Is Williams NUTS

 

When I saw the proposed new structure for Councils in Wales I thought it looked familiar.

The Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics, (NUTS), is a European Union standard for referencing the administrative divisions of countries for statistical purposes.

The United Kingdom is split into 12 NUTS1 areas and Wales is one of them. Wales is then subdivided into the NUTS 2 areas of West Wales and the valleys, which is in receipt of European convergence funding, and East Wales.  The rules of NUTS 2 is that the average population should be between 800,000 and 3 million so at the last review Wales could have been split into one, two or three NUTS2 areas but it was decided to stay with the two previously used.

Below NUTS 2 are the NUTS 3 areas made up of one or more local authorities and there are 12 of these, for those who have read the Williams report that number should look  familiar. The only difference with the Williams Commission is that in all their proposed options Ynys Mon and Gwynedd are merged, the keeping of Ynys Mon as a  separate NUTS 3 areas is highly anomalous, whilst other proposals involve removing Carmarthenshire from South West Wales and adding Swansea to Neath Port Talbot Bridgend leaving seven unchanged from their NUTS 3 boundaries in every proposed reconfiguration. The proposals consist of keeping 7, 8 or 10 unchanged NUTS3 areas.

a tale of three committees

To put the Public Accounts committee report into context

 

Communities Equality and Local government committee enquiry into Libraries

18 witnesses

35 Written statements

 

Finance committee enquiry into Finance Wales

11 witnesses

82 written submissions

 

PAC enquiry into the Anglesey air link

4 witnesses (3 from the Welsh Government)

4 written submission (3 from the welsh Government)

 

 

 

supplementary budget

The first supplementary budget is only the allocation of a small sum of money received as a Barnet consequential, with only a very minor 0.3% change from the original budget.

I want to discuss three issues:

Firstly the pupil deprivation grant and general education funding

How the pupil deprivation grant is calculated is straight forward

Multiplying the number of pupils entitled to free school meals by the grant per pupil

The Welsh government have a policy of increasing the amount of money given to schools by 1% per year

Confusion arises over whether that is

An absolute 1% increase

A 1% increase over the total Welsh block grant which I believe to be the case

Should Pupil Deprivation grant count against the 1%

I do not believe it should but we need clarity

I also believe SEG should count but should any of it top sliced by the consortium count

Again I think the answers are

Yes it counts

Top sliced money should not count

But again clarity is needed

I believe that it would be helpful when future budgets are presented that the Total school budget and the pupil deprivation grant are published separately.

On Capital projects that involve a future revenue commitment is important that the implications for future budgets are identified.

Invest to save is an excellent idea and I strongly support its aims. I believe an annual report indicating the pay back from each project would be a useful piece of information

Whilst we know that schemes should pay back over 3 years we also know some have needed longer.

It is also inevitable some will not make the expected savings.

It is important that what occurs is scrutinised and that the successes are built upon  and the relative failures learnt from

standing at football grounds

Safe standing

The proposal that the national assembly wales

Calls on the Welsh Government to work closely with sport associations and regulatory authorities to promote safe standing at sports stadia in Wales;

Standing at football grounds is popular

Many remember standing areas such asthe Kop, The shed and the North Bank at Swansea

Many football fans want to be able to stand

Anyone listening to the tannoy at football grounds will be aware that many still stand in the seated area

Fans want to be able to stand

It would increase the capacity of football grounds without the need for any additional building work and save the clubs money

It is supported by the Football Supporters' Federation that believes a pilot scheme would show standing - outlawed after the Hillsborough disaster in 1989 - is now a safe way to watch football. A number of clubs including Cardiff City support this.

I stand most weeks to watch sport on a Saturday afternoon in my constituency

Where the local rugby and soccer teams play but the largest crowd I was in last year was about 400 to see Bonymaen defeat Pontypool.

When the ground is not full there are huge advantages of standing.

You can move up and down the ground, meet up with different groups of friends and even when the ground is full you can stay together as a group of friends watching the game rather than be restricted in where you can sit.

With all those advantages why am I against safe standing

Firstly because I believe safe standing is an oxymoron.

I do not believe it possible at grounds which are at or near capacity.

I will now address four points

The surge, the crush, overcrowding, and holiganism

When a standing crowd surges

Everyone moves forward

But the banks are tiered, personal experience here,you  can be moving forward pushed by the crowd with your feet off the ground

To be deposited hopefully upright when the surge either return you to where you started or puts you down

The crush is caused brcause even if there is room at te corners fans, qite rightly want the best standing positin they can get so aim for a central position. Those at the back push forward, those at the front or against barriers end up getting crushed.

Whilst the number of seats in the seating area limits the numberwho can enter no such limit exists in the standing area. There is a nominal capacity but we are all different sizes and when overrcrowding occurs then you can have serious injuries and fatalities.

Finally hooliganism has been almost completely ended at football matches.

I believe one of the main reasonms is that you know who bought each seat and if there is a problem the purchaser can be identified.

Obviously with standing you do not know where anyone is and also it would allow the return of the charge.

Football grounds have become safe places the mix in the stands is far more reflective of society than the banks ever were.

To quote the Premier league

Since the introduction of all-seater stadia the supporter experience has improved significantly and we have seen more diverse crowds attending Premier League matches, including more women and children.

"The police, safety officers and licensing authorities remain clear and have consistently informed us that crowd management has improved as a result of all-seater stadiums being in place in the top two divisions in this country."

 

I believe that it would be a serious and retrograde step to bring back standing at football grounds

Wales Bill

Like, I am sure, most people in Wales I welcome the Wales bill and believe it is generally a step in the right direction.

Unfortunately this support  comes with some caveats.

I welcome the ban on double jobbing by preventing assembly members from also being MPs. I would like to see a further ban on being a councillor and a member of the national assembly wales. In many ways that generates a greater conflict of interest as local government is one of the two major services covered by the National assembly for wales.

 

If one person cannot adequately represent constituents at Westminster and Cardiff how can they adequately represent on their local council and the National assembly?

 

I strongly oppose the ability of candidates to stand on for both a constituency and on the list.

This is one of these issues on which politicians are accused of being self serving. Just because you are rejected by the electorate that should not stop you being elected.

Lose in the constituency and then it does not matter there is always the regional list. Taking the risk out of elections especially when we have an electoral system where even a catastrophic drop in votes does not equate to the same reduction in seats won.

Secondly I have a number of concerns regarding the devolution of income tax

1)    Very pleased to see the no detriment rule as Scotland. Wales would have no control over tax allowances and band points. Scotland has been protected from any negative affect on their budget by this. Very pleased to see this in the Command Paper of the Wales Bill

 

2)    We need a minimum of a Barnett Floor now, but a proper needs-based distribution formula needs to be in the legislation in order to get it through the treasury and to avoid locking in the under funding of Wales

 

3)    Income Tax whilst not as volatile as other taxes has shown volatility with up to £300 million difference between years. Would need to agree a point where Wales was not disadvantaged year on year. Also goes on to the strange idea that because the Welsh Government does not benefit from tax increases there is no incentive to grow the economy. Whilst I might disagree with the method proposed I do not think there is a member in this chamber who does not want to grow the Welsh economy.

 

4)    There would need to be protection against external factors e.g. a major closure caused by a Westminster Government decision that would seriously reduce the Welsh Government tax income

 

5)    The Lock step 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 huge public outcry.

 

6)    There will be a need borrowing powers to cover shortfall in income tax and borrowing is also required to fund infrastructure. There will need to be a borrowing limits one for revenue and also the ability to build reserves  and to invest them separately, if desired, from the treasury.

 

7)    Remember Scotland has had the power to vary the basic rate of income tax but has not varied the basic tax rate under any government.

 

8)    Defining Welsh tax payers especially in border areas. This depends on the Income tax knowing the up to date home address of all tax payers.

 

 

On Borrowing Powers

I intend to compare the proposed borrowing powers of the Welsh Government with those of  a local Council.

A local authority has total discretion on how it spends it’s capital allocation

But it can also undertake prudential borrowing

It can borrow as much, or as little as the Council feels is needed and it believes it has the ability to repay.

It can borrow for whatever reason

It can make local choices

Building new schools, road improvements or new civic buildings

That is borrowing for capital schemes is available for use across the whole of the Council’s  Infrastructure Investment

Why should the Welsh Government be treated less favourably that the local councils?

Of course instead of borrowing the Welsh Government could

Enter into a 30 year PFI deal.

Which will cost more

Because the private company involved

Will borrow at a higher rate than from the PWLB

And

Will have profit built in

This would be acceptable to the treasury

Can be carried out without any attempt at external control

I consider it to be bizarre

To borrow you need an income stream

Yet no income stream is needed for

PFI schemes lasting over 30 years

Leases and leasing equipment

Yet each has an on going annual cost similar to, although more expensive than borrowing.

Borrowing should be under the same conditions

We should have

Welsh decision on how much to borrow

Welsh decisions on What to spend it on

Welsh decisions on who to borrow it from