March - a busy month for emergency calls.

I see once again the Welsh Conservatives and their buddies, the Liberal Democrats, are "disgusted" that in March the Welsh Ambulance service failed to reach it's all Wales target of reaching 65% life threatening emergency calls withing 8 minutes. According to the BBC Welsh Liberal Democrat leader Kirsty Williams accused Welsh ministers of failing to address the issue calling the figures an "absolute disgrace".

I've posted in the past that I think the statistics collected are a bit worthless see 999 responce times and pointless statistics.

And we all know what the Conservative led Coalition in England want to do with the NHS - privatise it completely. See BBC House of Lords to debate NHS 'privatisation'

But back to March 2013 - when fast swathes of Wales was covered in deep snow, whilst the rest of us shivered in bitter cold winds, it was not surprising that the number of emergency calls in March where up by 2,069 compared to March 2012.  In fact March 2013 had the highest monthly number of Category A calls since the service classification changes introduced in December 2011.

Something both the BBC "Ambulance delays: Wales targets missed in every area." and the Daily Post  "Ambulance Service misses 999 response time target for most serious calls for tenth month in a row" think not important to point out.

But why let the facts get in the way of a good story or some political point scoring.

For "latest National Statistics produced by the Welsh Government were released on 24 April 2013 according to the arrangements approved by the UK Statistics Authority" see Ambulance services, March 2013.

Has BBC Wales forgotten what its purpose is?

I read with the interest the call by BBC Wales for actors to be given an exemption from the smoking ban in Wales, so that they may be allowed to smoke on set in the interest of 'historical accuracy' - see Smoking ban could force dramas out of Wales, BBC warns

The question is - is 'historical accuracy' that important to such a detail?

There are a lot of things we know people did in the olden days that society in general do not tolerate these days - take language for instance, they are certain words common place in the past that we would not tolerate being used today...and it should be the same with smoking.

Smoking is bad for you, and not only to you but those around you - the link between passive smoking and cancer is beyond doubt. See Cancer Reaserch UK

Which brings me to the purpose of the BBC and it's Royal Charter which says:

3.The BBC’s public nature and its objects

(1)The BBC exists to serve the public interest.

(2)The BBC’s main object is the promotion of its Public Purposes.

And its Public Purposes are (inter alia):

(a) sustaining citizenship and civil society; 

(b) promoting education and learning; 

(c) stimulating creativity and cultural excellence; 

Not forgetting BBC responsibility to protect the health and safety of its employees.

Therefore the BBC purpose is to serve the public interest, and to promote and educate - in example a healthier lifestyle.

Which begs the question has BBC Wales forgotten its purpose? - Is it really necessary for 'historical accuracy' to see someone actually smoke on set? - even when the consequences of smoking are integral to the storyline....of course it isn't.

Would not seeing anyone actually smoke in a period drama make it better or worse, or would the fact that you noticed no one actually smoked mean it was a poorly written drama in the first place?

After all smoking in films and on television does have an affect...the Centres of Disease Control and Prevention in the USA says regarding movies:

Exposure to onscreen smoking in movies increases the probability that youths will start smoking. Youths who are heavily exposed to onscreen smoking are approximately two to three times more likely to begin smoking than youths who are lightly exposed

If it's a choice between promoting public health and protecting employees from passive smoking and so called 'historical accuracy' then public health should trump every time.

Supreme Court gives green light to historic bill.

The good people of Wales voted in a referendum to give the Welsh Assembly more law making powers. It made sense to simplify the way bills became law, removing the need to first seek permission from the Westminster Parliament and associated red tape.

It was fitting therefore that the first bill passed by the Welsh Assembly following this referendum was the Local Government Byelaws (Wales) Bill, which made it easier for Councils and others to make byelaws, without the need to seek confirmation from any Welsh Minister. Again a sensible proposition....the removal of more red tape.

However, the then Welsh Secretary 'Sad' Cheryl Gillian decided that the bill exceeded the Welsh Assembly powers and refereed the bill to the Supreme Court. I posted about it at the time see: Sad Gillian wants to play byelaws.

On Wednesday the Supreme Court ruled that the Welsh Assembly had the legislative competence to enact the Bill. You can download the full transcript from the Supreme Court's website.
Hat tip: Betsan Powys, BBC Wales.

The following are extracts from the judgement, highlighting the key issues:

LORD NEUBERGER (with whom Lord Clarke, Lord Reed and Lord Carnwath agree)....

48. In my view, this point highlights the way in which the Bill is structured, and, more importantly for present purposes, it tends to support the argument advanced by the Counsel General, namely that the removal by the Bill of the Secretary of State’s power to confirm byelaws under section 236(11) is indeed “incidental to, or consequential on” one of the principal purposes of section 6 of the Bill, which is, as section 1 states, to remove the requirement for confirmation by the Welsh Ministers, as part of the overall streamlining and modernising of the way in which byelaws are made in Wales.

49. The answer to the question whether a particular provision in an enactment is “incidental to, or consequential on” another provision, obviously turns on the facts of the particular case. The answer may to some extent be a question of fact and degree, and it should turn on substance rather than form, although, of course, in any well drafted Bill, the substance will be reflected in the form, at least in relation to that sort of question......

52. Section 6 of the Bill plainly is intended to have the effect of removing the need for confirmation by the Welsh Ministers of any byelaw made under the scheduled enactments. That is a primary purpose of the Bill, as is clear from reading the provisions quoted above, both in itself and for the purpose of streamlining and modernising the making of byelaws.......

61. The Attorney General’s argument is that section 9 would “confer power” on the Welsh Ministers “by subordinate legislation to remove or modify … pre-commencement function[s] of a Minister of the Crown”. Accordingly, he argues, by virtue of section 108(6)(a) of, and paragraph 1(1) of Part 2 of Schedule 7 to, the 2006 Act, the section is outside the legislative competence of the Assembly.....

63. Although it is perfectly true that there are no express words in section 9 which limit its scope in this way, I am satisfied that it does have such a limited effect. That is because of the simple legal principle, identified by Lord Reed, embodied in the Latin maxim nemo dat quod non habet. Given that the jurisdiction of the Assembly is limited to removing, or delegating the power to remove, functions of Ministers of the Crown when the removal satisfies the requirements of paragraph 6(1)(b) of Part 3 of Schedule 7 to the 2006 Act, the Assembly cannot confer a wider power on Welsh Ministers. Accordingly, the wide words of section 9 must be read as being circumscribed in their scope so as to render the section valid.

I suppose to be fair to 'Sad' Gillian MP the judgement does not say she was wrong in one sense, but confirmed 'the terms on which she was prepared to give her consent to Section 6 of the Bill' - to paraphrase....as long as the bill did not confer onto Welsh Government Ministers additional powers outside the scope of the Welsh Assembly. Lord Neuberger says:

67. It should be added that, although this is a successful outcome for the Assembly and the Counsel General, it cannot be regarded as a setback in practical terms for the Secretary of State. Somewhat curiously, the conclusion I have reached as to the effect of section 9 is one which reflects the terms on which she was prepared to give her consent to Section 6 of the Bill.

Having said that, and in light of the Supreme Court judgement, you really do need to ask whether it was absolutely necessary to refer the matter to them in the first place. How much did this cost for starters, and the fact as David Jones, Welsh Secretary points out that..."it was entirely proper for the Attorney General to refer the Bill to the Supreme Court at that stage" does not make the decision to do so right or proper.

I find it ironic that the above judgement came out in the same week that David Cameron, Prime Minister promised a crackdown on judicial reviews of government decisions.

And finally we really need to question the purpose and function of the Welsh Secretary and associated expense -  is it a bureaucracy we can do without?

The politicians answer - hold a review and make it comprehensive.

As we know the Welsh Ambulance service has failed to meet it target of reaching 65% of emergency calls within 8 minutes. As I said yesterday, as a measure of the quality of the service, this arbitrary target is rather pointless, as it easier to meet in large cities and towns than in rural areas. Then there are the factors outside the control of the Ambulance Service that affect these times.......poor weather or busy A&E meaning Ambulances having longer waits, to name but two.

Ideally what you should to do is combine the fire service and the ambulance service into an all Wales Emergency Response Service, and separating the transfer of patients back in to the local heath boards responsibility. Well that what happens in most other countries.

But that not going to happen is it, and if you want to increase response times, which after all is really just an exercise in logistics, making sure you have enough ambulances in the right place at the right time, I suspect what you need is more ambulances, more staff and more money. Especially in the future, with fewer hospitals and greater travel distances,  tying Ambulances and Paramedics up longer.

But of course we ain't got the money, they struggled to agree the Ambulance budget this year, no doubt the health boards wanted to pay less, but demanded a better service.

As reported by  BBC Wales - Lesley Griffiths [the Health Minister] has announced plans to improve response times as well as holding a "comprehensive review" into the service......

It failed to meet the target of responding to 65% of the most urgent calls within eight minutes for the fourth successive month.

But the minister announced she wants to increase the Category A target to 70% of calls whereas in England it stands at 75%.

A final decision will be made after the review is completed, the Welsh government said.

Ah the politicians default position, when they cant make a decision ...which in this case should either be give  more monies to the Ambulance Service to improve their response times, or be honest and say in these days of austerity this is the best we can hope to achieve as things stand.

But no kick it into the long grass by announcing a comprehensive review. Although to be fair to Lesley Griffiths I suspect that in her in tray, there are far more important and controversial issues she needs to deal with...one being the proposed closure of many community hospitals. 

Employment in Wales and the bad news for women.

As reported by BBC Wales on Wednesday, the total number of people recorded as being unemployed  in  Wales went up by 2,000 (actually it was around 1,678) in the last quarter to 132,701.

Below is a summary of the headline figures for the last quarter (March-May):

As you can see the number of people employed in Wales fell by 9,055.

If we now look at the figures for men.

You will notice that the number of men unemployed in Wales went down by 4,772 over the last quarter. The number of men aged 16 -64 classed as economically inactive rose by 9,523.

And looking at figures for women:

The number of women unemployed went up by 6,450 over the last quarter.

To help us understand some of the above, ONS say:

Employment measures the number of people in paid work and differs from the number of jobs because some people have more than one job.

Unemployment measures people without a job who have been actively seeking work and are available to start work if a job is offered.

Economically inactive people are not in employment but do not meet the internationally accepted definition of unemployment because they have not been seeking work within the last four weeks and/or they are unable to start work within the next two weeks.

So what can we learn from the above? - I think it shows us that jobs are still being created in the welsh economy, although a growing problem is the number of people out for work for a long time. But what should concern us most, is that the above figures seem to confirm:

Spending cuts will disproportionately affect women: women are more likely to be the beneficiaries and users of public services; and employees in the public sector. (from The Guardian)

The chart below show the percentage of the population claiming job seekers allowance by unitary and local authority:

The chart below show the percentage of the population claiming job seekers allowance by region:

And the percentage change in claimant count by region over one year:

See also: Telegraph - Employment is rising but its not down to job creation.

To download the data for above: ONS Labour Market Statistics, July 2012, and as ever click on image to enlarge.

The Queen, Aberfan and the BBC

Did you know that this year Queen Elizabeth II celebrates 60 years of rule over us commoners.

Not that you could have easily missed this fact,  BBC Wales is there to ensure that.

Which brings me to my moan of the day....

On Friday, the Queen on her second and last day of her 'tour' of Wales, visited Aberfan to remember and commemorate the disaster that devastated the village.

And I'm sure she gave comfort to those present, but that is not my moan of the day.

My moan of the day is the fact that BBC News including BBC Wales said, and I paraphrase - Queen Elizabeth visited Aberfan almost 50 years since the disaster.

The tragic man made disaster at Aberfan occurred on 21 October 1966, or just over 45 years ago.

That's 45 years ago, in October it will be 46 years ago, so how you can say that is almost 50 years ago is beyond me.

Or on that basis - did you know I celebrated the Queens jubilee back in 2008, well it was almost 60 years since she was crowned Queen, wasn't it?

And there 'endeth' my moan of the day.