Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Exposing the contradictions at the heart of the Welsh Tories
Betsan Powys started it off with her gentle reminder that the Conservative Spokesperson on Health might be out of line with the previous commitments of his Assembly Group Leader. By the time that this same spokesperson had arrived in the BBC Good Evening Wales radio studio last night his fate was sealed.
As one comment on Betsan's blog stated "Thought Felicity (R.Wales) gave Jonathan ample chance to explain himself as a caring, sharing Tory, now tacking rightwards (look out David Davis!)...and then let him hang himself over the lack (of) any logic in his position. Firmly and Politely. He sounded VERY flustered. Tough on fluster etc."
In short, the Assembly Health Minister announced yesterday that, contrary to the position over the border, failed asylum seekers will be entitled to health care in Wales. She described her position as a humanitarian approach and I agree. The Tories however, were not so sure:
Conservative health spokesman Jonathan Morgan said the NHS should be there in emergency cases, and primary care should also be available "to a point where someone falls ill". But he said Tories were "firmly against the policy of allowing 'health tourism' to flourish." He added: "Those who are not supposed to be in this country should not be entitled to the benefits that citizenship of Great Britain affords, including elective treatment and surgery."
This position seemed to contradict the actions of the Welsh Conservative Leader in April 2007. Then all four party leaders signed up to support the 'We'll keep a welcome" campaign. Pledge number 3 stated that in Government the parties would 'provide fair and equal access to services.' The background briefing included the line: "In signing our pledge cards, candidates commit to giving asylum seekers whose claims have been refused exemption from charges for treatment by the National Health Service Trusts." Oops!
Felicity Evans on Good Evening Wales tied Jonathan Evans up in knots as to whether he was contradicting this pledge or not. Opposition for opposition's sake is all very well but you do have to get your story straight.
As one comment on Betsan's blog stated "Thought Felicity (R.Wales) gave Jonathan ample chance to explain himself as a caring, sharing Tory, now tacking rightwards (look out David Davis!)...and then let him hang himself over the lack (of) any logic in his position. Firmly and Politely. He sounded VERY flustered. Tough on fluster etc."
In short, the Assembly Health Minister announced yesterday that, contrary to the position over the border, failed asylum seekers will be entitled to health care in Wales. She described her position as a humanitarian approach and I agree. The Tories however, were not so sure:
Conservative health spokesman Jonathan Morgan said the NHS should be there in emergency cases, and primary care should also be available "to a point where someone falls ill". But he said Tories were "firmly against the policy of allowing 'health tourism' to flourish." He added: "Those who are not supposed to be in this country should not be entitled to the benefits that citizenship of Great Britain affords, including elective treatment and surgery."
This position seemed to contradict the actions of the Welsh Conservative Leader in April 2007. Then all four party leaders signed up to support the 'We'll keep a welcome" campaign. Pledge number 3 stated that in Government the parties would 'provide fair and equal access to services.' The background briefing included the line: "In signing our pledge cards, candidates commit to giving asylum seekers whose claims have been refused exemption from charges for treatment by the National Health Service Trusts." Oops!
Felicity Evans on Good Evening Wales tied Jonathan Evans up in knots as to whether he was contradicting this pledge or not. Opposition for opposition's sake is all very well but you do have to get your story straight.
Strong feelings
I had a meeting with a headteacher from Neath Port Talbot this morning to discuss the funding of the Foundation Phase for 3 to 7 year olds. When the phone rang to say that my constituent had arrived my office was informed that she had brought another nine headteachers with her. Following a frantic phone call to arrange a suitably sized room the meeting was able to go ahead. It was most illuminating.
Feelings on this issue are running very high. The heads told me that despite the extra five million pounds put into this scheme by the Education Minister they still face a significant shorftfall if they are to implement it. The pilot schemes clearly indicated that a teacher pupil ratio of 1 to 8 is necessary and yet schools only have half the funding necessary to deliver this.
This affects schools all over Wales. The extra money that has been found is to ensure that those schools which piloted this scheme remain fully-funded. Unfortunately, that does not help the vast majority of schools who will not be able to afford to deliver the same staffing levels. The Minister has effectively created a two tier education system for this age group. She needs to reconsider her position and find more money to deliver this very good scheme.
Feelings on this issue are running very high. The heads told me that despite the extra five million pounds put into this scheme by the Education Minister they still face a significant shorftfall if they are to implement it. The pilot schemes clearly indicated that a teacher pupil ratio of 1 to 8 is necessary and yet schools only have half the funding necessary to deliver this.
This affects schools all over Wales. The extra money that has been found is to ensure that those schools which piloted this scheme remain fully-funded. Unfortunately, that does not help the vast majority of schools who will not be able to afford to deliver the same staffing levels. The Minister has effectively created a two tier education system for this age group. She needs to reconsider her position and find more money to deliver this very good scheme.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
On the train to Crewe
Matt Withers picks up on Lembit Öpik's frustration with the train service between London and Crewe, which produced this memorable Early Day Motion:
EDM 1612
THE 12.44 CREWE TO LONDON VIRGIN TRAIN
19.05.2008
Opik, Lembit
That this House is appalled by the unreliable performance of the 12.44 Virgin Train service on 19th May from Crewe to London; condemns the failure of Virgin staff to warn customers of a potential delay prior to the departure of the train, rejects the notion that a signal failure exonerates them from responsibility to their customers; notes that this train was packed with hon. Members, Ministers and at least one Cabinet Minister; and believes that whoever wins the Crewe and Nantwich by-election, they won't have been assisted by Virgin Trains.
EDM 1612
THE 12.44 CREWE TO LONDON VIRGIN TRAIN
19.05.2008
Opik, Lembit
That this House is appalled by the unreliable performance of the 12.44 Virgin Train service on 19th May from Crewe to London; condemns the failure of Virgin staff to warn customers of a potential delay prior to the departure of the train, rejects the notion that a signal failure exonerates them from responsibility to their customers; notes that this train was packed with hon. Members, Ministers and at least one Cabinet Minister; and believes that whoever wins the Crewe and Nantwich by-election, they won't have been assisted by Virgin Trains.
Big Brother is back
No not the television show, though I understand that we are shortly to have another series of that too, but the rather the Orwellian tendencies of the Government.
This time it is a proposal by civil servants that a database be set up of electronic information holding details of every phone call and e-mail sent in the UK. The worrying thing is that I can just see Ministers agreeing to it on the rather flimsy pretext that it is necessary to fight terrorism. I cannot think of a single one who might veto the idea as the barking mad proposal it really is and who would send the relevant civil servant scuttling back to the dark recesses of Whitehall, never to emerge again.
Already the great and the good are lining up against the suggestion. The Information Commission, an independent authority set up to protect personal information, has said that the database "may well be a step too far". They highlighted the risk of data being lost, traded or stolen:
Assistant information commissioner Jonathan Bamford said: "We are not aware of any justification for the state to hold every UK citizen's phone and internet records. We have real doubts that such a measure can be justified, or is proportionate or desirable.
"Defeating crime and terrorism is of the utmost importance, but we are not aware of any pressing need to justify the government itself holding this sort of data."
To be fair the shadow home secretary, David Davis is against it too as of course is our very own Chris Huhne. He said ministers had "taken leave of their senses if they think that this proposal is compatible with a free country and a free people". He is right.
This time it is a proposal by civil servants that a database be set up of electronic information holding details of every phone call and e-mail sent in the UK. The worrying thing is that I can just see Ministers agreeing to it on the rather flimsy pretext that it is necessary to fight terrorism. I cannot think of a single one who might veto the idea as the barking mad proposal it really is and who would send the relevant civil servant scuttling back to the dark recesses of Whitehall, never to emerge again.
Already the great and the good are lining up against the suggestion. The Information Commission, an independent authority set up to protect personal information, has said that the database "may well be a step too far". They highlighted the risk of data being lost, traded or stolen:
Assistant information commissioner Jonathan Bamford said: "We are not aware of any justification for the state to hold every UK citizen's phone and internet records. We have real doubts that such a measure can be justified, or is proportionate or desirable.
"Defeating crime and terrorism is of the utmost importance, but we are not aware of any pressing need to justify the government itself holding this sort of data."
To be fair the shadow home secretary, David Davis is against it too as of course is our very own Chris Huhne. He said ministers had "taken leave of their senses if they think that this proposal is compatible with a free country and a free people". He is right.
More pressure on the One Wales' Agreement?
Unrest amongst Labour activists about working with Plaid Cymru has come to a head in this morning's Western Mail in which a number accuse the nationalists of ganging up on Wales' premier party following the local council elections a few weeks ago.
Their beef is that the rapprochement reached in the Assembly does not appear to have been reproduced in the vast majority of Welsh local authorities where voters, for whatever reason, sent Labour away with a flea in their ear on 1 May.
The paper records that in Cardiff, Plaid has entered a coalition with the Liberal Democrats, while in Swansea the single remaining Plaid councillor has joined an anti-Labour coalition. In Wrexham and Ynys Môn, Plaid has linked up with Liberal Democrats and Tories. Only in Conwy, where Plaid is taking the lead, is there a coalition involving both the parties of government at Cardiff Bay.
Closer reading of the article reveals a distinct lack of Labour activists who are actually prepared to be named. On this basis it most probably would not be wise for opposition parties to dust off the rainbow coalition agreement again just yet.
I am sure that AMs in both Labour and Plaid understand the terms of their Assembly deal very well, even if Plaid do play fast and loose with it and push it to its limits far more frequently than we ever did when we were in coalition government in the Assembly between 2000 and 2003.
Their beef is that the rapprochement reached in the Assembly does not appear to have been reproduced in the vast majority of Welsh local authorities where voters, for whatever reason, sent Labour away with a flea in their ear on 1 May.
The paper records that in Cardiff, Plaid has entered a coalition with the Liberal Democrats, while in Swansea the single remaining Plaid councillor has joined an anti-Labour coalition. In Wrexham and Ynys Môn, Plaid has linked up with Liberal Democrats and Tories. Only in Conwy, where Plaid is taking the lead, is there a coalition involving both the parties of government at Cardiff Bay.
Closer reading of the article reveals a distinct lack of Labour activists who are actually prepared to be named. On this basis it most probably would not be wise for opposition parties to dust off the rainbow coalition agreement again just yet.
I am sure that AMs in both Labour and Plaid understand the terms of their Assembly deal very well, even if Plaid do play fast and loose with it and push it to its limits far more frequently than we ever did when we were in coalition government in the Assembly between 2000 and 2003.
Bevan and Thatcher in the Senedd
These are the artworks that are causing so much controversy at the moment. The portraits of Margaret Thatcher and Aneurin Bevan have been erected in the Senedd so as to provoke debate. When I first saw it I thought that the Aneurin Bevan portrait looked a bit like Max Boyce. Now, I am not so sure..JPG)
.JPG)
Monday, May 19, 2008
Behind the Cheeky Girls
From the Spin Doctor column in yesterday's Wales on Sunday:
GOSH! Have we really got this far into the column without a mention of Lembit Opik, Montgomeryshire MP and fiance of one-half of a chart-averse novelty pop act?
Well, fear not, because TV viewers are about to get a glimpse into the couple’s domestic arrangements: the pair have signed up for a fly-on-the-wall documentary, Living with. . . the Cheeky Girls. The show, say digital channel Living, “will see them followed by cameras in their homes and private lives”. No doubt this will see Lembit making a guest appearance or two and frankly we can’t wait. Nick Clegg may feel differently.
Oh good! I can't wait.
GOSH! Have we really got this far into the column without a mention of Lembit Opik, Montgomeryshire MP and fiance of one-half of a chart-averse novelty pop act?
Well, fear not, because TV viewers are about to get a glimpse into the couple’s domestic arrangements: the pair have signed up for a fly-on-the-wall documentary, Living with. . . the Cheeky Girls. The show, say digital channel Living, “will see them followed by cameras in their homes and private lives”. No doubt this will see Lembit making a guest appearance or two and frankly we can’t wait. Nick Clegg may feel differently.
Oh good! I can't wait.
The knives are out
Facing a crucial week Gordon Brown will find no relief from reading The Independent, who tell us that backbench MPs are planning to oust him if he fails to turn around the fortunes of the labour Party.
A number of MPs want to put Charles Clarke up as a stalking horse against the Prime Minister but the newspaper reckons that this is unlikely to succeed. Instead there is a move to drown Mr. Brown under a a "tidal wave" of statements from MPs that he has lost their confidence because the public have turned against him.
Meanwhile. former Welsh Secretary Peter Hain has published a perceptive pamphlet, which argues that Labour are no longer relevant to the aspirations of the majority of their constituents. He says: "It is not possible to form a Labour government by winning key marginal seats where aspirational voters predominate unless the core voters there actually turn out for the party ... The 'New Labour Ultra' assumption that core voters have nowhere else to go is plain wrong: they are staying at home, or voting for minority parties including, sadly, the BNP."
Mr. Hain's pamphlet is mostly about Wales but it has a resonance across the border as well. It is worth quoting a significant passage, taken from his article for the Western Mail:
Although child poverty, low pay and job insecurity are still big problems for too many, for the great bulk of our citizens the old problems of just surviving are not the issue anymore. Their concerns are more the quality of their lives, the character of their environment, anti social behaviour and crime. Even under the difficult economic circumstances of a global credit crunch, fears of Welsh voters now centre more on mortgages and house prices than unemployment as in the past.
Incontrovertibly, Labour has transformed Wales for the better. But we are no longer benefiting politically, because we have not transformed ourselves. Welsh Labour has been acting in office and working locally as if the “old Wales” still exists – when it has been mutating into “new Wales” under our very guidance in government.
People now rightly expect to have, not just any job, but a decent job with chance to progress; not just any school for their children but a high achieving one; not just low hospital waiting times but high quality personalised care; not just a roof over their heads but affordable housing to buy; not just more police but better neighbourhood policing. And they are right to demand this of Welsh Labour.
Central to this group of voters are modern, personalised public services. They don’t and can’t afford to opt out like the wealthy. But they need those services to be adaptable and fit around their family and work lives, including wraparound child-care.
It is a message to all parties, not just Labour. That is especially so if we are to halt the increases in the BNP's vote in recent times.
A number of MPs want to put Charles Clarke up as a stalking horse against the Prime Minister but the newspaper reckons that this is unlikely to succeed. Instead there is a move to drown Mr. Brown under a a "tidal wave" of statements from MPs that he has lost their confidence because the public have turned against him.
Meanwhile. former Welsh Secretary Peter Hain has published a perceptive pamphlet, which argues that Labour are no longer relevant to the aspirations of the majority of their constituents. He says: "It is not possible to form a Labour government by winning key marginal seats where aspirational voters predominate unless the core voters there actually turn out for the party ... The 'New Labour Ultra' assumption that core voters have nowhere else to go is plain wrong: they are staying at home, or voting for minority parties including, sadly, the BNP."
Mr. Hain's pamphlet is mostly about Wales but it has a resonance across the border as well. It is worth quoting a significant passage, taken from his article for the Western Mail:
Although child poverty, low pay and job insecurity are still big problems for too many, for the great bulk of our citizens the old problems of just surviving are not the issue anymore. Their concerns are more the quality of their lives, the character of their environment, anti social behaviour and crime. Even under the difficult economic circumstances of a global credit crunch, fears of Welsh voters now centre more on mortgages and house prices than unemployment as in the past.
Incontrovertibly, Labour has transformed Wales for the better. But we are no longer benefiting politically, because we have not transformed ourselves. Welsh Labour has been acting in office and working locally as if the “old Wales” still exists – when it has been mutating into “new Wales” under our very guidance in government.
People now rightly expect to have, not just any job, but a decent job with chance to progress; not just any school for their children but a high achieving one; not just low hospital waiting times but high quality personalised care; not just a roof over their heads but affordable housing to buy; not just more police but better neighbourhood policing. And they are right to demand this of Welsh Labour.
Central to this group of voters are modern, personalised public services. They don’t and can’t afford to opt out like the wealthy. But they need those services to be adaptable and fit around their family and work lives, including wraparound child-care.
It is a message to all parties, not just Labour. That is especially so if we are to halt the increases in the BNP's vote in recent times.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Another bonfire needed
Our friends, the Taxpayers Alliance have just produced another report entitled 'The unseen Government of the UK'. As the Sunday Times records this concludes that the cost of Britain’s “hidden state” of unelected public bodies has soared to more than £100 billion a year.
This is not necessarily a bad thing provided that Government is able to demonstrate that the money is being well-spent to provide essential public services, that the way it is being spent is transparent and that there is a clear line of accountability, which accomodates proper scrutiny by MPs. Alas, the Taxpayers Alliance report casts doubt on all of these aims.
For example they tell us that while £85m is given to the 126 staff of the Carbon Trust to advise businesses and government bodies on becoming low carbon, £22m is handed over to Envirowise to do almost exactly the same thing. There is also a third body, the Energy Saving Trust, which advises homeowners on reducing their carbon footprint. With 142 staff, it costs £43.2m.
In addition, the Food Standards Agency extols the health benefits of a low-fat diet and yet millions are being spent on food promotion bodies that implore the public to eat more sausages and chips.
We have been through this debate already in Wales. The so-called 'Bonfire of the Quangos' finally materialised when Rhodri Morgan took a decision and subsumed them into government. However, many of the promised savings did not materialise, government departments suddenly became overwhelmed with surplus staff they did not know what to do with and the ability of Assembly Committee's to properly scrutinise the actions of the newly merged departments turned out to be much less than when they were stand-alone bodies with an unelected board.
That does not mean that the UK Government should not try to get greater efficiencies and accountability out of its own Quango state, just that it should take note of the Welsh experience in doing so.
This is not necessarily a bad thing provided that Government is able to demonstrate that the money is being well-spent to provide essential public services, that the way it is being spent is transparent and that there is a clear line of accountability, which accomodates proper scrutiny by MPs. Alas, the Taxpayers Alliance report casts doubt on all of these aims.
For example they tell us that while £85m is given to the 126 staff of the Carbon Trust to advise businesses and government bodies on becoming low carbon, £22m is handed over to Envirowise to do almost exactly the same thing. There is also a third body, the Energy Saving Trust, which advises homeowners on reducing their carbon footprint. With 142 staff, it costs £43.2m.
In addition, the Food Standards Agency extols the health benefits of a low-fat diet and yet millions are being spent on food promotion bodies that implore the public to eat more sausages and chips.
We have been through this debate already in Wales. The so-called 'Bonfire of the Quangos' finally materialised when Rhodri Morgan took a decision and subsumed them into government. However, many of the promised savings did not materialise, government departments suddenly became overwhelmed with surplus staff they did not know what to do with and the ability of Assembly Committee's to properly scrutinise the actions of the newly merged departments turned out to be much less than when they were stand-alone bodies with an unelected board.
That does not mean that the UK Government should not try to get greater efficiencies and accountability out of its own Quango state, just that it should take note of the Welsh experience in doing so.
Rise of the shredder
The rise of increased transparency in public life does not suit everybody as is evident from this item in the Sunday Times. The paper tells us that some of Tony Blair’s expenses claims, which the High Court last week ruled should be disclosed to the public, have been shredded. The documents, itemising Blair’s claims for household expenses during a year of his premiership, were destroyed in the midst of a legal battle over whether they should be published.
As is pointed out it is a criminal offence to destroy documents to prevent their disclosure under freedom of information laws, but Westminster officials say they were unaware that the files were the subject of a legal challenge. They insist they were destroyed by mistake.
There is another issue here as well of course. My understanding, which may well be wrong, is that the Inland Revenue requires that documentation relating to expenses are kept for a proscribed period of time before the record-keeper is allowed to dispose of them. Was this taken into account in the decision to shred these documents?
Liberal Democrat MP, Norman Baker is absolutely right when he says that it is very convenient that some of Tony Blair’s expenses have been shredded. He adds: "This is either incompetence or obstruction of the Freedom of Information Act and should be properly investigated.”
While we are at it, we could do with an proper explanation as to how the Commons authorities are able to justify the expenditure of £150,000 of public money in preventing this disclosure in the first place. There really does need to be better accountability here.
As is pointed out it is a criminal offence to destroy documents to prevent their disclosure under freedom of information laws, but Westminster officials say they were unaware that the files were the subject of a legal challenge. They insist they were destroyed by mistake.
There is another issue here as well of course. My understanding, which may well be wrong, is that the Inland Revenue requires that documentation relating to expenses are kept for a proscribed period of time before the record-keeper is allowed to dispose of them. Was this taken into account in the decision to shred these documents?
Liberal Democrat MP, Norman Baker is absolutely right when he says that it is very convenient that some of Tony Blair’s expenses have been shredded. He adds: "This is either incompetence or obstruction of the Freedom of Information Act and should be properly investigated.”
While we are at it, we could do with an proper explanation as to how the Commons authorities are able to justify the expenditure of £150,000 of public money in preventing this disclosure in the first place. There really does need to be better accountability here.
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Funding shadows
The Times reports that eleven Tory shadow cabinet ministers have benefited from secret and previously unregistered donations from wealthy backers. The cash was channelled from Tory headquarters and, in at least two cases the funding was from figures involved directly in the minister's policy areas:
The office of Grant Shapps, the Tory housing spokesman, is funded by donations from a number of mortgage brokers and Andrew Lansley, the Shadow Health Secretary, was bankrolled by a healthcare firm, the documents showed. Theresa Villiers, who has the transport brief but was previously Shadow Treasury Chief Secretary, benefited from donations by a number of investment bankers.
The question now is not why the donations were not declared but what influence these donors had on Tory policy making and the direction of a future Tory Government? One of the reasons why procedures were introduced for declaring such contributions was precisely so that the public are able to pass judgement on such matters. The Conservatives now need to make a full disclosure for the purposes of transparency and accountability.
The office of Grant Shapps, the Tory housing spokesman, is funded by donations from a number of mortgage brokers and Andrew Lansley, the Shadow Health Secretary, was bankrolled by a healthcare firm, the documents showed. Theresa Villiers, who has the transport brief but was previously Shadow Treasury Chief Secretary, benefited from donations by a number of investment bankers.
The question now is not why the donations were not declared but what influence these donors had on Tory policy making and the direction of a future Tory Government? One of the reasons why procedures were introduced for declaring such contributions was precisely so that the public are able to pass judgement on such matters. The Conservatives now need to make a full disclosure for the purposes of transparency and accountability.
Friday, May 16, 2008
Expenses
Whilst we continue to be embroiled in the very artificial, one blog row over the regulation of publicly funded Assembly Member websites, a new factor has now appeared that may give some AMs more cause for thought.
The Guardian reveals that the House of Commons Speaker, Michael Martin, has lost a high court battle to prevent the disclosure of the details of second-home expenses claimed by 14 prominent MPs.
The Assembly Commission has already been preparing its own more detailed disclosure of AMs' expense claims but was awaiting on the outcome of this appeal before proceeding. It now seems likely that we may have to publish the address of any second home used by an AM in Cardiff funded by the taxpayer.
There is still some work to do on this and we have been told that there will be a consultation with AMs on both the nature and the detail of the disclosure before publication proceeds. Personally, I believe that it is right that we do allow the public to have this information.
The Guardian reveals that the House of Commons Speaker, Michael Martin, has lost a high court battle to prevent the disclosure of the details of second-home expenses claimed by 14 prominent MPs.
The Assembly Commission has already been preparing its own more detailed disclosure of AMs' expense claims but was awaiting on the outcome of this appeal before proceeding. It now seems likely that we may have to publish the address of any second home used by an AM in Cardiff funded by the taxpayer.
There is still some work to do on this and we have been told that there will be a consultation with AMs on both the nature and the detail of the disclosure before publication proceeds. Personally, I believe that it is right that we do allow the public to have this information.
U-turns in Westminster
The Guardian indicates how the mood has changed in Westminster following the humbling of Gordon Brown over the doubling of the 10p tax rate.
They tell us that the Prime Minister has sanctioned a last-ditch move to secure a deal over the proposed increase in the period of detention without charge to 42 days after deciding he would rather compromise with Labour's rebels than risk a further loss of authority by being defeated on the issue.
Meanwhile, there is further controversy over the Government's ID cards programme. An official report has warned that the government's plans for ID cards may put poorer people at greater risk of fraud, and that ministers are failing to coordinate implementation of the 10-year programme. The Independent Scheme Assurance Panel has told Ministers that people with a "rich biographical record" will have better protection when the cards are introduced by the target date of 2017. They say:
"The integrity of the scheme and trust in it are essential, yet it will never be free of errors (for example, the biometric matching services will always return some matching errors). Public trust in the scheme will be dependent on the protections within the scheme from misuse of personal data, and the diligence with which mistakes are corrected."
Poorer people could be at particular risk of having their identity stolen because their cards could be their only form of ID, unlike holders of credit cards. "Identity verification is a process and should not be dependent upon any one piece of data (biographic or biometric) alone. It is already difficult successfully to pretend to be someone who has a 'rich' biographical record - provided the verifying organisation does adequate checks. Care must be taken that confidentiality and integrity are supported by proper processes and policies are not over-dependent on technology."
Gordon Brown is discovering that it doesn't just rain when things are going wrong, it pours down.
They tell us that the Prime Minister has sanctioned a last-ditch move to secure a deal over the proposed increase in the period of detention without charge to 42 days after deciding he would rather compromise with Labour's rebels than risk a further loss of authority by being defeated on the issue.
Meanwhile, there is further controversy over the Government's ID cards programme. An official report has warned that the government's plans for ID cards may put poorer people at greater risk of fraud, and that ministers are failing to coordinate implementation of the 10-year programme. The Independent Scheme Assurance Panel has told Ministers that people with a "rich biographical record" will have better protection when the cards are introduced by the target date of 2017. They say:
"The integrity of the scheme and trust in it are essential, yet it will never be free of errors (for example, the biometric matching services will always return some matching errors). Public trust in the scheme will be dependent on the protections within the scheme from misuse of personal data, and the diligence with which mistakes are corrected."
Poorer people could be at particular risk of having their identity stolen because their cards could be their only form of ID, unlike holders of credit cards. "Identity verification is a process and should not be dependent upon any one piece of data (biographic or biometric) alone. It is already difficult successfully to pretend to be someone who has a 'rich' biographical record - provided the verifying organisation does adequate checks. Care must be taken that confidentiality and integrity are supported by proper processes and policies are not over-dependent on technology."
Gordon Brown is discovering that it doesn't just rain when things are going wrong, it pours down.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Westminster shows Wales how to legislate
If the Welsh Government's Deputy Housing Minister is not red-faced with embarrassment this week then she should be.
She fought tooth and nail during Committee hearings into her proposed Legislative Competence Order to give the Assembly the power to suspend the right to buy, to prevent it being widened out into a more meaningful bid for powers over affordable housing.
As soon as the LCO got to Westminster, UK Government Ministers overruled her and changed the order. This must be the first instance of MPs giving the Assembly more powers than they asked for.
And what party does the Deputy Minister belong to? Plaid Cymru of course.
She fought tooth and nail during Committee hearings into her proposed Legislative Competence Order to give the Assembly the power to suspend the right to buy, to prevent it being widened out into a more meaningful bid for powers over affordable housing.
As soon as the LCO got to Westminster, UK Government Ministers overruled her and changed the order. This must be the first instance of MPs giving the Assembly more powers than they asked for.
And what party does the Deputy Minister belong to? Plaid Cymru of course.
Welsh Liberal Democrats in charge
The BBC report that 13 of the 22 Welsh Councils are being run by a coalition which involves Welsh Liberal Democrat Councillors. Three of these Councils are led by the Welsh Liberal Democrats. In Swansea, Wrexham and Cardiff the party strengthened its position.
In actual fact the BBC may have underestimated our strength. On their list of Councils they have failed to account for the fact that Powys is run by a board, which includes three Welsh Liberal Democrats. On the assumption that we will be involved in the administration of one of Gwynedd, Torfaen or both then this means that we are likely to end up with control or influence on 14 or 15 Welsh Councils.
The situation as it stands at present is as follows (with thanks to the BBC):
In actual fact the BBC may have underestimated our strength. On their list of Councils they have failed to account for the fact that Powys is run by a board, which includes three Welsh Liberal Democrats. On the assumption that we will be involved in the administration of one of Gwynedd, Torfaen or both then this means that we are likely to end up with control or influence on 14 or 15 Welsh Councils.
The situation as it stands at present is as follows (with thanks to the BBC):
Blaenau Gwent: Independent led, with People's Voice and Liberal Democrats
Bridgend: Labour led, with three Ind
Caerphilly: Plaid Cymru led minority, with two Ind
Cardiff: Lib Dem led, with Plaid
Carmarthen: Ind led, with Lab and Lib Dem
Ceredigion: Ind led, with Lib Dem and Lab
Conwy: Plaid led, with Ind, Lab and Lib Dem
Denbighshire: Ind led, with Plaid, Lab and Lib Dem
Flintshire: Ind led, with Lib Dem and Conservatives
Gwynedd: Plaid led board - details TBC
Merthyr: Ind led board, with Lab and Lib Dem
Monmouth: Cons
Neath Port Talbot: Lab
Newport: TBC - possibly Cons led with Lib Dems
Pembrokeshire: Ind
Powys: Ind led board with Lib Dems and Tories
Rhondda Cynon Taf: Lab
Swansea: Lib Dem led with Ind and Plaid
Torfaen: NOC - details TBC
Vale of Glamorgan: Cons
Wrexham: Lib Dem led board, with Ind, Cons and Plaid
Ynys Mon: Ind led, with Plaid, Lib Dem and Cons
That 10p fudge
A bit late I know but hey, this is not a news site. Chancellor Darling's supplementary budget may well have taken the sting out of the doubling of the 10p tax rate for many but it has still left 1.1 million low-paid taxpayers worse off. It also smacks of desperation, something that the Government could still be punished for in next week's Crewe and Nantwich by-election.
It is little wonder that former Labour Assembly Member and by-election candidate, Tamsin Dunwoody, is in a state of uncertainty as to whether Gordon Brown is an asset or not. All the evidence is that he is liability, even putting his jinx on Glasgow Rangers in last night's UEFA Cup final.
So what are the facts about the Chancellor's rescue package? Well, whilst Liberal Democrats welcome the Government’s belated conversion to lifting the low paid out of tax, Alistair Darling chose to play down several of the effects of his announcement:
1. Even after today’s announcement, 1.1 million people earning between just over £6,500 and £12,800 will still lose out under Labour’s doubling of the 10p rate.
2. Of the 1.1 million people losing under Labour’s current plans, some will still lose up to £100 per year.
3. Of the £2.7bn spent on increasing the personal allowance, only around £630m – less than a quarter – will actually go to the 5.3 million people who lost out under the 10p rate, making it an extremely poorly targeted policy.
4. This additional spending will mean that net government borrowing for this year will rise to £45.7bn, a 6% increase from what was predicted two months ago and a 50% increase from what was estimated just one year ago.
It is little wonder that former Labour Assembly Member and by-election candidate, Tamsin Dunwoody, is in a state of uncertainty as to whether Gordon Brown is an asset or not. All the evidence is that he is liability, even putting his jinx on Glasgow Rangers in last night's UEFA Cup final.
So what are the facts about the Chancellor's rescue package? Well, whilst Liberal Democrats welcome the Government’s belated conversion to lifting the low paid out of tax, Alistair Darling chose to play down several of the effects of his announcement:
1. Even after today’s announcement, 1.1 million people earning between just over £6,500 and £12,800 will still lose out under Labour’s doubling of the 10p rate.
2. Of the 1.1 million people losing under Labour’s current plans, some will still lose up to £100 per year.
3. Of the £2.7bn spent on increasing the personal allowance, only around £630m – less than a quarter – will actually go to the 5.3 million people who lost out under the 10p rate, making it an extremely poorly targeted policy.
4. This additional spending will mean that net government borrowing for this year will rise to £45.7bn, a 6% increase from what was predicted two months ago and a 50% increase from what was estimated just one year ago.
