Bethan Jenkins AC/AM Blog

I WENT to another meeting of the former Visteon workers in the Swansea area on Wednesday night. As you may know, Visteon was a spin-off company of Ford, and when it went bust, Ford refused to provide ex-workers with the pensions they contributed to, for up to 40 years.

When Visteon was spun out of Ford, the pensioners were led to believe that their entitlements would be the same as Ford workers. Many of them have insisted that they would only have agreed to move their pensions to Visteon’s scheme under the premise that their pensions would be protected by Ford. Many are perplexed that Ford does not appear to have lost out from the Visteon collapse. They say that it did not affect car production at all.

Many of the ex-workers angrily believe that Visteon was created to take the burden of pension pay outs off Ford, but they are unable to prove whether this is right or wrong.

A meeting between Ford and trade unionists took place last week in New York, but it is clear from the update from that meeting that Ford does not feel under obligation to pay the workers in full, regardless of whether they are contractually or morally obliged. The campaign group is now asking the union Unite to take forward legal action against Ford and, given the support from union leaders like Andy Richards at the Senedd protest last week, I would hope that Unite takes forward this legal action.

The campaign group says it has evidence to support its case that Ford has broken its contractual obligations to former Visteon workers. It will be a challenge well made, especially after we learned this week that Ford posted $2.7billion for last year. In an article for business week, Joe Phillippi, president of AutoTrends Consulting, said: “The turnaround is going exceptionally well. They’re very well positioned for significant improvements in profitability plans as production rebounds.”

I hope the plans for the legal action are successful. I intend to write to Unite to ask if it requires any assistance and to support the Visteon pensioners in their future campaigning.

I WATCHED Politics Show Wales today in sheer disbelief at the words coming out of Dai Harvard’s mouth on Afghanistan. I think I paraphrase when he said something like “It’s not a war. It’s about talking, and sorting things out”. So why send so many troops there if it’s all about negotiation and conversation?

My parents call Mr Harvard the Member for Helmand, as he always seems to appear in the local press decked out in army gear and visiting British troops out in Afghanistan. I wouldn’t mind so much if he talked sense about the situation, but being an embedded politician with British troops, I hardly think he’s going to get an unbiased viewpoint of the situation.

But the reason for this blog was not to concentrate on Dai Harvard’s political career. It was motivated by what I have been reading of late about the Iraq inquiry. There is excitement, fear, a sense of anxiety, and some anger ahead of Tony Blair’s evidence to the Chilcot inquiry this Friday. Families of victims are threatening to protest, some refuse to turn up, and news sources report that the elevated terrorist risk to the UK is partly due to Blair’s evidence session. But whatever the emotions associated with Blair’s turn in giving evidence, nobody is quite so sure what his fate will be, or whether he will be tested fully.

Now, I think you know my initial thoughts on an inquiry as spearheaded by the executive, and my worries that nothing will come of it. But it’s clear that the evidence so far has done nothing to help the Labour party’s reputation in the run up to the General Election. Lord Goldsmith is set to give evidence this week, so too is Sir Michael Wood, former chief legal adviser to the Foreign Office who, according to legal sources, advised ‘throughout’ the run-up to war that invasion would breach international law, unless there was a new United Nations resolution. All of this public scrutiny has motivated Gordon Brown also to declare that he will give evidence before the General Election. How noble of you, I hear you cry.

But coming to my point, the issue for me is that whatever is said, whatever evidence is given, whatever conclusion Chilcot and his team come to, will there be a sense of everyone taking a sigh of relief, brushing it under the carpet, and moving on? How possibly can this be done with the spectre of Afghanistan hanging over the current government?  Some 250 British soldiers have now died in a ‘war’ that one Labour MP does not even deem to be a war. There are arguments that troops don’t have the machinery they need, that they are not fully supported when they return to the UK. Is the Government not learning any lessons from Iraq’s mistakes? Is it asking for a future inquiry into the Afghan war? It is certainly going the right way about it.

There are lives at stake here, so ministers cannot afford to make mistakes. Of course, I don’t think we should be there anyway, just as I did not believe that military action in Iraq was justified. If these two wars have taught us anything (and yes, Dai, Afghanistan is a war) it is that it is better – and cheaper – to build an economy of opportunity and prosperity, along with basic pubic services and amenities, than it is to waste billions on defence spend.

But the lesson goes deeper. What we should all know realise is that we shouldn’t meddle in the affairs of other countries, particularly if we need to use guns to do it.

FURIOUS words from the Secretary of State for Wales aimed at Yours Truly in yesterday’s Western Mail.

As some of you will know, I’ve spent the last few months knocking on the doors of the mighty, asking if one of them will meet with a delegation of Visteon pensioners, the 700-strong group of men and women from the Swansea area who, after some of them had worked for Ford for over 40 years, now face a future of fear and uncertainty as their entitlements could be cut by as much as half.

One-by-one, I’ve met with refusal, obfuscation and some serious buck passing. The last came from Peter Hain. I wrote to him before Christmas, asking if he would sit down with a small group – not unreasonable because, as the Neath MP, he represents some of the pensioners.

What came back was a three-paragraph reply that could have been reduced to one word: No. I found this frustrating and told the Western Mail so: “He (Mr Hain)’s now written to Yvette Cooper, the Pensions Secretary, and received the usual shrugged shoulders you would expect from this finished administration. He clearly thinks he’s now discharged his duties towards his constituents but they are still facing up to 50% cuts to their pensions.”

Peter was not pleased. I was accused of being “bent on sixth-form political point-scoring”. What a cheap shot!  The Welsh Secretary added:  “Yvette Cooper set out a detailed explanation of the pension protection available and I am very keen to get back to discussing the practical steps that can be taken to secure the financial future of former Visteon workers.”

Problem number one: Mr Hain tells me in his letter that he has been “contacted by numerous constituents going back over a long period now” (In fact, the letters informing the pensioners that their fund had applied to enter the Pension Protection Fund only began arriving last July, as Visteon collapsed less than a year ago, on March 31st). Surely the Secretary of State knows that it’s the maximum cap on money paid out by the PPF which is the issue for the pensioners, as it will lead to a reduction in their payments?

He will also know that the Visteon Pensions Action Group has deep concerns over the future viability of the PPF, as it is currently in the red to the tune of over £1bn. So the PPF is not the answer to this. But Peter already knows that.

Problem number two: Mr Hain says he is “very keen to get back to discussing the practical steps that can be taken to secure the financial future of former Visteon workers”. Is that so? His letter says: “I therefore see no need for you to bring a delegation to me as delegations have already and still can contact me direct.”

So keen to get to the heart of the matter, just so long as you go see him. The practical steps – what are these? Giving men and women half instead of nothing means they’re still unable to enjoy the lifestyle they worked and saved for. And has he stated publicly that he wants to speak with former Visteon workers? Where has he been at all the previous public meetings at the Railway Club in Swansea?

I can only conclude that he’d rather see them without me, for reasons I will leave to you readers.

But this matter is bigger than politics. If it wasn’t, I wouldn’t have shared a platform with members of other parties – including his – at yesterday’s demonstration.

No, it’s about getting a fair deal – what these people deserve.

I’m angry because I believe the Secretary of State for Wales can and should do more. If not, why have a Secretary of State at all?

There is still time, Peter.

I’m very pleased to blog about the fact that the Welsh Government has today launched a review, and has set up a panel to look in to how the Family Justice System works in Wales and England.

The terms of reference are below, as stated by the Minister with responsibility for this area, Gwenda Thomas.

I am particularly pleased, as I wrote to the First Minister only last week to ask about this very issue given that I have am aware that the system does not work as well as it could at the moment- some would say that this is an understatement.

The family justice system, according to many organisations like Families Need Fathers, is especially weak when discussing the role of the father in a child’s life, or the non -resident parent. I have been informed that court orders are often broken by the resident parent, that quite often false allegations are put forward against the non resident parent, and that the courts do not always fully consider such allegations. I therefore particularly welcome the way in which this review will look at -

• The interests of the child should be paramount in any decision affecting them (and, linked to this, delays in determining the outcome of court applications should be kept to a minimum)
• The court’s role should be focused on protecting the vulnerable from abuse, victimisation and exploitation and should avoid intervening in family life except where there is clear benefit to children and vulnerable adults in doing so

So many non resident parents (which are mostly men I’m afraid to say) are fighting within a system that appears to be working against them- denying them the right to see their child- which actively works against the rights of the child to have access to both parents.

 The Tories talk about tax breaks for married couples, but surely this issue is one that should be prioritised firstly, and with urgency, given the number of divorced or separated couples who are involved in protracted court cases?

 This review is important  in order to give children a rounded, and fulfilling upbringing by both parents equally- and to ensure that they are treated fairly within the family justice system. So many fathers, or non resident parents are forced to accept that they cannot see their children ever again due to the way in which the current system actively works against them. This is a sorry state of affairs, and it should not be happening in the 21st Century.

 The review will end in 2011, and I hope that third sector organisations, charities and the public will get involved in giving evidence on an issue that has for too long fallen below the political radar.

………………………………………………………..
WRITTEN STATEMENT BY THE
WELSH ASSEMBLY GOVERNMENT

Title:
Family Justice Review
Date:
20 January 2010
By:
Gwenda Thomas, Deputy Minister for Social Services

‘As part of my role as co-chair of the National Family Justice Board, I have agreed with the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Jack Straw MP) and the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families (Ed Balls MP) a review of the family justice system in England and Wales.

The family justice system involves life changing decisions for many thousands of children and their families each year at a cost to the taxpayer of over £800m. There have been some important elements of reform in recent years. But we need to be certain that the system, as it is currently set up, supports parents as fully as possible in establishing and maintaining a co-operative approach to agreeing future arrangements when relationships break down, and does not unwittingly cause additional stress at what will already be a difficult time. It is also important to ensure that valuable court time is focused on protecting the vulnerable from abuse, victimisation and exploitation and that the system is being managed as effectively as possible.

The review will be conducted by a panel, comprising four representatives independent of UK and devolved Government and senior representatives from the Ministry of Justice, Department for Children, Schools and Families, and the Welsh Assembly Government..

The review will be asked to make recommendations in two core areas: (1) what steps can be taken to promote informed settlement and agreement; and (2) whether improvements need to be made to the way in which the family justice system is managed.

It will be guided by the following principles:

• The interests of the child should be paramount in any decision affecting them (and, linked to this, delays in determining the outcome of court applications should be kept to a minimum)
• The court’s role should be focused on protecting the vulnerable from abuse, victimisation and exploitation and should avoid intervening in family life except where there is clear benefit to children and vulnerable adults in doing so
• Individuals should have the right information and support to enable them to take responsibility for the consequences of their relationship breakdown
• Mediation and similar support should be used as far as possible to support individuals themselves to reach agreement about arrangements, rather than having an arrangement imposed by the courts
• The processes for resolving family disputes and agreeing future arrangements should be easy to understand, simple and efficient
• Conflict between individuals should be minimised as far as possible

Some time ago we received a petition to the petitions committee at the National Assembly for Wales calling for a Welsh Honours system. A web forum discussion was initiated online by the committee, but for many reasons it did not manage to spark debate- whether that was do to with how it was advertised, the timeline of the discussion, or indeed the topic  etc we need to assess further.

Nonetheless, the debate has been reignited by the committee in the form of a blog, and you can tell us your views here or here.

Feel free to advertise it on web forums, social networking sites until the discussion ends on the 14th of February. We will then discuss any suggestions at a future committee meeting, with a view to making recommendations for the way forward to the Assembly Commission and to the Welsh Government.

This is democracy in action, so I urge you to take part!

HAPPY New Year!

So here we are back at the Assembly. The snow hasn’t stopped ready for the Assembly start, but I am confident that we can try to continue our work as usual…

Obviously local authorities are concerned about the continuing levels of grit that they have for their roads, and being able to keep local schools open – especially for those taking their exams. But every effort has been made by emergency services and the relevant authorities to ensure that problems do not arise. And where they do, they are dealt with using the best of resource capability.

Nonetheless,  it is clear that we do not have the same resources as countries with colder climates, which face this weather on a regular basis. But it is worth considering contingency plans for the future. Long periods of snow and hazardous weather cannot be ruled out and, as such, we must prepare for those eventualities.

On other issues, I am pleased that the date for the trigger vote for the referendum is being set for February 9th. We need to trigger the referendum as soon as possible so that we can get the campaign underway. I understand that both opposition parties favour a referendum in the Autumn. Are they ruling out a referendum possibility on the same date as the next Assembly election, however? I’m not so sure.

Personally, I would favour an autumn referendum, but if that is not possible, I am not against having it on the same day as the next Assembly election. We can surely respect the electorate enought to undestand the difference between electing their AMs and voting in a referendum? I look forward to working for a positive outcome for the referendum alongside Assembly colleauges and, of course, the wider Welsh public.

To finish, I wanted to ask if anyone knows of any Welsh web chat forums that are popular? I ask as the petitions committee is keen to extend the scope of consultation and views on petitions that we consider as a committee. We see one way of doing this by opening up discussion online. The petitions committee has an e-forum already, but we need to utilise this much more, and encourage much more debate.