Bethan Jenkins AC/AM Blog

IT’S taken some time for me to comment on the ConDem government’s budget as I’ve been busy this week, and I was ill on Wednesday. Better now – thanks for asking!

My first thought was that the recession gave us a year-zero opportunity to look at the future of the Welsh economy, and to ask what we can do to prevent us from ever having to suffer the effects of financial mismanagement in the markets in the future. Instead, the Budget reads like a short term response – a five-year plan at the very most. But we need to put in place medium and long-term solutions to very fundamental problems at the heart of our economy.

It will be interesting to see the VAT increase play itself out. After all, you need consumers spending to stimulate the economy back to growth, and this rise is bound to dissuade buying. We are carrying out an inquiry in to financial inclusion on the Assembly’s Communities and Culture committee at the moment, and Fran Targett from Citizens Advice Cymru yesterday told the committee that the VAT rise and the decrease in housing benefit “don’t pull together”, and are “dangerous” for those on lower incomes. I cannot but agree.

Similarly, with the balance of spending cuts being 77% to 23% in tax rises, we will see more job losses, without a doubt. Unison estimates that every job lost costs the British taxpayer £16,000. That will have to be met, but where exactly is that costed?

The new rules on housing benefits are a misnomer. It betrays a Tory government as in thrall to Daily Mail headlines – of non-contributors living high on the benefits hog – as the last Labour government. If these stories are true, then they are not the common experience.

The banking levy is little more than a headline. Barclays made record £11bn in profits last year, so there is a strong possibility that it could have met the levy’s target itself in Corporation Tax. This is just a drop in the ocean. Where was the reform of inheritance tax, and the creation of a ‘wealth tax’?

The public sector pay freeze will affect Wales without a doubt. Apart from non-devolved departments like the police, the DVLA in Swansea, the Office for National Statistics in Newport and Companies House in Cardiff, the rest of the public sector won’t know what’s available until the CSR in October. So Welsh workers have been left in limbo for the summer.

And while we’re on the public sector, we shouldn’t let the Labour party off the hook here. At the moment, you could swear that they have been in opposition for 13 years. Let’s get real – they did little to redress the balance between rich and poor when they were in Government on a UK level. Its true to say that Wales has lost its coal industry, and it’s lost most of its steel industry. Manufacturing as a proportion of Welsh GDP fell 10% during Labour’s tenure, and it was Labour that grew the public sector. So it is grossly unfair of the Tories to depict men and women whose only crime is to go to work as part of an industry that is ‘bloated’ and therefore unnecessary.

If there’s anything good about the budget it’s that it has restored the link between earnings and pensions and that there is still a universal right to child benefit, although it has been frozen. But I still don’t see why the public sector should face all the worst cuts alone. The banking system must be laughing at how well it has done from this budget.

There are other alternatives that were not looked in to by the UK government. Tax evasion accounts for £70 billion, while tax avoidance stands at £25bn. Some £28bn of this isn’t collected as HM revenue doesn’t have the resources so it seems, and of this £11bn has been written off. Yes, there was a one-year freeze on the civil list, but Osborne is looking at providing a grant later on in the year. Hardly making the royals suffer the squeeze.

I worry what will happen in Wales, and the cuts that the Welsh Government must make. I worry how these measures will affect Welsh families – those families who are already in poverty, and people that will be pushed in to poverty by no fault of their own. I don’t want to scaremonger, I know Wales must play it’s part in this agenda, but this short term thinking by the ConDem government hasn’t inspired me one bit.

There has been quite  a lot of discussion recently about the new UK government’s intention to extend the anonymity of those accused of rape. David Cameron is quoted as preferring a “limited extension” to the law to cover the period between arrest and charges. This issue has initiated a huge debate, with many Labour politicians criticising the idea, saying that it will not encourage rape victims to come forward, and to push for prosecution.

I’ve found myself in a difficult situation on this issue. Rape is an awful, unjustifiable crime. I know people who have been raped, and it scars them for life. But I am also hugely aware of the fact that there are men out there who have been falsely accused of rape and domestic violence, and just by going through the process, they have been pushed to the edges of society, have lost jobs, friends and the good names due to being accused of rape. Some defendants who are wrongly accused have children of their own, and are often stopped from seeing their children. This is the reality of the situation.

So I have some sympathy with extending anonymity to defendants though I don’t think it should be confined to rape alone. If the man is charged, then of course their names should be made public so that other women do not suffer, but I find it difficult to support making the names public before they have been charged for the reasons I outline above. Is there evidence out there to show that if anonymity was extended that fewer women would come forward?

Maria Eagle, a shadow Minister, questioned Ken Clarke yesterday, saying: “Can he tell us, please, how many women were involved in those negotiations?” I personally don’t think that this should be used as an argument in this context. Surely male politicians should also understand how unacceptable and vile rape is? We all know that people judge others regardless of the phrase ‘innocent until proven guilty’, and for that reason I do not see how publishing names of men before charge will  help stop rape from happening in our society. Going to the root of the problem certainly will – more education in our schools about sex, and respect in relationships for example, empowering women to say no, and to leave violent relationships.

Whether we like it or not, there are women out there, a minority of women, who falsely accuse men of rape or domestic abuse. This must be looked in to too, and we can’t put our heads in the sand, pretending this isn’t an issue for everyone in society.

Here is a link to a profile of me by Rob Williams of the Independent blogs website. I thought I would link to it in case you haven’t seen it.

Here is a statement that Leighton Andrews is giving as we speak on school reorganisation. I am not sure how this announcement will affect the decision that the First Minister has made relating to school reorganisation in Cardiff West, if at all. I’ll update later.

STATEMENT BY THE WELSH ASSEMBLY GOVERNMENT

Title:
School Reorganisation
Date:
15 June 2010
By:
Leighton Andrews, Minister for Children , Education, Lifelong Learning

Members will be aware that I have been considering issues around school organisation policy since taking over as Education Minister in December. I issued a written statement on 12 January 2010 concerning the Welsh Ministers’ role in school reorganisation, which confirmed that the prime responsibility for organising and reorganising schools rests with local authorities. The first session of my Department’s new internal Policy Board on 20th January looked at the question of school closures.

In plenary sessions since then I have made it clear that I have had concerns about the process and the length of time some decisions have taken to determine. The current system leads to uncertainty for parents and pupils. Parents and local authorities tell us that they want more certainty in order to plan for the future of pupils.

I am pleased to say that since January 11 decisions have been issued by Welsh Ministers and I expect to determine a number of further proposals for reorganisation by the end of this term.

Decisions issued since January will in some cases lead to school closures and the removal of over 2,400 surplus school places. All affected pupils will find themselves in school buildings that are at least as good as they attend currently, and which can provide education of at least equivalent standard. Some will have brand new schools to attend in due course. State of the art provision will be made for pupils with special needs. That is the good news.

However, some of the decisions took longer than I would have liked, although I believe that only one local authority will experience a delay to their original proposed implementation date. Decisions are based on a thorough scrutiny of all the evidence and the factors set out in statutory guidance: The guidance stresses that the standards of provision are of prime importance.

The Price Waterhouse Coopers Review called on us to establish a new trust across the system and also to simplify systems of governance which unnecessarily drive cost. We need to be more efficient. We need to ensure that public money is being spent effectively.

I am taking immediate steps to address this. Pilots will start in the autumn with local authorities being able, if they wish, to submit additional information at an early stage that will make the scrutiny process in the Welsh Assembly Government less time consuming. We will pilot the earlier submission of objections and channel staff time into an earlier consideration of the matters raised by objectors than is currently possible.

In addition, internal re-organisation has taken place to provide fieldwork support to help Local Authorities develop proposals that are more likely to conform closely with statutory guidance so that submitted proposals, where they are contested, can be addressed quicker.

I will also review the current Regulations, which date from 1999, as a matter of urgency: They make some demands on local authorities that are no longer necessary and yet do not enable Welsh Ministers to receive certain information that is required for the proper assessment of statutory proposals.

These regulations also set out the time frames available for the lodging of statutory objections by members of the public and the time available for local authorities to submit them to Welsh Ministers with their comments. I believe that these time frames could be reduced, saving potentially 6 weeks on the statutory process.

I will conduct a public consultation on the draft regulations, which will include their publication on the Assembly Government’s website. The consultation will ensure that all those with an interest, including local authorities and parents, will have an opportunity to comment on the proposed changes. I would hope that revised regulations will be in force by early 2011.

In addition, having looked at how the school reorganisation process works in other UK countries, I have been troubled by the fact that we are potentially keeping a tighter rein on local authorities than is the case in either England or Scotland. I find it difficult to justify this.

The point has also been frequently made that in Wales a single objector, who may have no connection with a school, can cause a statutory proposal to be submitted to Welsh Ministers and be subject to full scrutiny. This cannot be a good use of resources where it is apparent that all those with a genuine interest in the proposal are in favour.

However, changes to the current regime will need to be achieved via new legislation and I will be exploring legislative opportunities for this with the Counsel General.

Welsh Ministers will continue to set a clear policy on school reorganisation, as is currently the case, and it is likely that the key Circular of guidance will not change. We will expect local authorities and others to bring forward proposals that will provide the best possible opportunities for pupils and that provide the right schools in the right places.

Local authorities will continue to be responsible for planning and proposing changes, and for consulting thoroughly on those changes.

Local people should continue to have a significant say but more dialogue should happen at the local level with, potentially, initial avenues of appeal and determination at local level. This will promote local democracy.

However, proposals would not come to Welsh Ministers for determination after objections, unless, on rare occasions, Ministers felt it necessary to ‘call in’ the proposals for determination.

I would foresee this new system as applying only to compulsory education, and Ministers would continue to decide proposals for Post 16 reorganisation where these have led to objections.

There is much work to do to flesh out these principles and to develop a structure that will improve efficiency, improve outcomes for learners and make genuine savings that can be directed towards service delivery.

Llywydd, these proposals meet the agenda set by the PWC review and I believe they will end uncertainty for parents, pupils, teachers and local authorities.

Check against delivery

Often associated with royal families, but our monarchy should be prepared have their budget go under the guillotine

THE new ConDem government wants everyone in society to tell them where cuts should happen in the public sector. How nice of them to consult on an issue that they are clearly trying to pass the buck on at every juncture.

Can you imagine that if this was a time of prosperity, do you really think the government would consult on what our money should be invested in?

And so this leads me on to the issue of cuts and, if we are to be consulted, then one of the things that we should be considering is the money allocated to the monarchy via the civil list. Why should the monarchy be excluded from the cuts agenda? I would urge everyone who reads this blog to contact their MPs to urge them to sign this Early Day Motion:

CIVIL LIST REVIEW EDM 123

That this House is opposed to any increase in the Civil List while public spending is being cut and until Royal finances are subject to the same standards of accounting, auditing and reporting as all other public finances; and calls for an immediate freeze on Civil List payments and for an urgent and independent inquiry into Royal finances, with a view to reducing the overall cost of the Monarchy to well below the current estimated bill of between £100 million and £200 million a year.

This, coupled with the fact that the royal palace is looking for an extra £7 million in the annual civil list payment, is unacceptable, as the campaign group Republic clearly states here:

Republic spokesperson James Gray said:

“George Osborne must be honest with the British public. If he is considering giving the Queen a £7m pay rise while public services are being cut then we need to know.”

“Contrary to the Palace spin, Civil List spending has increased above inflation almost every year since the early nineties. The royal household is running out of cash due to its own profligacy and financial incompetence.”

Let’s see how genuine the ConDem government is about consulting on the cuts, and if they choose to ignore this matter when they make their final decision. It seems to me that the wealthy, including the royal family and the rich bankers and tax dodgers, should not be able to find loopholes, and that they should play their part in helping to cut the deficit, just like everyone else.

Here is a link to an article that I wrote in a personal capacity about the Hay Festival that took place last week. I had a great time, but here are some observations.  Feel free to join the discussion on the webiste. It has created a lively debate on Waleshome. I am now looking forward to my next festival, and to my next review…..