"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

Wales in an emergency : Fit for purpose?

The Welsh Government have been criticised for its civil
emergency arrangements by the Wales Audit Office. Now, the
Assembly's committees have had their say.
(Pic : BBC)

Earlier this week, the Assembly's Public Accounts Committee published its report into civil emergency arrangements in Wales, prompted by a critical Wales Audit Office report into some aspects of those arrangements, and partly in the wake of serious flooding in Denbighshire last year.

The report (pdf) made 14 recommendations; broadly speaking :

• The Welsh Government should consider seeking new legislative and statutory powers in relation to civil emergencies.
• Better training, self-assessment and monitoring of performances of emergency responders.
• Improve representation of voluntary bodies on emergency planning committees.

What is a "civil emergency"?

An "emergency" is defined in the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 as any event that threatens, damages or endangers property, the environment or life. That could include serious flooding, major accidents (like plane and train crashes) and even up to and including war and terrorism.

On the ground, emergencies are dealt with by Category One responders (the emergency services, local authorities, health boards and environmental agencies) and Category Two responders (utilities, transport and communications companies).

The government's role - Welsh and UK - is to oversee operations, helping to manage responses or provide resources, like the military.

The difference between a "civil" and a "national" emergency, is the latter usually involves a formal  state of emergency being declared by the UK Government that suspends certain state functions. It's only been used once, AFAIK, and that was during the 1970s fuel crisis. We probably came close to it during the 2000 fuel protests too.

What prompted the inquiry?

As said at the start, this committee inquiry was prompted by a critical Wales Audit Office (WAO) report into this matter from December 2012.

Executive Powers & Devolution

Civil contingencies are a non-devolved matter. However, the Welsh Government would generally be expected to provide leadership for major emergencies in Wales, co-ordinating their response – when appropriate – with the UK Government as part of an agreement between the two governments.

The executive powers are – surprise, surprise – muddied in relation to Wales, while the Scottish Executive have some powers for themselves in this area, perhaps because policing and criminal justice are devolved (so they would be better placed to deal with public disorder issues, for instance).

Category One responders - like the fire service - currently
have to deal with awkward command arrangements during
a civil emergency in Wales.
(Pic : Andrew Wright via fire-engine-photos.com)

This was just one major criticism picked up by the WAO, as it was unclear who was in charge, with the Welsh Government being able to support Category One responders, whilst not being responsible for managing or monitoring them.

On the ground, this meant that the different organisations would, "look to a range of government bodies for leadership" making the management of emergency responses unnecessarily complicated.

Of the many bodies giving evidence to the inquiry, it was generally expected that the Welsh Government should lead emergency responses within Wales. The chair of the Wales Resilience Partnership, Sup.Int Claire Parmenter, said it would clear up matters. However, the WLGA said that they would oppose devolution of further executive powers due to increased administrative demands.

Implementation of the Civil Contingencies Act

The Civil Contingencies Act 2004 was brought in, mostly, because of the threat from terrorism in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. It updated emergency planning legislation, clearly set out who does what, and even led to a somewhat ill-fated public information campaign.

The Civil Contingencies Act 2004 updated older legislation
to meet modern emergency planning requirements
and new threats.
(Pic : West Yorkshire Fire Service)

You could say it contributed to public paranoia. In the main though, the powers have been used in relation to serious environmental emergencies like flooding, and were very effective in the response to the July 7^th 2005 bombings in London. They clearly work.

The WAO found major failings in how Category One responders were implementing their Civil Contingencies Act duties, in particular inconsistent approaches by different bodies and a lack of monitoring of those obligations.

This matters because if emergency planning isn't done properly, when these situations do arise, it can lead to confusion if people don't know precisely who's giving the orders and on what basis, possibly putting lives or property in danger.

Regional Emergency Planning, Budgets & Training

The Welsh Government operate an emergency management fund to compensate local authorities for costs relating to emergency responses. Some emergencies exhaust these budgets rather quickly.

For example, the total cost of the 2011 Fforestfach tyre fire in Swansea was said to be £1.5million, with a grant of £1million from the Welsh Government, leaving a net cost to Swansea Council of £500k. Under the circumstances that would've been a big chunk of their emergency budget I would imagine. It's recommended that both local authorities and Welsh Government take relative exposure to certain risks into account when deciding their emergency budgets.

Emergency planning functions are said to be spread too thinly across too many organisations – a regular recurring theme in Welsh public policy – and should be restructured to a regional level.

*AWOOOOGA*  I'll just leave this here *AWOOOOGA*.

However, significant barriers would need to be overcome to enable that, and are still being investigated by the Welsh Government.

Emergency training exercises take place at UK level twice a year. There are also national-level training exercises in Wales, with few concerns about that training. In spite of that, it's said that Welsh responders aren't "taking full responsibility for assessing their performance" as set out by the UK Government. Could lazy assessment lead to lazy responses?

Social Media & Emergencies

Social media is said to have both positive and negative impacts. The obvious positives are that information can be sent out quickly by authorities. The negatives being that sometimes that information can be faulty, leading to rumours and mis-information being spread quickly too.

During the Gleision mine accident, it's said that information was sometimes spread faster than the emergency services dealt with issues on the ground – not exactly helpful.

The UK Government want to trial mobile alerts, which can be sent to a specific geographical area.

In north Wales, authorities are trying to map vulnerable people (i.e. elderly living on flood plains) so they know precisely who would need to be moved or sheltered during an emergency. I've mentioned something similar on flooding back in January, so I'm glad they've been thinking along the same lines.

Dull, but necessary

Yeah, not one of my most exciting blogs in a long list of not very exciting blogs, but it's rare I can blog about defence issues in Wales without referring to independence.

One of the first duties of any government – devolved or not – is to protect the population. That's why  this inquiry and the WAO report were important.

Emergency planning is something that generally goes on behind the scenes, and we don't really notice it until it's needed. We've had several major incidents recently that have caused serious disruption or loss of life in Wales, including – as mentioned - serious flooding, M4 accidents, the Gleision mine accident and the measles epidemic.

Having skimmed through the report, I doubt there were major failings that could've put lives at risk, but obviously having a clearer understanding of who's in charge of what during an emergency would help enormously.

In terms of the civil response to emergencies themselves, like the report suggests, new ways of warning the public are essential if we want to prevent people putting themselves in harm's way in the first place. That also means all of us using things like Twitter responsibly to prevent rumours getting out of control, as well as treating government advice during emergencies with the utmost seriousness.

Read More