Committees Bite Size #5: June 2017

I thought I'd done the last of these, but there's room for at least one more.

Read More

How will Brexit impact Wales?

(Pic : BBC Wales)

After 6 months of evidence-taking, the Assembly's External Affairs Committee recently published its report on the implications of Brexit (pdf). It's not light reading, but whether you voted for Brexit or not you deserve to be told what's happening behind the scenes.

Read More

Trade Union Bill: Senedd picks a fight

(Pic : Wales Online)

The latest - and slightly controversial - Welsh law was introduced by Finance & Local Government Secretary, Mark Drakeford (Lab, Cardiff West) earlier this week.

Read More

Assembly Committee Slams Wales Bill

(Pic : BBC Wales)

Last Thursday, the National Assembly's Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee published its report into the latest draft of the Wales Bill, which is now in the unelected House of Lords (pdf).

Read More

Boundary Commission Carves-Up Wales

Would you like a slice of De Clwyd a Gogledd Sir Faldwyn?
(Pic : iceandtime.net)

Earlier this week, the Boundary Commission for Wales unveiled their draft proposals for a reorganisation of the 40 Westminister constituencies in Wales.

Read More

The End of the Senedd?

I know many people dream of this, but it's time
to wake them up; silly season's almost over.

2016's silly season has been a classic. The period between the end of July and the start of September always brings out the creative side in politicians, their press officers and producers of yellow journalism as they try to draw attention to themselves, keeping eyes focused on pages and screens amidst other distractions.

Read More

Locals Know Best?

(Pic : cardiffcityhall.com)

Yesterday, the Welsh Conservatives held a debate on the issue of local accountability amidst proposals for local government reform, as well as the campaign to trigger a referendum to introduce a directly-elected mayor in Cardiff (A Mayor for Cardiff?).

Read More

Assembly rejects Trade Union Bill

It's a no from the Assembly....
(Pic : BBC Wales)

Earlier today, the National Assembly voted on the UK Government's highly-controversial Trade Union Bill, which most AMs – and the Welsh Government - roundly criticised last year (AMs take swipe at Trade Union Bill).

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

The Draft Wales Bill (Number Two)

(Pic : ITV Wales)

Yesterday, the Welsh Secretary, Stephen Crabb MP (Con, Preseli Pembs.) introduced the draft Wales Bill to the UK Parliament on behalf of the UK Government – you can read it here (pdf).

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

Assembly Requests "Clear & Durable" Devolution Settlement

When the Prime Minister and that-other-bloke-who-used-to-be-important
announced their response to Silk II, it looked like we were due constitutional clarity.
So far it's still a bit cloudy.
(Pic : The Guardian)

The Assembly's Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee recently reported back on a short inquiry they undertook into the future of devolved powers. This was done in light of Silk Commission Part II, the fallout from 2014's Scottish independence referendum, St David's Day Agreement and the forthcoming Wales Bill – expected to be introduced in the autumn.

Read More

Assembly Bans Smoking in Cars with Kids

(Pic : Wales Online)

Within the last hour, the National Assembly approved new regulations outlawing smoking in cars when carrying under-18s.

Read More

The In-Out EU Referendum Bill

Forty years since the last time the question was put to the public,
the UK is to be asked whether to remain a member of the EU.
(Pic : The Telegraph)

Last Thursday, the UK Government introduced a Bill setting out the arrangements for the forthcoming  referendum on the UK's membership of the European Union.

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

The Stench of the Cleddau

An otherwise productive meeting of Pembrokeshire Council on the damaging
Wales Audit Office reports descended into an unedifying farce.
(Pic : BBC Wales)

As much of the focus regarding the recent Wales Audit Office reports into unlawful payments has been on Carmarthenshire – due to culminate next week - it's only fair I turn my attentions to their equally-ripe neighbour, Pembrokeshire Council (PCC), which held an extraordinary council meeting to discuss unlawful pension payments to their chief executive and one other senior officer last Friday.

Extensive coverage of the goings on there has been provided by Cllr. Jacob Williams (Non-affiliated Ind, East Williamston) and Cllr. Mike Stoddart (Non-affiliated Ind, Milford Hakin).

Auditor Anthony Barrett's findings (pdf) were very similar to those in Carmarthenshire – which is unsurprising as it was effectively a joint-arrangement. The main difference is the numbers involved and some of the titles of the relevant committees. Pembrokeshire also didn't have any libel indemnity issues.

• The agreement to pay cash sums instead of pension payments to senior staff who opted-out of the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) - to mitigate effects of changes to tax relief on pensions - was ultra vires (beyond their power).
• The Senior Staff Committee failed to take into account all relevant considerations. They also failed to provide evidence that supported their claims that not approving the cash payments would prevent the recruitment of high-calibre senior staff. The Committee made a decision based off a one page report, which was exempt from publication.
• They also failed to take equalities duties into account, and the decision "constituted indirect discrimination" on age and sex grounds because senior staff – mostly older men – would benefit disproportionately from the cash payments compared younger staff and women. As nobody complained within the legal timescale, it was "indirect" discrimination rather than outright (same as Carmarthenshire).
• The report itself was drafted and presented by two senior officers who had disqualifying personal interests as they could've benefited from the cash payments – rendering it an unlawful decision just by their mere presence.
• Despite claims to the contrary, the payments would have constituted an additional cost to the council based on future actuarial/risk assessments and changes to national insurance contributions. The auditor says the figures were also different to those the Senior Staff Committee decided upon.
• PCC's Chief Executive, Bryn Parry-Jones, had received £51,011 in payments across 2012-13 and 2013-14. I understand the report implies £28,742 was also paid to an unnamed senior member of staff.

I was home at the time so I caught most of the second half of the meeting. OK, it wasn't the most riveting thing to watch, but it was conducted impressively. Councillors were given the freedom to speak as long as they wanted – often making great contributions – and the chair didn't dominate proceedings.

Hopefully, Bridgend Council will be joining them later this year. It underlines the importance of broadcasting these meetings – as will become more apparent later on.

PCC accepted all four of the Wales Audit Office recommendations, meaning the council will :

• Stop the payments in lieu of pension contributions.
• Address procedural weaknesses to avoid a repeat.
• Ensure that any similar future payments (if possible) are in line with the decision taken by the Senior Staff Committee.
• Disclose the payments in their 2012-13 financial statement, and the committee responsible should re-approve the accounts.

Then things took a bizarre, sinister turn.

The leader of the opposition in the council, Cllr. Paul Miller (Lab, Neyland West), had tabled a motion calling for PCC to suspend Bryn Parry-Jones on full pay due to the Gloucestershire Police investigation. This is a very different tact to the Labour leader a few miles east.

As you probably know, since then, Carmarthenshire's chief executive Mark James has temporarily stood down while the police investigation continues. Although it's unclear what "stepping down" means as opposed to a formal suspension, he really should've done so days after the original reports were published – for his own sake, really.

Better late than never. The delay deserves criticism, but he's innocent until proven otherwise.

PCC's ruling "Independent" Group, however, were going to defend their man to the end, and boy does he know it.

In a display of pompous bluster, one of the "Independents" stood up, said he had a prejudicial interest as he had called for the chief executive to remain in post in the Western Telegraph, and withdrew from the meeting hoping to take a large chunk of the opposition with him as some sort of matter of honour.

He later snuck back in and withdrew again, each time accompanied by a dramatic closing of his file.

Tim Kerr QC – a name which should be familiar – revealed that a brown white envelope containing newspaper cuttings was left for him in the chauffeur-driven car that picked him up at Port Talbot station. Those local newspaper cuttings contained quotes from councillors who called for Bryn Parry-Jones's suspension.

After pressing from councillors to name names, he began "readink names from ze list". Lo and behold, almost all of them were councillors who had called for the chief executive to be suspended or resign, whether Labour, Plaid or non-affiliated Independents.

Councillors are supposed to vote with an open mind. So proceedings hinged on whether councillors were predispositioned (leaning towards a decision) or predetermined (100% made their mind up) in their voting intentions.

If they were predetermined, and voted that way on the motion, it was implied they would breach the Code of Conduct and be subject to an Ombudsman investigation.

Cllr. Miller said he received legal advice from Welsh Labour's retained lawyers that his group's statements were predispositions and so his group would remain.

However, Tim Kerr believed many of the newspaper quotes constituted predetermination. It's also worth pointing out that the envelope was left by Pembrokeshire's Monitoring Officer (a senior legal officer and paid member of staff).

Not willing to be subject to their own misconduct investigations, most – but not all – of the opposition councillors withdrew part in protest, part because they had no choice. As a result, the motion calling for the suspension of the chief executive was withdrawn.

However, as Caebrwyn pointed out yesterday, the official guidance within the Localism Act 2011 on predetermination (which applies to Wales as well as England) doesn't prohibit councillors from voting even if they've made public statements supporting a particular position.

So it looks like what happened in Pembrokeshire was a dirty trick and attempt to intimidate.

And, most importantly of all, it happened all on camera.

What should cause bums to squeak across the south west of Wales however, is the news that's broken in the last few hours that Caerphilly Council's former chief executive, Anthony O'Sullivan, and his deputy, Nigel Barnett, have been formally charged with misconduct in public office....having been brought to that point by similar, but not identical, circumstances to those in Pembrokeshire and Carmarthenshire.

Read More

Marching out of lockstep

On Tuesday, the National Assembly debated the draft Wales Bill - I outline what the Bill itself proposes here.

Although many parts of the draft Wales Bill should proceed without a hitch, senior figures in Welsh politics have been critical of aspects surrounding the potential partial devolution of income tax, which has - subsequently - had knock-on political consequences.

What the Assembly Said

The Assembly debate was dry, but became interesting for events
outside the Siambr.
(Pic : indymedia.co.uk)

It's grey stuff, but if you want to follow it you can here.

The First Minister started by saying the Silk I recommendations should've been enacted in full, expressing regret at the absence of powers over air passenger duty. He also criticised the "lockstep" on income tax powers -  tax rises/falls have to be set in all income tax bands at the same time. He described it as a "significant restraint" that "ties the hands of the Welsh Government".

He ended by saying the Leader of the Opposition Andrew Davies's (Con, South Wales Central) view - who's spoken out against the lockstep - was closer to his own than that of the Welsh Secretary, David Jones (who supports the lockstep and who introduced the draft Bill).

Leanne Wood (Plaid, South Wales Central) argued that the lockstep prevents Wales from becoming competitive with the rest of the UK. She said the Silk Commission members, Welsh Government and all opposition parties opposed the "lockstep", but the UK Government are pursuing it anyway.

David Melding AM (Con, South Wales Central) broadly supported the draft Bill's provisions, but called for the Assembly to decide its own electoral arrangements and for a name change to Welsh Parliament. He also called for the Assembly to have powers to amend its budgetary procedures, which be believes will be essential should there be fiscal devolution.

Lib Dem Leader, Kirsty Williams (Lib Dem, Brecon & Radnor), welcomed the non-fiscal measures in the draft Bill, supporting a shared income tax arrangement between the Welsh and UK Governments....though saying the lockstep was unnecessary.

As you can tell, there's a running theme developing here.

Shadow Finance Minister, Paul Davies (Con, Preseli Pembrokeshire), said he was "proud" of the UK Government's record on devolution, citing the 2011 referendum, saying these proposed powers would "provide more financial accountability" to the Welsh Government. He said although he supports a referendum on income tax powers he - surprise,surprise - opposes the "lockstep".

Then things started to get "interesting".

Antoinette Sandbach AM (Con, North Wales) argued with Mick Antoniw AM (Lab, Pontypridd) that the Treasury said there could be no devolved income tax powers without the lockstep. Mick continued by saying the income tax powers (as they are currently) were "worthless", and also outlined his opposition to the removal of a ban on dual candidacy.

Nick Ramsay AM (Con, Monmouth) then described the lockstep argument as "one rather minor aspect". Antoinette Sandbach asked if Nick agreed it were better there were some fiscal devolution – even with the lockstep – than none at all? Nick said yes, saying he "had no issue with the lockstep". Uh oh.

Carwyn Jones was presented with an open goal - considering his own party has been split on the issue -  finishing by saying he "did not think Nick Ramsay would so publicly disagree with his own leader", cheekily suggesting that what Nick said was a leadership speech. Andrew Davies tried to drag Owen Smith's own embarrassing contributions into it, but it was too late.

Although both the debate motion, and Plaid Cymru amendment criticising the "lockstep", were passed with no votes against or abstentions, four Conservative AMs refused to join their party colleagues in voting on the amendment at all.

Bull Lets Whip

After being undermined publicly on party policy, Andrew Davies was
left with no option but to sack four of his Shadow Cabinet.
(Pic : Click on Wales)

The party you would expect to benefit most from fiscal devolution would be the Welsh Conservatives. When the powers were first announced, it was clear their (Welsh) policy would be to cut the top rate of income tax to encourage wealthy people from the rest of the UK to move here.

The lockstep (UK Government policy) prevents them from doing that because cuts to the top rate have to be matched by cuts to the basic rate – making tax cuts (or, indeed, tax rises) more expensive. This has led to a very public spat between Andrew Davies and David Jones over who speaks for the Welsh party and membership, and who decides policy in Wales.

So, as a sort of distraction, the Welsh Conservatives have since switched their public attentions from income tax to cuts to stamp duty – the latter of which would come regardless of a referendum and without any conditions attached.

Following the events of the debate and vote, news broke Wednesday night that four Shadow Cabinet members – the four who refused to vote on the lockstep amendment - had been sacked.

It's a big public slap-down, though I've always questioned why every single opposition AM needs a portfolio responsibility in the first place (Lib Dems aside for obvious reasons).

The South Wales Argus reported Nick Ramsay will also lose his role as chair of the Business and Enterprise Committee as a result. That's a shame because, as regular readers will know, I believe he's done an outstanding job there. Nick described the move as an "old fashioned coup", but last time I checked coups happened against leaders.

Andrew Davies hasn't set the world alight as Leader of the Opposition, but - in my opinion - he was left with no choice after such an open rebellion and challenge to his authority.

It's been said elsewhere that there was, slightly bizarrely, a three-line whip on this vote, which is very unusual for such a technical matter, and shows Andrew wanted his party to back both himself in his tussle with David Jones and his opposition to the lockstep. So I doubt any of the four can have grounds for complaint other than the method by which they were sacked, which seemed hamfisted.

Serves them right.

Andrew's shown decisive leadership, but this will have hurt. These things rarely have happy endings, and the early signs were matters could take a turn for the worse. Since then, it appears he's been given the equivalent of a "vote of confidence". Politics isn't football, but....


Useless

The "lockstep" is a political and fiscal hazard, and another depressing
indication of Westminster's patronising views towards Welsh devolution.
(Pic : via wordpress)

When it comes to Labour party policy in Wales, the party's devolution policy or the Welsh Government's stance, only Carwyn Jones is worth listening to. When it comes to UK Government policy, only David Cameron is worth listening to.

We also have three other party leaders in Wales to flag up Welsh issues. We don't need MPs yapping like chihuahuas over them to give themselves work. At least some MPs know their place.

There are two main reasons why the income tax powers are useless. Firstly, the "lockstep".

The reason Welsh devolution doesn't work properly, and why we have all these tiresome constitutional arguments, is because powers have been incrementally transferred on a piecemeal basis. If we're going to have devolved powers, those powers should be devolved in their entirety – as happens to a great extent in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

That's one of the main reasons I've come round to supporting independence, as promising to give us "tools to do the job", then instead giving us parts of tools, is an insult.

In terms of income tax, that should include the powers :

• To set the rates in their entirety – not just 10p in the pound.
• To create, merge or scrap tax bands.
• To set income tax rates in each tax band independently of each other.

The block grant would be then adjusted accordingly. Wales gets a "grown-up responsible government", parties in Wales would have the freedom to come up with income tax policies in their entirety, and the Welsh Government would be responsible for raising a fair chunk (about a quarter) of its current income.

We're not getting any of that. Instead we could be, effectively, getting income tax powers in name only as no party would want to hike or lower taxes across the board at the same time.

Secondly, there's the referendum.

A referendum on a general principle that the National Assembly should have tax-varying powers would be a referendum worth getting out of bed and voting in. Any tax powers could then be granted after negotiation between the two governments – with or without a fair funding formula in place.

It would also make it easier to devolve other taxes (like corporation tax and air passenger duty) in future, because a referendum yes vote would've given the two governments a mandate to transfer any tax powers at their convenience.

However, a referendum on whether the National Assembly should have the specific power to vary income tax by 10p in the pound in each tax band at the same ti....

I challenge anyone to explain to me how they would campaign in favour of the income tax powers as they are on the table, and how they would explain it to the man or woman in the street?

Why stop there? Why not have a referendum on landfill tax powers? Or business rates? Should we have a referendum on every single legislative consent motion proposed by Westminster in devolved areas?

The First Minister and others are right to say the lockstep renders the powers useless. Welsh Labour have confused things by saying they don't want income tax powers at present, even though they support the implementation of Silk I in full....which would bring income tax powers, subject to a referendum.

Wanting to tax gravel and rubbish, but not incomes (in principle), and using relative underfunding that amounts to around 2% of the block grant as an excuse not to pursue income tax varying powers, verges on the ridiculous.

Whether they like it or not, it underlines an inherent lack of ambition – not necessarily anti-devolutionism - on Welsh Labour's part. You wonder if they're really up to the rigours of running a country, and if instead they should retreat to their comfort zone of local government and move aside for the big boys and girls.

Roger Scully and Richard Wyn Jones warned of this back in November 2012 as Silk Commission Part 1 was reporting back. Richard has since been kind enough to provide a link to the Wales Governance Centre's detailed submission on the draft Wales Bill, and argument against a referendum, here (pdf).

I warned of it too, saying the whole exercise was "pissing into the wind", but what do I know?

If even people like me could see these problems coming 14 months ago, and nobody else foresaw this outcome, then we should all be worried. Some senior personalities in Welsh politics clearly have an excessively idealistic view of how Welsh devolution works. This isn't a union of equals, everyone. Get it into your heads. It never will be.

Bring on the jam. Income tax powers are toast.

Read More

Carmarthenshire Goes Rogue

I don't make a habit of returning to things that haven't concluded, but I'll make an exception in Carmarthenshire Council's (CCC) case, as the local authority continues its downward spiral into chaos.

The fallout from two critically damaging Wales Audit Office (WAO) reports continues – I don't need to tell you to follow the Carmarthenshire blogs and South Wales Guardian there – with an extraordinary general meeting of CCC due to be held on 27^th February to discuss them.

The opposition Plaid Cymru group seek to table motions of no confidence in senior officers and members of the Executive Board - which decided to award the pension payments and indemnity in the first place.

The recent intervention of Keith Davies AM (Lab, Llanelli), who's joined calls for Mark James to be suspended, is significant because – as Carmarthenshire Planning has said – he's the first senior Labour figure to voice that opinion and could – as Y Cneifiwr has said – give some Labour councillors a "green light" to back a motion of no confidence or abstain.

I don't know much about internal Carmarthenshire politics, but judging by the numbers it's likely any motions of no-confidence will need at least 10 votes from Lab-Ind, or abstentions, to succeed. Easier said than done.

I'm sure many councillors would've wanted an immediate extraordinary meeting, but it was perhaps the right decision to give the debate some breathing room, even if it extends the headlines for several weeks.

You would've expected suspensions of the senior officers involved too because of the seriousness of the judgements. It's the sensible thing to do – to protect the officers as much as the reputation of the council - but CCC are delicate little flowers and are never, ever, ever wrong!

The formal responses from CCC have been quite astonishing and have read like North Korean news bulletins.I expected a rebuff, but not to these levels.

Caerphilly took it on the chin, but unfortunately it's since descended into an unedifying "tu quoque" bun fight between Labour and Plaid Cymru. It looks like Pembrokeshire are dilly-dallying – though the former Council Leader, John Davies, has been big enough to admit they were wrong. Neither have reached anywhere near the same levels of petulant delusion as Carmarthenshire.

It's an old trick Fungus used at Manchester United – make "your side" (Labour & Independents) think the whole world's against you and it'll create a siege mentality where everyone will pitch together and dig in to win whatever the cost. Fungus was also often described as a Stalinist. And, as history has taught us, sometime an autocrat can get you to do what they want just by being in the same room and looking at you.

The Legal Advice

Aside from the publication of the WAO reports themselves, preliminary police involvement and the intervention of Keith Davies, the biggest development since has been the publication of two pieces of legal advice CCC received in relation to the indemnity funding. As far as I can tell there's been nothing relating to the pension payments, though Pembrokeshire Council are due to debate that later this week.

The first set of legal advice from 2008, by James Goudie QC (pdf), suggests the 2006 Order didn't override clauses in the Local Government Act 1972 (Section 111) which grants local authorities any and all powers to discharge their functions – what West Wales News Review described as a "Get Out of Jail Free Card".

Basically, if CCC want to ignore the 2006 Order, they believe a certain interpretation of the 1972 Act and how the 2006 Order relates to it gives them the power to do so.

As far as I can tell though, that would only be the case had Wales voted no to devolution in 1997.

The auditor said the 2006 Order provided a statutory code to Welsh local authorities outlining precisely when a Welsh local authority can indemnify officers in libel defences, explicitly prohibiting their use to undertake a claim.

Last time I checked, Carmarthenshire was in Wales and the National Assembly has responsibility for most aspects of local government within Wales. What the Welsh Government says in that regard, goes.

Although James Goudie QC disagrees with this, he says in no uncertain terms that "the restrictions in the 2006 Order and the Welsh Assembly Guidance on the bringing of defamation are a weighty factor against granting an indemnity" and that "it will be extremely rare for such a decision by the Council to be reasonable."

The broad conclusion of the 2008 legal advice was, therefore, "even if you can do it – don't". A common sense cautious approach could've interpreted it as advising against awarding the indemnity quite easily.

The Executive Board were apparently told there was unequivocal support in favour of granting the indemnity – which was bullshit, as there in black and white in the legal advice itself.

The second set of advice, from Timothy Kerr QC (pdf), is retrospective and doesn't add anything new. It's basing the lawfulness of the indemnity, largely, on the (for now) successful outcome at the High Court and on similar grounds to the Goudie advice (Section 111 powers).

The outcome isn't important. The lawfulness of the indemnity when it was originally granted is. Therefore, the 2008 advice trumps anything after it.

The WAO reports were written with full knowledge of both sets of legal advice and other unpublished correspondence, so I doubt the publication of the advice damages the credibility of Anthony Barrett's reports at all. It's now CCC's word against the WAO and will almost certainly head for the courts unless "something else" happens.

When it comes to matters of public finance, I know whose unqualified opinion I believe carries more weight.

Carmarthenshire : Rogue State?

We deal with upstart rebel territories a bit differently nowadays.
(Pic : themiscollection.com)

CCC are not only thumbing their nose at the WAO, Anthony Barrett, the opposition, the media, Carmarthenshire's council taxpayers and pretty much everyone who disagrees with them, they're also challenging the Welsh Government's authority.

By resorting to a justification based on the 1972 Act, they're effectively saying the 2006 Order isn't worth the paper it was written on. I hope Lesley Griffiths, the First Minister, AMs and civil servants in Cathays Park can see that. Their rather timid response to date shows they perhaps don't.

If CCC are given an opportunity to overturn WAO reports in relation to remuneration and indemnities, it could lead to challenges under the 1972 Act provisions to all sorts of Orders issued by the Welsh Government. It undermines both the devolution of local government, and the mandate Welsh Ministers have from the Welsh electorate to make regulations in that area.

That's before considering the serious damage it would do to the Wales Audit Office's reputation.

Carmarthenshire are, in effect, trying to seize control of some aspects of local government finance from the Welsh Government via a loophole that shouldn't even be there.

In less-enlightened times, if a local fiefdom were undermining the authority of the central government and its public servants in such an insolent manner, legions of knights would now be crossing the Loughor and heads would be put on spikes.

We're no stranger to this. Senior officers in Carmarthenshire are in danger of joining the long list of shit heel petty princes who paid the price for getting ideas above their station, having little care for the damage it could do Wales as a whole.

Councillors have been left in a tough position. Many will be swayed by the legal advice, but if they focus on the first set alone, and fully comprehend it, they'll realise the case for awarding the indemnity was likely to have been exaggerated beyond recognition.

I even feel sorry for Executive Board members. They still have to go for their own incompetence, but they've been done up like kippers by people they surely trusted. The sillier ones will still trust them, and will be standing there alongside the officers when the inevitable happens one day.

This is in danger of becoming a national embarrassment, and because of CCC digging their heels in, is more serious than it otherwise would have been.

A failure to, at the very least, suspend those involved temporarily means Carmarthenshire may as well be considered a rogue local authority that's become a law unto itself, needing to be brought to heel in the same way Anglesey was.

This isn't just about the credibility of CCC now, but about the credibility of Welsh local government and some of our most important public institutions.

When it rains....

I doubt anyone will have noticed this, but another sign of both the implosion within CCC's bunkers and contempt they hold the National Assembly and Welsh Government has come from an unexpected source.

The National Assembly's Petitions Committee recently discussed a petition to list the former ground of Llanelli RFC and Scarlets - Stradey Park - which has been eyed up for a controversial housing development (since under construction, apparantly).

The petition itself was closed after Culture Minister, John Griffiths (Lab, Newport East), said no more could be done (pdf).

Here's edited version of what was said at the Committee meeting last week on this petition :

(Chair) William Powell AM (Lib Dem, Mid & West Wales) : We....received a response from the Minister for Culture....and from Carmarthenshire County Council....I think it would be fair to say that we found a degree of churlishness from the local authority. I have had sight of e-mails from the local authority officers that fall some way short of courtesy to the team that supports this committee and to us. I think we should put on record that that is regrettable. Possibly, we might wish to bring these matters regarding the curt and somewhat inappropriate tone of the correspondence to the attention of the leader or chief executive of Carmarthenshire council.

Joyce Watson AM (Lab, Mid & West Wales) : I think courtesy is the least that anyone can expect. Are you telling me that what is printed here—I read this a few times—is what you received? Was this it?

(Clerk) Mr George : No, this was the second response that we received. The first response was shorter than this.

William Powell AM : I believe that it was, ‘No, no and no’

Joyce Watson AM : That sounded -

Mr George : I went back to say that the response was likely to be put before the committee and, maybe, they wanted to reconsider. We then got this response instead.

Joyce Watson AM : ....I move that we write to the leader of the authority, Councillor Kevin Madge, and to the chief executive.

William Powell AM : Mr Mark James.

Joyce Watson AM : We should simply say that, in our opinion, it is not normally the way we receive correspondence from those that we ask questions of. For as long as I have been on this committee....I have not seen anything so brief, so blunt and which lacks complete engagement, quite frankly.

William Powell AM : It may, at the least, flag-up some sort of training need and the need for people to be called to account.....it would be useful for us to write to the chief officer and the leader of Carmarthenshire....just to flag up that matter, because it shows a discourtesy to the committee, to our team and, indeed, to the petitioners to have adopted such a tone.

It's unclear precisely who sent the "No, no and no" response, though the Head of Planning at Carmarthenshire Council is Eifion Bowen. You can read a tidied-up of CCC's curt and disrespectful response to both a National Assembly Committee and more than 4,000 petitioners here (pdf).

Read More

Cold and drafty Wales Bill

The formal UK Government response to Silk I was laid in front of the UK Parliament
just before Christmas. What's proposed? And what does it  mean for Wales?
(Pic : Press Association via BBC Wales)

Back on December 18^th, the UK Government launched the draft version of the Wales Bill (pdf) – the "meat" of the UK Government's response to Part I of the Silk Commission (devolution of limited fiscal powers), but also including changes to the Assembly itself and how AMs are elected.

As it's a draft Bill, it could still significantly change between now and whenever the full Bill is introduced to the House of Commons. Pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Bill, due to be undertaken by the Welsh Affairs Select Committee, started today.

So, as you might expect me to do, it's worth looking at the draft Bill in a bit more detail.

Taxation Powers

Subject to a referendum, Wales will have the power to vary income tax rates
for defined "Welsh taxpayers". However, are the powers functionally useless?
(Pic : The Telegraph)

The draft Bill proposes as follows :

Miscellaneous Taxes

• Enables the creation of completely new devolved taxes via an Order in Council.
• Removes existing stamp duty collection and management in Wales, granting the Assembly full powers to introduce its own land transaction tax.
• Ditto existing landfill tax collection and management, granting the Assembly control over landfill tax.

Welsh taxpayers

• Defines a "Welsh taxpayer" as someone who's resident in the UK, pays UK income tax, and meets one of the following criteria :
• Has a "close connection" to Wales (presumably as a permanent resident).
• Has no close connections with England, Scotland or Northern Ireland and spends most of the calendar year in Wales over other parts of the UK.
• Is an MP, AM or MEP representing a Welsh constituency.

Income tax referendum

• A referendum on income tax powers will be triggered when the Assembly passes a vote in favour of holding a referendum by a 2/3 majority.
• The Welsh Secretary will have 180 days from the moment a motion's passed by the Assembly, to present an Order calling a referendum to both Houses of Parliament for approval. The Welsh Secretary will also have the power to "veto" any referendum.
• In the event of a yes vote, an Order will be made by HM Treasury indicating when Welsh income tax powers come into force.
• In the event of a no vote, a referendum on the matter could still be called at a later date via an Order in Council.

Income tax powers

If there's a yes vote in a referendum, the draft Bill :

• Gives the National Assembly the power to set a "Welsh rate" of income tax for "Welsh taxpayers".
• Outlines that income tax powers would be similar to those coming into force in Scotland in 2016 (if they don't vote for independence), which will mean income tax rates in Wales will be lowered by 10p in the pound and the Assembly will then set a top-up Welsh rate. However, the tax is "lock stepped", meaning tax rates in different bands can't be set independently of each other. If income tax is raised or lowered by 1p, for example, it has to apply across all income tax bands.
• Outlines various mechanisms by which a Welsh rate of income tax would be collected by HM Revenue & Customs, how tax relief schemes would fit into it, and monitoring HMRC's performance in collecting a "Welsh rate" of income tax.

Borrowing Powers

Although still out for consultation, the new borrowing powers will
almost certainly be used to fund  M4 improvements in Newport.
(Pic : Sabre Roads)

The draft Bill :

• Changes the circumstances by which Welsh Ministers can borrow as set out in the Government of Wales Act 2006.
• Gives Welsh Ministers the power to borrow :
• to manage volatility in receipts and forecasts, where forecasts differ from incomes (revenue expenditure).
• to fund capital expenditure.
• Sets the borrowing limit at £500million for capital expenditure and £500million for revenue/current account expenditure. However, the borrowing limit can be changed by the Welsh Secretary up or down, subject to approval by the House of Commons.
• Repeals borrowing powers relating to the, now defunct, Welsh Development Agency (WDA) - though it doesn't affect any outstanding debts.
• Gives HM Treasury the power to set a cap on housing debt held by Welsh local housing authorities.

Changes to the Assembly

The "WAG" is dead. Long live the "WG"
- although it's already gone.
(Pic : NHS Wales)

The draft Bill :

• Increases the length of an Assembly term from four to five years.
• Will allow Assembly candidates to stand in constituencies and on regional lists at the same time.
• Bans MPs from being Assembly Members at the same time, except where there's a UK General Election within 6 months of an AM being elected an MP (which is unlikely).
• Formally changes the name of the "Welsh Assembly Government" to "Welsh Government" in the Government of Wales Act 2006.
• Places a duty on the Law Commission to provide advice to the Welsh Government directly, and also places a duty on Welsh Ministers to report any reforms in devolved areas proposed by the Law Commission to the Assembly.

Reaction and Conclusions

The proposals aren't that impressive, but one seemingly overlooked point could leave
the door open for Wales to create a completely new tax to replace stamp duty.
(Pic : The Guardian)

I'm not sure whether to call this an important law or not, as you probably know I wasn't impressed with the Silk Commission's recommendations anyway. This is an even further watered down version of that.

It's basically a transplant of some aspects of the Calman Commission's finding's. Silk I was a complete waste of time and effort by all involved, and even key findings of the Holtham and Richard Commissions have been effectively ignored.

I suppose it's a step in the right direction, but the powers – borrowing aside – are piddling. Air passenger duty (APD) has been taken off the table while, for now, there's no mention of non-domestic(business) rates – though I understand business rates will be devolved at some point.

By "lock stepping" income tax powers, any heady ideas Welsh parties had – including, ironically, the Welsh Conservatives – of creating a "dynamic low tax economy" have been blown apart.

Under these proposals, income tax cuts in Wales would be more expensive because changes will have to apply across all tax bands at the same time. The same goes for tax rises - so tax rises for top rate payers would have to be matched by tax rises for basic rate payers.

Andrew Davies (Con, South Wales Central) seems to have forgotten that, judging by his Click on Wales article today.

The income tax powers, as presented, are functionally useless as - minus an ability to set income tax rates in each band independently from one another - I suspect income tax rates would always be set in line with England to avoid scaring the flock.

Then there's the little matter of convincing Welsh Labour to support a referendum, and winning it off the back of such a mind-numbingly technical matter. As it is, I'd either abstain or vote no. A "hard nat" contemplating voting against further powers for the Assembly - that's how poor a deal this is.

Of course, Scotland wasn't bound to a referendum on Calman. They can ditch the patronisation of Westminster and get real fiscal powers by voting yes in September.

The borrowing powers are long overdue and give the Welsh Government some "grown up" responsibilities. It remains to be seen whether both governments are intent on splashing it up the wall building the Newport bypass, but presumably that's what the borrowing will be used for – at least initially.

The most interesting thing here though is that the wording appears to leave the door open for the Welsh Government to create any tax they want on property transactions – not specifically continuing with stamp duty.

Could that mean Wales could create a "Land Value Tax"? As has been mooted by several people, including Health Minister Mark Drakeford (Lab, Cardiff West)?

In terms of the timing, it might've been wiser to have waited until after Silk II, in order to create a new Government of Wales Act with any (potential) new devolved powers wrapped up in a single piece of legislation alongside these financial powers.

This could hint, firstly, that Silk II isn't going to propose anything significant in way of powers; or secondly, that any new powers will simply be devolved via Orders in Council or amendments to the GoW Act 2006. If we're going to move to a reserved powers model though - as many have called for -  I would expect it to require significant primary legislation in Westminster. Time's running out to get than on the table before the 2015 UK election.

The reaction's been muted. The Welsh Government described it as an "important step forward", though they were disappointed that APD wasn't devolved and that income tax powers aren't set out as outlined in Silk I.

As you might expect, the Conservatives and Lib Dems broadly welcomed it, though the latter less enthusiastically than the former.

Plaid Cymru's Westminster group say they'll try to amend the Wales Bill to ensure the full recommendations of Silk I are included, while Leanne Wood recently ruled out campaigning for a yes vote due to the "lock step" provisions which, as I've also said and has been mentioned on National Left, render the income tax powers useless.

The Institute of Welsh Affairs weren't impressed either. Lee Waters used relatively strong terms to – broadly speaking – dismiss the draft Bill as "hollow".

Returning to the Assembly changes, the Electoral Reform Society welcomed the reversal of the ban on candidates standing jointly on constituency and regional lists, though they called for a 12-month "window/overlap" to allow newly-elected MPs to temporarily retain their Assembly seat(s).

That will no doubt be good news for Leanne Wood (Plaid, South Wales Central) and Leighton Andrews AM (Lab, Rhondda) in particular. When Leanne announced in 2012 that she would stand for a FPTP constituency - subsequently Rhondda -  at the time I said it was a "pointless risk". Depending on selection to the South Wales Central list for 2016 and Plaid's performance, there's probably no risk to her seat now. I wouldn't be surprised if we see AMs from all parties standing in constituencies and on regional lists in 2016, as happened prior to 2006.

The "WAG" is formally no more too, though the name changed (unofficially) in 2011. There was an opportunity, I suppose, to rename the National Assembly to something different, like Welsh Parliament.

There isn't anything wrong with the name "National Assembly" anyway (apart from "for Wales" instead of "of Wales" – yes, it's important) and changing it would result in a whole host of issues like re-branding and deciding what to call elected members.

So, all in all - *grunt of apathetic acknowledgement *.

Read More

Giving devolution a smack

A ban on "smacking" in Wales has reared its head once
more, but is there any chance of movement?
(Pic : topnews.ae)

BBC Wales reported last week on another (long-standing) row bubbling over the Assembly's powers, this time in relation to a ban on "smacking".

Lindsay Whittle AM (Plaid, South Wales East) described the Social Services and Well Being Bill – due to return from committee later this year – as a "golden opportunity" to enact a ban, saying he would table an amendment to that effect. However, once again the question of whether the Assembly would be able to do so has been raised.

This issue was first raised in 2011. The Assembly approved a cross-party motion calling on Deputy Minister for Social Services & Children, Gwenda Thomas (Lab, Neath), to enact legislation banning smacking, which she rejected.

I don't like repeating myself, but with the Silk Commission, reserved powers being openly discussed and the fact we all like a constitutional fudge (because it seems to be the only way to get Welsh politics into the headlines), I've decided to come back to it.

The background to the ban proposal

As for my own beliefs, I think parents alone should decide how to discipline their children, and there might be scenarios where physical restraint is appropriate (i.e. a younger child running out into a road, breaking up playground fights). There's a difference between "physical restraint" and striking a child though.

I loath dragging out clichés, but I was smacked and it didn't do me any harm.

However, that sort of anecdotal evidence doesn't mean it'll be the same in all cases. Using violence to routinely punish children is perhaps a sign the parent has "lost it", not the child, and it provides cover for abuse. A smacking ban has the support of various bodies, including the Royal Colleges of Paediatrics (pdf) and Psychiatrists (pdf).

I'm not opposed to a smacking ban in principle, I just think it would be difficult to enforce. It could lead to confusion as to what constitutes smacking, discourage "physical restraint" of any sort - even if it's needed - or end up bogged down in guidelines that nobody will pay any attention to.

Welsh Labour, based on their track record of wanting to uphold children's rights, probably would ban smacking if they had the opportunity.

I think this time they'd rather avoid a confrontation with Westminster on the constitution so one of their flagship Bills can pass. This particular Bill has taken its time to get this far and has been seriously troubled at several points.

Betsan Powys noted back in April that Labour's Chief Whip, Janice Gregory (Lab, Ogmore), changed the party's membership on the Children & Young People Committee, replacing vocally pro-smacking ban AMs like Christine Chapman (Lab, Cynon Valley) and Julie Morgan (Lab, Cardiff North). With amendments to legislation needing cross-party support in committee, it would've preventing that from happening.

The Bill will return to plenary with Lindsay Whittle keen to put an amendment in. That's unlikely to have much Conservative support, so any amendment would need significant Labour support, as well as Plaid and the Lib Dems on board.

So, in my opinion, the "golden opportunity" was lost in committee thanks to the musical chairs.

The power to ban smacking

Schedule 7 of the Government of Wales Act 2006 – which outlines what powers are devolved to Wales since the 2011 referendum - says that:

(Part 1, section 15)

Social welfare including social services. Protection and well-being of children (including adoption and fostering) and of young adults. Care of children,young adults, vulnerable persons and older persons, including care standards. Badges for display on motor vehicles used by disabled persons.

....are devolved. There are no exceptions relating to "corporal punishment" or "legal physical chastisement of children".

If smacking is counted as an assault, then that falls under the banner of "criminal justice". The Assembly, however, does have the power to change criminal laws for matters within its remit, even if the criminal justice system as a whole isn't devolved.

If smacking falls under the banner of "protection and well-being of children" or even domestic violence – which you could interpret it as - then it probably is devolved.

Last time it was David Davies MP (Con, Monmouth) who raised the issue of this being non-devolved –  partly because he opposes a smacking ban anyway. This time it's Glyn Davies MP (Con, Montgomery), though Glyn is perhaps more correct to describe it as a "borderline issue" rather than black or white.

The question then, is whether smacking is an assault or a punishment relating to childcare? The latter probably means it falls under the Assembly's remit.

But that would also mean that David Davies - and others who oppose a smacking ban in Wales on constitutional grounds - would consider smacking a form of "assault" and a criminal offence, which....contradicts their position.

If Lindsay – or other AMs who support a ban - fail to get their amendment in this time around, I think they should concentrate on the proposed domestic violence law. That'll get the Welsh Government shifting uncomfortably in their seats. They couldn't work to end a form of violence against adults whilst neglecting children, could they?

Read More