Post-Brexit goals for Welsh farming outlined

(Pic : Wales Online)

Last week, the Senedd's Environment Committee published its report on the future of Welsh agriculture and land management (pdf).

Read More

Tainted Blood

(Pic : ITV)

The latest member's debate covers what was once described by Prof. Robert Winston as one of the worst disasters in NHS history.

Read More

FMQs : Curious Tales, Cwmbran Hospital & Ireland

There was a varied FMQs today, with questions ranging from the M4, average earnings, the planning system and also a polite warning from the Llywydd.

Read More

AMs press for "decisive action" on Bovine TB

(Pic : The Guardian)

The issue of precisely how to deal with Bovine tuberculosis is one of the longest-running sagas in post-devolution Wales, and something that has become a serious threat to the livelihoods of dairy and beef farmers, even if they're compensated for the loss of livestock.

Read More

The Big Brexit To Do List

Before Brexit can happen, we need to know what needs to be done beforehand.

I'm getting as fed up with the endless hot air surrounding Brexit as much as you probably are. This will be my final post on Brexit for the foreseeable future. I'm also considering ignoring any future statements/questions on this in the Senedd as nothing's actually happened yet and nobody seems to be in a rush to make anything happen either.

Read More

Local Government Bill edges towards statute book

As the law outlining how councils can voluntarily merger reaches its
conclusion, opposition AMs tabled important amendments.
(Pic : Wales Online)

The Local Government Bill outlines how the 22 local authorities can merge voluntarily in light of the new proposed map for local government which has been formed as part of the fallout from the Williams Commission (Back to the Future). On Tuesday (29^th September), the Bill was debated at Stage 3, where amendments can be added by AMs.

Any voluntarily-merged authorities will come into being by May 2018, but a second local government law on compulsory mergers will be introduced after the National Assembly election next year, which makes you question if this Bill is really all that necessary.

Anyway, the content of the Bill isn't particularly exciting in itself, but there were a number of amendments tabled by AMs which could (have) add(ed) significant meat to the Bill.

You can read a full list of amendments here (pdf), but I'm going to focus on some of the more significant ones and what AMs and the Public Services Minister, Leighton Andrews (Lab, Rhondda), had to say.

Local Referendums on Council Mergers

• Amendments 14, 26 and 27 – all introduced by Shadow Local Government Minister, Janet Finch-Saunders (Con, Aberconwy).
• Proposes that voluntary local authority mergers be approved by a majority of voters in each merging authority.
• Proposes the question on ballot papers : "Are you in favour of the proposed merger between [ ] and [ ]?".

Janet argued that any changes need to be driven by local people and communities in a way which strengthens the democratic process. Council mergers would have a "profound effect" on all residents involved and it's right they have a say, with Labour placing "proud counties" under threat without consultation. Referendums would mean mergers will have to be justified accordingly.

Simon Thomas AM (Plaid, Mid & West Wales) said his party accepts the point on extra consultation including in amendment 14, but rejects the case for referendums, as we shouldn't allow local considerations to interfere with process at a national level – saying there was no referendum or much in the way of consultation when the Conservatives reorganised local government in 1994-1996. He said referendums were a way of "hiding lack of vision".

Peter Black AM (Lib Dem, South Wales West) said referendums were the wrong way to approach it, though the Lib Dems would support amendment 14. There was a need to draw a line between national leadership and local determination, and the Assembly was best placed to determine the shape of local services. Peter criticised the Bill as "no longer necessary", adding that the Lib Dems wouldn't support the Bill at all unless their amendments were accepted.

The Minister said the amendments were unnecessary, again raising the point that there were no referendums for previous local government reorganisations in the 1970s and 1990s. Authorities must undertake "full and comprehensive" public consultation as set out in the Bill, so it was already delivering key points of amendment 14. He urged AMs to vote down the referendum amendments as there wasn't enough detail on the campaign periods, spending limits or costings for referendums – which Leighton estimated would cost between £100,000-£400,000 per local authority.

Amendment 14 tied in the vote 27-27, with the Deputy Presiding Officer used his casting vote against the amendment – as is convention. Amendment 26 was rejected by 13 votes to 41 meaning Amendment 27 was rejected too.

The Election Cycle

• Amendment 17 – introduced by Janet Finch-Saunders AM
• Proposes that elections cannot be cancelled/postponed under the Bill if it results in councillors serving terms greater than 5 years in length.

One of the carrots dangled in front of local authorities to encourage them to merge voluntarily is that councillors will have their terms extended until the first elections of the combined local authority – meaning councillors will be able to pick up their allowances and salaries for longer than they otherwise would.

Janet told the Assembly it was crucial that councillors aren't serving more time than they were democratically elected to do. Extending terms without facing re-election was "an affront to democracy, public accountability and transparency".

The Minister said that the amendment would create uncertainty and distraction in the lead up to a voluntary merger. He said cancelling elections was "not something we would do lightly", but it would otherwise mean bringing forward the merged authority to May 2017 – which was unachievable given the timetables involved. He asked who would want to stand for election for an authority that has less than a year left?

There were 18 votes in favour, 27 votes against and 9 (Plaid Cymru) abstentions, so the amendment was rejected.

The Electoral System for Local Authorities

• Amendments 5, 13, 28, 30 and 31 – all introduced by Peter Black AM
• Proposes the electoral system for local government be changed to Single Transferable Vote, where voters rank candidates in order of preference.

These are probably the most important ones, or the amendments I was most interested in.

Peter Black AM said Leighton Andrews understands STV as he fought an election in Gillingham in support of introducing it, adding that it produces a fair outcome for election. Creating larger authorities with fewer councillors should mean ensuring elections reflect how people vote. It would lead to a more transparent, more accountable local authority that's representative of its communities.

Simon Thomas AM offered Plaid Cymru's support to the amendments, saying STV had been introduced with little difficulty in Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland and at local elections in Scotland. He said it was a far more effective way of "opening up the electoral process" by ending unopposed elections, adding that one thing that stops people standing against incumbent councillors in rural areas was a "personal element" which is interpreted as a grudge. Simon said STV would challenge all parties, but they have to decide what's best for the whole nation, and ensure every vote counts.

In response, the Minister said Labour were elected on a platform of opposing any change to the local government election system, and the rejection of the Alternative Vote in a 2011 referendum reflects that voters don't want to change the system either.

14 AMs voted in favour of Amendment 5, 40 voted against, so all the amendments were rejected.

Read More

Legally High

Earlier this week, the National Assembly's Health & Social Care Committee published their inquiry report (pdf) into new psychoactive substances (aka. NPS, "legal highs"). It was an extensive and wide-ranging inquiry which took evidence from a huge list of witnesses and focus groups around Wales.

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

"Thank you for flying Ieuan Air...."

Poor value for money? Or vital transport link?
The Anglesey-Cardiff "Ieuan Air" service has its critics.
(Pic : Wales Online)

The direct air service between Cardiff and Anglesey has been a political football since it was first introduced. Some consider it a vital public service air link; others consider it a complete waste of money.

The National Assembly's Public Accounts Committee undertook a short inquiry into its future role, as well as evaluating its current commercial performance due to the high levels of public subsidy it receives and falls in passenger numbers (pdf).

The Committee's summarised recommendations were that :

• Data collection should be improved - preferably using an independent source - to avoid discrepancies between what the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and airline operators report.
• The Welsh Government should undertake research on who uses the air-link and why, as well as research into the long-term passenger number trends.
• Any future tender for the air-link should include comprehensive marketing plans, and the Welsh Government should try to attract as many bidders as possible in order to maximise the benefits and opportunities of the air-link.

Background & Current Performance

£9million has been spent on the air link since 2007, including
£1.5million on terminal facilities at RAF Valley.
(Pic : anglesey-today.com)

The Anglesey-Cardiff air-link was established in May 2007 (before Ieuan Wyn Jones even became a government minister), and is currently operated by two companies. The marketing and ticket booking services are provided by Manx company, Citywing, while the air service itself is provided by Links Air, based on Humberside. The current contract to provide the service runs until December 2014. The service runs twice a day in both directions during weekdays.

The Welsh Government subsidises the service under the EU's Public Service Obligation (PSO) rules, which allows governments to subsidise services that are key to economic development but are otherwise commercial unviable. The subsidy currently amounts to £1.2million per year.

The Ministry of Defence are also involved as they run the RAF Valley terminus of the flight. Anglesey Council and a company called Europa also fund/run the terminal services at the airbase.

The total cost of the air service from May 2007 to March 2013 was just over £9million. This sum includes the £1.5million to build the passenger terminal at RAF Valley and various grants to Anglesey Council.

65,703 passengers used the service over the same time period, and the subsidy per passenger is £86. Although passenger numbers exceeded expectations in the first two years, they've since declined by 12.5% between 2011-2013.

There were differences between the passenger numbers reported by the CAA and those provided by the Welsh Government (via the service operator) – the latter's numbers being higher than the CAA's. However, since 2012 these discrepancies have become smaller and didn't cause the Committee any great concern.

As for the reasons why passenger numbers are falling, the University of South Wales' Martin Evans said that passengers were "price sensitive" and even the slightest increase in fares put them off. The Welsh Government, however, pointed towards figures that showed an increase in the number of advanced bookings and overall passenger numbers.

The Welsh Government have commissioned ARUP to review the marketing of the air service, fares strategy and support to maximise passenger numbers. The contract currently grants the operators £20-25,000 per year to market the service. The Committee believe more needs to be done - such as advertising connecting bus services - and all of that should be part of the tendering process.

In terms of the type of passenger, it was said between half and two-thirds of passengers were business passengers, but there was no data on how many of these were public sector workers. The Committee were concerned because public sector journeys would ultimately be paid for entirely by taxpayers, weakening the subsidy's value for money case.

With regard value for money, there hasn't been an evaluation of the benefits of the air service since 2008, and without this information it might be more difficult for the Welsh Government to justify further subsidy. Some of this will be explored further in the ARUP review, which will give a better idea of who uses the service and why, but it was argued it might be difficult to tie economic data to the service.

The Contract

Following the 2011 Cork air crash, there've been concerns raised
at EU level about "virtual airline" arrangements for air services.
(Pic : RTE)

There's a slightly complicated back story as to how the current operators got the franchise.

When the contract was up for re-tender in 2010, the only bidder was Highland Airways. But because the Welsh Government had concerns over the financial stability of the company, they rejected Highland Airways offer and put out an "emergency tender" which was awarded to Manx2.

However, because Manx2 were a "virtual airline" (they outsource all operational roles), this fell foul of EU PSO rules, meaning another company had to be on board at the same time – hence why there are two companies involved in running the air link.

As for the relevance of this, an accident at Cork Airport in February 2011 – which killed 6 people – involved an aircraft operated by the same company Manx2 used to provide the Anglesey-Cardiff link (FLM). The company has since had its aviation accreditation withdrawn, and this dual-company arrangement has been flagged up to the European Commission as a concern which should be taken into consideration when awarding any new Anglesey-Cardiff contract in December.

The Committee also had concerns about the timing of the tender and contract award, which is supposed to go out (quite literally) now if it's going to be awarded in December. The Committee were worried that the timescales are too tight and there's little room for contingencies.

The Future of the Air-Link

Due to MOD restrictions, the air link can only operate 5 days a week.
(Pic : Royal Air Force)

The Welsh Government haven't given a clear commitment on whether the service will be re-tendered or not. However, the Committee come up with several potential options for any future services.

• Increasing the size of the aircraft – The current aircraft has 18 seats, but previous tenders included 29-50 seater aircraft. The size of the aircraft was reduced by the Welsh Government due to concerns over air passenger duty and because RAF Valley doesn't meet UK guidelines for passenger aircraft bigger than 18 seats. Increasing the size of the aircraft would mean fewer passengers would be turned away and, if marketed correctly, could boost incomes and make it more commercially viable.
• More stops? – This might mean adding an extra stop or two (Harwarden in Flintshire and Caernarfon airport were mooted). Harwarden was ruled out due to competition from rail, while Caernarfon would need lots of work to bring it up to spec. A third stop could also put off passengers as it would increase journey times.
• 7 day a week service – At the moment only a 5 day service is possible due to military restrictions, and any moves to change this will need to be discussed with the RAF.
• Changes to state aid rules – PSO rules were recently changed which mean there are fewer constraints on what the Welsh Government can or can't do. An example was given where the Cardiff-Anglesey aircraft could be used to make commercial flights from Cardiff-Paris in the downtime between Anglesey flights.

A bit of afters

The inquiry has been criticised for being "too simplistic", and it failed to
draw comparisons with other PSO services in the UK and rest of Europe.
(Pic : via Wikipedia)

As you might've heard, Committee member Mike Hedges AM (Lab, Swansea East)  got a bit shirty, describing the inquiry as "superficial and simplistic". The Committee only called four witnesses - who all gave evidence on a single day – and received just five pieces of written evidence, three of which were from the same person. That's not unusual for a "short inquiry".

I've read my fair share of committee reports over the last three years or so. The lack of any comparison with other PSO services in the UK (like those in the Scottish Highlands & Islands) was a glaring omission. Mike Hedges was right. I don't think it would've really changed the overall conclusions, but without those comparisons it's hard to say whether the air link is truly under-performing or not.

The Lib Dems have long called for the service to be scrapped, and chimed in again this time, describing the air link as "wasteful and polluting".

The air link currently reduces the NW Wales-Cardiff journey time from 4-5 hours (by car or train) to around 90 minutes. If the service were well-used it could be considered an absolute bargain. The £1.2million per year saved by scrapping the service would do diddly squat to improve north-south transport links, and the Lib Dems have consistently failed to say what they would do with such an enormous bounty. The cost of doubling the Wrexham-Chester railway line is £44million alone.

If money were no object, ideally we would build a floating runway in the Menai Straits off Bangor. That would be the optimum place for a NW Wales-Cardiff air link, and being right next to Snowdonia should provide a steady stream of tourist traffic too. However, like it or not, RAF Valley – despite being poorly located – is the only suitable facility.

It looks as though the air link has an uncertain future, and criticisms about its performance stand up. There's just a danger that through this inquiry we only know the price of it whilst ignoring its value.

Read More

Does Wales make the most of EU opportunities?

                            

It's been a while. There've been many changes. Nick Ramsey has no doubt been stumbling through the Ty Hywel corridors to Every Rose Has Its Thorn.

However, I couldn't resist returning to the rock stars of the Assembly Committee world – Business & Enterprise – and their inquiry report into EU funding opportunities from 2014-2020, which was launched at Cardiff's Chapter Arts Centre last week (pdf).

A lot of this work overlaps with the Constitutional & Legislative Affairs Committee inquiry into the Welsh role in EU decision-making.While that inquiry focused on the political and constitutional situation, this one was more focused on the economic, cultural and financial side of things.

The one thing you can take from both inquiries is the need for a clear strategy on Welsh involvement with the EU. It's a point raised before, but Scotland and the Republic of Ireland have a "more joined up approach" than we do. Meanwhile, concerns that EU funds in Wales have been misused, or Wales being constantly "left off the map", mean a revision of the Welsh Government's EU strategy is long overdue – something Finance Minister Jane Hutt (Lab, Vale of Glamorgan) is considering.

There were 16 recommendations in total, summarised as :

• Ensuring any future EU strategy (Wales in Europe : What role do we play?) sets clear objectives and maximises Welsh involvement in EU programmes.
• Developing tailored support; including the creation of an EU Funding Champion, a central contact point for EU funds and specialist support for the youth, transport and education sectors.
• Addressing gaps in Welsh representation in Brussels (also raised in the Welsh EU role inquiry)
• Setting clear objectives for Welsh universities to promote both studying abroad and  language courses as well as creating an alumnus of international students.
• Local Government should develop their own action plans to make best use of EU funds.
• Champion the Welsh creative sector in Europe, ensuring they're not disadvantaged in applying for EU funding because of the UK's strong TV industry.
• Develop a closer working relationship with DG Move and TEN-T executives in Brussels - as well as the Irish – to ensure Wales gets the most out of pan-EU transport programmes.

EU Programmes – What are they?

When discussing "EU Programmes" in Wales, you'll automatically think "Objective One" (Structural Funds) or the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). There are, however, EU schemes that cover other activities and sectors worth up to €42billion. The inquiry focused on how Wales engages with these programmes and what can be done to ensure we get the most out of them.

These programmes include :

• Erasmus+ (€14.7bn)
• Connecting Europe/Trans-European Transport Networks (TEN-T) (€15bn)
• Regional Cooperation (INTERREG) (€8.7bn)
• Creative Europe (€1.46bn)
• Competitiveness of Small & Medium Sized Companies (COSME) (€2.03bn)

There's also the Horizon 2020 scheme which covers science and technology, but this wasn't within the inquiry's remit.

Welsh engagement with EU programmes

The EU Commission's Creative Europe programme helped fund Y Gwyll, but there were
concerns that the strength of the UK's media sector may disadvantage Wales.
(Pic : The Guardian)

Although Wales engages with many of these programmes – like INTERREG, Creative Europe and some of the education programmes - a recurring theme is that the high priority and narrow focus given to structural funds (Objective One and CAP) has limited Welsh involvement elsewhere.

There are specialist European officers in local government and higher education – often with a presence in Brussels – but there's nothing similar for the youth, private and voluntary sectors. The benefits from participating in these programmes are potentially huge and such groups may be missing out unnecessarily.

In the Welsh Government's evidence they say some programmes are easier to work with and win funding from than others, so they often had to target their resources carefully. They intend to review how they interact with the EU, but with no set timetable. This led to the Committee supporting previous calls for a full EU Strategy, citing the Irish and Danish governments own successful strategies.

It was said Wales isn't "as switched on" as other countries, with an example given of one academic who was working with the INTERREG programme having no contact whatsoever with the Wales European Funding Office (WEFO). There was also a lack of proper communication with businesses, with calls for a "clear contact point" based outside Wales for foreign companies looking to work with Welsh partners.

There was a specific focus on the creative industries sector, and the EU programme Creative Europe. The EU Commission's media programme "provides support for film productions from pre-production through to distribution, primarily in the form of direct grants to companies and organisations". This scheme provided support towards the production of Y Gwyll/Hinterland.

Media Antenna Wales – part of the Welsh Government's creative industries team – provides support to companies and producers seeking to work with Creative Europe, often helping them negotiate the bureaucracy and form-filling that comes with EU programmes. This level of specialist support was praised and said to be something to emulate in other sectors.

There was, however, a worry that because the UK has a "strong audio-visual industry" overall, Welsh creative companies would be overlooked or disadvantaged when applying for EU funds. Better Together?

International Mobility

Although Wales attracts its fair share of Erasmus funding and
participation, twice as many students are incoming as outgoing.
(Pic : BBC)

Erasmus, now reformed into Erasmus+, is a general exchange programme aimed at all aspects of the university sector. The British Council is in charge of this at a UK level and says Wales is "attracting its share of the budget in relation to population size" (€11million between 2006-07 and 2012-13).

The benefits of participating in Erasmus are said to include : greater employability, improved self-esteem and there was evidence that academic performance improves too. There's also a knock-on impact to universities themselves, as Erasmus can leave a good impression on students studying here and could be adapted to provide a trade boost that runs into the tens of millions of pounds.

One big barrier is that there are twice as many incoming students to Wales as there are outgoing. Lower Welsh take-up rates are said to be down to numerous factors like : language barriers, lack of engagement by academics, lack of awareness, financial problems and lack of confidence. Also, participation was markedly lower from "new universities".

Cardiff University's Prof. Colin Riordan set a target of 17% of graduating students spending some study time abroad by 2017, having set up a £1.6million bursary fund to help achieve it. At the moment the rate is 12%.

Despite his ambition being praised, these levels of participation fall far short of Germany, which has a 50% target. Prof. Riordan said levels of engagement on this matter with the Welsh Government were "low" and that it wasn't afforded a high level of status.

Colegau Cymru suggested the creation of a "one-stop shop" within the Welsh Government for lifelong learning programmes, while Swansea University suggested the Welsh Government could do more to help universities and colleges access EU funding programmes.

There was also confusion over youth volunteering and youth work. The British Council no longer want to work with devolved bodies on this (in Wales' case Connect Cymru), but said that was because they're changing how they're working with them as there was little evidence of the benefits and effectiveness of youth work and youth volunteering programmes.

International Co-operation

A lot of the Welsh participation in INTERREG is wrapped up in the Ireland-Wales programme.
(Pic : EU Commission)

There were 89 INTERREG projects in Wales during the 2007-13 funding period, attracting €41.5million in EU funding. Most of this went towards Irish-Welsh co-operation.

Colegau Cymru said there are specific challenges here, as in order to get funding, projects need to be managed not only across institutions but across borders around the EU. Milford Haven Port Authority also said there hadn't been enough engagement with the private sector.

Local councils say that while they've participated in programmes like INTERREG, much of their focus has been on structural funding (Objective One, European Social Fund) and rural development. They pointed towards the lack of Welsh Government advice and contacts, with Conwy Council adding – in rather parochial terms – that "their only priority is their own local area".

The Committee underlined the lack of a joined-up approach, but also a lack of ambition by local councils, which is "in marked contrast to the further education sector". They called on the WLGA to display leadership.

Trans-European Transport Networks (TEN-T)

Wales - left off an EU map....again.
And the Welsh Government hasn't helped matters either.
(Pic : ITV Wales)

TENT-T is described as a "set of strategically significant road, rail, air, water transport networks" identified by the EU as particularly important to the internal market.

Wales isn't currently on any of the core network corridors, though Business & Economy Minister, Edwina Hart (Lab, Gower) said Welsh experts were sent as part of the UK team when drafting the maps. Milford Haven and the north Wales coast mainline were subsequently added at the request of the UK Government.

Milford Haven Port Authority say there's a significant amount of money that could be available to Wales to develop freight facilities, but too much focus has been on passengers. Holyhead was also excluded from TEN-T as a core port, despite its pretty important role in linking Great Britain to Ireland – though it falls short of Liverpool in terms of tonnage.The Committee say that the negotiating process between Cardiff, London and Brussels was "confused and opaque".

Also, in an astonishing admission, Wales didn't make any applications to, and secured no funding from, the TEN-T programme as of January 2014. Edwina Hart has confirmed, however, that a business case for improvements to the Crewe-Holyhead railway through TEN-T is underway.

The Answer : "Wales could do more"

To repeat myself, there's a clear need for some sort of high level strategy – as much as I loathe such things – and many of the Committee's recommendations make sense. EU programmes also have to be put in a much wider context than structural and agricultural funds as they have important cultural and educational aspects as well.

The lack of proper engagement with TEN-T, however, is a hidden national disgrace and signifies incredible laziness on the part of the Welsh Government. Even a slither of TEN-T funding could've gone a long way towards bringing forward projects like rail electrification or upgrading parts of the A55. I suppose they deserve credit for getting the ball rolling on the north Wales mainline at least.

I suppose in a way this is a complement or follow-up to my 2012 post -"What Wales gets from the European Union".

The answer is, quite clearly, "a lot". If the Welsh Government properly organised itself and started to put the work in the answer would be "even more" - and not just in monetary terms.

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