cover the whole of Wales, while the Control of Horses Bill will.

A similar, but significantly more extensive, law was passed in the Republic of Ireland in 1996. I think it perfectly highlights the difference between the sovereign powers an independent nation has and devolution.

The current cost of fly-grazing to the police, RSPCA, councils, equine societies and fire service is said to be a cumulative £1.2million a year.

The average cost – citing examples in Bridgend and Vale of Glamorgan – of a horse seizure is around £500 per horse, while other local authorities like Swansea say the costs are between £1,000 and £1,500 per horse.

The costs of the proposed law are mixed. Some local authorities operating under the local laws mentioned above will already carry out some of the functions outlined in this proposed Bill, so it won't cost them anything. For the rest, it might cost around £600 per horse.

To put things in perspective, Bridgend, Vale of Glamorgan and Swansea impounded 154 horses in 2012 alone – which is much higher than I had expected, working out at almost three horses a week.

At national level, a contract for secure accommodation for seized horses would cost around £450,000 to set up, and £300,000 per year afterwards. It'll cost the Welsh Government £11,000 to issue the appropriate statutory guidance.

I'd also propose another, less politically correct, solution to the problem:

         

I don't understand why people are squeamish about eating horse meat. It's eaten across Asia and mainland Europe – especially France, Italy, and northern Europe - we have loads of them, it's better for the environment as horses fart less methane than cows and they're all free range. It's also completely legal, just unfashionable.

It might encourage those thinking of abandoning their horses to sell them instead. You have to wonder if there would be a market for Welsh boucheries chevalines.

Read More

"Emergency" Agricultural Sector Bill introduced

Overturning a brash UK Government decision?
Or abuse of process? Probably a mix of both.
(Pic : via Ebay)

....and it'll probably be passed within two weeks.

When it was announced that the EnglandandWales Agricultural Wages Board (AWB) – which sets pay for around 13,000 agricultural workers in Wales – was to be wound up, the then (titled) Deputy Minister for Rural Affairs, Alun Davies (Lab, Blaenau Gwent), said in a written statement he would negotiate with his UK counterpart (DEFRA), asking for Wales to be excluded from the legislation disbanding it.

Clearly there's been some breakdown there, or – with weeks to go until the summer recess – he realised something needed to be done immediately.

The AWB was wound up by the UK Government on June 25^th , and the orders regulating the AWB (and subsequently, agricultural workers' pay) will be revoked from October 1^st this year.

The Welsh Government were, by their own account, left with three options : 1. Do nothing and leave agricultural workers with less protection than before, 2. Introduce legislation to effectively replace the AWB, or 3. Create an advisory system that wouldn't have the weight of the law behind it.

They've plumped for option two.

What are the Bill's aims?

The Bill itself is here (pdf), explanatory memorandum here (pdf).

• The Bill establishes a new Agricultural Advisory Panel for Wales, "preserving the terms and conditions" of the AWB, with a "flexible remit".
• The Panel will be responsible for promoting agricultural careers, advising the Welsh Government on farming matters and agricultural pay.
• It gives the Welsh Government direct powers to pass orders setting agricultural pay, terms and conditions.
• The Bill makes it an offence to deny agricultural workers holidays as specified in an order, meaning employers will be liable to a fine of up to £1,000.

The explanatory memorandum says this isn't a replication of the AWB, and they're expanding its remit – similarly to the Education Workforce Council in the Education Bill.

Is this within the Assembly's powers?

The Llywydd says she believes the Bill falls within the Assembly's competence, but I still think it's unclear.

There are lots of references in the Bill to minimum wage laws, working time directives and terms and conditions. Toby Mason wondered whether this Bill – because this deals with employment law  as much as the agricultural sector – will end up in the Supreme Court.

Schedule 7 of the Government of Wales Act 2006 clearly states that large aspects of agriculture and animal health are devolved, with the exception of things like animal testing, hunting with dogs and movement of animals and pesticides etc.

There's no specific exemption relating to agricultural workers' pay and working conditions, but the Bill's legitimacy depends on whether that falls under the definition "employment law"  - which isn't devolved.

Also, under the Public Bodies Act 2011, the Welsh Government has to be consulted on any changes to public bodies working within a devolved area. However, under Schedule 1 of the Public Bodies Act, it clearly states that the UK Government has the power to specifically abolish the AWB, but also - interestingly - the power to transfer the functions of a public body to Welsh Ministers, giving the Welsh Government legal control over the AWB and its remit.

I'm not sure if that legal transfer of functions has happened. If it hasn't, then I think this Bill stands a chance of ending up in the Supreme Court, as it could be seen as unconstitutional.

I'll be more than happy for someone to clear this up.

An unprecedented step

Emergency legislation has been used elsewhere - including
the Scottish Parliament. It's just a question of whether this
constitutes an "emergency" or not.
(Pic : BBC Scotland)

According to the Assembly Research Service (pdf), Ministers - under the Assembly's standing orders - have the power to introduce "emergency legislation" by asking for a motion that the Bill be treated as an Emergency Bill. In this case, that was approved on July 2^nd thanks to Plaid Cymru abstentions.

Emergency Bills are usually only used to react to emergencies, major mistakes in legislation or to respond to events like court judgements (to close dangerous loopholes). For what this deals with, you've got to say that this seems an extreme step.

It waives several requirements, including a full explanatory memorandum (though one was graciously provided), changes to how and when amendments can be made by AMs, scrutiny by committee (instead its done by the whole Assembly) and it speeds up the legislative process significantly. The Assembly will only have two debates on this Bill before the final vote. The first debate was yesterday.

Considering that, on average, it takes around six months for a Bill to pass from introduction to becoming an Act, trying to do all that in the space of three weeks is extraordinary.

However, as long as AMs are on the ball, and their heads are firmly in the Siambr and not on a beach somewhere, I don't think there'll be too many problems. They should be able to cope with it, and I suspect the Bill will pass unimpeded.

Vaughan Roderick and William Powell AM (Lib Dem, Mid & West Wales) also questioned whether this constitutes an abuse of process, as Labour currently have a majority of one until the Ynys Môn by-election.

It comes across as though the Welsh Government have been caught with their trousers down - using the "emergency" banner to save face - and preventing effective critique of the legislation. But I don't think that was their intention from the start, it just came about that way. Maybe they're secretly hoping for a bit of fisticuffs with Westminster too, because....

Is this a Welsh Government Bill?

As you'll probably know, there's been a focus on Labour's relationship with the Unite union recently due to some shenanigans surrounding the Falkirk by-election.

What's makes this AWB situation interesting are snippets from Unite's political report, which was leaked by Guido Fawkes and linked by BBC Wales' David Cornock last week. On page 9 :

The fight to save the AWB – despite the sterling efforts of the sector and a great deal of political support from Labour MPs and Peers the Government forced through their amendment to the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill to push through the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board. Working with the sector we will continue to raise this issue and will seek to influence Labour Party policy to commit to reversing this abolition.

Then, on page 14, right at the very end :

As with Scotland, Unite involvement and indeed leadership in Welsh politics is very notable. Not only do we have relationships with with the Welsh Assembly and its members, and with the First Minister which would serve as a very satisfactory model for Westminster, but we achieve very significant results, whether on issues such as blacklisting, support for public sector workers and strikes or broader social issues. Welsh government and relations between rade (sic) unions and party are what we would hope for and expect with a social democratic party – in no small measure due to the leadership of Unite and its Regional Committee in Wales.

I might be putting 2+2 together and coming up with 5, but "significant results"? Like emergency legislation to replace the AWB, you mean? Is this the Welsh Government's Bill, or Unite's?

Also, is it good for us that our First Minister and AMs are seen as loyal puppies?

Now, they have a point on the AWB. Unite represent some agricultural sector workers and the NFU have been pressing for it too. So I don't think in this particular case it's too much of a problem. Labour were in part founded by trade unions, so their influence shouldn't come as a shock.

It's as unsavoury as donor antics affecting other parties too, though trying to defend themselves off the basis of that is a little bit "tu quoque".

Despite that, we shouldn't underestimate the wider implications of vested outside interests theoretically exerting their influence to set the Welsh Government on a collision course with Westminster. A matter that could also be seen as an abuse of process, and a row that risks ending up in the Supreme Court.

It brings into question the relationship between Welsh politicians and trade unions – even if the closeness was an open secret (Welsh Labour and Unite share the same HQ building, while Plaid have long tried to court them with little success) - and even the credibility of the Welsh Government's leadership and decision-making.

Welsh Labour always gave the impression of being Fabian-minded, but clearly they're more Cretaceous than that. If Ed Miliband follows through with his proposed remodelling of Labour's union links, it'll probably put Labour's Welsh branch in an uncomfortable position.

In my personal opinion, trade unions, business/capital and political institutions/parties should keep each other at arm's length for the sake of balance - as in Germany and the Netherlands, for example. The government should act as a steadying hand, preventing things swinging in favour of one or two groups. It doesn't help to have a government seen to favour one over another.

If I don't want the country to be run by big business, I certainly don't want it run by the trade unions either. To prevent that, you need a government with a backbone. It's dangerous if all we're seen to have in Cardiff – exemplified by Unite's own hubris – is a collection of invertebrates.

Read More