Woodpeckers, Tits & Choughs

(Pic : Centre for Ecology & Hydrology)

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

Read More

FMQs : Refugees, Vetoes & Bloody Brexit

The weekly theatre of Carwyn Jones' questioning by AMs rolls into town yet again.

Read More

Why was the Commonwealth Games bid ditched?

Not coming to a town or city near you....
(Pic : ITV Wales)

Towards the end of July, Economy & Infrastructure Secretary, Ken Skates (Lab, Clwyd South), announced that a speculative Welsh bid to host the 2026 Commonwealth Games would not go ahead following a feasibility study - a 12-page summary of which was released on July 26^th (pdf).

Read More

State of the Nation's Health

(Pic : Wales Online)

As reported from Wales Online towards the end of last week, the latest National Health Survey results, for 2014, were published by the Welsh Government. It comes as the Assembly scrutinises the Public Health Bill (Tattoos, Bans & Bogs).

Read More

Downloading (22% - 2 years left)....

With the Wales Audit Office recently giving Superfast Cymru a thumbs up,
the minister in charge provided an update to AMs on progress to date.
(Pic : recombu.com)

The Superfast Cymru scheme is a £425million partnership between BT and the Welsh Government which aims to provide high-speed broadband (generally defined as somewhere between 20-50 Megabits/second) to every home and business in Wales – particularly those in hard to reach areas.

Good internet connections have become an everyday necessity regardless of where you live, while for rural businesses in particular – who often endure poor mobile and internet connections - it's essential, especially as farming payments have increasingly moved to online-only management (see also : The Green, Green Glas of Home).

In general terms, the scheme focuses on upgrading, or installing new, green BT roadside cabinets with fibre optics connections to telephone exchanges. Fibre optic cables enable much faster download speeds and can carry more information as signals are sent as pulses of light. They're also less susceptible to environmental damage.

Yesterday, Deputy Minster for Skills & Technology, Julie James (Lab, Swansea West) updated the National Assembly on progress being made by the programme.

The Deputy Minister started by saying the scheme meant Wales was moving into a position where every business and home has access to superfast broadband, as outlined in the Programme for Government (clip) - the aim of the scheme being to bring high-speed broadband to areas where the market wouldn't go. With it crucial to becoming a "truly digital nation", a big push is needed to reach the last 3-4% of premises. This includes using mobile technology like 4G, and a new scheme based on this will be launched later this year.

Without intervention, it's said 480,000 premises wouldn't have access to superfast broadband. With 79% of Welsh homes and businesses having access so far, Wales is ahead of the EU average. The scheme has created 250 jobs and provided a number of apprenticeships and work experience placements, while the Wales Audit Office (WAO) have said Superfast Cymru is making "reasonable progress".

The Superfast Cymru website will be revamped to give residents more certainty on when they would be connected. Plus, the contract has been extended to June 2017, with additional public funding of of £19million, in order to target an extra ~45,000 premises (and specifically 2,500 businesses). Swansea is also being used by BT as a testbed for 500Mbits/second ultra-fast broadband (G. fast).

There was a need to ensure people take up superfast broadband. So far, 22% of customers have taken it up within a year of it being available - the highest take-up rate in the UK. The target is for 50% take-up by 2024. Claw back agreements mean that once the scheme breaks even, the Welsh Government get some extra money back.

Shadow Economy Minister, William Graham (Con, South Wales East), said significant problems remain – mentioning issues on Deeside enterprise zone specifically (clip) - though the project demonstrates effective public-private cooperation. He hoped there was no complacency as Wales is likely to be ahead of other countries for only a short period of time, with a number of "not spots" remaining, including in around Cardiff, citing an example of a business leasing a line for broadband at a cost of £20,000.

The Deputy Minister said Wales was second only to Cornwall in take-up though roll-out has been faster than the rest of the UK. She acknowledged difficulties, suggesting alternative technologies could address problems on Deeside. Superfast Cymru only covers areas which are commercially unviable, and it won't be until the end of the programme that those involved will be able to see if something can be done for "not spots" in commercially viable areas like Cardiff.

Plaid Cymru economy spokesperson, Rhun ap Iorwerth (Plaid, Ynys Môn), said it was right to aim for universal roll-out to ease the transition into a digital economy (clip). He suggests his constituents would be surprised by the WAO's positive assessment as they, and other rural areas, wait for upgrades. He asked : Could 4G services be brought into Superfast Cymru instead of relying on mobile companies? Whether the extension to 2017 includes the whole scheme or just the 45,000 additional premises? We should aim for greater take-up than 50%, but is there a danger Wales could lag behind once faster broadband speed benchmarks are set?

The Deputy Minister said the additional premises wouldn't disrupt other parts of the programme. 4G is being looked at, as well as other technologies, to produce superfast speeds. She accepted the point on take-up, but Wales was doing well compared to other countries.

David Rees AM (Lab, Aberavon) stressed the importance of delivering broadband to businesses, with particular concerns over business parks in his area (clip), especially those which are surrounded by residential areas eligible for Superfast Cymru but are themselves being left out. He asked what speeds people can expect and whether the new infrastructure can deliver 500Mbit/s in the future? Also, which ISPs provide superfast broadband to ensure businesses have a choice?

The Deputy Minister explained the business park situation by saying that because EU funds are being used, a "market failure" has to be proven to justify state intervention, so that's why business parks are last in the queue not first. On speeds, there's a floor of 28Mbit/s but businesses can pay extra for faster speeds. Superfast Cymru is being delivered as wholesale with individual ISPs providing services (in the same way as energy companies).

It's not just rural areas suffering from poor broadband speeds. Some parts of Cardiff just a
stone's throw from the Assembly are "not spots" but are ineligible for Superfast Cymru.
(Pic : The Guardian)

Eluned Parrott AM (Lib Dem, South Wales Central) said the programme was a lot like "trying to hit a moving target" as things change quickly and it needs to be future-proofed (clip). Eluned suggested that mobile technology might not be suitable due to poor mobile coverage in parts of Wales, as well as planning issues surrounding mobile phone masts. She added that parts of Cardiff, including her own regional office in Roath, have connection issues meaning her staff are "devastated" that they can't watch her on Senedd TV. One other issue raised was the fact many new-build estates aren't covered by Superfast Cymru because despite the lines being installed, BT's broadband department haven't been told and don't realise the new homes exist.

Julie said future-proofing was one of the reasons for the claw back agreement so BT and the Welsh Government can keep re-investing. Following meetings with mobile operators, she expects widespread 4G coverage "within the next couple of years", though planning issues are very complicated and need discussions with the UK Government. She finished by saying that BT aren't the only company rolling out infrastructure improvements as there are other commercial operators – like Virgin Media - doing so too.

Russell George AM (Con, Montgomery) asked two questions (clip) : why information on specific premises falling outside the scope of Superfast Cymru wasn't available? And what the budget was to market superfast broadband? Julie explained that information was based on postcodes, not individual addresses, and £1.5million was available for marketing.

Elin Jones AM (Plaid, Ceredigion) said "no other issue causes as much frustration in Ceredigion" than poor broadband (clip). She was pleased the website was being updated, but wanted to know if premises in her constituency would be updated by 2016, or whether they would be part of the additional 45,000 premises set to be upgraded by 2017?

The Deputy Minister said 41.35% of premises have been completed in Ceredigion, so BT weren't even halfway yet. The website would be updated to include accurate information based on distance from cabinets.

As a former Deputy Minister for Skills & Technology, Jeff Cuthbert AM (Lab, Caerphilly) said he was familiar with the problems (clip), such as trying to locate cabinets in urban areas. He asked for confirmation that "disadvantaged communities aren't overlooked" by the scheme?

Julie said a successor to the Communities 2.0 programme is up and running, and the Welsh Government were working to ensure no communities are left out.

Kirsty Williams AM (Lib Dem, Brecon & Radnor), wanted to ensure the information (clip) on the website is "useful" as she's struggled to get answers on from BT on behalf of constituents, but in particular Dan yr Ogof Showcaves, who developed an app on the presumption that broadband would be available this year, but will be delayed until 2016. She also said cabinet upgrades had led to poorer internet speeds in some areas.

The Deputy Minister pledged to look into problems as a worse performance was certainly not intended. She agreed on the need for useful information, and as the scheme progresses it's becoming easier to provide information based on distance from a cabinet. Julie added that BT sometimes had to deal with situations beyond their control and can't always give accurate timescales for broadband upgrades. However, she's asked BT to be more specific when telling the public about difficulties they're having (i.e planning delays).

Janet Finch-Saunders AM (Con, Aberconwy) asked what steps were being taken to consult with the community, citing an example where residents in Dolwyddelan (clip) were quoted £2,000 by BT to move a new cabinet to another location as it was close to community planters and chapel gates. The Deputy Minister said she couldn't comment on individual cases.

Finally, Mark Isherwood AM (Con, North Wales) asked (clip) about superfast broadband for rural schools and whether rural schools are a priority, to which the Deputy Minister said primary schools aren't part of Superfast Cymru but a separate programme.

Will widespread instrastructure upgrades lead to better offers for consumers?
(Pic : recombu.com)

Superfast Cymru isn't without critics – in particular the Pirate Party (Pirate Party : Hoising the Jolly Roger above Wales), who've criticised the technology and high prices of superfast services.

Broadly-speaking I'd say it's a good idea, though I'd share concerns over whether this will be outdated 10-15 years down the line when, presumably, G.fast becomes the norm. The clawback agreement is, therefore, a sensible part of the scheme.

The issue is take-up. 22% doesn't sound that impressive on the face of it (though I was actually surprised it's that high). Households and businesses have to actually sign up to the superfast (often advertised as "fibre") services which come at a premium, sometimes being three times more expensive than cable broadband, the latter of which might come free with a subscription media package.

Hopefully once the infrastructure is in place the ISP subscription costs will come down, and I'm going to presume cost and usage limits are currently the biggest barrier to take-up.

Read More

Westminster 2015 : The Post-Mortem

Why are we looking at five more Tory years when we could've had this?
(Pic : Wales Online)

In one final visit to the 2015 House of Commons election, it's worth looking in more detail at last Thursday's results in Wales - considering why it happened and what can be learned from it.

Read More

Westminster 2015 : The Results

(Pic : Reuters via The Guardian)

First thing's first - I can rip my crap predictions up. Predicting is a mug's game as the polling companies are finding out to their cost. As has been said elsewhere, it's the most surprising result in a UK election since 1992, even 1945.

Read More

Westminster 2015 : Predictions

Um....

Tonight's the night, so it's time for the real fun to begin....

Read More

Westminster 2015 : The Welsh Battlegrounds

Which Welsh seats are going to be keenly-fought over?
(Pic : BBC)

As we're now into the last fortnight of the 2015 election campaign, it's time to take a closer look at where in Wales the fight for votes might be keenest, and which seats might be more likely to change hands.

Read More

Flying Doctors set to take to the sky

It's happened! It's actually happened! A common sense, practical
idea on ambulance services from the Welsh Government.
(Pic : EMRTS Cymru)

After a longer than usual Easter recess, the National Assembly has returned for summer term. Although the election will be on everyone's minds, it's important to remember that AMs still exist, and I'm sure many of you are as bored of the election as I am by now.

Read More

Making tracks in west Wales

There are growing calls to reopen a railway between Aberystwyth and Carmarthen.
(Pic : BBC Wales)

The railway between Carmarthen and Aberystwyth closed to passengers in 1964-65, with freight services - which still ran along part of the line - withdrawn in the early 1970s. As a result, any attempt to travel between Carmarthenshire and Ceredigion by rail now means a torturous journey via Shrewsbury, Hereford, Cardiff and Swansea.

At the moment, Carmarthen-Lampeter-Aberystwyth is served by the T1 TrawsCymru long-distance bus service, which has been criticised for excessively long journey times. Despite the existence of this service, there has been talk of reopening the line for several years (related 2009 post from Syniadau with a video showing one option for the route), but a formal campaign – Traws Link Cymru – was formed in the last year or so to lobby in favour of the project (website with project overview here).

The campaign is gathering pace, with a official statements of support from : Carmarthenshire Council, numerous community and town councils along the former route and a large number of AMs and MPs. Campaigners are also set to meet the Welsh Secretary, Stephen Crabb MP (Con, Preseli Pembs.), at some point. A (relatively) well-attended public meeting was held earlier this month, with plans for further activities in the near future.

Simon Thomas AM (Plaid, Mid & West Wales) held a short debate in the National Assembly on this issue back in March 2014 (below). Meanwhile, Carwyn Jones has expressed his tacit support for the principle of the project during First Minister's Questions (I remember him saying it at least once but can't remember precisely when, so don't hold me to that). He gave no firm commitment for reasons which will become obvious.

An Irish Case Study

Ireland's Western Rail Corridor is a similar project, but
is it an appropriate direct comparison?
(Pic : paulsalveson.org.uk)

Comparisons have been drawn to the Western Railway Corridor in the Republic of Ireland, which is a proposal to link Sligo and Limerick along Ireland's west coast. At the moment, all lines lead to Dublin in the same way Welsh railways go east-west. A section enabling trains to travel between Galway and Limerick opened in 2010 at a cost of around €107million (£84million at 2015 prices). The total cost of reopening the line to/from Sligo was, in 2004, estimated to be around €366million (£286million [2015]).

Since reopening, there's been criticism of low passenger numbers between Galway and Limerick (Galway alone is larger than Carmarthen, Lampeter and Aberystwyth combined, while Limerick is about twice the size of Llanelli). The service is subsidised by the Irish Government, with cheap online fares and tax incentives to encourage people to buy season tickets - but it's right to point out that service frequencies are very low indeed with maybe no more than 5 trains a day in each direction.

The crucial difference between Aber-Carms and the Western Corridor section is that, in Ireland's case, large sections of the track were already there and were used as a freight line. All the Irish Government needed to do was (re)build the infrastructure for passenger services (stations, improved track etc.). So the Western Corridor is more comparable to the reopening of the Vale of Glamorgan and Ebbw Vale lines.

Aber-Carms would be a major engineering project above and beyond that of the Borders Line in Scotland, and would arguably be the most extensive reopening of a railway on the island of Great Britain since the Beeching cuts. The old alignment is just over 90km long (56miles), and almost all of it has been pulled up apart from the Gwili railway on the outskirts of Carmarthen.

The Possible Route

Click to enlarge
(Pic : Adapted from Google Earth)

I would guess stations would/could be built at Glangwili Hospital, Bronwydd, Pencader, Llanybydder, Lampeter, Tregaron, Llanilar and Llanfairian. Some of the smaller stops would presumably be request stops like those on the Heart of Wales line.

The Benefits

Linking three (maybe eventually four) university towns along the western coast could boost economic,
social and research ties, helping to rebalance the Welsh economy away from the M4 corridor.
(Pic : The Telegraph)

The obvious one - it makes it a lot easier to get to Aberystwyth by public transport from the south and vice versa (Swansea, Cardiff and London) whilst reconnecting a large part of Carmarthenshire and Ceredigion to the rail network. Considering the relatively poor state of north-south road links in west Wales, journey times are likely to be competetive with road.

The catchment area, although rural, will be physically large with great opportunities to provide park and rides as well as linking with local bus services. Public transport provision is often poor in rural areas, so encouraging people out of their cars there is often ignored, as the emphasis is usually focused on urban areas. Reopening the line would have a knock-on positive impact on pollution and accident rates, with the A44 between Aberystwyth and Llangurig being the most dangerous road in the country and the A487 not faring much better.

Creating "commuter villages" in and around the three larger towns – Aberystwyth, Lampeter and Carmarthen – might spread out development and enable these villages to retain some of their local services like pubs and schools.

If this were combined with a Bangor-Porthmadog link and a re-engineering of Dovey Junction it would eventually connect four university towns. This would guarantee minimum passenger numbers, but also develop economic and academic links right along the west coast to compete with the "city universities".

In the long, long, long term, reopening this line could enable serious consideration being given to reconnecting Newcastle Emlyn, Aberaeron and Cardigan to the rail network.

The Challenges

Do not think for one second that this is going to be a simple case of lobbying
for funds. There are serious challenges facing this campaign that need to be overcome.
(Pic : Network Rail)

Reinstating the old route – Most of the former route is development-free but there are areas where the route has been built on, mainly for homes or cycle paths. The route can be engineered to avoid these areas, but the old route will have been the most logical path in the first place (short of radically new alignments). This is down to the shortsightedness of planning authorities. Though there's a bit more protection for former railways nowadays, it's too late for this project.

Farm access and (negative) environmental impact – The former route is littered with crossings to and from farms. Network Rail are supposed to be phasing out level crossings, as they're not popular with transport unions and are a safety hazard. I don't think they'll take kindly to including so many unmanned crossings. They might have to be replaced by bridges, which is an added expense.

Reopening a railway may not be associated with environmental damage, but obviously there would be as the route crosses or passes near environmentally-sensitive areas.

The Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) – My personal opinion is that regardless of fiscal tests, as many former railways should be reopened for its own sake where practical (before I'm accused of being a buzzkill).Unfortunately, this is the primary reason why it won't happen.

The political will is there, and I suspect if all of the trackbed were still in place Welsh Government backing for the project would be stronger (and the price tag would probably be no more than £100-150million).

A full CBA (or cost-benefit ratio) usually costs around £20,000-30,000. If the ratio on return of investment is below 2:1 (for every £1 spent, there's a £2 economic return), public authorities won't consider it "high value". That's very technocratic, but it's supposed to prevent the creation of white elephants and discourage "pork barrel spending" , even if at the same time it puts a set of concrete shoes on socially-important projects like this.

A potential price tag of £650million has been bandied about, so this would have to (theoretically) have a wider economic impact of at least ~£1billion to get the levels of return on investment necessary to be approved.

Taking into consideration the relatively small catchment area (population wise) and likely low passenger numbers, the Carms-Aber rail link will fail any CBA instantly (as would my idea of reopening the Mid Wales line). You can have as much heavyweight political support as you want, but these tests determine whether big projects go ahead or not.

AMs and other senior politicians should be well aware of this, but they're not in a position to quibble (because they're pathologically unable to tell the truth and say "no" during an election year) so I'll have to play "the bad guy" for them.

Service levels – It's too early to say what sort of service levels people could expect if it were reopened. You would presume the service would mainly run as a shuttle between Carmarthen and Aberystwyth (due to lack of space on the south Wales mainline) with a few direct trains each day further beyond – probably to Swansea and/or Cardiff (which would make reopening the Swansea District Line for Cardiff-bound trains a higher priority in itself).

The old track alignment between Llanybydder and Strata Florida is remarkably straight and could enable high running speeds. This is offset by some very difficult terrain between Carmarthen and Pencader – though a diversion via Alltwalis has been mentioned. If the line were designed with an average running speed of between 60-70mph then it's possible to get the journey time down to nearly an hour (making Aber-Swansea ~1hr50mins, Aber-Cardiff ~2hrs30mins), but that requires a high quality route that will be expensive to engineer.

Click to enlarge
(Pic : Adapted from Google Earth)

Getting in/out of Aberystwyth (above) – If the economic value for money is the biggest socio-political challenge, this is the single biggest engineering challenge - though there are others elsewhere in the form of reinstated bridges and tunnels. The approach from the south around Pen Dinas and through Llanfairian (above) has been completely built on. The cheapest/easiest option would be to stop the line short of Aberystwyth and build a park and ride, linked to the town centre/railway station by bus. That would defeat the purpose of the rail link though as it would be inconvenient to change modes of transport.

Another option would be to use the path of the Vale of Rheidol narrow gauge railway for a few miles, then create a link to the "main route" south to Carmarthen. This would be rather expensive due to the landscape it would have to cross which requires several deep cuttings and/or short tunnels. It would provide an opportunity to build a station serving the Glanyafon Industrial Estate and with a footpath/cycle path it could link directly to Coleg Ceredigion - but at the expense of stations in Llanfairian and Llanilar.

A further option would be to tunnel under Penparcau, which is certainly doable but depending on the construction method and underlying geology would likely cost £50-60million on its own. This would probably be the best option, but I'm no engineer.

One of the only other options left, therefore, is to CPO the former route, which will mean demolishing several buildings and possibly more than 100 homes (because several blocks of flats have been built on the former line). This means legal challenges, local opposition and a significant additional cost. An alternative would be to allow some limited street-running, but I'm presuming this will be a heavy rail project.

You could create a new route following a ridge around Pen Dinas and going through a caravan park instead (perhaps on a viaduct), but that would be a significant engineering outlay like the tunnel.

Read More

A oes heddwch?

The Temple of Peace is more likely to be used for exams or to film Doctor Who nowadays,
but will its original vision find new life one day in a Wales Peace Institute?
(Pic : BBC Wales)

On Wednesday, the National Assembly debated a Petitions Committee report into a proposed Welsh Peace Institute. The report itself (pdf) was published in October 2013.

The original petition calling for a Wales Peace Institute received over 1,500 signatures, though it took four years from receipt of the petition to get this far. In the process, the Committee received more than 50 representations to their consultation, which they claim is the most responses they've ever had.

The Committee made only one recommendation - that the Welsh Government work to bring interested parties together to flesh out what such an institute would do and how it would work.

The Report's Findings

The report cites three other examples of "Peace Institutes" across Europe, the
Flemish one being all the more poignant considering the anniversary this year.
(Pic : centenarynews.com)

The petitioners provided some outline of what they wanted an institute to do, backed by Plaid Cymru MEP, Jill Evans.

They envisage :

• A "relationship" with the National Assembly in order to judge how their actions impact human rights, in addition to Welsh and UK defence and foreign policy. They want the institute to become a "non- partisan authority on peace issues".
• A single reference point for information and education about peace, conflict resolution, disarmament etc. and developing links with other peace institutes and international agencies (like the UN) which deal with human rights.
• Freedom to seek independent funding by commissioning research, as well as becoming a consultee with respect to the National Curriculum.

The petitioners explicitly say they're not expecting state funding, they simply want a look into how practical it would be to set the institute up. The Committee say that without that extra detail they found it hard to come to a conclusion, and could've contributed to the length of time it took to get through the Assembly.

The Welsh Government's initial response focused on the academic side of things, like university research and collaboration. The petitioners saw the proposed institute's role being much broader, taking research into "peace studies" out into the public sphere.
The report cites three examples of other "Peace Institutes".

• Flemish Peace Institute – Established in 2004 after powers relating to licensing the arms trade were devolved to the Flemish Parliament (could you imagine Westminster doing that!?). The remit was broad and covered international relations, polemology ("war studies") and peace in society. The Institute is fully financed by the Flemish Government and can also seek external funding.
• International Catalan Institute for Peace – Established via a Catalan law in 2007 following a public campaign. Its remit broadly covers conflict resolution and research relating to it. It's fully funded by the Catalan Government and has to publish an annual report to the Catalan Parliament. It's governing body includes Catalan MPs.
• Peace Research Institute Frankfurt – Established by the Landesrat (State Parliament) of Hesse in 1970, its funding comes partly from both the Hesse State Government and the German Federal Government. It undertakes research and practical work, and is the "leading adviser in Germany" to the German Government on some aspects of policy.

The Committee say there are three main things they can take from the other Peace Institutes.

• Political Independence – Many of the institutes stressed the importance of being arms length of their respective governments, but despite this there have been suspicions that such organisations are "leftist" (in my opinion, those suspicions are sometimes valid). This was overcome by trying to include more conservative politicians in discussions and undertaking academically rigorous research.
• Funding – All three stress that structural funding is more important receiving funding on a project-by-project basis. The Frankfurt institute even suggests funding could be based on an endowment (donations by individuals to a trust, with or without restrictions on how it could be used) in order to ensure independence. The Committee say it would be "difficult to assess how much a Welsh Peace Institute would cost", and that the Welsh Government would be reluctant to foot the bill.
• Regional Parliaments – All three were established by regional parliaments, which aren't responsible for defence or foreign affairs. So there shouldn't be any reason Wales couldn't establish such an institute either, in principle, as the same applies here.

Many of the consultation responses came from individuals and religious groups - Welsh non-conformist churches have a history of pacifism, for example. Many organisations believe a peace institute would be "desirable" – including the Welsh Refugee Council, their reason being that it would provide an independent voice for refugees and asylum seekers.

However, Higher Education Wales rejected the idea, saying many universities already have research programmes into peace that were "held in high regard".

The Committee concluded that although they can't map out what such an institute would look like, they "support it in principle", believing it could help "add value to the Assembly's work and wider civic society".

The Assembly Debate

The Welsh Government rejected the idea of a Welsh Peace Institute, but
broadly supports the concept of peace within public policy.
(Pic : Flakt Woods)

A large chunk of the Assembly debate itself (available here) went over many of the points raised in the report, so there's no need to go into much detail.

Christine Chapman AM (Lab, Cynon Valley) said that while peace, human rights and things like foreign policy aren't devolved, there's room for the Assembly and Welsh Government to get involved in this. She said that there's no need to "replicate exactly what they (other peace institutes) do", though there's no reason peace couldn't become a "cross-cutting theme" in Welsh public policy.

There was lots of support, including from (as you might expect) Bethan Jenkins AM (Plaid, South Wales West), Julie Morgan AM (Lab, Cardiff North) and Simon Thomas AM (Plaid, Mid & West Wales) – the latter needing some help in the cause of peace at the moment.

Support also came from unexpected quarters – Janet Finch-Saunders AM (Con, Aberconwy) for instance, who recalled hopes that the horrors of the First World War would create a culture of peace that, as we now know with the benefit of hindsight, didn't materialise.

There were dissenting voices. Nick Ramsey AM (Con, Monmouth) said he didn't support a Welsh Peace Institute, though – slightly strangely – the rest of his speech set out a backhanded case for one, and that "any discussion about peace is a good one to have in the long term".

Minister for Communities & Tackling Poverty, Jeff Cuthbert (Lab, Caerphilly), responded on behalf of the Welsh Government by saying any further work should be "undertaken by an independent body", effectively rejecting the Committee's recommendation, albeit not rejecting the idea of peace playing a role within public policy completely.

This echoes the Welsh Government's official response (pdf). The First Minister said despite the fact he "wholeheartedly supports the promotion of peace on our society", there was too little detail as to how such an institute would work, noting that the petitioners hadn't agreed on what an institute would do, so the case for it was "inconclusive".

He also believes any further work needs to be done by the petitioners themselves – not on behalf of the Welsh Government - as any formal Welsh Government involvement could give the petitioners false hope that an institute could be established.

Peace in our time?

There's a long tradition of pacifism amongst radical and religious groups in
Wales. But this idea looks as though it's - barring more detailed
proposals - going to rest for now.
(Pic : indymedia.org)

It's not over, but it could be a while before anything gets done. I don't want to stick the boot in, but this account from Caerau Greens perhaps indicates the size of task ahead, as there appears to have been some sort of disagreement between the alliance of peace groups which backed the petition in the first place.

Any further work will probably have to be undertaken by the Assembly's Cross-Party Group on Human Rights in order for a serious proposal to be put forward.

Arguments that resort to violence as the first option are almost always on shaky ground, and far from being a sign of weakness, seeking peaceful resolutions to difficult problems is often the harder option and possibly, in some cases, a sign of strength.

However, the very concept of a world free of violence is depressingly out of reach.Violence is something that happens, is a natural behaviour and is sometimes necessary.

• See also : Defending Wales Parts 1-10

I'd support an independent Wales being a "neutral state" (more here) – which is very different from a pacifist state - oppose NATO membership (for practical rather than ideological reasons), and believe Wales should only get involved in various adventures abroad either in self-defence, as part of a mutual defence agreement, or under an internationally-agreed mandate - after all attempts at negotiation have failed.

Any future Welsh troops should be taught "soft" military skills - like dealing with natural disasters, disarmament, negotiation skills and humanitarian issues - as much as "hard" military skills.

If Wales is going to make a serious go at this, it should be linked to a university/universities and produce credible academic research – not just on international relations, but things closer to home like domestic abuse, alcohol-related violence, extremism, cults, football hooliganism, Carmarthenshire Council, organised crime and bullying.

That could be very useful for the Welsh Government, AMs, social services, schools and the police. Some Welsh universities are already doing that – Aberystwyth for the international side of things, Cardiff for things like alcohol-related violence, and Prifysgol Cneifiwr for Carmarthenshire.

A Peace Institute could bring all that together under one umbrella and link it to wider civil society instead of it being stuck in an academic bubble. I think that's what the petitioners were aiming for.

I have to agree with the First Minister though that this needs a clear "vision" to be credible, instead of becoming a "club" for committed activist groups who are perhaps just as motivated by politics and individual causes as promoting peace generally.

An interesting and novel idea, but the case perhaps just wasn't strong enough.

Read More

Williams Commission : The Fallout

What's long been seen as a no-brainer reorganisation increasingly
looks like it's going to cause the Welsh Government headaches.
(Pic : Wales Online)

Yesterday, the National Assembly held the first of what's likely to be many debates on the Williams Commission report – which I covered last week - into the future of public service delivery, and possible reorganisation of Welsh local authorities.

It's only part of the public discussion that's continuing into the report's recommendations, and it's certainly generated several talking points.

The Assembly

Although most AMs who spoke did so in favour of change, it looks like the Welsh
Government will have trouble convincing their own AMs, let alone the opposition.
(Pic : National Assembly)

The debate started with the First Minister, who said some of the Commission's findings will make "uncomfortable reading for local government, for us (AMs) and for other public services in Wales." He emphasised that the report underlined that delivery was patchy in addition specific problems with long-term finance *insert obligatory Westminster cuts reference here* .

He said the report was "never just about mergers in local government" but believes this reorganisation "will be different" (compared to 1996). As Welsh Labour leader he says his party will be consulted on the proposals and a Welsh Government stance will be reached by the end of March. Though he later said "the time frame for....potential legislation" needs to be in place by April.

Shadow Local Government Minister, Janet Finch-Saunders (Con, Aberconwy), criticised the timetable, and although she welcomed the Commission itself, called for strong leadership from the First Minister to see it though. She raised concerns about uncertainty facing local government workers.

Plaid Cymru Leader, Leanne Wood (Plaid, South Wales Central), welcomed the wider work into public service delivery, even though the debate had focused on "lines on maps". She wondered why the debate was held "now" instead of on a cross-party motion that would have the backing of Welsh Government and Assembly. She said reforms "must....aim to improve public services" and that the last reorganisation was "built on whole scale horse-trading" that mustn't be repeated.

The Lib Dems Local Government spokesperson, Peter Black AM (Lib Dem, South Wales West), dismissed the idea that the report's recommendations "should be accepted wholesale", and criticised the fact there was no (political) representation of opposition parties on the Commission (there were, however, members closely associated with parties, like Nerys Evans and Nick Bourne).

He believed the terms of reference were flawed, highlighting that it didn't look at health or the local government voting system. He also criticised the language of the report – "a bureaucratic nightmare written in consultant speak".

Lynne Neagle AM (Lab, Torfaen) rejected the idea of "tinkering with the electoral system". Although she accepted change, she believed concerns about the cost of reorganisation should be listened to, and the Assembly was "rushing headlong into (reorganisation)....in order to meet an arbitrary Easter deadline for which there appears no rational explanation ".

Russell George AM (Con, Montgomery) raised concerns about the specific proposal to merge Powys Council with Powys Health Board due to some services being commissioned from neighbouring health boards.

Leighton Andrews AM (Lab, Rhondda) said he was sympathetic to the Commission's recommendations, unsurprisingly making the link between scale and education failures. Although he agrees with the need for "smaller, stronger councils", he believes the role of local government wasn't explored in enough detail, neither were alternative forms of service delivery.

His comments were partly echoed by Mick Antoniw AM (Lab, Pontypridd), who also questioned the wisdom of merging two poor local authorities (RCT + Merthyr) and said the role of community councils needed to be discussed.

Rhodri Glyn Thomas AM (Plaid, Carms E & Dinefwr), said the First Minister's statement was "contradictory" because he expects the opposition to respond to the report without himself offering a response on behalf of the Welsh Government.

In his closing remarks, the First Minister rejected Peter Black's assertion that opposition parties were being "forced to back" the Commission's report, and instead believed AMs would've wanted to debate the issue early. He said it was "preposterous" there were 22 planning authorities, local education authorities etc. wondering if one or two of the LEAs "would ever come out of special measures".

He agreed with Leanne Wood that there shouldn't be any "horse-trading" on wards, boundaries etc. saying it might cause the process to unravel.

The First Minister finished by warning AMs that the longer the process continued the more uncertainty it could cause local authorities, especially in recruiting senior officers.

When it came to a vote on the motion and amendments, AMs - except those from Plaid and the Lib Dems - rejected the idea of changing the local election voting system. However, they supported an amendment calling for a reduction in the number of local councillors.

Too Soon?

Although there were Q&As in previous sessions, the fact they held the debate just over a week after the report's publication is unusual. Plenary debates on committee reports, for example, are usually up to a month after publication. This was significantly more complicated than anything that's come out of an Assembly committee.

Maybe Carwyn Jones though he was doing AMs a favour by offering an early debate, and he hints at that. However, I would be surprised if AMs and their support staff made it through the full report and fully-digested it to the levels expected of a professional legislator this soon.

Before I'm accused of hypocrisy, I can base blog posts off the summary because I'm not paid large sums of money to go through it line by line. I'm "allowed" to miss bits and pieces here and there because I don't have any credentials or responsibilities. AMs can't.

As a result, it'll take some convincing for me to believe this was a fully-informed debate, and it looks like an attempt to rush things.

Local Government & Public Bodies

It appears local authorities are waiting for the Welsh Government
to make the first move, though support for reform appears lukewarm.
(Pic : BBC Wales)

Many of the current 22 local authorities are – as far as I can tell – still "digesting the full report" (or using it for post-digestion purposes) which makes the Assembly debate timing even odder.

The broad vibe I'm getting is that they "cautiously welcome" some but not all headline recommendations, and are waiting for the Welsh Government to make a formal response.

I know Bridgend Council circulated statements to reassure staff that the reorganisation process is at an early stage (English : No jobs are currently under threat). I'm sure other local authorities have done the same.

Some immediate concerns have been flagged up. Vale of Glamorgan Council Leader, Neil Moore (Labour), pleaded to the Welsh Government not to merge his authority with Cardiff. Ceredigion Council's Leader, Ellen ap Gwynn (Plaid), questioned the Easter deadline, while her Chief Executive expressed concerns about insecurity amongst workers.

On Monday, the Daily Post reported a campaign's been started for Anglesey (I don't know if its by Paul "The Druid" Williams) to remain apart from Gwynedd due to concerns about a possible Bangor-centric local authority, with Rhun ap Iorwerth AM (Plaid, Ynys Môn) calling for "local voices to be heard".

The WLGA are also "digesting the report", but judging by their evidence to the Commission, there are strong signs the WLGA might oppose full-blown mergers on cost grounds, instead seeking more formal collaboration between the current authorities.

As far as I can tell there hasn't yet been any formal response from fire authorities, national parks, police forces or local health boards – all of which could be affected by the Commission's proposals too.

The Bay Bubble

Most of the civil society responses have come via Click on Wales.

First off, there's an article from former Cardiff Council Conservative leader, John Winterson Richards, which called for better leadership not better structures. He believes the Welsh Government and Assembly haven't applied enough pressure on councils, leading to entrenched poor leadership, which he partly blames on Labour's hegemony. He's not the first to question the reported financial savings from reorganisation either.

The Electoral Reform Society's Stephen Brooks summarises a series of articles from AMs, local government and academics – Catch 22 (pdf). He wonders if proposed reorganisations might reduce local democracy, as larger authorities might be too distant from their communities. He effectively questions if local government is 100% trusted to deliver certain services, and that a centralising technocracy has developed in Cathays Park since devolution.

John Osmond offered a comprehensive summary of the Commission report itself. This was followed by a Gareth Hughes article, which questioned whether the process will be completed before 2018, due to big political differences in the Assembly about the way forward.

Next, there was an article from director of Co-production Wales, Ruth Dineen. I consider myself a reasonably intelligent person, and I'm more than used to jargon in the sciences. I've often believed it's harder to describe complicated issues in layman's terms than through public sector management-speak. Though if I'm completely honest I barely understood a word of it and wonder if it (and a few of the responses) was a subtle satire of the Commission report itself.

I think what Ruth was trying to say was that there's an opportunity to rethink how local services are provided. Users and other members of the community could volunteer to run and design local government services alongside professionals. That's "radically different" to what we're used to, and a model used in places like The Netherlands and closer to home via things like timebanks.

Elsewhere, there's an article from Phil Parry's ITK (to use footballing terms), Daran Hill, on Wales Eye which further explores some of the political machinations. We all realise Labour are probably in for a tough time from their local government ranks, and that the Conservatives are almost certainly going to oppose reorganisation if it's not proven to save money in the long run. Daran believes that Labour could reach an accommodation with Plaid (or the Lib Dems), but it's likely to come down to the issue of the voting system.

ITV Wales' Adrian Masters says there are tentative steps towards some sort of deal, with talk of meetings between the First Minister and the opposition party leaders being arranged for next week - again Adrian says a deal might hang on proportional representation.

On the subject of voting systems, over on the Elections in Wales blog, Prof. Roger Scully described the current method of electing local councillors as a candidate for "The Worst Electoral System in the World". He says the chance to change the electoral system at local government level would be a "valuable reform", giving a nudge and a wink towards Single Transferable Vote (STV) - as used in Scotland.

Last but not least, former Bridgend Council leader, Jeff Jones, launched a broadside at the Commission and its proposals in The Western Mail. He described the recommendations as a "quick fix solution" that would create local authorities with entrenched economic under-performance (like the proposal for the Gwent Valleys) and lead to big redundancy pay outs for senior officers.

It's 11 weeks or so until Easter, the deadline suddenly looming an awful lot closer.

Read More

Williams Commission : Council shake-up revealed

Arrivederci, Anglesey! Bon voyage, Bridgend!
Local government in Wales is due to undergo reforms following the
publication of the findings of the Williams Commission.
(Pic : Bevan Foundation)

It was the worst-kept secret in Welsh politics, but....

Yesterday, the first of the "big commission reports" of 2014 was released. Chaired by former NHS Wales Chief Executive, Paul Williams, the Commission on Public Service Governance and Delivery has proposed a near-halving of Welsh local authorities, an overhaul of management training in the Welsh public sector, and changes to some aspects of funding and scrutiny.

Local government reorganisation is something many have anticipated for a long time in their own nocturnal commissions; waking up at the very thought of it feeling all sticky and warm.

As regular readers will know, last year – about a month before the Williams Commission was established – I outlined my own thoughts on local government reform, coming up with :

• Scrapping community councils , replacing them with ~300 "cantrefi" run via a form of direct democracy.
• Bringing back up to 30 of the pre-1996 districts, granting them powers over "small ticket" local matters (development control, licensing, leisure etc.) and headed up by directly-elected mayors, in turn scrutinised by significantly smaller councils.
• The creation of at least 4 provincial/regional assemblies, with many public bodies - like local health boards - folded into them and made democratically accountable. They would take responsibility for running "big ticket" items like health services, policing (if devolved), strategic planning, fire services, social services, education, National Parks etc.

As the great and the good are now questioning the impact of the Commission's proposals -  whether it will disengage people from local democracy, and whether the proposed local authorities will be too large for local issues, but too small to cover health and education - it was a wasted effort, I suppose. I'm only a blogger, after all.
The full report is available here (pdf), but it's a whopper, coming in at over 350 pages. I'm basing most of this post off the summary report, which is "only" 105 pages long (pdf).

To the lay person, the report itself - even its summary - will be impenetrable, full of public sector buzzwords (step-change, sustainability, delivery, resilience, partnership, collaboration, tackle etc). I realise it was always going to be, though as a result this is a long post.

Before you complain or leave, summarising the review's details in 3,000-odd words this soon was hard work and nothing short of miraculous. Don't thank me all at once.

The Challenges

The review didn't stop and start at local councils, but
included other public bodies like local health boards and fire authorities.
(Pic : BBC Wales)

The Commission highlighted three key long-term challenges facing public services in Wales : austerity, demographic change (resulting in more people reliant on public services) and higher expectations from the public in terms of performance. They outline that there's an increasing "funding gap" that could last until the mid-2020s.

The Commission believe that to meet these challenges, and more, "some structural changes are....necessary and urgent. But they will achieve nothing without changes to governance, scrutiny, accountability" etc.

The first issue was complexity. If you want an idea of how complicated current governance arrangements are in Wales, take a look at the "accountability map" provided (pdf). They say this isn't "unique to Wales", and that new bodies have simply been created as new policies have developed. The Commission even suggest that some complexity is desirable in the public sector because some issues can't be contained within single organisations. I'd say it's because of managers and third sector empire building in an attempt to make themselves "indispensable", so I'm not convinced of that argument at all.

Next, there's the issues of scale. The Commission say there are 935 public sector organisations in Wales - listed here (pdf) - one for every 3,200 people. Smaller organisations are said to face greater risks and costs, though that has no bearing on performance. However, smaller local authorities have problems in capacity (lack of resources), are unable to attract higher-calibre managers, spend up to £50 per person more in some areas compared to a larger authority and are disproportionately affected by demographic changes (Anglesey and Monmouthshire picked out specifically).

On the issues of governance, scrutiny and service delivery, the Commission believe current systems neither provide enough internal challenge, or respond to citizen's voices. Citizens aren't strongly engaged in scrutiny (I wonder why), and there's a culture of defensiveness in the public sector.

Next, the Commission turns to issues of leadership and culture in public services. They say there's an urgent need for an overhaul of leadership in the public sector; both in producing managers who can deal with uncertainties and in terms of greater collective responsibility. They go as far as to suggest a "new type of leader is necessary", as current quality of leadership is inconsistent. There are also long standing problems with "silo working", parochialism, short-termism and lack of innovation (explored more in Wales : State of innovation?).

Finally there's perhaps the biggest issue of all - public service performance. The Commission believe performance is directly-related to all the other issues above, which creates a "public sector that's....not performing as well as it needs to." Performance is patchy and poor compared to countries of a similar size, with few improvements over time across education, health and social services. The Commission believe lessons should be learnt from services that have performed well – for example,  fire services and recycling, where Wales excels compared to the rest of the UK.

Their overall conclusions were summed up as :

• The Welsh public sector is too complex and crowded to cope with the pressures placed on it.
• Many public organisations in Wales are too small, placing them at severe risk of governance failure.
• Organisations are slow to respond to pressure for change, and internal governance arrangements are inadequate.
• The culture in the Welsh public sector isn't well-suited to face challenges.
• Public sector performance is "poor and patchy", and inadequate in the face of the big challenges ahead of it.

The Recommendations

"Scrutiny should be valued" was a key recommendation - a message
that falls on deaf ears in Welsh local government at present.
(Pic : Broken Barnet)

There were a total of 62 recommendations, which I'll summarise by theme.

Reducing Complexity

• Simplified funding arrangements - focusing on achieving outcomes, with funding based on whether policies actually deliver or not.
• Review legislation to ensure it streamlines public sector decision-making.
• Community Health Councils should ensure the concerns of patients are at the heart of governance, and should scrutinise objectively, with the Welsh Government expanding their remit to include advice and advocacy roles, reinforcing their independence from Local Health Boards.
• National Park Authorities should collaborate with each other, with the Welsh Government co-ordinating and providing national-level leadership. Local authority members to National Park Boards must represent wards within the National Parks.
• Fire Authorities should be reconstituted to scrutinise Chief Fire Officers, and the Chief Fire Officer should be legally responsibly for planning, managing and delivering fire services. Fire Authorities should also scrutinise joint-working between fire and ambulance services, raising the possibility of new bodies to scrutinise all emergency services – subject to devolution of the relevant powers.
• Local authorities and local health boards should prepare plans to integrate their services. Specifically, Powys Council and Powys Local Health Board should fully merge, with the Welsh Government legislating to bring that forward.
• The Welsh Government should legislate to merge Cadw and the Royal Commission on Ancient & Historical Monuments (recently rejected by the Culture Minister).

Increasing Scale and Capability

• Current local authorities should merge into larger units of either 10, 11 or 12 local authorities (I return to this later).
• Arrangements for mergers must be agreed by Easter 2014, with the process completed by 2017-18.
• Some community and town councils should be merged, while local authorities should adopt a neighbourhood management approach to identify and help deal with community issues.
• The Welsh Government and local authorities should review regional delivery of public services, and figure out which changes are no longer needed as a result of the recommendations above.
• The four education consortia should be aligned with the proposed local authorities.

Improving Governance, Scrutiny and Delivery

• Scrutiny should be valued by all people involved in public services – including officers and elected members. Decisions should be publicised clearly and invite scrutiny.
• Local government scrutiny committees should engage more with the public, including the co-option of people from advocacy groups.
• Auditors, inspectors, regulators etc. must report directly to the relevant scrutiny committee.
• Council Leaders, especially where it's unclear what they stand for (i.e. Carmarthenshire and Pembrokeshire style "Independents"), should produce a written manifesto and present it to the full council, with an annual statement of progress towards achieving its aims.
• The Welsh Government should review independent appointments to Local Health Boards by December 2014, while LHBs themselves should review their own scrutiny and governance arrangements.

Improving Leadership and Changing the Culture

• The Commission propose the Welsh Government establishment a public service leadership and development centre, owned by, and accountable too, the Welsh public sector as a whole, funded by contributions and charges.
• It should replace Academi Wales, be outside of the Welsh Government, would "bring together the best leadership programmes" and provide training. It should be established by the end of 2014-15.
• The Welsh Government should consider the creation of an Appointments Commission to fill senior public sector leadership positions.

Improving Performance

• Performance measures should be based on effectiveness of policies/outcomes, not on efficiency of services. Performance criteria should be clearer and more distinct.
• Performance should be driven forward – based on the success of recycling – by changing delivery practices and through public awareness campaigns.
• All public bodies should engage with staff to aim for continuous improvement and the intelligent use of information.

The Commission recommend the Welsh Government start work on addressing these issues "immediately", lasting 3-5 years, and in collaboration with public bodies. They also recommend the Welsh Government maintains a register of all public bodies in Wales.

The Main Event : Local Authority Reorganisation

Many people might question the need to reform local authorities, especially as other countries have smaller local authorities which produce better outcomes. The Commission justified their proposed changes to local authorities, in response to that, because "policies differ from one country to the next".

If I'm honest, that was a little non-sensical and the Commission didn't properly explore the reasons why different local government arrangements work. I bet they didn't because if they did, two-tier authorities would come out on top. That would be a little "too radical".

As for the proposed changes themselves, the new local authorities should be co-terminus with (can't cross) :

• the European Union NUTS2 regions (East Wales & West Wales and Valleys) due to how EU funds are distributed – the gerrymandered and artificial "Rich Wales" and "Poor Wales".
• local health board areas
• police force areas
• the four education consortia areas

Here's a map of the proposed 12 local authorities, with their populations as listed in the full report :

The headline recommendation for local authority reorganisation
- to be in palce by 2018
(Click to enlarge)

Apart from a merged Gwynedd & Anglesey and a stand-alone Carmarthenshire they would be identical to the EU's NUTS3 areas.

The Commission included a scenario of 11 local authorities – where either Carmarthenshire, Ceredigion and Pembrokeshire merge; or Bridgend, Swansea and NPT. A scenario of 10 local authorities includes both those mergers.

If the headline option of 12 local authorities is implemented, and based on a presumption that a cap of 75 councillors would be in place, the total number of councillors in Wales would fall by 370 to 894 (p320 of the full report).

A few of these proposed local authorities cross fire authority boundaries, especially in the Swansea area (NPT is Mid & West Wales, Bridgend is South Wales). So fire authorities, regional transport consortia and police forces would probably need  moderate reorganisations too.

The inclusion of Carmarthenshire as a stand alone authority seems odd (more from Y Cneifiwr). Pembrokeshire-Carmarthenshire would be a more natural merger - if unpleasant for anyone living in either Democratic People's Republic - or even the proposed reincarnation of Dyfed.

We can now look forward to the bun fights over where they should be based and what they should be called. That's unless they're going to do something monumentally stupid, like moving council meetings between two or three grand, fully-maintained civic centres in a manner as wasteful as the European Parliament.

Then there's all the other "little problems" to iron out :

• Council tax and business rate arrangements, plus the formula used to determine the annual settlement. An equalised NPT-Bridgend council tax bill could mean a tax rise for Bridgend residents and a tax cut for NPT residents (p320 of the full report).
• How much will it cost? The WLGA say £200million, with a potential 15,000 redundancies. The Williams Commission say £100million, with savings of between £60-80million per year afterwards. That's before you add issues relating to pensions and job evaluation.
• The status of local development plans and housing projections. There's good cause to rip both up as the dynamic would change dramatically.
• The status of existing joint arrangements and collaboration, like between Bridgend and Vale of Glamorgan for civil parking enforcement, and possibly other things in future.
• The certain need for another local authority ward boundary review and significant reduction in the number of councillors, plus dealing with the opposition - from within Labour in particular - this will create.
• Will it actually improve services? We don't have a clue, and won't know until afterwards.

There's no problem with 12 unitary authorities, as I see it, providing there was; a proportional voting system for local elections; a review of council procedures and practices to ensure service delivery is scrutinised properly; and the option of directly-elected mayors to provide more accountable leadership and replace chief executives. We didn't get any of that, so there are issues with these proposals - speaking personally - but they'll have to do.

Also, it'll be politically difficult to get this process completed by 2018.

I doubt every AM will agree on this for a start. It looks like the Welsh Conservatives are leaning towards opposing this if it costs a significant sum of money (notwithstanding the fact they'd never run a Welsh local authority alone again under these boundaries). Plaid Cymru and the Lib Dems are both cautious and lukewarm, while former Swansea Council leader, Mike Hedges AM (Lab, Swansea East), has often spoken against reorganisation. That's before you factor in councillors too. Angry letters from Blaenau Gwent inbound.

The familiar droning chorus of the good ol' Welsh moan at any change to the status quo has already begun, while this will inevitably cause a period of uncertainty for local government employees - precisely what they don't need right now.Meanwhile, getting local authorities to agree on mergers by this Easter seems optimistic, bordering on an attempt to rush things - which would be dangerous. That's unless some of this was agreed informally beforehand and the whole process was used to support a pre-determined conclusion. Nah, that wouldn't happen in Wales, would it?

Wales being Wales, this could get very nasty, very quickly and requires a strong arms at the top. The Local Government Minister, Lesley Griffiths (Lab, Wrexham), better start pumping iron.

Conclusion : Halfway there?

 Should it have gone further? Will it be watered down?
Let the games begin.
(Pic : Wales Online)

I'll admit it. After the initial coverage, I was expecting to go into this finding nothing but a fudge. I'm pleased to say that's not the case.

There are a lot of good proposals in relation to measuring progress, scrutiny and leadership. There's also a comprehensive analysis of the current issues and problems facing Welsh public services. However, it only went halfway to where it should've been.

That's not the Commission's fault. On the contrary, whenever this happens – like Silk I, Holtham and Richards before it, presumably Silk II too - I'm more annoyed that we waste the time and talents of those involved.

The Commission were given a remit that sounded broader than actually it was, and too little time to do a "deep review". This process should've lasted 2-3 years and been Welsh local government's equivalent of the Richard and Holtham Commissions combined.

Subsequently, this barely scratched the surface. Merging local authorities is a slightly lazy conclusion. However, it was the absolute maximum the Commission could realistically propose - minus a wider mandate.

The best single idea to come out of this is the creation of a public sector leadership centre. Possible collaboration between fire and ambulance services, as well as intergration between social services and health, also sound interesting and could have a big impact on service delivery.

However, for all the focus on delivery and management, there's very little in the way of absolute changes. It's more a shopping list of, "It would be really nice if local councils did X,Y,Z" - basically telling councillors, managers, board members, officers etc. to do things they should've been doing in the first place.

In the long-term, these proposals will lead to fewer managers, fewer councillors, fewer chief executives and generate migraines for local government administrators.

All current problems regarding delivery will persist, just in new branding. We'll settle back into "old ways" as soon as the dust settles, because this review didn't look at what local authorities should do, or what level is appropriate for service delivery, just some aspects of the how.

I'll stick my neck out and predict, firstly, that there'll be a struggle to hit the 2018 "deadline". This Welsh Government are small-c conservatives who don't have the cojones to do anything this drastic (by their standards), and despite the language of determination coming from Cathays Park, might find opposition from within local government too much to handle. We'll need a new generation of ministers and AMs with few ties to local government to push it through.

Next, I predict we'll get a watered-down version – a compromise of 16-18 local authorities - where only the smallest local authorities, or those persistently in special measures, will merge with larger neighbours (Merthyr, Anglesey, Blaenau Gwent etc). We'll still get the inevitable harumphing from councillors and officers in the Welsh press, but it'll keep costs and redundancies to a minimum. We'll lose under 100 councillors, which won't spook the parties too much.

Any compromise will be justified on cost grounds, following successful lobbying from various public bodies, WLGA and the bigger local authorities in the south and west. We'll still have 900+ public bodies, and we'll return to this again in 15-20 years time, because simple mergers won't solve the complexity problem and won't improve scrutiny.

They correctly saw what the problem was, they formed a committee, they chickened out of making the big calls.

"How Wales works" in a nutshell.

Read More