Wednesday saw Wales’ unemployment figures climb to an eye watering 137,000 or 9.3% of the workforce, more than at the height of the last recession in 2009 but still less than the highs of the 1980’s, the outlook is grim indeed.
The UK Government is unlikely to do anything significant in his Autumn statement to help, so the poor souls are relying on the Welsh Government and Business for answers, so Edwina Hart our Business Minister announced a loan scheme and grants support totaling £55million to coincide with the release of the UK and Welsh unemployment figures.
The threadbare Welsh Business press duly reported the scheme and business leaders were quoted as being pleased with new money and return to grants, however it took until today for both to mention that the cash wont be available until 2012 in the Western Mail
‘David Russ, managing director at the of South Wales Chamber of Commerce, said the funding announcement was “fantastic” but the money was needed now.
He said: “The announcement that funds of £55m, in addition to the previously planned £75m Jobs Growth Wales fund, will be made available for businesses in Wales is fantastic news. We’re confident that financial support such as this will encourage growth, which will have a knock-on effect on employment.
“However, it’s regrettable that these measures won’t be brought in until 2012 at the earliest, as SMEs and the unemployed population need this help now. With this promised support still a while away, we hope that consumer confidence will be bolstered by the inflation drop.”
Phil Cooper, chief executive of business support agency Venture Wales, described the unemployment figures as “truly shocking” and called for investment in start-up businesses.
He said: “Start-ups and the micro firm sector have in the last eight years created more jobs than any other sector of the industrial landscape yet do not receive the support or funding that other higher profile areas receive.
“Even though the economy is flat there are many things which our Government could be doing to help create jobs by investing more in start up activities and helping smaller firms to grow which as a collective could tackle these worrying unemployment figures.”
And according to Valleys Mam we know that Edwina’s Business department already has a £50 million under spend for 2011 when the Welsh economy is in major crisis, welsh unemployment is rising and is already 17% higher than last year – is it too much for the press and opposition parties to ask questions and expose the sham in the Business Department over its ‘help’ for business.
Edwina Hart comments about regretting capitalism may have made people smile last week, but it seems her state focused approach and legendary control freakery is also denying money for investment and business growth, Wales can’t afford anymore regret so Carwyn and Edwina need to start delivering because sheltering Wales from the worst excesses of a Tory Government was after all was the main reason voters many backed devolution.
Friday, November 18, 2011
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Richard Commission on Welsh legislative body and electing members
After Labour’s decision to blow raspberries at democracy over the weekend, the First Minsters speech on devolution tests and the total lack of alternatives on how we make the system we elected our Assembly members by fair for all coming from any other parties, it’s worth remembering what the Richard Commission had to say on these matters back in 2004.
Their recommendations are on page 262 and state
that there should be a legislative Assembly for Wales on the model in Chapter 13;
in the interim, the framework delegated powers approach should be expanded as far as possible with the agreement of the UK Government
and Parliament;
that, if a legislative Assembly is constituted, it is desirable, though not essential, to confer tax-varying powers;
that to exercise primary powers the Assembly needs an increase in membership to 80 Members;
that the structure of the Assembly should be reconstituted with a separate legislature and executive;
that the present voting system cannot sustain an increase to 80 – the best alternative is the STV system;
these changes should be in place by 2011, or sooner if practicable.
They also laid out a plan for how a Welsh legislative body would look and what powers it would have, the option of tax varying powers is mentioned (page 250)
Box 13.5: A legislative Assembly for Wales
Wales Bill needed to amend Government of Wales Act and confer primary
law-making powers on the Assembly;
Bill specifies reserved matters (Westminster legislates); everything is
devolved to the Assembly unless specifically reserved;
reserved matters could include: the Constitution, defence, fiscal and
monetary policy, immigration and nationality, competition, monopolies and
mergers, employment legislation, most energy matters, railway services
(excluding grants), social security, elections arrangements (except local
elections), most company and commercial law, broadcasting, equal
opportunities, police and criminal justice;
devolved matters: the fields set out in Schedule 2 of Government of Wales
Act i.e. health, education and training, social services, housing, local
government, planning, culture, sport and recreation, the Welsh language,
ancient monuments and historic buildings, economic development, industry,
tourism, transport, highways, agriculture, fisheries, food, forestry,
environment, water and flood defence;
corporate body structure replaced with executive and legislature;
Assembly can construct its own rules of procedure and Standing Orders,
adopted by a majority of two thirds;
executive powers in a particular field can be devolved even if the Assembly
has no corresponding primary legislative powers;
Cardiff legislative programme might contain around four to six government
Bills a year;
change in Membership and electoral system;
option of tax-varying power.
Their recommendations are on page 262 and state
that there should be a legislative Assembly for Wales on the model in Chapter 13;
in the interim, the framework delegated powers approach should be expanded as far as possible with the agreement of the UK Government
and Parliament;
that, if a legislative Assembly is constituted, it is desirable, though not essential, to confer tax-varying powers;
that to exercise primary powers the Assembly needs an increase in membership to 80 Members;
that the structure of the Assembly should be reconstituted with a separate legislature and executive;
that the present voting system cannot sustain an increase to 80 – the best alternative is the STV system;
these changes should be in place by 2011, or sooner if practicable.
They also laid out a plan for how a Welsh legislative body would look and what powers it would have, the option of tax varying powers is mentioned (page 250)
Box 13.5: A legislative Assembly for Wales
Wales Bill needed to amend Government of Wales Act and confer primary
law-making powers on the Assembly;
Bill specifies reserved matters (Westminster legislates); everything is
devolved to the Assembly unless specifically reserved;
reserved matters could include: the Constitution, defence, fiscal and
monetary policy, immigration and nationality, competition, monopolies and
mergers, employment legislation, most energy matters, railway services
(excluding grants), social security, elections arrangements (except local
elections), most company and commercial law, broadcasting, equal
opportunities, police and criminal justice;
devolved matters: the fields set out in Schedule 2 of Government of Wales
Act i.e. health, education and training, social services, housing, local
government, planning, culture, sport and recreation, the Welsh language,
ancient monuments and historic buildings, economic development, industry,
tourism, transport, highways, agriculture, fisheries, food, forestry,
environment, water and flood defence;
corporate body structure replaced with executive and legislature;
Assembly can construct its own rules of procedure and Standing Orders,
adopted by a majority of two thirds;
executive powers in a particular field can be devolved even if the Assembly
has no corresponding primary legislative powers;
Cardiff legislative programme might contain around four to six government
Bills a year;
change in Membership and electoral system;
option of tax-varying power.
New Blog Devolved Politics in the UK
Here’s a new Cardiff journalist/blogger Tom Rouse reporting on politics in Cardiff and Edinburgh, his blog is called ‘Devolved Politics in the UK’
Welcome to the Welsh political blogosphere and make yourself at home.
His introduction post says ‘my focus in the past has too often been on Westminster and international events, despite the fascinating stories happening on our doorstep in Cardiff. The aim of this blog is to explore issues in devolved politics, in particular the divergence in policy between Westminster and the devolved administrations here in Cardiff and in Scotland. The recent Yes vote in the Welsh referendum has granted the Senedd new powers and a fascinating 12 months awaits us as we see the Labour administration come to grips with these new powers.’
Welcome to the Welsh political blogosphere and make yourself at home.
His introduction post says ‘my focus in the past has too often been on Westminster and international events, despite the fascinating stories happening on our doorstep in Cardiff. The aim of this blog is to explore issues in devolved politics, in particular the divergence in policy between Westminster and the devolved administrations here in Cardiff and in Scotland. The recent Yes vote in the Welsh referendum has granted the Senedd new powers and a fascinating 12 months awaits us as we see the Labour administration come to grips with these new powers.’
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
'Disability Benefits: A 'Nasty Campaign'?'
Thought this was worth sharing from Sky’s Boulton & Co blog on the changes to Disability Benefit and DWP’s manipulation of its own figures.
“Latest DWP stats show that only 6% of new Disability Living Allowance claimants last year (January to December 2010) had a face-to-face assessment with a healthcare professional.
"The vast majority (94%) of new claimants got the benefit without having any face-to-face assessment of their needs."
These are the opening lines of a Department for Work and Pensions release - the decision to put those words in bold was theirs not mine.
How do you interpret these statements? I wouldn't be surprised if you concluded 94% of claimants had no face-to-face assessment because that's exactly what it says.
But the rest of the release paints a more complex (or to be less diplomatic, potentially contradictory) picture.
It seems 42% of claimants had a statement from their GP verifying their medical condition; a further 36% submitted other sources of evidence, a category that can include reports by social workers or occupational therapists.
Surely a GP is a "healthcare professional"? And surely all these trained staff will have met the claimant in person? Does this not count as a form of assessment?
Apparently not.
The DWP's figures show 16% submitted a claim form alone.
And this could well be too many - the Government is under pressure to cut costs. Benefits of this sort cost a huge amount to the taxpayer. We know there are some liars and frauds who will lie to wrongly obtain cash.
But some have been quick to say there are some conditions so undeniable, further assessment isn't needed.
Ian Birrell, who has written at length about his daughter's "profound and multiple disabilities", wrote on Twitter this morning: "My daughter got DLA without an interview. But then she is unable to talk like many others with profound and multiple learning difficulties."
He said the forms are 38-pages long and accused the department of a "nasty campaign doing...the Government no favours".
It is worth noting this is not coming from someone generally anti-government: Birrell is friends with David Cameron, worked as his speechwriter and remains close to many in Downing Street.
I put my queries to a member of the DWP press office, who said the "healthcare professionals" mentioned was clearly a reference to the department's assessors (presumably Atos, paid £100m a year by DWP for this kind of work).
But is it clear? Is that what you assumed when you read those opening lines?
Secondly, she said the most critical issue was that of assessment - GP reports just note conditions; they do not assess the impact of it on the claimant's life.
This may be so, but I still think many (including GPs) will be surprised GPs are not classed as healthcare professionals by DWP and by the implication their reports need to be checked up on. If an official suspects more information is needed, they can presumably request it - that they authorised these requests would suggest they were satisfied with the claims made.
The press officer did not feel the sentences were misleading and felt it was obvious they referred to their specific assessors and their specific assessment.
She said the people who carry out the assessments are not only doctors registered with the General Medical Council but also have specialist training in assessing people with disabilities.
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Iain Duncan Smith is quoted on the release. "At the moment hundreds of millions of pounds are paid out in disability benefits to people who have simply filled out a form," he said.
"The vast majority of people are getting the benefit for life without regular checks to see if they are still eligible, or if their condition has worsened and they need increased support."
But have the "vast majority" really escaped all checks? And have those who "simply filled out a form" really cost "hundreds of millions"?
Yes, if you are taking into account the expense over many years, but the DWP figures show the cost of new claimants who really did just fill in the form last year was a smaller, but not insignificant, £30m.
Ambiguous language from DWP or, as Birrell suggests, a "campaign" and a nasty one at that?
The original post and comments are here
“Latest DWP stats show that only 6% of new Disability Living Allowance claimants last year (January to December 2010) had a face-to-face assessment with a healthcare professional.
"The vast majority (94%) of new claimants got the benefit without having any face-to-face assessment of their needs."
These are the opening lines of a Department for Work and Pensions release - the decision to put those words in bold was theirs not mine.
How do you interpret these statements? I wouldn't be surprised if you concluded 94% of claimants had no face-to-face assessment because that's exactly what it says.
But the rest of the release paints a more complex (or to be less diplomatic, potentially contradictory) picture.
It seems 42% of claimants had a statement from their GP verifying their medical condition; a further 36% submitted other sources of evidence, a category that can include reports by social workers or occupational therapists.
Surely a GP is a "healthcare professional"? And surely all these trained staff will have met the claimant in person? Does this not count as a form of assessment?
Apparently not.
The DWP's figures show 16% submitted a claim form alone.
And this could well be too many - the Government is under pressure to cut costs. Benefits of this sort cost a huge amount to the taxpayer. We know there are some liars and frauds who will lie to wrongly obtain cash.
But some have been quick to say there are some conditions so undeniable, further assessment isn't needed.
Ian Birrell, who has written at length about his daughter's "profound and multiple disabilities", wrote on Twitter this morning: "My daughter got DLA without an interview. But then she is unable to talk like many others with profound and multiple learning difficulties."
He said the forms are 38-pages long and accused the department of a "nasty campaign doing...the Government no favours".
It is worth noting this is not coming from someone generally anti-government: Birrell is friends with David Cameron, worked as his speechwriter and remains close to many in Downing Street.
I put my queries to a member of the DWP press office, who said the "healthcare professionals" mentioned was clearly a reference to the department's assessors (presumably Atos, paid £100m a year by DWP for this kind of work).
But is it clear? Is that what you assumed when you read those opening lines?
Secondly, she said the most critical issue was that of assessment - GP reports just note conditions; they do not assess the impact of it on the claimant's life.
This may be so, but I still think many (including GPs) will be surprised GPs are not classed as healthcare professionals by DWP and by the implication their reports need to be checked up on. If an official suspects more information is needed, they can presumably request it - that they authorised these requests would suggest they were satisfied with the claims made.
The press officer did not feel the sentences were misleading and felt it was obvious they referred to their specific assessors and their specific assessment.
She said the people who carry out the assessments are not only doctors registered with the General Medical Council but also have specialist training in assessing people with disabilities.
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Iain Duncan Smith is quoted on the release. "At the moment hundreds of millions of pounds are paid out in disability benefits to people who have simply filled out a form," he said.
"The vast majority of people are getting the benefit for life without regular checks to see if they are still eligible, or if their condition has worsened and they need increased support."
But have the "vast majority" really escaped all checks? And have those who "simply filled out a form" really cost "hundreds of millions"?
Yes, if you are taking into account the expense over many years, but the DWP figures show the cost of new claimants who really did just fill in the form last year was a smaller, but not insignificant, £30m.
Ambiguous language from DWP or, as Birrell suggests, a "campaign" and a nasty one at that?
The original post and comments are here
Monday, November 14, 2011
Moving the Agenda On
So Peter Hain has got his way and Carwyn Jones and the Labour Party (aside from a few AM's) have backed plans to get rid of the proportional element in Assembly election system ensuring a return to uninterrupted Labour only rule in the National Assembly (if it ever went away).
The statement came in response to the equally disingenuous UK Government plans to redraw constituency boundaries to ensure an equal number of voters in each constituency across the UK giving the Conservatives a better chance of a majority in the House of Commons. The proposals affect the Assembly elections because the number of Welsh MP’s will be reduced and the boundaries are coterminous and used for Welsh Assembly elections which are currently 40 FPTP and 20 regional list members.
But aside from the shameless self interest and politicking on show from all sides the timing is interesting, call me cynical but this has moved the welsh political agenda on nicely after a week of unwanted headlines, spin and accusations for Labour over the stalled draft budget talks that have got the First Minister and his minority Government genuinely worried.
The lack of votes for Carwyn’s draft budget isn’t gonna change because Labour big wigs trotted out the tripe they did over the weekend and could alienate the Opposition Parties, it may please Labour grassroots but the Welsh Government should be concentrating on doing its job and not playing into the Welsh Assembly’s critics who are growing in number.
The statement came in response to the equally disingenuous UK Government plans to redraw constituency boundaries to ensure an equal number of voters in each constituency across the UK giving the Conservatives a better chance of a majority in the House of Commons. The proposals affect the Assembly elections because the number of Welsh MP’s will be reduced and the boundaries are coterminous and used for Welsh Assembly elections which are currently 40 FPTP and 20 regional list members.
But aside from the shameless self interest and politicking on show from all sides the timing is interesting, call me cynical but this has moved the welsh political agenda on nicely after a week of unwanted headlines, spin and accusations for Labour over the stalled draft budget talks that have got the First Minister and his minority Government genuinely worried.
The lack of votes for Carwyn’s draft budget isn’t gonna change because Labour big wigs trotted out the tripe they did over the weekend and could alienate the Opposition Parties, it may please Labour grassroots but the Welsh Government should be concentrating on doing its job and not playing into the Welsh Assembly’s critics who are growing in number.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)