FMQs: Gaffes, Circuit of Wales & Borrowing

This afternoon saw the final FMQs before the local elections on Thursday and the first since the announcement of the forthcoming UK general election.

Read More

Arfon Jones & Legalising Drugs

(Pic : Daily Post)

Gwynedd county councillor, Cllr. Sion Jones (Lab, Bethel), has called for the resignation of PCC Arfon Jones (Plaid, North Wales Police) - who recently called for drugs to be "legalised", and offered his support to the idea of clean "fix rooms" for drug addicts who use injectable drugs after a man was filmed injecting in a Caernarfon Bus Station toilet.

Read More

FMQs Extra : Pembrokeshire, Heathrow & Orgreave

First Minister's Questions....without the First Minister.
(Pic : Wales Online)

As promised, I'm going to return to yesterday's plenary session and cover the four urgent questions asked following FMQs.

Read More

Senedd debates draft Wales Bill

Following the stronger words said on the draft Wales Bill over the last
fortnight it was rightly time for more measured discussion on the issues it raises.
(Pic : BBC Wales)

Yesterday, following the suspension of standing orders, the National Assembly held an extraordinary debate on the controversial draft Wales Bill.

Read More

AMs take swipe at Trade Union Bill

The post-devolution "partnership working" between unions, employers and employees
in Wales looks set to be threatened by the UK Government's draconian Trade Union Bill.
(Pic : Wales Online)

Shwmae. Yesterday, the Assembly held another backbench members debate, this time related to one of the most controversial laws introduced for a long time in the UK Parliament.

Read More

Fried Cymru : The Barby of Wales

The night is dark and full of terrors.
(Pic : ITV Wales)

For several weeks it seemed as though the south Wales valleys were permanently ablaze. It dominated headlines over Easter, but has since drifted from the front pages.The number of grass/forest fires in 2015 are reportedly up 195% on 2014. Trees were destroyed, wildlife killed and homes evacuated as there was very real possibility that the fires would endanger whole villages.

Yesterday, the Public Services Minister, Smokey Bear Leighton Andrews (Lab, Rhonnda) issued a statement in the National Assembly updating AMs on current actions taken to prevent similar fires in the future, perhaps with the forthcoming school summer holidays in mind.

The Minister issued a written statement during the height of the crisis on April 21st (clip). Subsequently, as a result of these "criminal acts of a small number of individuals", more people have been detained during this latest round of fires that were detained in the previous five years. He condemned those who started the fires, and praised the emergency services and tough stance of the police.

There were 933 fires in south Wales alone, and it's believed 902 (97%) were started deliberately. All fires were extinguished without having to call in extra support from neighbouring authorities, but resources used to tackle them could've been more productively spent elsewhere. A summit was held on April 29^th with the First Minister, Natural Resources Minister and Education Minister in attendance. They agreed co-ordinated actions in the short, medium and long-term based around education, land management and deterrence.

The fire service already has a strong record on education, visiting every secondary school in affected areas, while the Phoenix Project has a re-offending rate of under 5%. The fire service are now considering using drones to spot fires and identify those who start them. Alongside this there are social media campaigns and extra-curricular activities to divert children from deliberate fire setting.

Natural Resources Wales are considering changes to land management structures to control the spread of fires, such as using fire breaks. Welsh Government will co-ordinate efforts through the Wales Resilience Forum and programmes like Glastir (The Green, Green Glas of Home).

Due to public and community concerns, there's a willingness to help reduce fires and identify arsonists. The Chief Fire Officer in south Wales has visited community groups, and a smart phone app has been developed to report fires. The Minister said that the threat hasn't gone away, so there's no room for complacency.

William Graham AM (Con, South Wales East) appreciated the actions of the Minister and paid tribute to the fire service and emergency call handlers (clip). He asked if the Minister agreed that sentencing guidelines needed to be changed to increase the punishments for these crimes?

The Minister said these fires are becoming "an annual event" and need to be properly addressed through the resilience forum. Over time, the number of grass fires has fallen, but emergency services have to plan for these events and set budgets accordingly. He described changes to sentencing guidelines as an "interesting idea" but preferred to wait upon the outcome of current prosecutions (plus it's non-devolved).

Rhodri Glyn Thomas AM (Plaid, Carms. E & Dinefwr) asked for an expansion on the issues raised at the summit (clip). He also said pressure on emergency services was "huge", and that the response of call centres was "extremely efficient". Rhodri raised concerns about absence levels in the fire service, and whether it was linked to these fires, plus changes in the workforce from full-time officers to, part-time officers. He asked if they would be able to maintain these levels of work?

Leighton said collaboration has increased since the summit on prevention and detection. The balance between full and part-time firefighters was a matter for fire authorities, while fire services had coped with reduced budgets and "made efficiencies". He was satisfied current governance arrangements work, and wouldn't like to see PCC-style elected fire commissioners (unlike policing, fire & rescue services were devolved in 2004).

Jenny Rathbone AM (Lab, Cardiff Central) said the issue needed to be looked at from the other end (clip), calling for third sector bodies like the RSPB and Scouts to stress the importance of natural environments to the whole community, so children are much more minded "to be protectors of nature".

The Minister said the Foundation Phase has commitments to the outdoors and the environment, and there were already a number of voluntary bodies engaging with children. He did, however, stress that not all of the fires were started by children, with two arrests being men in their 30s and 50s. He wouldn't confirm if they were called Ramsay and Stannis respectively.

Eluned Parrott AM (Lib Dem, South Wales Central) condemned the arsonists as "reckless individuals" who not only endanger life through fires but divert resources from other emergencies (clip). She asked several questions, particularly on research into the profile of, and reasons why, people start fires. Eluned also stressed the importance of after-school and holiday activities, as well as schemes like Project Bernie (which appears to be based on DJ Dai from Grand Theft Auto II ).

The Minister said significant research had been done on the motivations of arsonists, and South Wales Police have commissioned further research from Cardiff University on motivations and the effectiveness of social media campaigns. A wide range of school clubs and other activities exist, and he acknowledged that Project Bernie has made a significant impact.

Christine Chapman AM's (Lab, Cynon Valley) constituency was disproportionately affected by the fires (clip). She asked what work has been done with offenders to understand drivers to authorities know what works and what doesn't? She noted the association between deprivation and the fires and whether these communities – in particular boys and men – should be targeted. Finally, she asked about how easy fires were to predict and whether a warning system has been developed?

Leighton said we need to focus on research which has already been done, but admitted it's "not comprehensive". He added it was right to say fires can be predicted and the emergency services' plans have them in mind, but the timing of education programmes/interventions might need to be adjusted accordingly.

Mark Isherwood AM (Con, North Wales) said there were 145 similar fires in north Wales (clip), and the fire services instituted an effective "do you know where your kids are?" campaign. He asked whether community groups were involved in the summit and whether the responsibilities of landowners have been taken into account?

The Minister said social media had been used to engage with parents very effectively. There were too many community groups to take part in the summit, but many were engaged through the fire service. Also, he repeated what he said about land management, adding that fire authorities discuss issues with landowners.

Who can prevent forest fires?

You said "you", by which you were referring to me. That is incorrect. The correct answer is "you".

There have been calls down the years to re-forest/re-wild upland Wales – notably from George Monbiot – in order to increase flood protection in lowland areas. In areas of agricultural use that's perhaps impractical, but elsewhere I would love to see the valleys "re-greened" with native forestry to the same extent as Switzerland. This is one of the reasons why it can't/won't happen.

These fires have always been a background threat but, like flooding, it's time to take it a bit more seriously. Judging by what's been said, to their credit that's precisely what the Welsh Government and emergency services are doing.

Boredom might be a reason – and sensationalist coverage via the likes of Wales Online won't have helped - but none of that is an excuse and I hope those responsible, regardless of age, have the book thrown at them. Due to the topography of the valleys, it's inevitable that one day these fires will threaten entire villages and people will at least lose their homes, if not be killed, as a result.

Christine Chapman raised an important point about warnings. If you're close to a fire it's pretty obvious, but when there's a heightened risk of one starting, it's worth warning people so they can keep an eye out – particularly parents knowing where their children are going.

We've had a noticeably dry year so far. Maybe that was a factor in how the fires were able to spread so quickly. We might also have to accept that these things are increasingly going to start naturally, and so the fire service need the resources to deal with them.

Speaking of resources, for all the talk about defence spending and military recruitment recently, the UK can't properly defend itself from natural disasters (even if there's a criminal element with these fires).

Wales nominally contributes about £1.6billion towards the UK's military budget yet we seem to get very little back in terms of....actual defence from real threats. Perhaps all those kids recruited into the three services from Welsh schools in deprived areas should be sent in to help protect their hometowns during situations like these.

Read More

Pirate Party : Hoisting the Jolly Roger above Wales

Bridgend's voters were faced with a unique choice on May 7th.
Maybe, in future, other Welsh voters will have the option too.
(Pic : via Facebook)

I doubt many people reading this will have heard of The Pirate Party.

"Pirate politics" – the umbrella term used for such parties – is often hard to place on the traditional political spectrum. While the left-wing is mainly focused on inequalities and the right-wing on tradition, pirate politics is based around information : how freely you can access it, who it belongs to and how and why it should be used.

Read More

Devolution : Last Stand of the Human Rights Act?

(Pic : via Flickr)

One Conservative manifesto commitment prior to their election victory was the repeal of the Human Rights Act 1998 and its replacement with a "British Bill of Rights" - possibly including a subsequent full withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) if certain demands aren't met. The task has been passed to new Justice Secretary, the shy and retiring Michael Gove.

Read More

Westminster 2015 : The Key Issues in Wales

What are likely to be the main issues for Welsh voters?
(Pic : Click on Wales)

The first debate's out of the way, I've given my verdict on the Coalition and the manifestos are going to be released over the next few weeks (I'll look at them in more detail once their all out, though UKIP are dragging their heels by the looks of it) - which means it's time to focus on some of the issues that might be fought over in Wales.

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

A St David's Day Deposit

Legend says the ground beneath St David rose so all of his audience could see and hear him.
Like his namesake, the ground beneath David Cameron rose too, but it was a steaming mound of dung.

Most people don't care about the constitution, what powers the Assembly has or the intricacies of how devolution works. They're more concerned about public services, and what the decisions made by politicians mean for themselves and their families.

Some of us realise the constitution determines what decisions politicians are able to make in the first place – all of which has a direct impact on the public.

As you probably all know, the Silk Commission published two reports between 2012-2014 as part of "the next step in Wales' devolution journey" etc.

The first report (Silk I) covered taxation powers for the National Assembly. Those powers are now on the statute book in the Wales Act 2014, meaning from 2018 the Assembly will have the power to set landfill tax, stamp duty and the aggregates levy. It also means the Assembly can call a referendum on whether they should have the power to vary income tax - which the First Minister is already attempting to scotch. This is despite the inclusion of a new funding review, which Carwyn Jones said would be required for his government to back a referendum.

Holding a referendum on such a technical subject is, as Borthlas said today, "one of the silliest ideas ever to be proposed by a government" and very easy to lose.

As I've said before (Marching out of lockstep) a referendum on a general principle of fiscal powers - i.e. "Should the National Assembly have the power to fund devolved services by borrowing money and collecting taxes devolved to Wales?" - would be a juicer topic for the public to have a debate on and would definitely necessitate going to the polls to get a mandate from the electorate.

The second report (Silk II) covered extra powers, which was taken forward by the Welsh Secretary, Stephen Crabb MP (Con, Preseli Pembs.), who set a deadline of 1^st March – St David's Day – for a cross-party, cross-government consensus on Silk II's recommendations. You can read the full report, which was published last Friday to great fanfare, here (pdf).

Whisper it quietly, but I've been impressed with how Stephen Crabb has gone about his job. He's done more for Wales in 8/9 months than his predecessors have in the best part of a decade. I don't blame him personally for this brown whale, rising from the depths of the bowl to mock Ahab.

This may well be another "step forward on Wales' devolution journey", but it's also one last blast of Westminster's brand of constitutional Poodigree Chum out of the tradesman's entrance before the election.

What's been agreed?

• A reserved powers model, which should clear up what the Assembly's powers are by listing what the Assembly can't do. Except it won't clear anything up because of the piecemeal nature of Welsh devolution. Reserved powers would be like putting the current Schedule 7 in a mirror (if you see what I mean).
• Inter-governmental relations – Puts relations between the two governments on a more equal footing, with better co-ordination of policies in areas like training, economic development, cross-border rail routes and franchises as well as cross-border health services.
• Ports policy and development.
• Speed limits.
• Bus and taxi regulation, along with Traffic Commissioner functions.
• Places a duty on the UK Government to consult with the Welsh Government, and take into account Welsh energy policy, when approving energy projects of up to 350MW. This effectively means the Welsh Government will have a veto on "fracking".
• Sewerage and some aspects of water (with further negotiation).
• Marine licensing.
• At least one appointee to the Supreme Court should have an understanding of Wales.
• Local government elections.
• The Assembly itself – The Welsh Secretary will no longer have to appear before the Assembly, or have a right to participate in Assembly proceedings. The Assembly will also gain control over the age to vote in Assembly elections, the size of the Assembly and its name/branding. The National Assembly will also be recognised as "permanent".
• The First Minister should have the power to recommend appointments to Lord Lieutenancies (more on this from me later this month).

What's been taken off the table?

Some significant stuff – arguably the only significant powers outlined in Silk II.

• Youth justice and probation services.
• Policing (all aspects).
• There'll no longer be a review of devolution of the criminal justice system (courts, prisons, criminal law) in the 2020s.
• Drink-driving limits – this has already been devolved to Scotland.
• Network Rail funding – Scotland currently receives a population-based proportion of Network Rail's UK-wide funding (around 9%). In 2013, just 1% of Network Rail's budget was spent in Wales compared to a population share of ~5%. This means Wales will continue to, in nominal terms, "subsidise" English rail projects, resulting in significantly less than our "fair share" to invest here.
• The Crown Estate – It currently generates a £9.4million surplus in Wales, and is devolved to Scotland and Northern Ireland.
• State funding for S4C and appointment of S4C board members.
• Any and all aspects of social security - aspects of which will be devolved to Scotland.
• Responsibilities in relation to the Equalities and Human Rights Commission.
• Teachers' pay and conditions.
• The civil service.

What does this mean?

Thanks to the efforts of Nick Clegg and the "true party of Wales", the
National Assembly is set to have power over shit. Literally.

Not only are the UK Government hamstringing devolution, but there are people in and around the Assembly doing so as well.

The reason criminal justice powers have been taken off the table – the devolution of which would've finally put Wales on a near equal footing with Scotland – is because the Welsh Conservatives oppose it and must've vetoed it.

Welsh Labour probably did too, but they support devolution of policing at least (What's all this then?) – though Ed Miliband doesn't even want to go that far, promising some bizarre role in report-writing. It doesn't help that Owen Smith is arguably the most devo-sceptic Welsh Secretary-elect since 1999. He has to justify his position somehow.

The UK Government have also, quite literally, devolved shit to Wales. So we need to be grateful for the existence of Nick Clegg. Without Nick, Wales wouldn't have powers over faecal poltergeists and used tampons – but, at the same time, we're not good enough to run policing. Lib Dems should put that on their election leaflets.

I'm sure quite a few AMs from all parties will be underwhelmed by the St David's Day agreement, but this is a mess partly of their own making, as they put far too much faith in the "proper process" to the point of being gullible. In short, the UK never has been, and never will be, a union of equals; while constitutional reforms are pushed through in reaction to immediate threats to the status quo, not political consensus and grand commissions.

The UK is a very dysfunctional "family" indeed.The Scots have proven that if you want something you need to rattle your sabres. In political terms that means electing nationalists but, unfortunately, even then Wales would have very few sabres to rattle.

I'm not going to use the same old tired clichés about Wales "being slapped in the face" or "insulted" or "offered third-rate devolution" because this is exactly the outcome I was expecting :

The question there is if Scotland votes no in September, and as a result acquires further devolved powers or devo-max, Wales will be left behind yet again when - based on this report - Wales is tantalisingly close to achieving parity with Scotland (if criminal justice powers were devolved in future).
- See more at: http://www.oggybloggyogwr.com/2014/03/silk-ii-wrath-of-paul.html#sthash.TZafNehB.dpuf

The question there is if Scotland votes no in September, and as a result acquires further devolved powers or devo-max, Wales will be left behind yet again when - based on this report - Wales is tantalisingly close to achieving parity with Scotland (if criminal justice powers were devolved in future).
- See more at: http://www.oggybloggyogwr.com/2014/03/silk-ii-wrath-of-paul.html#sthash.TZafNehB.dpuf

The question there is if Scotland votes no in September, and as a result acquires further devolved powers or devo-max, Wales will be left behind yet again when - based on this report - Wales is tantalisingly close to achieving parity with Scotland (if criminal justice powers were devolved in future).
- See more at: http://www.oggybloggyogwr.com/2014/03/silk-ii-wrath-of-paul.html#sthash.TZafNehB.dpuf

04/03/2014 : "....if Scotland votes no in September, and as a result acquires further devolved powers or devo-max, Wales will be left behind yet again when - based on this report - Wales is tantalisingly close to achieving parity with Scotland (if criminal justice powers were devolved in future)."

The question there is if Scotland votes no in September, and as a result acquires further devolved powers or devo-max, Wales will be left behind yet again when - based on this report - Wales is tantalisingly close to achieving parity with Scotland (if criminal justice powers were devolved in future).
- See more at: http://www.oggybloggyogwr.com/2014/03/silk-ii-wrath-of-paul.html#sthash.TZafNehB.dpuf

he question there is if Scotland votes no in September, and as a result acquires further devolved powers or devo-max, Wales will be left behind yet again when - based on this report - Wales is tantalisingly close to achieving parity with Scotland (if criminal justice powers were devolved in future).
- See more at: http://www.oggybloggyogwr.com/2014/03/silk-ii-wrath-of-paul.html#sthash.TZafNehB.dpuf

There have been several opportunities down the years to put the devolved powers issue to bed once and for all and ensure Wales has a settlement that would last more than a decade. People like me can then shut up about independence and further powers, and AMs can concentrate on running the country, safe in the knowledge that they would be on a clearer footing within the UK's constitution.

Nope, not going to happen. Again.

A cross-party commission's reasonable and proportionate recommendations have been watered down. Again.

Scotland is moving leaps and bounds ahead of Wales. Again.

Powers which, by rights, should be devolved (like abortion limits, medicine licensing, drink-drive limits, and Network Rail funding....because subjects like health and transport are devolved) have been taken off the table. Again.

The only person who has a right to be chuffed with this is the Llywydd, Rosemary Butler (Lab, Newport West). Her recommendations (Assembly Commission steps up to the oche) are included almost word for word.

So don't worry. The National Assembly might, in future be called Welsh Parliament because "National Assembly" isn't a good enough name for Wales....but it is for France, Greece, South Korea, Hungary, Pakistan and South Africa.

Oh, and all those 16 year olds chomping at the bit to vote may be able to (The X-Factor). Great stuff. Meanwhile, the "Assemblement" will be able to block "fracking" but won't be able to control any energy project that produces more power than a BMX dynamo. The UK Government will retain ultimate control.

I look forward to the recommendations of the Baroness Kirsty Williams Commission on Devolution for Wales in 2024, which will outline a lasting settlement and put the issue of constitutional reform to bed for....

Read More

National Assembly stands up for safe standing

They took their bloody time getting to it – this was originally raised as far back as February 2013 (Could safe standing be coming to Wales?) - but last Wednesday, the National Assembly debated a  cross-party motion on "safe standing" at football stadiums.

The motion :

• Noted the "overwhelming appetite" amongst supporters to re-introduce terracing.
• Called upon the Welsh Government to work with sports bodies to promote safe standing areas at football grounds.
• Called upon the UK Government to consider a safe standing pilot in Wales.

The debate followed a visit of the Football Supporters Federation (FSF) Safe Standing Roadshow to the Senedd back in June, where AMs were able to see a demonstration model in order to properly inform their views.

What is "safe standing"?

AMs were recently able to see close-up how "safe standing" works.
(Pic : Football Supporters Federation)

I went over this last time around, but it's worth briefly covering again.

Terracing was phased out within top-flight EnglishandWelsh football grounds following the 1989 Hillsborough Disaster and subsequent Taylor Report. Most terraced areas were either rebuilt or, as many clubs have done, entire grounds were replaced with all-seater stadiums – the Liberty Stadium replacing The Vetch, for example.

Because standing is popular, yet forbidden, "safe standing" is seen as a way to address common concerns relating to terracing like overcrowding and crushing, allowing a reintroduction within modern stadiums. It usually takes the form of "rail seats", where rows of seats are connected to waist-high rails then folded away during games to create two rows of terracing (as shown in the photo above).

It would make surges impossible because every standing supporter would be near a rail and every two rows of spectators would be divided. This would also enable the authorities to better control numbers coming and going, and whenever the stadium needs to be converted to an all-seater format (i.e. for European competitions or concerts), the seats are simply unlocked.

The Debate (link)

The all-seater Liberty Stadium hosts both football and rugby, but it's argued that
there's a contradiction in that top flight football is explicity banned from using terracing.
(Pic : Daily Mirror)

Ann Jones AM (Lab, Vale of Clwyd), started by highlighting how stadiums have changed down the years.  Ann said it was contradictory that terracing is banned at top-flight football grounds, yet remains at grounds that host other sports - like St Helen's new stadium, Langtree Park (image), which has terracing for 8,000 fans; or closer to home, Cardiff Arms Park and Parc y Scarlets. She said, "football fans want, and deserve, a choice when it comes to sitting or standing", with 92% of fans surveyed (not explained further) supporting the reintroduction of terracing, with stewards at football games facing, "a thankless task....of trying to persuade their club’s most passionate supporters to sit down". Ann believed the Football Association of Wales (FAW) had an opportunity, "to show the fans....that there is a real chance to pioneer a trial period of safe standing within the Welsh Premier League."

Suzy Davies AM (Con, South Wales West) said she was sceptical due to the impact of the Hillsborough disaster and didn't want to "support anything that would jeopardise football grounds becoming welcoming places for children, women, people with particular vulnerabilities or disabilities." Suzy's also – in the proper Wenglish – "only a dwt", raising an overlooked issue in this debate of indirect discrimination against short adults.

After seeing the roadshow demonstration, Suzy changed her mind, as it was "completely different from the death-trap terraces that I remember", while measures can be put in place for disabled supporters. She didn't support a "rush to safe standing", but concluded by saying that it should be allowed as part of planned stadium refurbishments.

Clubs like Cardiff City have had serious problems with hooliganism, and both Mike Hedges AM
and Suzy Davies AM argued that all-seater stadiums have diversified football crowds.
(Pic : news.yahoo.com)

Mike Hedges AM (Lab, Swansea East) played devil's advocate and was the only AM who spoke out against safe standing. He acknowledged that standing at football games was popular, saying it would "increase the capacity of football grounds without the need for any additional building work". However, he said safe standing was an "oxymoron", citing "the surge; the crush; overcrowding; hooliganism; and the charge" and going into detail as to the causes of these, reminising about crowd problems at an FA Cup tie between Swansea Town and Arsenal in 1968.

Leader of the Opposition, Andrew Davies AM (Con, South Wales Central) – one of the more vocal supporters of safe standing - pointed out that if Mike had been to the FSF demonstration he would realise his views were 30 years out of date.

Mike countered by saying that all-seater stands had provided a more mixed set of spectators and improved crowd management, concluding that reintroducing terracing would be "a serious and retrograde step".

Big German clubs like Borussia Dortmund make routine use of safe standing,
wheeling out seats when they compete in European competitions.
(Pic : schwatzgelb.de)

Plaid Cymru's sport spokesperson, Bethan Jenkins AM (Plaid, South Wales West), cited safe standing's widespread use in the German Bundesliga, using the example of (it's pronounced "Bor-oo-see-ya", Bethan) Borussia Dortmund's Signal Iduna Park, which has a terraced capacity of ~27,000. She noted that these standing areas can be quickly converted to seated areas to meet UEFA competition requirements too.

Bethan said clubs like Dortmund use CCTV and ticketing information to control crowds and pick out trouble-makers, and even if terracing has a "perceived correlation with hooliganism....improvement in technology, policing tactics and crowd behaviour need to be taken into account."

Bethan also raised the long-held belief amongst supporters that safe standing could lead to cheaper tickets as standing areas accommodate more fans. She said another possible benefit would be allowing, "those people who know that they will become more passionate than other people....to be in that area together" (aka "singing sections" and Ultras). She called for a "fact-based public debate" and "a realisation that time has moved on".

Aled Roberts AM (Lib Dem, North Wales) made the grave mistake of bringing up Mickey Thomas's 1992 fluke. That's unparliamentary behaviour if ever I saw it. Despite his own experiences of terrace troubles during a match between Wrexham and Crystal Palace in the 1970s, he said safe standing "is shown to work" and is being introduced to the Polish Ekstraklasa despite serious hooliganism problems there. Aled said (I don't know if it's true or not) the UK Government had blocked legislation on this - and it's a difference within the Coalition - calling on Welsh Conservatives to lobby Whitehall Tories to change their mind.

In his response, Culture Minister John Griffiths (Lab, Newport East) said that as a Newport County supporter he often stands himself, but "we have seen major improvements to spectator safety and comfort as a consequence of....legislation (Football Supporters Act 1989) being introduced" emphasising the lack of clarity on the issue despite safe standing being popular with supporters.

He said it isn't a "straightforward matter to resolve" but "safety is paramount". All in all John remained neutral, believing the "matter of a pilot of safe standing in Wales is for clubs, owners and supporters to consider."

If safe standing were permitted, would a redeveloped White Hart Lane
be the first ground equipped with it?
(Pic : premierleague.com)

Andrew Davies spoke well and at length on all the issues covered. He paid tribute to his researcher Vincent Bailey, who lives in hope that - as Spurs look on jealously from under the shadow cast by the Emirates Stadium - a redeveloped White Hart Lane could have safe standing areas.

It's very rare to hear The Arsenal mentioned in the Senedd chamber (three times during the debate in fact), and I can say that all Arsenal supporters have fond memories of White Hart Lane too. 71, 2004.

Mike Hedges then raised a valid question; whether any police forces, safety officers or licencing authorities support safe standing? Andrew said he hadn't "heard of any that have objected to it". He added that there was a strong case to hold a trial specifically in Wales because the Liberty Stadium and Cardiff City Stadium have medium-sized capacities, and it would therefore be easier to trial it here than a larger ground like Old Trafford.

Andrew wound up the debate by saying, "We see it (terracing) at rugby, we see it at horse racing tracks where fans are allowed to stand and enjoy their sport, and I fail to see why football fans should be treated differently."

The motion was approved by 26 votes to 1 with 20 abstentions (including, bizarrely, Mike Hedges).

The Issues Raised

Even the most well-supported Welsh Premier League clubs - like Rhyl and Bangor City - don't
attract the sorts of crowds necessary to determine if safe standing really would be safe.
(Pic : lilywhites.northwalesblogs.co.uk)

• Trialling safe standing in the Welsh Premier League – No offense to Ann Jones and her beloved Rhyl FC, but crowds in the Welsh Premier League are often measured in the hundreds, not tens of thousands. The only crush threat is the queue to the burger van. It wouldn't be a fair test. This would have to be trialled at a professional club in the higher tiers of the English pyramid – ultimately that means Cardiff or Swansea.
• Short adults and disabilities - Being only 5ft7 myself I know all too well what it's like to get stuck behind a human barn door at a football match, and it's not as if they make stilettos in my size. The logical solution to this would be to make terraces steeper so everyone – even the vertically disadvantaged – can see over the row in front. But that might be too expensive and cause safety concerns. It shouldn't affect disabled people as most clubs have designated disabled areas or wheelchair spaces which offer a clear view of the pitch. Supporters would still have a choice to remain in a seated area too.
• Policing & Crowd Control – I don't think Mike Hedges' arguments on this hold much water, except his question on whether police would back a return of terracing. I'd bet they wouldn't, and if terracing were reintroduced, police forces might consider charging clubs more to police games, deploying extra resources which would be better used elsewhere.
• Safety Certificates & Licensing - Some grounds - especially in built-up areas, like Arsenal's Emirates Stadium - have strict controls on the number of spectators allowed in due to the geography around the stadium or issues like transport. Even if a safe standing area held more spectators, the total number of supporters in the stadium could still be capped by safety certificates, making it a wasted effort if the goal of safe standing is to increase crowds. At the very least clubs that install large banks of safe standing would have to reapply for safety certificates.
• Ticket Prices & Costs – As I said last time, I don't think it's a given that ticket prices would automatically come down. Maybe smaller clubs would charge less to get people through the gates, but top-tier clubs might see it as an "experience" to sell to fans and the laws of supply and demand come into effect. Low ticket prices at German clubs are as much a result of how those clubs are owned (many are supporter-owned, and ownership by a single individual is banned) not just through the use of safe standing areas.

So, in the end, the National Assembly formally backed the promotion of safe standing and a pilot in Wales - though neither Welsh or British governments are bound by it. Whether a pilot goes ahead or not will likely come down to lobbying by the Culture Minister (who seems to want to wait for a cue from clubs) or a similar call in Westminster. I'm sure the campaign to bring back safe standing will see this support as useful too.

All of the speakers made valid and interesting points – for and against – demonstrating an ability to disagree with each other without resorting to the hyperbole and answer dodging that plagues other Assembly sessions. I'm a fan of these topical member's debates and, in my opinion, they should be held more often and are of more use than the usual Wednesday afternoon opposition debates.

Neither the Welsh Government or National Assembly have had the best of times over the last fortnight. This debate showed - even if the legislative session draws to a close with a dark cloud hanging over it – that maybe, just maybe, there's hope yet.

Read More

Domestic Violence Bill introduced to National Assembly

There were estimated to be more than 420,000 victims of domestic
violence (both genders combined) in Wales during 2011-12.
(Pic : South Wales Evening Post)

Today's legislative news is dominated by the "flagship" Future Generations Bill, which I'll hopefully come back to at the end of the week.

In other Welsh law news you might've noticed, after an extensive and lengthy consultation which garnered some 150 responses, last week, Local Government Minister Lesley Griffiths (Lab, Wrexham) introduced the Gender-based Violence, Domestic Abuse and Sexual Violence Bill to the National Assembly.

You know the drill. Bill here (pdf), explanatory memorandum here (pdf).

Gender-based violence : The need for a new law

According to the 2011-12 EnglandandWales Crime Survey, in Wales alone :

• 11.7% of women and 5.1% of men say they've been victims of any kind of domestic abuse.
• 3.2% of women and 0.7% of men say they've been victims of sexual assault.
• 7.8% of women and 3.5% of men say they've been victims of stalking.

All of this has an economic impact too; in terms of public spending, sickness rates and police investigations. Based on figures produced in a 2009 report from Lancaster University's Prof. Sylvia Walby (pdf), the cumulative cost (economic, public service and emotional) of domestic violence could be as high as £826.4million in Wales (on a population share figure). That figure doesn't including gender-based violence like female genital mutilation and sexual assaults.

At present, the Welsh Government say that domestic and gender-based violence is a complex issue, with many public sector bodies involved in dealing with it. Indeed, the devolution settlement itself only partially covers it.

The main aims of the Bill – in shorthand – are to : provide leadership from the top through a national strategy, place duties on public sector organisations to correctly report and work together when it comes to possible cases of domestic or gender-based violence, and take preventative measures to prevent such violence from happening in the first place.

What does the Bill propose?

Public bodies - like the fire service and local health boards - will be required under the
proposed law to develop strategies to improve responses to suspected cases of abuse.
(Pic : Eric Jones via BBC Wales)

Strategies & Guidance

The Act will :

• Place a duty on the Welsh Government to :
• Produce a national strategy for domestic and gender-based violence sometime in the second half of 2016, setting out their objectives and timescales for achieving them.
• Set out a number of measurable indicators to determine if they're meeting the goals of their national strategy or the Act in general.
• Submit an annual report on their progress to the National Assembly.
• Place a duty on local government and local health boards to produce their own joint local strategies - along the same lines as the national one - within one year of the next local authority elections (scheduled for May 2017). They'll also have to produce an annual report each financial year.
• Grant Welsh Ministers the power to issue guidance to relevant authorities (local government, fire service, local health boards etc.) - which they must follow - setting out what they should do in terms of preventing domestic and gender-based violence, training staff, sharing information between each other and co-operation. This guidance will need to be approved by the National Assembly.
• Grants Welsh Ministers the power to issue directions to authorities in order for them to comply with the Act if they are failing to do so.

Ministerial Adviser

The Act will :

• Create the post of Ministerial Adviser on Gender-based Violence, Domestic Abuse and Sexual Violence, paid for directly by the Welsh Government.
• Set out the adviser's role as (broadly-speaking) undertaking research and advising ministers (or other individuals/organisations) on issues falling under the Act. They'll also have to produce and publish an annual plan setting out what they intend to do.

The scope of Gender-based Violence, Domestic Abuse and Sexual Violence

The Act broadly covers :

• "Abuse" – defined as physical, sexual, psychological, emotional or financial abuse (property theft, fraud, pressure to spend/misuse money).
• "Domestic Abuse" – "abuse" where the victim is associated with the abuser via : marriage, engagement, civil partnership, live-in relationship, relatives (presumably including step-relatives), boyfriend/girlfriend or through joint parental responsibility.
• "Female genital mutilation (FGM)" – as outlined in the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003.
• "Harassment" – Speech or other action that a reasonable person would consider to be harassment. The Crown Prosecution Service have more specific definitions of harassment and stalking.
• "Sexual exploitation" – as outlined in Part 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

So what's important here isn't the Bill/future Act itself but the proposed national strategy. This could include (based on the content of the explanatory memorandum) :

• "Ask & Act" – Professionals (hinted as meaning NHS workers, social workers, teachers, police and firefighters) will be encouraged to ask people they suspect of being abused if they are being abused, and then – through training and guidance – encouraged to act on that in order to prevent any suspected abuse from continuing.
• Multi-agency forums – Collaboration to ensure there's a consistent approach across the public sector.
• A National Training Framework – New training guidelines will ensure a consistent approach to care of suspected victims of abuse, split into 6 levels. Level 1 training is the basic level that would cover all public service staff, Level 3 covers professionals and specialists who work directly with victims, while Level 6 covers high-level strategy.
• Public information campaigns and education programmes – Compulsory relationship lessons in schools have been dropped from the Bill itself, but that doesn't mean they can't be included in the national strategy, part of training for teachers (under the new training framework) or included as part of the current review of the national curriculum.

How much will this cost?

The new National Training Framework will cost a total of £2.8million over the next four years, with just under £440,000 being spent directly by the Welsh Government, and the rest picked up jointly by public service organisations.

Introducing the training and guidance for "Ask and Act" will cost another £2.8million over four years, with the Welsh Government spending £374,000 directly.

The multi-agency forums will cost £7,000 (to pay a specialist to establish them). The cost of the government adviser will be £244,000 in total over the next four years, including the £11,000 cost of recruiting them. I'm sure there are plenty of "insiders" eying up the job.

The cost of establishing a Commissioner (similar to that for Older People, Children etc.) - which was considered as an option - would've been somewhere between £585,000 and £630,000 per year. This was rejected in favour of the cheaper government adviser post instead.

So the total cost of the legislation – if passed – from 2014-15 to 2018-19 will be £5.61million (~£1.4million per year), mostly borne by the Welsh public sector at large. Based on the statistics given (16.8% of over 16s, or 424,578 people), it works out at around £3.36 per victim of domestic violence per year.

The explanatory memorandum says that it's "not possible" to quantify the financial benefits, but it's worth again pointing towards the estimated total £826.4million impact of such violence and behaviour on the Welsh purse.

The Relationship Lessons, Gender & Smacking Issues
        

The first big change from the original proposal was that, as aforementioned, compulsory relationship education lessons for schoolchildren have been dropped from the Bill.

You would expect this sort of thing to be covered in PSE lessons anyway under the National Curriculum – which, as said, is currently under review. I don't think it's ever been made clear precisely what "relationship education" means in practice, and I suspect the Welsh Government are trying to prevent - what I've called before – a "curriculum by statute" developing where the curriculum is set inflexibly through laws. I wouldn't be surprised though if this ends up back in the Bill after it's gone through committee. It's too valuable as a preventative measure to ignore completely.

The Bill also drew complaints from Wales Violence Against Women Action Group's Dr Mwenya Chimba for not specifically focusing on women - whether titular or in the content of the Bill itself. This law was, of course, originally touted as a "Violence against Women Bill".

The only specific reference to women and girls relates to female genital mutilation (aka. FGM, female circumcision); an issue which I explored in a bit more graphic detail last year (Life, Ethics & Independence III – Circumcision).

It's a matter of cold hard fact that gender-based and domestic violence disproportionately affects women and girls, and the Welsh Government acknowledge that in the explanatory memorandum.

The Welsh Government would've been negligent though if a Bill that focuses on domestic and gender-based violence ignored male victims. I'm not just referring to heterosexual men. The law would've been on shaky ground from the start if, for example, a lesbian couple falls under the Bill's provisions, but a gay couple doesn't. That's before adding transgenders into the mix. This sort of violence and emotional entrapment is wrong regardless of who's on the receiving end or who's dishing it out.

The Welsh Government were, therefore, absolutely right to make this Bill gender neutral, and get a thumbs up from me for doing so, as I'm sure they will from organisations that work with male victims of domestic violence.

I just hope AMs maintain the law's gender neutrality and don't cave in to pressure from the third sector to change it. Also, the strategies themselves should remain gender neutral too - though they could include measures specifically aimed at either gender where appropriate.

Unfortunately, and less complimentary to the Welsh Government, we have this law trying to protect adults from domestic abuse, yet the Welsh Government seem to be fine with hitting children as a form of punishment. This could provide a perfect opportunity for AMs to revisit a smacking ban if they so wish.

A (potentially) good law with no bite

In the absence of any control over the criminal justice side of this
kind of abuse, the outlined measures look limp - but still welcome.
(Pic : BBC Wales)

It's worth saying from the outset that this is the absolute maximum the Welsh Government can do to address the issues under the devolution settlement.

As criminal justice isn't devolved, this doesn't update/alter criminal law or create any new offences relating to domestic or gender-based violence. That's probably the Bill's biggest weakness, and so it reads like a highly technical administrative law that's unlikely to generate much in the way of headlines or public interest.

It looks like it's been stripped down compared to what was originally proposed during the drafting and white paper phases too. It gives the impression of being another "Enabling Act" that gives a lot of power to ministers (via setting the strategy) without clearly outlining within the Bill itself what they're going to do with said powers.

It's also unclear if the perpetrators of violence are going to get the help they need. Supporting victims has to be the priority, but some perpetrators might have undiagnosed or untreated mental illnesses, or grew up in an environment where domestic or gender-based violence was the norm.

Despite all that, at least the Welsh Government are doing something about it, and it genuinely could go some way to helping victims and their families over the next few years. It's often attitudes within key public services that lets victims down – whether it's because abuse has gone unreported or it's not taken seriously enough - and that's the law's focus.

It still needs some work though.

Read More

Silk II : The Wrath of Paul

On Monday, the second and final part of a wide-ranging review into Welsh devolution was published by the Silk Commission – available here (pdf).

The first part looked at fiscal powers, culminating in the current Wales Bill. This second part, however, looked at the National Assembly itself and its devolved powers, as well as other issues like the Welsh civil service and cross-border cooperation.

It was difficult to decide how to approach this, so I decided to split it into one chunk looking at devolved powers, another at key powers taken off the table and another looking at changes to "the machinery of government" (civil service, the Assembly etc).

What further devolved powers does Silk II propose?

The headline proposals are to devolve policing and youth justice, though
without wider criminal justice powers at present.
(Pic : BBC Wales)

Policing – The headline recommendation, which includes crime prevention and community safety. Devolving the police would mean the National Assembly would have legislative competence for the "governance and administration" of the police in Wales – the only emergency service not currently devolved. Things like the National Crime Agency would remain non-devolved. In terms of funding, the current Home Office grant would transfer to Wales, with an estimate £2-3million bill to set up a specialist Welsh Government policing team. Policing should be devolved by 2017.

Youth Justice - This covers the "treatment and rehabilitation" of those aged 10-17 who commit criminal offences. Many of the factors here are intertwined with devolved and local government services like education, social services, training and health. So it's recommended administration of youth justice services be devolved by 2017, which would cost around £300,000.

Transport – There's a package of powers here, the big ones being devolution of Network Rail funding and the Wales & Borders rail franchise, which is what the Welsh Government and Enterprise and Business Committee have long called for. Also included is ports development, which is important for the economy. Elsewhere in public transport, there are proposals to devolve Traffic Commissioner functions as well as regulation of bus and taxi services. In terms of road transport, there's a recommendation to devolve speed limits and drink-drive limits – in line with what's happened in Scotland.

Energy Project Consent – Because the energy needs of Wales (a net-exporter of electricity) would be out of kilter with wider UK needs, the full devolution of energy consent was rejected – however the limit for the Welsh Government to consent to energy projects would be raised to 350MW from the current 50MW (more from A Welshman's Blog).

Water (Partial) – Powers over sewerage should be devolved, and the boundary for legislative competence should be aligned with the national borders, with a formal inter-government protocol on cross-border water issues.

Local government elections – Including their administration and rules of conduct. Technically speaking, the local government electoral system is devolved, but I imagine this recommendation includes that too.

Teachers' pay – In line with Scotland and Northern Ireland, however pensions devolution has been rejected as it would discourage cross-border movement of teachers between England and Wales. The Scottish and Northern Irish education systems are a bit more independent than the Welsh system anyway.

What devolved powers did Silk II reject?

The Commission rejected the devolution of broadcasting, but included
measures that will give the National Assembly an enhanced role.
(Pic :outcasting.org)

Criminal Justice (for now) – This includes the court system, prisons, legal aid, sentencing guidelines, public prosecution and probation services. The costs of creating a Welsh judiciary are much, much smaller than I was expecting - £2million – but the additional cost of a Welsh court system would be £10million. The Commission say the Assembly should instead start off with powers that impact the "day to day lives" of people (policing). So it's rejected now, along with prisons, but something that "should be contemplated in future", with a full review into devolution of criminal justice taking place between 2018-2025.

Further economic powers – The report rejects further devolution of economic powers. Amongst those proposed were DWP work programmes, consumer protection, regulation and inward investment. Instead, the report says there should be better cross-border coordination in policies which overlap (like training programmes).

The Crown Estate – Instead of transferring responsibility for the Crown Estate to Wales, its recommended Wales have similar status to Scotland, with an appointed Crown Estate Commissioner and Crown Estate office.

Broadcasting – As expected, and as I predicted back in September last year, devolution of broadcasting has been rejected due to opposition from both Welsh and UK governments. However, the National Assembly "should take an enhanced role in broadcasting" with a devolved governance body (Welsh BBC Trust), public funding for S4C should be devolved (which doesn't matter as it's moving to whole scale licence fee funding) and appointment of S4C Authority members should require Welsh Government approval. Ofcom should also have a board member with "specific responsibilities for Wales".

Social security – "Social welfare" is devolved to the National Assembly, that includes things like social services and child protection. Social security – aka. the benefits system – isn't, and isn't even devolved in Scotland or Northern Ireland. 46-51% of people polled believed the National Assembly should control the benefits system, however it's rejected because it's an important part of the social and economic union, and the Welsh Government were concerned about exposure to budgetary risks.

What does Silk II outline for the machinery of government?

In addition to reserved powers, by 2021 will this
be home to an 80-member Welsh Parliament?
(Pic : National Assembly of Wales)

Reserved powers – Arguments in favour of a reserved powers model are :

• Certainty in what powers the Assembly has, meaning they can "legislate with confidence".
• Schedule 7 of the Government of Wales Act 2006 is "unclear", because the whole thing has to be consulted before laws are made, while it's obvious in a reserved powers model which powers are explicitly off the table.
• It would "be more stable over time", meaning no challenges to Welsh laws as we've seen in (currently) three cases. A reserved powers model would also reduce the risk of such litigation.
• It would "bring greater consistency" with the rest of the UK, as a reserved powers model is used in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
• It would enable the devolution settlement itself to be redrawn along "clearer and more logical principles" and it would be simpler.

Inter-governmental relations – Welsh and UK governments should share good practice, with a statutory code provided in a new Government of Wales Act. A Welsh-UK Government intergovernmental committee should be established with a new arbitration system for disagreements between the two governments.

The National Assembly itself – Some proposed solutions to the "scrutiny gap" and demands on AMs time have included "smarter working" (which I've covered before) adding co-opted unelected members to Assembly committees (as in local government) or the creation of a second chamber. However, the Commission say it's "convinced the Assembly requires more backbench members....to scrutinise policy and legislation more thoroughly." They therefore propose an increase in the number of AMs from 60 to 80 at a cost of approximately £5.3million. Don't cheer all at once.

Also, the (pseudo-colonial) right for the Welsh Secretary to participate in National Assembly sessions would be removed. The Assembly should also be able to regulate its own financial procedures with the door left open on a possible name change to "Welsh Parliament" – though I don't see the point, personally.

The National Assembly should also be recognised as "permanent" as long as it's the will of the  people of Wales.

The Civil Service & Civil Society – There are no proposals to "devolve" the civil service, and the Commission believe that the Welsh Government should continue to be staffed as part of the "Whitehall" civil service. UK Government departments should also be "clearer about the extent of their responsibilities for the different parts of the UK."

Timescales & The Referendum Question

The proposals will not only mean an increase in responsibilities,
but also an increase in the devolved budget.
(Pic : BBC Wales)

The big thing to note is that the Commission rejects holding a referendum on these extra powers (other than the proposed income tax powers as outlined in the Wales Bill). Instead, it should be a matter left for individual party manifestos in the 2015 UK Election and 2016 Welsh General Election.

I'm not entirely sure I agree with that, for reasons I outlined in Marching out of lockstep.

Some of the proposals can be introduced without legislation, mainly those powers relating to improved inter-governmental working, or things that can be transferred by Orders in Council.

The other powers, and a reserved powers model, would require a new Government of Wales Act. A Bill would be published in autumn 2016 and enacted by summer 2017. If the Bill passes, then the National Assembly would have a reserved powers model following the 2021 Welsh General Election.

Full devolution of rail and policing would result in the devolved budget increasing by £500million, and full devolution of criminal justice would increase that to £800million. If you include the £300million "fair funding" then I guess that takes it to £1.1billion.

Conclusion : A golden mean?

The shelves must be creaking under the weight all these reports...and the dust.

(Pic : Click on Wales)

I'll come back to the political reaction when this is inevitably debated in the Senedd over the next couple of weeks/months.

Silk II has been argued in a logical, pragmatic manner. It's much better than Silk I and undoes a lot of the mess Peter Hain left in 2006. However, at the same time there's also very little on the table. The powers are similar to those devolved to Scotland under the Scotland Act 2012. Copy and paste, almost.

The question there is if Scotland votes no in September, and as a result acquires further devolved powers or devo-max, Wales will be left behind yet again when - based on this report - Wales is tantalisingly close to achieving parity with Scotland (if criminal justice powers were devolved in future).

A lot of the things have been mentioned so many times before – like devolution of the Wales & Borders franchise, policing, youth justice, reserved powers and teachers' pay – that it's a bit of a damp squib, albeit welcome.

It would've been exciting, and really made a difference to the National Assembly's standing, if we got criminal justice powers alongside that, but we'll have to wait until the 2020s if it's to happen. It's sensible for it to be reviewed thoroughly, but it seems like a largely unnecessary delay.

Having control over policing without criminal justice powers is a bit like like having control of the ambulance service without running hospitals.

Returning to the Assembly itself, it'll be hard to justify 80 AMs until after the devolution of criminal justice powers because those powers really will increase the workload for AMs above and beyond what they currently have. The current 60 should be able to cope with these powers (like policing, teachers pay etc.) as long as they find ways to – as the report puts it, and as myself and others have put it before – "work smarter".

So I'd say I'm neither blown away nor disappointed - it's pretty sensible on the whole. However, as history has shown us, the final versions of visions of grand commissions often end up watered-down. This is going to have to remain a whole package, as I don't think there's any room for compromise here that won't undermine its intent.

Read More