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

The Prom!

I enjoyed this in the Evening Post so mucI wanted to give it a wider audience

Apparently hairdressers can’t just do your daughter’s hair on the day, they have to practice first? But surely, if surgeons can manage to do an operation without a trial run, hair’s got to be a lot simpler than that.
From the replies I received on facebook it is not easier!
 

9 things a Swansea prom is not complete without - or so dads are told

PROM is bigger than Christmas, it's bigger than everything...apparently. But it's...

southwales-eveningpost.co.uk

 

Welsh Government and borrowing powers (Assembly speech)

I want to concentrate on one part of the resolution, namely that of borrowing powers for Wales. I intend initially to compare the proposed borrowing powers of the Welsh Government with those of a local council. A local authority has total discretion as to how it spends its capital allocation, but it can also undertake prudential borrowing. It can borrow as much or as little as the council feels is needed and believes it has the ability to pay back. It can borrow for whatever reason and it can make local choices: it can build new schools, make road improvements or build 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 than local councils?
	If you are talking about some of the routes, Newport City Council could borrow money to produce some of the routes if it so desired, without anybody having any means of stopping it. Of course, instead of borrowing, the Welsh Government could enter into a 30-year PFI deal, which would cost more, because the private company involved would borrow at a higher rate than from the Public Works Loan Board, and it would have profit built in. This would be acceptable to the Treasury; in fact, it said so this morning. It can be carried out without any attempt at external control.
	Then we have what I consider to be the bizarre system to borrow against your income stream, yet no income stream is needed for a PFI scheme that is entered into for 30 years, and no income stream is needed for leases and leasing equipment. Income streams are only required for borrowing so you can do exactly the same thing any other way as long as it does not have the word ‘borrowing’ against it. I find that absolutely and utterly bizarre. However, each of the PFI scheme leases have an ongoing annual cost, similar to, although much more expensive, than borrowing. Borrowing should be under the same conditions. We should have Welsh decisions on how much to borrow, Welsh decisions on what to spend it on and Welsh decisions on who to borrow it from.
	Take local councils. They have their own income stream, but it has basically been cut twice. First, it was when commercial rates were centralised, and then when council tax replaced the poll tax. Local income via council tax could be abolished at any time—that is within the power of the Westminster Government—yet prudential borrowing is allowed. There is also the choice of where to borrow it from. They can borrow it from the Public Works Loan Board, which is normally the place of choice. They can also borrow from the European Investment Bank, from other banks or by using bonds, as Transport for London did, which is a public sector local government body, which raised £600 million to help finance the construction of Crossrail.
	The Welsh Government should have the power to undertake prudential borrowing, and the power to decide the priorities of Wales without any intervention from outside.

the future shape of local government

When I first became active in politics in the 1970s the structure of public services was very different to those we have today. County Councils were the basic building block of local services and Further Education colleges, Polytechnics, Institutes of higher education and the fire service were all directly run by County Councils, whilst services such as probation and health were organised on a County basis with direct County Councillor involvement. Beneath the County Councils were District Councils which provided the bulk of local services including almost all public housing and some County Councils organised their services on a District basis.
Today we have a far more fragmented public service with 22 unitary authorities replacing the former County and District Councils. Further Education Colleges, Institutes of Higher Education and the Polytechnic of Wales have all left Local Authority control. The fire service is currently split across Wales into three and these are controlled by local authority joint boards with representation politically proportional and weighted on the size of local authority area. Health has new boundaries different to the old County boundaries whilst probation has been made an all Wales service on its way to privatisation. The old University of Wales has split up into its constituent colleges such as Swansea and Cardiff.
In the context of this transformation in the way our public services are delivered we now have the Williams report with a number of recommendations including a proposed new structure for local government in Wales. This has been met with varying degrees of enthusiasm from the totally supportive to the totally against.
What we do know is that reorganisations cost money and whilst the Williams report uses the merger of District Councils with the County Council in Cornwall as the means of calculating the cost, I believe that the merger of unitary authorities will be a lot more complex and a lot more expensive than that. When the District Councils were merged into the County Council the major services such as Education, Social Services and highways stayed in the same place. If the experience of local government reorganisation in Swansea in 1996 is replicated then the cost of reorganisation will be at least 5% of the budget of the new authorities.
What I am sure that everyone agrees on is that we cannot continue to reorganise local authorities in Wales every 22 years. What is produced during the next few years needs to show the longevity of the County, County Borough and District Council model created in the 19^th Century.
The County, County Borough and District Council system lasted virtually unaltered in structure, although not in services, for over 80 years. The advent of the Conservative 1974 Local Government act put an end to the County Boroughs, urban District Councils and the rural District Councils that had served Wales since their creation in the late 19th century, with the County Councils continuing albeit on different boundaries and new District Councils being created. Then in 1996, 22 unitary authorities were formed by the Conservative government of the day in order to save money, reduce duplication and provide a better service to the public.
The “Williams” commission recommends the creation of between 10 and 12 new unitary authorities by merging existing unitary authorities with the intention of creating better and more cost effective services.
I believe that there are two alternative structures for Welsh local government to the “Williams commission”, that should be considered, and one variation on it.
The first alternative is to keep the 22 unitary authorities but to organise joint boards, either based on the Williams proposals or as close as possible to the former County Council areas to cover the two major services in terms of budget and staff i.e. Education, and Social Services plus Trading Standards and the development plan in the same way as the Fire service is currently managed. The advantage of this is that it would be relatively cheap to carry out but it would mean effectively lead authorities and there would be problems of scrutinising decisions and service provision.
The second alternative, and one I campaigned for in the 1990s, was to base the structure on County Councils. Whilst the exact boundaries of the old County Councils could not be easily replicated this would be a structure such as North West Wales (Ynys Mon, Gwynedd and Conwy), North East Wales (Denbighshire, Flintshire and Wrexham), Dyfed (Carmarthenshire, Ceredigion and Pembrokeshire), West Glamorgan (Neath Port Talbot and Swansea), South Glamorgan (Cardiff and the Vale of Glamorgan), Mid Glamorgan (Rhondda Cynon Taff, Bridgend and Merthyr), Gwent (Blaenau Gwent, Torfaen, Caerphilly, Newport and Monmouthshire) and Powys.
The weakness of this, as with the County structure was that it could appear remote to the people whom it serves but this could be overcome by creating area committees, based upon either the former District Councils or the former Unitary Authorities, to deal with most of the former District Council functions such as development control and leisure services. This is effectively recreating the former two tier system but utilising the same Councillors and officers.
The final option is to use either the former County structure outlined above or the “Williams” proposals but creating fewer and much larger community Councils to carry out some of the former District Council functions. The disadvantage of this is that it is recreating the two tier system and it will need to dramatically reduce the number of community Councils.
There seems to be no option that doesn’t have its downside but what ever is decided I hope it is robust enough to last. The scenario we must avoid is to continue reorganising local Government every 22 years

smoking

I am very pleased that according to latest figures Wales has seen a drop in the proportion of people who smoke, As reported in the Western mail on the 22^nd May the results of the Welsh Health Survey show that the percentage of adults who smoke fell from 23% to 21% between 2012 and 2013. This is certainly a substantial move in the right direction in one year. Whilst there will be many reasons for it, I would like to highlight two important actions in Wales that have certainly helped. The first is the banning of smoking in pubs and clubs which has certainly reduced temptation and the second is the work on running smoking cessation groups by community first clusters in Wales,

I hope next year to be welcoming a further reduction in the number smoking.