FMQs: Brexit, Recycling & Grenfell Tower

Things are starting to get back to normal after the general election (ha!) so it's back to the grind for me with the latest First Minister's Questions from the Senedd.

Read More

Committees Bite Size #3: March 2017

Here's another round up of some of the committee inquiry reports that've come out of the Senedd over the last few weeks, including: ovarian cancer screening, two Stage One reports on Welsh laws, the Kancoat grant scandal and support for ethnic minority and traveller school pupils.

Read More

FMQs: Aid, Air & Dogs

After last weekend's “excitement” I was hoping to return to normality. Plaid's Assembly Group have dealt with the issue in a refreshingly swift and professional manner even if – despite what I wrote on Sunday - a suspension seems too strong. As far as I'm concerned the matter's closed.

Read More

Law replacing landfill tax introduced

(Pic : South Wales Argus)

Earlier this week, Finance & Local Government Secretary, Mark Drakeford (Lab, Cardiff West), introduced the second Bill to establishes a new Welsh tax. It followed hot on the heels from the law to replace stamp duty – which was introduced in September.

Read More

Returning Your Deposits

(Pic : buzzfeed.com)

Yesterday, the Conservatives held a debate on something that blights all communities, and likely to be a perennial issue on the doorstep : littering, fly-tipping, graffiti and dog shit.

Read More

Environment Bill introduced

Carrier bags, greenhouse gas emissions and biodiversity are amongst the areas
targeted by a wide-ranging Environment Bill, which was introduced this week.

Now that the election excitement is dying down, it's time to turn to more mundane matters.

Hot on the heels of the Heritage Bill, Natural Resources Minister, Carl Sargeant (Lab, Alyn & Deeside) introduced the latest Welsh law. Bill here (pdf), explanatory memorandum here (pdf).

Read More

Westminster 2015 : The Manifestos Part II

• Westminster 2015 : The Manifestos I (Conservatives, Greens, Labour)

Following yesterday's look at the party manifestos (linked above), today it's the turn of the Lib Dems, Plaid Cymru and UKIP.

Read More

Westminster 2015 : The Manifestos Part I

The following two posts are the most important of the lot this election campaign : What are we voting for in May? Or, more accurately, what might be on the table during negotiations in the event of a hung parliament?

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

The Green, Green Glas of Home

The National Assembly's Public Accounts Committee have said that while the Glastir
scheme is well-intentioned, there are problems with how it's been managed.
(Pic : Nanhoron Estate)

I don't normally cover farming issues, mainly because such posts often go unread and I don't know anything about farming in the first place.

Read More

Bridgend's Deprivation Mapped

The Caerau Park and Tudor estates are placed near the top of the most
relatively deprived areas in Wales. What about the rest of the county?
(Pic : zoopla.com)

Last week, the latest figures from the triennial Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation (WIMD) were released by the Welsh Government and Office of National Statistics. Deprivation itself is defined, statistically, as a "lack of access to opportunities or resources".

The WIMD collects data from each of Wales' 1,909 Lower Super Output Areas (LSOAs) – there's roughly one for every 1,000-1,500 people – and compares them to each other, giving policy makers and the general public an idea how relatively deprived neighbourhoods are compared to the rest of Wales (not the rest of the local authority).

So it's important to point out from the start that ranking lowly doesn't mean a community is "affluent" and it doesn't measure precisely how deprived a community is – only how deprived a community is compared to every other community in Wales.

The WIMD has an overall ranking, but it also has 8 separate types of deprivation each LSOA is measured against, with some indicators weighing more heavily in the final ranking than others :

• Income – Proportions of people with an income below a certain level and claiming income-based benefits and tax credits.
• Employment – A general lack of employment, based on claims for out-of-work benefits.
• Health – Lack of good health, including : long-term disabilities, low birth weights, cancer incidences and death rates.
• Education – Numbers of people with no qualifications, truancy levels, university admissions and GCSE pass rates.
• Access to Services – The ability to access everyday services essential for day-to-day living (food, GP appointments, after school clubs), and the travel times to reach such services.
• Community Safety – Overall crime levels, based on police and fire service statistics.
• Physical Environment – Proximity to big polluters, flood risk and air quality.
• Housing – Lack of adequate housing, including overcrowding and no access to central heating.

In terms of the all-Wales figures, St James' in Caerphilly is now ranked as the most relatively deprived community in Wales, though many of the names towards the top are all too familiar – Rhyl West, Splott, Queensway 1 in Wrexham (Caia Park), Twyn Carno (Fochriw, I think), Penydarren 1 (Galon Uchaf area of Merthyr) and Caerau 1 in Bridgend (Caerau Park and Tudor Estates).

With the number crunching done, it's worth taking a look at the picture in Bridgend in some more detail.

Overall Ranking & Changes Compared to 2011

(Click to enlarge)

The 2014 listings aren't really all that different to those in 2011.

The areas you would expect to be more deprived were, including : Caerau, Morfa ward (which includes Wildmill), Bettws, and at a more local level the Brackla Meadows estate, Bryntirion (the area around the Labour club), the Marlas estate in North Cornelly and the Queens Avenue area of Sarn.

As you would also expect, the valleys are relatively more deprived than the coastal/Vale areas, and the suburbs of Bridgend (including Litchard, Broadlands and the Coity end of Brackla), as well as Porthcawl, come out of it rather well.

In terms of how the rankings have changed since 2011, very few areas have dramatically become relatively less deprived than they were, though Sarn 2 (the southern half of the village) fell the most places along with the Hendre area of Pencoed, Nottage in Porthcawl and Cornelly 2 (South Cornelly and Kenfig village). It looks like – despite their overall poor ranking – levels of deprivation in Caerau, Bettws and Morfa have stalled or have even improved slightly compared to the rest of Wales.

In terms of areas which have moved up the rankings, then Brackla comes off particularly badly, especially Brackla 1 (the area around Tremains Primary) and Brackla 4 (Priory Oak, Trem-y-Mor). All Garw Valley wards have slipped – and weren't in a great position in the first place – but it's Pyle 1 (a large chunk of Kenfig Hill) and Pendre – Carwyn Jones' old council ward – which have risen the sharpest in the rankings compared to 2011.

Income & Employment

(Click to enlarge)

These are perhaps two of the more important measures of deprivation as low incomes and lack of high quality employment will limit opportunities by themselves.

In terms of income, the picture perhaps isn't quite as bad as many would believe. Even in parts of the valleys – especially Pontycymer, Maesteg, Nantyfyllon (Caerau 5), Ynysawdre and Bryncethin – incomes are near enough in the middle compared to the rest of Wales, or even slightly exceeding this. These areas have lots of cheap housing and might be attractive for younger working families priced out of other areas, while Maesteg has always had a settled middle class.

Unsurprisingly, Porthcawl and the villages and suburbs of Bridgend and Pencoed do well. You need to remember though that Welsh income levels aren't great compared to the UK anyway.

With employment, however, the differences are more stark, with pronounced problems in the valleys and urban centres (Morfa, Pyle, Porthcawl East & West Central) as you might expect – Caerau 1 ranks as the 4^th most deprived area in terms of employment in the whole of Wales. Bridgend doesn't do too great overall, but clearly employment opportunities are much better south of the M4 and around Pencoed than elsewhere in the county.

Health & Education

(Click to enlarge)

There are five big pockets of areas where people are more deprived in terms of health compared to the rest of Wales – Caerau & Maesteg, Nantymoel, the central Garw Valley (Bettws, Llangeinor, Ynysawdre), North Cornelly & Pyle and the big estates in and around Bridgend town centre (Wildmill, Brackla Meadows, Ystrad Fawr). Again, this shouldn't be a surprise.

As you might expect the areas with good health are Broadlands, Laleston, Litchard and Brackla. These areas are not only generally wealthier than the average, but some areas - like Brackla - are generally younger than the rest of the county.

The north-south split is starker in education than any other measure. Pretty much all of the areas with low-ranking wards in terms of educational deprivation are located in and around Porthcawl, Pencoed and Bridgend, while the valleys have numerous areas that rank in the top 20% most deprived in Wales. The M4 almost matches the boundary perfectly as even Cornelly and Pyle fit in "the north".

That doesn't mean everywhere south of the M4 is doing well (Wildmill & Brackla Meadows) or that everywhere north of the M4 is doing badly (Llangynwyd & Aberkenfig).

Access to Services & Community Safety

(Click to enlarge)

Access to services is as much an infrastructure problem as one of the facilities being in close proximity. Blaengarw and Nantymoel have quite a few shops and services close at hand, ditto the upper Llynfi valley, so these areas do well. More rural areas like Cefn Cribwr and Coychurch, as well as "overheated" areas like Broadlands, will do badly. If you're close to a town centre you're going to rank well on this, so it doesn't really tell us much.

Community safety doesn't really tell us much either, as the closer you are to a town centre, the more crime will be committed. This means urban wards like Morfa and Porthcawl West & East Central will score worse than leafy suburbs like Broadlands, Litchard, Penyfai and Newton.

Caerau, Aberkenfig and Bettws don't really count as either so their poor scores on community safety probably indicate problems other than population density - presumably high levels of anti-social behavior.

Environment & Housing

(Click to enlarge)

You would expect areas close to Bridgend and Maesteg town centres to suffer from pollution problems, but there's a strip of particularly poor-scoring areas stretching from Aberkenfig to Pencoed. I think the culprits are the M4, traffic problems caused by the awkward road layout around Bryncethin, Tondu and Sarn, the Brynmenyn industrial estate and the fact the three main tributaries of the River Ogmore confluence in this area, which is prone to floods.

Ogmore Vale stands out and I have absolutely no idea why other than the polluting industries – like car scrappage and recycling firms - on the Penllwyngwent industrial estate.

On the flipside, you would expect rural wards and Porthcawl – with its seafront and access to the sand dunes - to score well, so no real surprise there.

Housing is the category where Bridgend county on a whole does very well compared to the rest of Wales, so this is clearly one of Bridgend's core strengths. It's probably because large amounts of housing have been built since the 1970s, like Brackla, or more recently, like Broadlands and Tondu, meaning they're often of a higher spec than the terraced houses of old. It's generally the areas where Edwardian and Victorian terraced houses are the only option – like the Garw Valley, Morfa 1 & 3 and Oldcastle 1 (the area around Nolton Street and Cowbridge Road) – which score poorly.

What can we learn from WIMD 2014?

Is enough being done in Bridgend's relatively deprived neighbourhoods?
(Pic : Wildmill Communities First)

Things haven't changed dramatically – As I've said, the areas of Bridgend you would've expected to rank towards the top and bottom have done so. Although these figures are relative, it's hard to tell if Welsh Government and local authority schemes like Communities First are really targeting the core issues that result in higher deprivation : unemployment, poor education and low incomes.

A better environment doesn't mean better life chances – The Bridgend valleys boast some of the finest scenery in south Wales, and since the end of mining, the environment of these areas has improved. The people there are still broadly worse off than those living in and around the M4 though. It makes you wonder if "sustainable development" is really going to improve people's well being or not, and whether local communities are being assisted to make the most of the natural environment.

Sarn and Pencoed are on the up; Brackla and Pendre are on the way down – Again, you have to remember that these figures are relative, but what's clear is that Sarn and Pencoed are becoming relatively less deprived compared to the surrounding areas, while Brackla and Pendre are starting to slip. Brackla is also, arguably, the most diverse council ward in Bridgend, as you can go from some of Wales' most grinding deprivation to some of its swankiest postcodes in a 20 minute walk.

Something needs to be done with "the usual suspects" – Marlas, Caerau, Bettws, Wildmill, Brackla Meadows - yet again they're mentioned for the wrong reasons. I could probably write fifty blogs on the state of Bridgend, but the question remains - what can be done to turn these areas around? With regard Caerau, in the last fortnight I mentioned there were plans for a holiday resort in the Afan Valley, which might generate much needed employment in the area and make use of Caerau's strengths – but those plans have stalled. Valleys 2 Coast had/have plans for housing renewal programmes in Wildmill (pdf) and Careau Park (pdf) too, but again presumably nothing will happen without the funding. New houses won't necessarily solve problems relating to crime, unemployment and low incomes either.

Read More

Turning Wales a (Radioactive) Shade of Green

When the fuel for your nuclear reactor is spent, where does it go?
The Welsh Government are consulting on changes to their policy.
(Pic : American Nuclear Society)

"Radioactive waste" - two words that conjure images of deformities, lead boxes several feet thick and fluorescent green sludge.

The truth is a bit different. Most radioactive waste is a result of medicine – leftovers from radiography and radiotherapy - and is so low-grade it can sometimes be (carefully) disposed of at landfill sites. Then of course there's the higher-grade waste associated with nuclear energy and nuclear weapons.

Disposal of radioactive waste is – believe it or not – a devolved matter, though there's high-level cooperation between the respective governments of the UK.

Back in April, the Welsh Government launched a consultation on their radioactive waste policies, asking people if said policies needed a review. After carrying out that review, the Welsh Government have launched another consultation (pdf) which includes its preferred options for future disposal of radioactive waste, though no final decisions have been made.

The Current Standpoint

Most of the UK's high-grade nuclear waste is reprocessed or stored at Sellafield,
but with so much fuel reaching the end of its life, a new option is required.
(Pic : BBC)

In 2006, the independent Committee for Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) recommended that their preferred method of dealing with the high-grade waste resulting from the current generation of nuclear power plants was geological disposal (aka. storing it permanently in an excavated hole circa 500-1000ft deep). In 2013, CoRWM reaffirmed this as their favoured option.

In 2010, the UK Government's approach was for communities to volunteer to store high-grade waste for the whole of the UK in exchange for "goodies/investment". Communities in Cumbria (where most of the UK's radioactive waste is stored) and Kent considered it but ultimately it was rejected.

The Scottish Government took a different view and would prefer surface-level storage near the place where the waste was produced. The Welsh Government sat on the fence and neither supported or opposed geological disposal, though if a Welsh community were to "volunteer", the Welsh Government would reconsider their position.

What concerns did the consultation raise?

Some respondents believed it was irresponsible to support Wylfa B whilst opposing
the storage of nuclear waste in Wales - and the Welsh Government now agree.
(Pic : Cyndeithas yr Iaith Gymraeg)

It's irresponsible to reject storage of nuclear waste whilst supporting Wylfa B – The support for Wylfa B is one of the main reasons, in the Welsh Government's own words, that they decided to review their policies. The Welsh Government believe, in principle, that storing/disposing nuclear waste in Wales would be consistent with supporting nuclear energy.

It would be irresponsible to store nuclear waste above ground due to threats from terrorism and natural disasters, but burying it won't solve these issues either – The Welsh Government "note" the CoRWM recommendation that geological disposal is the best long-term solution to the problem, and they say that there's "no evidence" that surface storage would "provide a safer long-term answer".

Concerns over the cost to the Welsh Government – UK policy means the costs of nuclear waste disposal falls on the operator. State funding is provided via the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) and Radioactive Waste Management (RWM) and the Welsh Government are confident there would be no additional cost to themselves.

Liabilities following an accident – It's the UK Parliament's responsibility to approve/pay compensation as a result of nuclear accidents above and beyond compensation paid out by operators.

The Welsh Government should reconsider its support for new nuclear power stations – The Welsh Government rather glibly say that the issue of whether new nuclear power stations should be supported or not falls outside the consultation. They believe nuclear energy is a "reliable low-carbon source that complements renewables....bringing significant long-term economic benefits".

The best option is not to produce more radioactive waste – The Welsh Government believe that high-grade waste can be stored safely, and there's a backlog of "legacy waste" from 60 years of nuclear power that still needs to be disposed of. The presence of legacy waste also means that a decision has to be made now to comply with EU radioactive waste directives.

Incidents at Yucca Mountain and WIPP in the US prove geological disposal is unsafe – The Welsh Government raised concerns with CoRWM about these incidents, but they don't believe that this  proves geological disposal is harmful.

"Bribing" communities to host radioactive waste is wrong – The fact some of the communities that came forward to host a facility withdrew from the process without penalty demonstrates "the robustness of the right to withdraw". However, the Welsh Government evaded the issue of whether or not it was "bribing" or not.

The Welsh Government should be responsible for "Welsh" waste – Responsibility for disposal of radioactive waste doesn't mean waste will be disposed in Wales. At the moment, the only radioactive waste stored in Wales is low-grade and often in low volumes.

The Welsh Government's Choice

The Welsh Government now support "geological disposal" and
don't rule out Wales hosting such a facility.
(Pic : enformable.com)

Justification for a policy change

• "Storage" requires an ongoing supervision and is only a short to medium-term option, so "disposal" is preferred to remove the need for supervision.
• There are no proposals to reprocess nuclear waste from Wylfa B, so management of that waste is required. The current Welsh Government policy of opposing management of nuclear waste in Wales contradicts this and will need to be changed.
• There's already a considerable amount of nuclear waste requiring disposal even before taking Wylfa B into account. Therefore, there's a duty on this generation to ensure the process of disposing the waste is started now.

The Welsh Government's Preferred Option

• A nuclear waste policy that's consistent with supporting new nuclear power stations/Wylfa B.
• A policy that meets EU directives, and the Welsh Government believes that will not be met by surface or near-surface storage.
• A policy that takes the needs and safeguarding of future generations into account.
• Subsequently, the Welsh Government's preferred option is "geological disposal". Though they say they've taken no firm decisions on this and it doesn't mean it'll be stored in Wales.

A Radioactive Issue

This is the reason you shouldn't make up nuclear
energy policy on the back of a fag packet.

The legal difference (as defined in the EU directive) between "disposal" and "storage" is that if nuclear waste is "stored" there's an expectation that it will be recovered in the future. "Disposal" means it's left there and presumably sealed in somehow, never to be returned to again.

"Stored" is a better word to describe both because wherever it's put, it's going to be there probably a lot longer than humans will be around. The half-life of plutonium waste, for example, is around 24,000 years. For some uranium isotopes produced/used in nuclear energy it's around 245,000 years.

To put that in perspective, 24,000 years ago modern humans had just started colonising North America and the last ice age was at its peak.

That's one hell of a legacy for "Future Generations" we're going to leave.

Wanting nuclear power without dealing with the waste is a lot like wanting to eat haute cuisine without eventually having to take a dump.

Wales is going to be very high up the list of potential nuclear waste disposal sites because, objectively speaking, sites have to be : geographically isolated, economically depressed (to be easily won over by the promise of investment), close to a producers of high-grade waste (to minimise transport), home to communities that are used to living with nuclear energy and both geologically and hydrologically stable.

Anglesey ticks all the boxes.

The Welsh Government now openly admit their support for Wylfa B is implicit support for the disposal of high-grade nuclear waste in Wales (completely contradicting statements by the First Minister in the Senedd chamber). For once they're being honest.

That doesn't mean it'll happen, but certain politicians and parties will have to admit that on the record too because eggs are heading for faces, and there's little room for backtracking without looking like utter pillocks.

Read More

M4 Newport : Edwina's Response

With Edwina Hart responding to Assembly committee concerns and a legal
challenge imminent, it's worth drawing a picture of where the battle lines are.
(Pic : South Wales Argus)

• Welsh Government's reprioritised National Transport Plan (7.12.11)
• M4 Newport consultation and rail upgrades in Gwent (11.3.12)
• A Cunning Infrastructure Plan (26.5.12)
• Newport's M4 coronary bypass (5.10.13)
• Cold and drafty Wales Bill (7.1.14)
• Newport's M4 debate painted black and blue (10.7.14)
• Newport M4 - Smell the Glove (17.7.14)
• Newport M4 : The Committee Strikes Back (21.7.14)

There's been a bit more news on the £1billion Newport bypass front. As some of you will remember, the National Assembly's Environment & Sustainability Committee wrote to the minister in charge, Edwina Hart (Lab, Gower), back in July setting out a number of concerns.

In the last week or so, Edwina has responded to the Committee (pdf).

In the interests of balance - and to ensure that everyone can go into this fully informed - it's worth taking a look at what the Minister said in response to the Committee's letter, and how she came to justify the decision on the Welsh Government's behalf.

Additionally, Friends of the Earth Cymru officially launched their legal challenge – via a judicial review – on Tuesday (23rd September).

The route selection process

Committee : In the first consultation (2011-12 M4CEM), a completely new motorway wasn't included as an option. The change in heart since suggests the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) process hasn't been followed correctly.

Edwina Hart : The Welsh Government used their "appropriate and recognised" WelTAG guidance process (pdf - large file). What's considered a reasonable alternative route under the SEA process is down to the decision-maker, but the SEA also allows a choice based on the objectives the decision-maker wants to meet. The Minister admits that the new fiscal powers offered by Westminster prompted a revisit to a full M4 bypass of Newport as an option.

The choice of route

Committee : The route choices for an M4 bypass were too similar to each other to "allow a meaningful comparison as required by the SEA directive". It also hasn't been made clear whether the Blue Route has been fully assessed by the Welsh Government to SEA standards.

Edwina Hart : None of the alternatives were considered "reasonable alternatives" in line with SEA regulations. She says the Blue Route wouldn't have been "sufficiently attractive to relieve M4 traffic", would cost £600million (rather than the £380million estimate) and would cause problems at connecting roads. It would also require significant land acquisition, and wouldn't meet the strategic objectives.

The environmental report

Committee : Natural Resources Wales (NRW) say some of the concerns they raised weren't included in the final environment report. NRW flatly disagree with many of the conclusions in said report, which underplayed the impact on biodiversity, and provided incomplete assessments of greenhouse gas emissions, water quality, landscape and town scape impacts.

Edwina Hart : Environmental concerns and possible mitigation measures have been taken into account during the Environmental Impact Assessment process. NRW's comments were taken into consideration during the drafting of the environmental report.

Consideration of public transport

Committee : Possible public transport options and the South Wales Metro scheme haven't been given full consideration. They should've been weighted directly alongside the M4 proposals as they could have a big impact on the underlying case for a bypass.

Edwina Hart : The M4 bypass will complement the South Wales Metro scheme, but increased public transport use won't solve the problems on the M4. Studies undertaken during the planning process showed that even if public transport use increased by 100%, it would only reduce Newport M4 traffic by 5% (Owen : I'm presuming this is because of the number of lorries using the M4).

Validity of traffic forecasts

Committee : Traffic forecasts on the M4 are produced using the UK's Department for Transport (DfT) forecasting methodology, but this methodology has – according to leading academics – predicted big growths in traffic volumes and car ownership when levels have actually remained flat. If traffic growth doesn't match the DfT's unreliable forecasts then the M4 bypass will be a waste of money. So the case for a bypass is partly reliant on traffic increasing.

Edwina Hart : Traffic volumes have returned to pre-recession levels after levelling off during the recesson itself. A new report on the traffic projection figures has been included on the Newport M4 website (pdf). She believes claims that current traffic projections mean a bypass won't improve traffic flows are "incorrect", and the plans are a "sustainable, long-term solution to the problems."

Costs

Committee : The proposed capital borrowing limit as set out in the Wales Bill (£500million) is only half the estimated total cost of the scheme. Therefore, there's a lack of clarity on how future borrowing powers would be used, and the impact the bypass would have on finances available for transport projects like the Metro. The Committee say it's "difficult to conclude....that a convincing case for the long-term value for money of this investment has been made".

Edwina Hart : The £1billion price tag includes the costs of environmental mitigation measures. Before the Welsh Government commits to construction, the cost estimates will be carefully managed, and the aim will be to reduce costs wherever possible. It's claimed every £1 spent will result in a £2.29 economic return. The Welsh Government won't be committing all of their borrowing powers to the scheme, as they'll use block grant/capital funding too; though it's too early to say precisely how the scheme would be financed, as it depends on the final cost.

I think it's safe to say that we now have a more complete picture of both sides of the argument.

The minister has given some concise and assured answers to the Committee's questions, with the exception of her response to the traffic projection figures.

Those figures are the statistical case for the bypass, and although Edwina linked to the figures themselves, the fact she brushed the issue off with a political back swing (talk of "long term solutions" and "sustainability") tells me that's where the big weakness is in the case, and will probably be one part of Friends of the Earth Cymru's legal line of attack.

I'll let you make your own mind up.

Read More

And then there were four?

Implementing the Williams Commission local government reforms will be one of the stories dominating the rest of the Fourth Assembly, and will play a big role in determining if the Welsh Government have truly delivered this term.

Back in June, the former Local Government Minister, Lesley Griffiths (Lab, Wrexham), said that the proposed reforms "had to deliver profound change". The First Minister himself has spoken quite strongly in favour of mergers (down to between 10 and 12 councils from the current 22) as soon as practically possible.

It's clear though that with a few exceptions – like Denbighsire and Conwy, which are actively exploring a voluntary merger – the proposals have received a frosty reception from the Welsh local government sector. Clearly one of the major concerns are the proposed upfront costs of the reforms; the Williams Commission put the figure at £100million (saving £60-80million per year afterwards), local government put it at £200million with a potential 15,000 job losses.

The Welsh Local Government Association (WLGA) – the body that represents local authorities – recently upped the ante by producing their own discussion paper (pdf) and alternative plan.

What are the WLGA's concerns?

Firstly, that there's no political consensus on the way forward in the Assembly, and with up to £877million in savings needing to be found in total by 2018, an £80million per year saving is described as being "academic".

Secondly, they're worried there'll be a disconnect between the local and the regional. Some of the proposed new local authorities may be too large to provide smaller communities with a "connection" but too small to provide scale.

The Williams Commission weren't convinced by collaboration between local authorities. However, WLGA present evidence submitted by former adviser to Rhodri Morgan, Paul Griffiths, suggesting that it works for some local services (social care, school improvement), and that the threat of "collaborate or merge" has created a presumption in local government that mergers are inevitable, so collaboration was never properly explored.

The English Example

The WLGA cite the example of the Greater Manchester Authority (GMCA). It's a collaborative regional authority made up of ten metropolitan borough councils. Each member authority sends one member to the GMCA, contributes towards its running costs and the GMCA takes responsibility and control of the Greater Manchester Integrated Transport Authority, as well as specific powers over things like economic development.

In Wales, we're attempting something similar through city regions. However, our city regions are essentially grand committees with no real teeth.

In England, the UK Government have proposed devolving "serious powers" over economic development, strategic planning, business rates collection, housing and training to the major cities and groups of counties. Both UK Labour and Conservatives are talking this up as a model of English devolution.

What do the WLGA propose for Wales?

A presumptive map of what the WLGA propose.
(Click to enlarge)

The WLGA propose the creation of four collaborative regional bodies :

• North Wales
• Mid & Central Wales (sic)
• South West Wales
• South East Wales

The map is presumptive and the WLGA don't specifically state which local authorities would be placed where. It's based off the collaborative boards the WLGA proposed back in 2005 and also pretty much falls in line with the regional transport consortia.

The WLGA propose that the regional bodies take responsibility for :

• Transport planning and delivery
• Strategic land use planning
• Economic development
• Regional tourism promotion
• School improvement
• Commissioning of health and social care services
• Waste processing and management
• IT services, payroll, pensions and back office/HR functions

They also propose that - supported by comments made by Prof. Gerald Holtham - taxes like stamp duty and landfill tax be "devolved" to these regional bodies.

They believe this would offer greater financial security for these services, a more strategic approach to service delivery and greater scale. The WLGA do, however, accept that redundancies would be inevitable but no figures are given. No figures for the set up costs are given either.

New primary legislation might be required from the National Assembly to make this happen. Or, the appropriate Welsh Minister might be able to make use of current executive powers to push the proposal through. In both cases it would likely require full Assembly approval.

When you get to the bits about how these regional would be governed, things begin to fall apart.

Based on the examples they give from England, the membership won't be elected, but appointed by the constituent local authorities. Some regional bodies in England include non-elected members, some have a "rotation" of appointed members, some have a membership that reflects the political make-up of the respective local authorities. So it'll be another board and committee for our wonderful local councillors to join.

A real alternative?

They say a good compromise is one that dissatisfies everyone equally.
Are the Welsh Government going to listen to this, though?
(Pic : Click on Wales)

With the appointment of Leighton Andrews as the new minister with responsibility for local government, I don't see the Welsh Government changing tact. The mergers are going to be pushed through whether the WLGA like it or not.

I've said it previously, but I wouldn't be surprised if we ended up with a further compromise that leads to some local authorities remaining as-is - I don't think the 10-12 number is set in stone. Some mergers will clearly be easier to do than others, while some local authorities might have a different preferred merger partner than those outlined by the Williams Commission (Bridgend and Vale of Glamorgan; Swansea & Neath Port Talbot etc.).

Also, *AWOOGA*  THIS SOUNDS OH SO FAMILIAR!   *AWOOGA*  I'm only 18 months ahead of the curve here, but I'm just a blogger after all.

Of course, it's not identical to what I (and Lyn Thomas previously) have said. I envisaged regional government being a tier of government in itself – an unashamed return to two-tier local government.

This proposal is half-way there, makes a moderate amount of sense, and deserves to be considered and listened to. It might be too late though.

Read More

M4 Newport - The Committee Strikes Back

It's the committee report AMs couldn't wait to read, containing heavy
criticism of the Welsh Government's decision on the M4 around Newport.
(Pic : transportxtra.com)

The saga from the start :

• Welsh Government's reprioritised National Transport Plan (7.12.11)
• M4 Newport consultation and rail upgrades in Gwent (11.3.12)
• A Cunning Infrastructure Plan (26.5.12)
• Newport's M4 coronary bypass (5.10.13)
• Cold and drafty Wales Bill (7.1.14)
• Newport's M4 debate painted black and blue (10.7.14)
• Newport M4 - Smell the Glove (17.7.14)

It's led to rows, hypocrisy, (minor) backbench rebellions, and has turned out to be one of the more controversial committee inquiries in the Assembly's short history.

Towards the end of last week, the National Assembly's Environment and Sustainability Committee published their eagerly-anticipated report into the decision-making process which led to the announcement, on July 16^th , that the £1billion M4 "Black Route" around Newport will be given the go-ahead.

The report itself (pdf) is short and to the point compared to other Assembly committee reports, and well worth a look regardless of your opinion on the M4 bypass scheme itself.

From the outset, the Committee say they were disappointed that neither the minister in charge, Edwina Hart (Lab, Gower), or the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) – one of the biggest cheerleaders for the bypass – appeared before them to give oral evidence.

The Committee have "grave concerns" about the consultation process which led to the Black Route being selected, but they stress that they make no observations on the "merits of any particular route". They believe that had the minister properly engaged with them, many of those concerns would've been addressed.

The Committee subsequently made a single recommendation; that Edwina Hart answers all of the questions and concerns raised in their letter to her on June 5^th (pdf).

They go on to say that if the minister can't answer their questions to their satisfaction, then consideration should be given to restarting the public consultation process to ensure that all concerns (below) are taken into account and that all alternatives to the Black Route are considered.

The Committee's Concerns

                          

The route selection process – It's questioned whether the process of choosing a route met the EU's Strategic Environment Assessment (SEA) directive. In the first consultation (2011-12 M4CEM), a completely new motorway wasn't included as an option. Then, it was included as an option in the second consultation carried out in 2013-14. This suggests the SEA process hasn't been followed correctly, as the sudden change in heart on the need for a bypass would contradict the environmental reports issued alongside each consultation.

The choice between purple, red and black routes (2013 consultation) – The choices on offer with regard a route for an M4 bypass were too similar to each other to "allow a meaningful comparison as required by the SEA directive". It also hasn't been made clear whether the Blue Route has been fully assessed by the Welsh Government to SEA standards.

The environmental report – Natural Resources Wales (NRW) say some of the concerns they raised weren't included in the final environment report. NRW flatly disagree with many of the conclusions in said report, which underplayed the impact on biodiversity, and provided incomplete assessments of  greenhouse gas emissions, water quality, landscape and townscape impacts.

Consideration of public transport (or lack of) – Possible public transport options and the South Wales Metro scheme haven't been given full consideration. They should've been weighted directly alongside the M4 proposals as they could have a big impact on the underlying case for a bypass.

Validity of traffic forecasts – Traffic forecasts on the M4 are produced using the UK's Department for Transport (DfT) forecasting methodology. However, in the past this methodology has – according to leading academics – predicted big growths in traffic volumes and car ownership when levels have actually remained flat. There should've been a more flexible traffic prediction methodology based around varying scenarios, but it's not something the Welsh Government can do themselves as DfT are very protective of their forecasting models. If traffic growth doesn't match the DfT's unreliable forecasts then the M4 bypass will be a waste of money. So the case for a bypass is partly reliant on traffic increasing. That's very "unsustainable".

Costs – It's unclear if environmental mitigation measures, or the future of the A4810 Steelworks Road, have been factored in to the estimated costs of the Black Route. Also, the proposed capital borrowing limit as set out in the Wales Bill (£500million) is only half the estimated total cost of the scheme. Therefore, there's a lack of clarity on how future borrowing powers would be used, and the impact the bypass would have on finances available for transport projects like the Metro. The Committee say it's "difficult to conclude....that a convincing case for the long-term value for money of this investment has been made".

Executive Decisions demand Executive Answers

There's no obligation on ministers to follow through on any recommendations made by an Assembly committee - it's just a good idea to do so. If Edwina Hart wants to ignore this she can, though it would probably make it more difficult for the Welsh Government to win any legal challenge (if it goes that far), as it looks like the Welsh Government haven't gone about this in a professional way and are washing their hands with democratic scrutiny.

Without question, something has to be done to the roads in and around Newport. I'm not blinkered enough to think the solution lies in public transport and "active travel" alone.
 
But you get the impression the Welsh Government wanted a new M4 from the start, they just realised they couldn't afford it. As soon as borrowing powers came into the picture – fuelled by the enthusiasm from Whitehall to give Wales "fiscal responsibility" – the Welsh Government decided to press forward with this while they still had a window of opportunity.

So we ended up with a public consultation that was effectively based around three minor variations of a single option and what appear to be "sexed-up dossiers".

Edwina Hart has done the position of economy minister proud so far, so it would be a real shame if she ends up pushing through something she may later come to regret. Maybe a bypass really is the right option, but it has to be handled conscientiously. That clearly hasn't happened.

This is one of the single largest capital investments in Welsh history, standing at the equivalent of about 65% of the Welsh Government's total annual capital budget. It's serious stuff that deserves proper answers from the minister before anyone can think of getting the project underway.

Read More

Wales : The Next Generation

"Make it so".

What could be one of the most significant pieces of legislation this Assembly term was introduced earlier this week by Communities & Tackling Poverty Minister Jeff Cuthbert (Lab, Caerphilly) to "great fanfare" : the Well-being of Future Generations Bill.

When I try to summarise a new law I usually read the text of the Bill (pdf) and then use the explanatory memorandum (pdf) to either confirm my own understanding of what's written or clear things up.

This was a challenge. I was pinned down by jargon. Charlie tossed a few buzzword grenades and through the dense vegetation of management speak all I could hear were voices calling out, as English was abused with all the enthusiasm of a 1970s national treasure. I developed the thousand yard stare of legislative shell shock.

That's the sort of living hell I have to put myself through to bring you blogs like this. You don't know, man! You weren't there!

I guess what I'm trying to say is this is a very dense – dare I say it – slightly bizarre law. Having said that, the National Assembly's Members Research Service have done a good job of summarising the underlying principles of the Bill over at their In Brief blog.

The Goals of the Future Generations Bill

(Pic : xkcd.com)

I'm not fibbing when I say that if you wanted to sum up the Bill in one sentence it would be that it's "trying to improve everything by gently predicting and guiding future events". You name it, the Bill sets goals to improve it. All this is under the umbrella of "sustainable development" – something the Welsh Government and National Assembly are obliged to factor into their decisions by statute.

I suppose the clearest definition of "sustainable development" would be actions that would meet current human needs (like economic development, housing, transport) without putting pressure on the natural environment, and - importantly - being able to maintain that balance indefinitely.

The Bill was joined by a high-profile national conversation - launched by Michael Sheen back in February - called "The Wales We Want", which intends to outline what the people of Wales, of all ages, want the country to be like in 2050. An interim report (pdf) was published alongside the launch of the Bill.

The findings highlighted that the biggest single concerns were : climate change (26% of respondents), skills & education (16%), natural environment (14%) employment (13%) and governance (7%).

Here's a word cloud of the responses from postcard submissions :

(Pic : The Wales We Want interim report - click to enlarge)

Notice that "sustainability/sustainable" and "social justice" are tucked away. It's worth pondering whether "sustainability" is the Wales they (government and associated groups) want, not the Wales we (the public) want.

"Sustainable" is the single most annoying buzzword in Cardiff Bay. It's used so often, you would think AMs were piously green woodland creatures that make absolutely no impact on the planet in action or thought.

If you take statements and Senedd debates at face value, everything our AMs propose or support is "sustainable"; whether that's building a race track on an upland moor with no races, building houses in the middle of nowhere, prioritising a whacking great big motorway across the Gwent Levels over public transport or supporting a nuclear power station Wales doesn't even need - at present or in the future.

Don't get me wrong, everyone behind this – including the Welsh Government – has gone into it with the best possible intentions, but it's built on soft foundations. We never seem to get aggressive actions, only aggressive talk in an attempt to make "sustainability/sustainable development" mean whatever decision-makers and opinion-formers want it to mean.

I don't see that changing, and here's why....

What the Future Generations Bill proposes

There are six very important long-term goals the Bill aims to focus attentions on
- but the rest of it is all too familiar.
(Pic : The Wales We Want)

The broad aim of the Act will be to place a duty on all public bodies in Wales (Welsh Government, local health boards, local councils, national parks, fire and rescue services, directly funded government bodies like National Museums Wales etc.) to improve the well-being of the population by following the "sustainable development" principle : meet today's needs without compromising the needs of, and resources available to, future generations.

Well-being Goals

The Bill sets out six core well-being goals it expects every public body in Wales to pursue.

1. A prosperous Wales – A low carbon, innovative economy that creates jobs, wealth and provides skills to the workforce.
2. A resilient Wales – Healthy ecosystems that support social, economic and ecological resilience and can adapt to change.
3. A healthier Wales – A society where physical and mental well-being is maximised and behaviours that improve future health are understood.
4. A more equal Wales – A society that enables people to fulfil their potential regardless of background.
5. A Wales of cohesive communities – Attractive, safe and well-connected communities.
6. A Wales of vibrant culture and a thriving Welsh language – A society that promotes, protects and encourages participation in culture, sport, heritage and the Welsh language.

• These goals may be added to, removed or amended by the Welsh Government (after consultation and Assembly approval).
• Public bodies and Welsh Ministers must publish their own objectives to achieve these well-being goals in accordance with the sustainable development principle.
• The Welsh Government must publish indicators to measure progress towards achieving these goals and lay a copy in front of the the National Assembly. They'll also have to publish an annual report on their progress.
• Within 12 months of every Welsh General Election, the Welsh Government will need to publish a "Future Trends Report" that outlines future trends in the economic, social and environmental well-being of Wales – including relevant statistics where appropriate.

Future Generations Commissioner

The Bill :

• Establishes a Sustainability/Future Generations Commissioner (which already exists but as a non-statutory position).
• Outlines the broad role of the Commissioner as :
• Promoting the "sustainable development principle" by safeguarding the needs of future generations.
• Encouraging public bodies to take the long-term impact of their decisions into consideration.
• Monitoring how public bodies are meeting their well-being objectives.
• Encouraging best practice amongst public bodies and promote awareness of sustainable development.
• Undertaking research or studies into sustainable development.
• Making recommendations to Welsh Ministers and public bodies on sustainable development goals. Those bodies will have a duty to follow any recommendations from the Commissioner unless they have good reason not to, or they come up with a better alternative.
• Places a duty on the Commissioner to publish a Future Generations report outlining what actions public bodies can take to meet their well-being objectives, after consultation with public bodies, the advisory panel (below), trade unions, businesses and anyone else the Commissioner deems appropriate.
• Establishes an Advisory Panel made up of other Commissioners (Chlidren's, Older People's), chief officers (i.e Chief Medical Officer) the chair of Natural Resources Wales and other members appointed by the Welsh Government.
• Bars elected representatives or peers from being appointed as Commissioner.

Public Service Boards

The Bill :

• Establishes Public Service Boards in each local authority area (post-merger?) made up of the local council, local health board, fire and rescue authorities and Natural Resources Wales.
• Places a duty on these new boards to invite other key participants, like Welsh Ministers, chief constables, Police & Crime Commissioners and bodies representing voluntary organisations ("Third Sector"). Other partners include community councils, Community Health Councils and Assembly-sponsored bodies (i.e Sport Wales).
• Grants powers to the hosting local authority's overview and scrutiny committee to review and scrutinise the public service board's functions and governance, and also grants them the power to report failings to the Welsh Government.
• Grants powers to Welsh Ministers to merge public service boards or direct them to collaborate if it would be beneficial.

The functions of the Public Service Boards are :

• To improve the economic, social and ecological well-being of their local area in accordance with the sustainable development principle.
• To publish an assessment of the well-being of their local area within one year of establishment.
• To develop local well-being plans to meet any decided local well-being aims in accordance with the sustainable development principle.
• To fully include community councils which have an expenditure of over £200,000 per year, which will – in turn – have to play a role in meeting the well-being aims set by the public service boards at a community level.

How much will the Future Generations Act cost?

The explanatory memorandum provided a very detailed breakdown of the potential costs based on various policy options. I'm only basing this off the Welsh Government's preferred option in each case.

The costs of the new levels of reporting, as set out in the Bill, will be just under £1.8million per year between 2015-16 and 2019-20, with an initial upfront cost of around £1million. The total costs will be spread across all the public bodies involved, ranging from £600,000 to the Welsh Government, to £40,000 (combined) for 73 community councils affected by the Bill (~£550 per council). The total cost of the reporting/monitoring well-being goals, between 2015-2020, will be around £10million.

The Future Generations Commissioner will cost £1.46million per year. This includes payments of up to £350 per day to members of the advisory panel, staffing costs (£948,000) – which will include plenty of "officer level" appointments - and general office running costs. Over the five year projections that's a total of around £7.3million.

The Public Service Boards will cost between £2.3million and £2.93million per year for the five years after the passing of the Act. Most of that will go towards partnership support and developing well-being plans themselves. It's expected each of the service boards will lay out around £414,000 per year on public engagement. Based on the figures provided, the total cost of the Public Service Boards between 2015-16 and 2019-20 is around £13million.

So the total estimated cost of any Well-being of Future Generation Act, over five financial years, is at least £30.3million.

A sustainable water-saturated miniature pyrotechnic device

An all too familiar Welsh way of doing things : talk in offices, ticks in boxes.
The launch of a flagship law should've been a cause for celebration,
but the response has been near-mute.
(Pic : Sustainable Cities Collective)

This is – Human Transplantation Act 2013 aside – the Welsh Government's flagship law of the Fourth Assembly. I suppose you can say it's been set up to be the lasting legacy of this generation of Welsh Ministers, and what they want to be remembered for once they retire, hence the Bill's title.

I presume this was supposed to be the Welsh Government's "big announcement" before going into recess (along with the local government white paper), its intention being to leave us all wanting more and to get the chattering classes pondering it over the summer.

This is supposed to be a radical, progressive, generation-defining law that "Wales is going to be famous for in the future".

If it really were that though, it would be everywhere right now. The world's media would be paying attention to little old Wales, while those at the other end of the M4 will be actively trying to learn from what we're attempting to do here.

In a way, this is another victim of the Alun Davies scandal. It hasn't been Carwyn's week, has it?

Aside from Click on Wales articles (here, here) and this blog today, it's barely made a ripple. The Western Mail had a negative spin, but was truthful - their Assembly correspondent Graham Henry (who, like myself, is no fan of Assemblese) described the Bill's launch event as "the closest we will come to a jargon nirvana" on Twitter. BBC Wales focused on the Wales We Want public attitudes survey. ITV Wales – as far as I can tell – didn't even bother. There are pretty good reasons for that.

Let's review what we get from this Bill : a Commissioner (whom already exists but is being put on the statute books), another collection of unelected patronage-based committees hovering above local government (with obligatory involvement of the Third Sector), and a set of rather broad catch all goals that you would expect any government in any liberal democracy to want to work towards.

Yeah, this is definitely Welsh Labour's baby alright.

A focused sustainable development law might've been boring, but it would've been a bit more intellectually honest than this.

That doesn't mean it's all bad. I like the idea of a once-a-term "Future Trends Report", for example. That could be incredibly useful. It looks like community councils are going to get a beefed-up public role too, and I don't really have a problem with another Commissioner.

If you're bored now though - it's not as if many of you are going to plough through everything written above - I'm going to make this a bit more interesting.

You could, in a twisted way, interpret this Bill as being an embryonic written Welsh Constitution. It sets out clear long-term goals and establishes a set of core principles "the Welsh state" will be obligated to work towards.

However, while constitutions and long-term goals are nice, they're not policy and they often don't warrant legislative measures.

The Bill could potentially throw up some very nasty situations if passed too. There's the question of what would happen if two or more of the well-being goals clash - housing (communities) and the Welsh language (culture) for instance? Which would win out? Are some of the six well-being goals more important than others?

"Klingons off the starboard bow"
It's all very well the Welsh Government setting well-being goals, but they've
completely neglected the impact this lot can do to torpedo those goals.
(Pic : The Guardian)

Also, while the Welsh Government and public bodies are going to be subject to this law, it doesn't seem to take into consideration actions by the UK Government or private sector which could have a negative impact on the six Welsh well-being goals. Westminster's primacy says hello.

For example, most energy powers rest with the UK Government, so they could - theoretically – unilaterally dump nuclear waste from around the UK in Wales if no community comes forward, or open up as much land as possible for fracking. That could, in the worse circumstances, trash many of the Welsh well-being goals (like ecological resilience and health). Yet the UK Government or private companies wouldn't be subject to this law because areas like defence and nuclear energy are non-devolved.

The Welsh Government would in a farcical position of being bound by this law not to do the same thing in their own territory, nor would they be able to prevent another government running roughshod over it. It's the equivalent of a "No Bombing" sign in a swimming pool.

What would happen if there's another round of welfare reform which would negatively impact the well-being goal to improve equality of opportunity? Would the Bill - from a subordinate legislature - override Westminster's sovereignty and force Whitehall to reconsider their actions? It wouldn't, would it? In that situation, sadly, the Bill's completely and utterly worthless. The very unbalanced nature of the Union - something Labour are keen to protect - could sink the Welsh Government's own "legacy law".

So in one swoop the Welsh Government might've just made the best legal and social justice argument for Welsh independence. They didn't think of it like that though, did they?

You would expect me to be pleased with that, but – alas - in its current form, the Bill should be rejected. It needs to go back to the drawing board and become a straight-up Sustainable Development Bill, or possibly merged with the proposed Planning Bill.

That's not because it's poorly thought through, but because - aside from more committees and a new Commissioner - there's absolutely no way in hell any Welsh Government, of any colour, will ever live up to the well-being goals.

It should be rejected because - until they can prove that they can back words with deeds - it's too optimistic a vision of the future for our politicians to work towards. That's a sad thing to say, but it's true. And believe me I wish it wasn't so.

Read More