no cold calling

Figures out last year from the National Fraud Office estimate that around £6bn is lost annually by victims of fraud schemes and illegal scams; what’s more disturbing is that the Office of Fair Trading estimates that around 95% of these scams go unreported. If we apply this to the 2,500 scams that were reported in Wales last year, the true figure could be in the region of 50,000 victims. It’s therefore unsurprising that this is one illegal industry that is on the rise throughout the UK.

 

Such crimes can have a devastating impact upon anyone that falls victim to them, often leaving the individual tens of thousands of pounds out of pocket. As well catching the criminals and raising awareness of these vicious scams and swindles, it’s my belief that we need to give a high priority towards tackling them at their root cause. One of the biggest “methods” of scams relates to unwanted and uninvited doorstep callers; that is why I’ve been calling for the roll out of more “No Cold Calling Zones”.

 

Research conducted by charities and organisations like Age Cymru, Scambusters and Trading Standards departments have shown that “No Cold Calling Zones” are popular with members of the public, can act as crime deterrents, and can save councils and police forces money by preventing the crimes from occurring in the first place.

 

The problem, however, is the current lack of consistency of zones across the 22 councils in Wales. Just three Welsh councils have zones in operation that  cover over 5,000 homes; eight councils have zones in place that cover fewer than 1,000 homes; and four councils currently have no zones in operation; we in Swansea have just four zones.

 

After raising this in the Senedd with the Lesley Griffiths last week, I welcomed the news that the Welsh Government has recently made funding available for local councils to create new zones to cover an extra 10,000 properties. However, I would like to see more done in cracking down on the scammers. It’s my belief that we need to permanently end the “postcode lottery” of zones by making Wales a No Cold Calling Zone.

 

The danger of having small zones covering a handful of properties is that it’s almost like having a sign that says ‘old and vulnerable people live here’. The other concern, of course, is that criminal and fraudsters will just move onto another area where there isn’t a zone in operation, effectively moving the organised set-up elsewhere and not dealing with the problem. This is something that can be avoided with consistency.

 

Reserved powers

Today I attended a meeting at Westminster discussing the reserved powers model. I believe the argument in favour of the reserved powers model, as Scotland, Northern Ireland and Europe, is overwhelming. This is not about additional powers, that is a different argument, it is about clarity. I expect Silk to recommend the reserved powers model and I hope Westminster will act upon it.

devolving income tax

As the argument over whether or not to devolve income tax takes place I would like to address not the desirability or otherwise of the principle but to address the criteria needed to be met and the practicalities of devolving income tax.

Firstly there are three criteria that need to be met in the Wales Act, its Command paper or by other means before we can get to the stage of discussing the practicalities and these are the no detriment rule, needs based funding and no lockstep.

We need the same no detriment rule as Scotland has been given as Wales would have no control over tax allowances and band points. Scotland has been protected from any negative affect on their budget by this in the Command paper that was produced alongside the bill. This protection would need to be either in the Wales bill or the Command paper published with it, otherwise in year changes in tax allowances and bands would affect the amount of income tax received without the Welsh government having any control over it.

We need a minimum of a Barnett Floor now but the first step for fair funding has been secured by the Finance Minister (addressing convergence if it is thought to occur at each Spending Review). A proper needs-based distribution formula needs to be created and whilst I would prefer it in the legislation in order to get it through the Treasury and to avoid locking in the under funding of Wales I accept other methods of achieving the same end result are possible. If this is not committed to and undertaken then the underfunding of Wales could be locked in to the finance system for ever. Of course it is not only Wales that would benefit from a needs based formula some of the English regions would as well.

The Lock step needs removing because if it stays it means that tax changes could not be used. Whilst changes to the higher rates could be made and would either raise or cost relatively small sums, a substantial change in the basic rate would either cost large sums of money or cause a huge public outcry. A finance policy could include increasing the upper rates and decreasing the basic rate or vice versa but with the lockstep in place this would be impossible. Any government that accepted the devolution of income tax with the lockstep would be accepting the risk on tax receipts without having any effective control on tax rates. Remembering that since 1999 Scotland has had the power to vary the basic rate of income tax by up to 3p but no government in Scotland has used this power.

If the above are met then we move into the detailed discussion regarding devolving income tax.

Income Tax whilst not as volatile as other taxes has shown up to £300 million difference between years. We would need to start any devolved income tax as the financial cycle was moving up so that money could be accumulated in order to avoid the need to borrow on the down cycle. We would also need to keep underspends and build up balances, just like a local authority does, in order to deal with years when the tax take is reduced.

Wales would need protection against external factors e.g. a major closure caused by a Westminster Government decision that would seriously reduce the Welsh government tax income. The governments would need to agree a value above which the Westminster Government would start to compensate for the reduced tax caused by their policies.

We would need borrowing powers to cover shortfall in income tax and borrowing is also required to fund infrastructure. There is a need to have two borrowing limits one for capital and one for revenue otherwise capital projects would be cancelled in order to fund revenue commitments made at the beginning of the year. We would need the equivalent of the Scottish cash reserve to deal with fluctuations in devolved tax receipts.

Finally a definition of the Welsh tax payer will be needed preferably based upon the Scottish model but defining Welsh tax payers especially in border areas may be problematic. This depends on the Income tax collection service knowing the up to date home address of all tax payers and would involve additional work to ensure that Wales receives its correct funding.

When all this is resolved we will then be ready for a referendum on the partial devolution of income tax.

Questions for Council employees regarding the Williams Commission

) Will TUPE apply- Thee were concerns over whether TUPE would have applied during the reorganisation of the Wales Audit Office. TUPE had to be specified as applying, in order to avoid any doubt then the application of TUPE needs to be specified preferably on the face of the bill

2) Will there be added years for staff taking early retirement- Historically staff taking early retirement have been given enhancements of up to 6 2/3 years in order to facilitate their retirement, will this enhancement be available for any who are seeking early retirement on reorganisation.

3) Will there be actuarial reductions for early access to pensions- At the last reorganisation there was no actuarial reduction for those accessing pensions early. If such a reduction occurred it would seriously affect the pensions people would receive or they would spend the time between reorganisation and their expected retirement date.

4) How will different conditions on joining authorities be dealt with- Different authorities have different terms and conditions e.g. Neath Port Talbot salary reduction and working hours reduction. What will happen to these terms on merger.

5) If it costs £100 million ( I believe the cost will be substantially higher) how will it be funded. If it is funded from the local government settlement how many jobs will be lost. Where else could it be funded from and whilst many councils have fairly large reserves much of that is earmarked.

6) Why is it expected that ICT costs will be low- ICT costs can rapidly escalate when different systems are being merged. There will be data transfer costs, contracts that will still need to be paid and possible compatibility problems.

7) If it goes over cost how will that be funded- Will jobs and services be cut or will the Welsh Government underwrite such costs.

8) Will there need to be a new job evaluation and if so how will costs be funded- As different authorities produced different grades for the same job, on reorganisation will these need to be addressed because otherwise we will see different salaries for the same job across the new authorities.

9) How much will it cost to change signs, headed paper- Whilst not a substantial sum, the changing of signs and headed paper across Wales will add up.

10) Will travel costs be paid for staff relocated- On reorganisation a number of staff will have to travel, possibly long distances to their new site. Will all staff be paid travel costs and how will this be funded

11) Will there be alary protection and if so for how long

Does size matter service examples

As the belief that big is better when it comes to local government becomes embedded in the public mind. I would like to raise two examples of good performance by small authorities.


Only one welsh local authority has achieved an "excellent" rating for education by Estyn. This is the fourth smallest of the local councils in Wales and has had by far the best education assessment. A far better rating than any of the three largest councils.

On dealing with homelessness the best performing council is the smallest Merthyr.

According to the Williams commission the best Council for dealing with hospital discharge is the relatively small Conwy.

does size matter?

From the summary of local authority performance 2012/13 I have inserted the top quartile performance and bottom quartile performance in against councils in size order and subtracted them.

Rank	District		Population		Top		Bottom		Difference
					Quartile		Quartile
1	Cardiff		345,400		5		7		-2
2	Swansea		239,000		3		5		-2
3	Rhondda Cynon Taf		234,400		4		7		-3
4	Carmarthenshire		184,000		4		3		1
5	Caerphilly		178,800		3		6		3
6	Flintshire		152,700		6		4		2
7	Newport		145,800		2		8		-6
8	Neath Port Talbot		139,900		4		5		-1
9	Bridgend		139,400		4		4		0
10	Wrexham		135,100		3		6		-3
11	Powys		133,100		8		4		4
12	Vale of Glamorgan		126,700		3		6		-3
13	Pembrokeshire		122,600		5		3		2
14	Gwynedd		121,500		8		1		7
15	Conwy		115,300		4		4		0
16	Denbighshire		93,900		11		1		10
17	Monmouthshire		91,500		8		3		5
18	Torfaen		91,200		2		7		-5
19	Ceredigion		75,300		5		7		-2
20	Anglesey		69,900		6		4		2
21	Blaenau Gwent		69,800		5		5		0
22	Merthyr		58,900		6		6		0