Bethan Jenkins AC/AM Blog

Today I’m popping over to the climate camp in Merthyr Tydfil. I know that Jill Evans MEP is doing a workshop there, and that there will be various speakers. I’ll blog about it when I have time.

I can’t stay the weekend like I’d originally planned to as I’m going to a friend’s wedding in Scotland. I’m going to Perth, then on to Glasgow and Edinburgh.If you know any good places to go, then let me know. 

So, I won’t be blogging for a while. Have fun while I’m away!

My review of Patrick Hannan’s ‘A Useful Fiction’ is over on the waleshome blog should you wish to read it. No comments as yet- come on, I’m sure you have differing opinions to me on what it means to be British. If anyone has any other ideas for book reviews and so on, of if there are any publishers out there reading this blog who want me to review their books, then please let me know! I’m on a roll now, and I’ll have enough time to read while I’m in Brittany in a few weeks time…

Busy week so far, but I like to be busy. I’ve had two young people from Ysgol Ystalyfera on work experience with me this week and last week, and their enthusiasm is great. I really think that they are a shining example of the passion that young people have for politics- contrary to all this mumbo jumbo about young people being apathetic. We just need to engage them, and I am convinced they will be hooked! ( though I hope they get hooked on Plaid Cymru politics also, of course!)

Of late I’ve been visiting local groups who have received grants from the lottery, as well as visiting various constituents. I went to see the Forest School project in Caswell today, spoke to young people involved with Barnardos projects in Penlan, and the Undercurrents eco/film project in the Waterfront Museum. Most projects involved young people, and all of them showed enthusiasm for what they were doing.

On Friday I am going to the Climate Camp in Merthyr. I don’t know much about what’s happening yet but I’m looking forward to catching up with people, and in supporting the campaigners.

I’ve put a press release out today about the fact that HSBC plans to close its Kenfig Hill branch. You can see it on my website. They say that to keep the bank open is ‘unsustainable’. I hope to meet with the Managers to find out why this is. It might be very simplistic for me to say, but the Government has pumped millions in to the banking system. Surely, its their duty to keep services open and accessible?  They won’t be able to keep using  the slogan ‘the World’s local bank’ if they continue to close branches in communities like Kenfig Hill, that’s for sure.

I was listening to Radio 4 on my way to work today, and there was a discussion about allegations of how Oxfam is apparently taking over the second hand books market. There was a representative from the Provincial Booksellers Fairs Association on the show, and a representative from Oxfam.

To be fair, there was no great fight, but I was swayed towards Oxfam’s argument much more so that the Booksellers Fairs Association. What is wrong with a charity seeking to make money to help those in poverty, those who desperately need their help? If the argument was against large multi national corporations like Tesco who are selling books at such a cheap rate- a company which is also putting small independent record stores out of work for selling cheap cd’s, then I would have much more sympathy with the second hand booksellers.

It can’t be just as simple as blaming Oxfam, surely? The representative from Oxfam quite clearly stressed that they only opened a bookstore in areas where they have clear support and where they have a vibrant Oxfam shop, therefore I don’t see this as some sort of mercenary exercise by Oxfam chiefs to undermine their ‘competitors’.

The Oxfam bookshop in Swansea, for example, is a great community hub. Yes it is a second hand bookstore, but it has many dedicated volunteers- many of whom are asylum seekers who cannot work in Wales even if they wanted to. They organise cultural events, poetry readings and craft sessions. Nonetheless, I do sympathise with the second hand booksellers. I love pottering around such shops. I love their mustiness, and the excitement of chancing upon a rear find, or a first edition. But we are in a recession, there are global forces at work, and I’m afraid that Oxfam is not the appropriate choice of organisation by which to vent their anger!

In other news, I took part in a British Youth Council debate today in Swansea. The discussion was all going smoothly until we got a question ‘Why do some politicians always blame London?’ I went on to explain that Wales would like the tools to be able to change things in Wales, and that while we will do the best with the powers we have, we should have additional powers. I also said that it was our duty as AMs to raise awareness of issues when decisions are made in Westminster, such as opposition to ID cards, and the illegal Iraq War. However, when Kirsty Williams AM responded, she launched into a massive attack on ‘the Nationalists’ who are ‘always asking for more money for this and that.’ ‘ The Nationalists are the worst at it, not taking responsibility for their decisions in the Welsh Assembly Government’. Its not as if the Lib dems ever ask for additional funds fom WAG or Westminster, is it now?!

And when Jane Hutt answered the same question, Kirsty sat idly by, nodding like she could do no wrong! Seems to me that the Lib dem strategy in Wales is to attack attack attack Plaid, and to try and pave the way for a Lib Lab pact. I won’t go over old ground, but most of us know who turned down the opportunities of being in government in 2007! I just thought the whole response from Kirsty was a little ill judged and not really fitting for the event in question. But there we are, at least Plaid are getting under the skin of the Lib Dems! We had some other good questions on sexual health in Wales from the young people present; provision of youth facilities, criminalisation of young people, and MPs expenses. All very varied and interesting.

I’m going to visit Swansea Drugs Project tomorrow. They are developing a new centre with funding from the Welsh Assembly Government, so I hope to see how its progressing. Charities like this are so important. This rang true to me today especially when I visited the Lets Garw/ TimeBank charity in Pontycymmer today. They said that Wicada could not get funding to provide  outreach support officers to help local people at their base in the shop. Those running the charity told me that locals had to take the decision to travel to Bridgend, or go without any help. With people clearly in need of such services, they should be developed, supported and prioritised- not cut or deprived of finance.

The inquiry into the Iraq war, chaired by Sir John Chilcot was announced this week. Aside from the criticisms regarding the fact that  the make up of the panel may not lead to true scrutiny of the Government- most are ex civil servants, former Ambassadors, Oxbrige educated- there is a fundamental issue arising as to whether the inquiry is worth conducting at all under the current structure by which inquiries are held.

Sir John Chilcot insists that they will take as much evidence as possible in public, but that some evidence will be heard in private ‘for security reasons’ ( and who will define what security reasons are, I hear you ask?) He also states that they will hear from the families of victims killed during the Iraq war, and that they will also visit Iraq to take evidence.

Nonetheless, this inquiry will work within the confines of the Inquiries Act of 2005, which repeals the  Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921 that allowed Parliament to vote on a resolution establishing a tribunal that had “all such powers, rights, and privileges as are vested in the High Court‘, and placed the power solely under the control of a Minister. This Act was introduced a month before the 7/7 bombings, and has received widespread criticism from the Law Society and Amnesty International. Amnesty has gone as far as to call on judges not to take up chairs of panels of any inquiries under the Act, and the family of Pat Finucane, killed by loyalist paramilitaries in Belfast said they would not take part in any forthcoming inquiry would it to be held under the terms of the Act. 

Here are the details of the Act-

the inquiry and its terms of reference would be decided by the executive; no independent parliamentary scrutiny of these decisions would be allowed;

each member of an inquiry panel, including the chair of the inquiry, would be appointed by the executive and the executive would have the discretion to dismiss any member of the inquiry;

the executive can impose restrictions on public access to the inquiry, including on whether the inquiry, or any individual hearings, would be held in public or private;

the executive can also impose restrictions on disclosure or publication of any evidence or documents given, produced or provided to an inquiry;

the final report of the inquiry would be published at the executive’s discretion and crucial evidence could be omitted at the executive’s discretion, “in the public interest”.

 

Judge Peter Cory from Canada has stated that ‘ the proposed new act would make a meaningful inquiry impossible’ and that ‘Ministers could thwart efforts of the inquiry at every step’, and the Chairman of the US Congress committee on human rights, Chris Smith said it was ‘the public inquiries cover up bill‘.  This, notwithstanding the controversy leading up to the establishment of the  current Iraq inquiry, has prompted Lib dem MP David Heath to propose a private members bill, titled ‘ Parliamentary Commissions of Inquiry‘  to enable Members of Parliament to initiate inquiries. He states-

 

“When we need an inquiry because of a matter of great public concern, it should be this House that takes the decision, not a member of the Executive and not a Minister… There are 1,001 reasons why Ministers may not wish there to be a public inquiry into aspects of their conduct or the conduct of others in their control. There are so many reasons for them to delay, obfuscate or misdirect, rather than to have the searching after truth that a properly constituted public inquiry can provide.”

This Bill had its first reading in Westminster on July the 9th this year, and the second reading will be in October. It would make provision for ‘establishing a commission of inquiry subsequent to a resolution of Parliament into matters relating to the conduct of a Minister of the Crown; to make further provision for establishing a commission of inquiry into particular events which have or may have occurred and which have caused, or are capable of causing, public concern; to set out the procedures for setting up such a commission of inquiry, its powers, rights and privileges; to amend the Inquiries Act 2005; and for connected purposes.”

I can’t find definitive information on the internet from organisations that support the Bill, but please tell me if you find something, yet  it is clear that many members of the Conservatives and the Labour party have announced their support for the Bill. Until amendments of this kind are introduced, or the role of the legislature is recognised in forming inquiries of such a sensitive nature for the government, I find it difficult to envisage how this most recent inquiry in to the Iraq war will differ from the Hutton inquiry to any true extent or meaning. The Chilcot inquiry has already noted that it does not foresee taking evidence from US sources, and the Inquiries Act shows quite clearly that public access to the evidence can be restricted, and that the relevant Minister can exert undue control over the situation.

I am not trying to be overtly cynical here, but surely, if we want a truly open, independent and successful inquiry then this cannot be achieved under the current arrangements. It will thus only serve to leave us with more questions unanswered at the end of the process about a war that many of us believe was illegal from the outset, and has led to the death of thousands of innocent Iraqis, notwithstanding the death of British troops.