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.

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?

Welsh Assembly and the Welsh language.

A few days ago David Jones MP and Welsh Secretary said "..This is also very important for the Welsh Language..." when talking about Wylfa B. (see below)

You would think therefore that a Welsh Government bill; intended to put Welsh and English on an equal footing in the Welsh Assembly, would be welcomed as another important step for the welsh language.

Um....well in the first place not sure why this wasn't one of the founding principles of the Welsh Assembly - that the languages of welsh and english had an equal footing - surely the first legal officer for the assembly none other than Winston Roddick QC has some questions to answer?

So a bit confused why "The Wales Office had questioned whether the assembly had law-making powers over the English language." as reported by  BBC Wales News

Or in other words 'how dare they challenge the supremacy of the english language.'

The Attorney General Dominic Grieve though has decided not to take the Official Languages Bill to the Supreme Court.

As Shadow Welsh Secretary Owen Smith said [to the BBC]: "David Jones now has questions to answer as to why he persisted in seeking this wasteful review of the assembly's legislative competence - established after last year's referendum - and what has been the full cost associated with his referral."

Not sure I'll believe a word David Jones MP ever says again.......enough said.

Can we save our high streets?

In the Daily Post today Dylan Jones Evans, Economic adviser to the Welsh Conservative Party, wrote about the ideas put forward by the Welsh Conservatives in a bid to revive our high streets.

As we know even high streets in large cities and towns are struggling, but it's even worse in smaller towns and villages - the percentage of empty shops growing year on year, as more shops close due to either going bankrupt or moving to out of town retail centers.

Then there is the hassle of finding somewhere to park, a lack of choice, poorly maintained streets, tight household budgets and busy lives.

In other words without adequate footfall high streets are doomed to fade away.

And of course you have the large out of town shopping centers, with their big brand names in large convenient stores, with free parking and easy access. All approved by politicians of all parties - who now seem to be concerned about the demise of the high street.

But let me talk about the elephant in the room, in times of austerity, when money is tight, and we all work long hours to make ends meet, our first priority is to find the best price without hassle, and these days a growing trend is....the first place we look is on the world wide web, especially with more and more of us now owning smart phones.

The ONS in their retail sales report for September says the key points on internet sales are:

• The average weekly online spend (Internet sales values non-seasonally adjusted) in September 2012 was estimated to be £507.8 million, which was an increase of 9.4 per cent when compared with September 2011.
• The amount spent online was estimated to account for 8.8 per cent of all retail spending excluding automotive fuel.
• More was spent online in the non-store retailing sector than any other sector. Spending online now accounts for 63.0 per cent of total spending in this sector up from 62.9 per cent in September 2011. In the food sector 3.1 per cent of spending was spent online, up from 2.7 per cent a year earlier. This sector has the lowest proportion of online spend in relation to all spending.

As you can read we still prefer shops for purchase of food items, though more of us are starting to buy online. And we know who dominates the food sector - that would be the supermarkets.

So being realistic any shop on the high street is going to struggle, even specialist shops, unless they can attract the footfall. And one way of doing so is to have a presence on the world wide web, offering a specialised quality service.

Therefore not sure how much tax breaks would really help, after all we would need to raise that money elsewhere - robbing paul to pay peter and all that. As for free parking in town and village centers is a good idea, but whilst paying for parking may discourage some, doubt it's the main problem.

To me the key to saving the high street is proper maintenance of them, a redesign including in many cases making them more car friendly - get rid of pedestrianised zones where they don't work.

But above all seek young entrepreneurs with innovative ideas, and give them support and grants to open shops in their local area. Councils should have powers to take over empty shops and offer them to such entrepreneurs as starter units (like you have with industrial units). And the welsh government should ensure that high street shops have access to fast broadband.

We shall not see the traditional high street again, but that does not mean that it cant adapt and grow and be a place for the next generation of entrepreneurs in niche markets to find their feet and prosper.

Caernarfon and Bontnewydd Bypass

The preferred route for the proposed Caernarfon and Bontnewydd Bypass has been announced by the Welsh Government, although there may be some time before it is eventually built, especially with a price tag that could reach £100 million, if not more.

This was reported by BBC News on Sunday see: Bontnewydd-Caernarfon by-pass preferred route unveiled.

What confused me was the following from the above:

Caernarfon Town Council had written to First Minister Carwyn Jones, demanding to know why no route has been chosen despite two public consultations.

And there was me thinking they had chosen the purple route?

What's the purple route you may ask, see below I reply (click on image to enlarge):

Above plans taken from Welsh Government website - Annex A (pdf file)

Also I think the purple route became a 'TR111 route protected for planning purposes' as shown on the plan below:

To see the plan in greater detail: Welsh Government website - Annex C (pdf file)

By publishing a TR111 plan, the Welsh Assembly Government protects the route under Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995. This means that the Local Planing Authority will refer to the Welsh Government all future planning applications that are within 200 metres of the center line of the preferred route.

Also for any any property being sold within 200 metres of the protected line, the proposed scheme would be declared on any searches carried out, and in certain circumstances any owner having difficulty selling property on the line of the route may apply for blight. In certain cases this might mean the Welsh Government purchasing the property. See Blight and Discretionary Purchase (pdf file). Please note same provisions applies to Wales.

And for those of you wondering what the "Tra34 Net Present Value for the A487 Caernarfon to Bontnewydd Improvement Scheme options" is  - see Welsh Government Disclosure Log 2011.

Marine Conservation Zones

The Welsh Government is currently consulting on 10 potential sites as options for further consideration as highly protected marine conservation zones, on the basis that the Welsh Government intends to designate no more than 3-4 sites....This consultation is the first in an iterative process consisting of 3 consultation phases.

You can download the consultation document from the Welsh Government's website.

On Ynys Môn there are two potential sites - Puffin Island and a section of the shoreline on the North East of Menai Strait.

Within the potential highly protected marine conservations zones, there will be strict conditions attached which the consultation explains:

The best way of achieving this is to afford the sites a high level of protection where they are protected from the extraction and deposition of living and non-living resources plus all other damaging or disturbing activities to support as natural an ecological state as possible.

 Extractive, depositional, damaging and disturbing activities have been defined in the site selection guidance [..] as follows:

• An extractive activity is defined as an act that involves the temporary or permanent removal or attempted removal, of any living organism or non-living material or natural feature from the marine environment. An exemption to this is the removal of man-made litter.
• A depositional activity is defined as an act that involves the laying down, movement or discharge of living or non-living materials or substance into the marine environment. This includes deposit of materials such as rocks, gravel or sand, building of structures, and the release of any polluting or toxic or chemical substances, as well as the discharge of ballast, untreated human waste, biodegradable and industrial waste and the discard of fish offal and by catch.
• A damaging activity is defined as an act that potentially results in permanent or temporary physical harm or injury to species, or cause permanent or temporary alteration to natural features within the marine environment. Physical damage would count as something which reduces an organism’s ability to operate in a natural.

With such strict conditions there are concerns that the potential highly protected marine zones could harm the legitimate businesses of some people and/or the leisure activities of others with consequential damage to the tourist trade.

The Daily Post on Thursday had a report on 'Coastal communities up in arms over planned marine zones'.

As part of the first stage of the consultation the Welsh Government is collecting evidence from those likely to be affected by any potential marine conservation zone.

For example for the potential zone at Puffin Island they ask

Do you currently use or enjoy or plan to use or enjoy the sea or coast within or near this site?

If so tell us:

Where exactly?

What activity or pastime are you involved in?

How often do you do the activity or enjoy the pastime?

How important is the activity or pastime to you?

Therefore if you are concerned that any of the potential sites may unduly affect your livelihood and/or enjoyment of the natural environment it's important that you let the Welsh Government know. You can download a consultation response form (in word format) from the Welsh Governments  website

The consultation closes on 31 July 2012.

Please note: words in italics are extracts from the Welsh Government's Consultation Document.

More than just words

The blog 'inside out' in a post called 'Language of priorities' mentions an article in the Western Mail and the British Medical Associations response to the Welsh Government's proposed framework ‘More Than Just Words’.

Apparently the BMA think: “The time, and financial situation, is not right for imposing language duties on NHS organisations aiming to deliver world-class healthcare, but which in reality are many light-years away from that.”

Blog Menai also has a post on this subject.

Now I'm not sure what planet the BMA live on, but I've chosen to ignore their views, especially when reported via a third party being in this case the Western Mail.

What's far more important is the Welsh Governments proposed framework and the needs of welsh speaking patients.

To quote from the executive summary :

The Welsh Government is committed to delivering high quality health, social services and social care services that are centred on user’s needs. Our vision is to provide a service that will satisfy the needs of Welsh speakers and their families or carers, by ensuring they are able to receive services in their own language through the care process....

Many service users are very vulnerable, so placing a responsibility on them to ask for services through the medium of Welsh is unfair.

In other words when someone is ill; especially the elderly, they are vulnerable and afraid - and you would expect as a fundamental right that their basic needs be protected, including I would most strongly argue the right to be spoken to in their native language.

The executive summary quotes the experience of a patient whom says "Many of the staff had no idea about the need to understand the emotional needs of a Welsh speaking patient who was confused"

To me it's straight forward a welsh speaking patient shouldn't need to ask for a welsh service, it should be offered to them as a matter of course. Not that everyone in the health service in Wales needs to speak welsh, but for example in the absence of a relative or career a hospital based welsh speaking companion would assist greatly by reducing the worry and confusion of the ill patient.

The consultation on the 'Strategic Framework for Welsh Language Services in Health, Social Services and Social Care' which is now closed can currently be viewed on the  Welsh Government website.

As I said the framework is called 'more than just words', sadly it seems the BMA think language is not an aid to recovery, and as such what they say to me are just words. 

Lein Amlwch - Gaerwen to Llangefni

You may have read in the Daily Post that the cost of re-opening the disused railway line between Gaerwen and Llangefni 'would' cost £25 million. This sounds quite a lot, especially at £6,250,000 per mile. I hope you notice that in the report itself the 'would' turned to 'could' cost....

You can download the Network Rail report from the Welsh Government website.

If you do download the report by Network Rail you will also notice that there are many 'if and buts' within - i.e the £25.1 million cost includes "a risk percentage of 35% and is subject to further GRIP development."

Therefore the on their own calculations the cost could be between around £16 million and up to £21.5 million.

But even at £16 million or around £4 million per mile it still sounds rather a lot to me. Time to study the report further me thinks......

Final banding for secondary schools announced.

The final banding for secondary schools based on 2011 data, has been published by the Welsh Government.

For Ynys Môn and in no particular order, the banding for secondary schools are:

• Ysgol David Hughes - Band 3
• Ysgol Gyfun Llangefni - Band 1
• Ysgol Syr Thomas Jones - Band 3
• Ysgol Uwchradd Bodedern - Band 5
• Ysgol Uwchradd Caergybi - Band 5

It's important to point out that the banding system is not a league table, you can download a brief explanation as to the model used for banding of secondary schools (in pdf format) from the Welsh Government website

See also: BBC News Wales