There's always a danger that assuming the role of a Minister can lead to public statements and interviews being overly influenced by the civil service at the expense of making easily understood political points (dare I say political capital). From 6:00 a.m. today Good Morning Wales gave significant prominence to the story that proposed Assembly legislation on school transport was being criticised by campaigners for failing to address safety issues. By the time Ieuan Wyn was interviewed just after 8:00 the image had been built of an Assembly Government that was ignoring the opportunity to enact something that makes common sense and would be widely applauded. Ieuan had the opportunity to put the record straight and advance political objectives at the same time. It's really very simple. What he should have said is
"...of course we agree with the campaigners. The safety of our children is paramount. But because of the anomalies in our piecemeal devolution settlement the power to change this provision still rests with Westminster. It's illogical and frustrating, but that's the position we're in. I am taking action to change this, and expect the necessary powers to be transferred very soon. Then the Government in Wales will be able to act, and we will act decisively. This is one of very many examples of how the Assembly is currently hampered in achieving what's best for the people of Wales by a flawed devolution settlement..."
Instead of this we had words to the effect of "...I've taken legal advice and we can't do it... I've asked for the powers to be transferred but I don't know if they will be or when..." Defensive and ineffectual. Administratively correct but politically impotent. Ministers - even Deputy First Ministers - shouldn't acquiesce with the weaknesses of the system they operate within. They are entitled to express frustration. The leader of a party dedicated to changing that system radically has a duty to express that frustration and to go on the offensive to illustrate how things could be different. There is nothing incompatible between the roles of responsible Government Minister and radical politician.
Tuesday 30 September 2008
Wednesday 9 July 2008
Conventioners Beware
Listening to the remarkable rantings of Don Touhig this morning has spurred a dormant Pilchard into blogging again. It would be easy to dismiss his tirade as the embittered protestations of a man who has simply never come to terms with the fact that his beloved party failed to win a majority at the last Assembly election. Or those of a man whose own lacklustre political career is now even more peripheral to what's happening on a day to day basis as Wales progresses, the UK stagnates, and New Labour descends into terminal decline.
However, that would do Don an injustice. These were no throw away, off the cuff remarks. I have absolutely no doubt that this latest attack was well considered and part of a deliberate strategy to try and rubbish the work of the All Wales Convention before it even holds its first meeting. Conventioners* beware! There's a lot more of this puerile posturing yet to come. The path towards a meaningful and winnable referendum is going to be neither straight nor clean.
*I know there's no such word as Conventioners. But if it was a Commission they'd be called Commissioners wouldn't they?
However, that would do Don an injustice. These were no throw away, off the cuff remarks. I have absolutely no doubt that this latest attack was well considered and part of a deliberate strategy to try and rubbish the work of the All Wales Convention before it even holds its first meeting. Conventioners* beware! There's a lot more of this puerile posturing yet to come. The path towards a meaningful and winnable referendum is going to be neither straight nor clean.
*I know there's no such word as Conventioners. But if it was a Commission they'd be called Commissioners wouldn't they?
Thursday 3 April 2008
Mrs Jones still wants her bath...
There was only ever one justification for the creation of 22 Local Health Boards. That was the potential they offered, by virtue of co-terminosity, for genuine integration of health and social care provision. Of course that hasn't happened. The underlying conflict between the business cultures of local authorities, both constrained and legitimised by democratic accountability, and Local Health Boards (and Trusts) accountable to no-one but the Minister, was always too tough a nut to crack merely by creating common boundaries.
It was Peter Walker as Secretary of State (mercifully many years ago) who used the memorable phrase "creating a seamless robe of care" to describe the joint working arrangements between county councils and health authorities required under the Care in the Community legislation. An admirable aspiration which would have meant the experience of the patient would be unaffected by whether their needs for care and support were being met by social services or by health services. But it was an aspiration that could never be met as there's no such thing as a seamless patchwork. The component elements of the partnerships were too far apart structurally, culturally, financially and even ideologically for it to work. Put crudely, no-one ever resolved the issue of how Mrs Jones was to get a bath without bare-faced stand-offs between the two authorities arguing about whether Mrs Jones's ablutions were driven by a medical or a social need (i.e. who would pick up the bill). In the meantime Mrs Jones is probably still part of the great unwashed if, indeed, she hasn't died waiting.
Creating co-terminous health and social service authorities, along with bringing health and social care into the same Ministry at least hinted at a desire to resolve these issues, but it was a half-hearted attempt at best.
Of course 22 Local Health Boards is far too many, and the ditching of this structure is good news. But the ensuing debate should not revolve solely around the health service as if it were a structure in isolation of other services. There must be consideration of the social care dimension in whatever replacement structure is created. Neither should the the issue of democratisation of the new Boards be ducked. Edwina has proven herself as a Minister with the bottle to tackle difficult issues. Are there other ministers with the bottle to tackle the huge, glaring reality that 22 Local Authorities is far too many? Will anyone really open the batting by declaring that the elections on May 1st should be the last throw of the dice for these councils?
It was Peter Walker as Secretary of State (mercifully many years ago) who used the memorable phrase "creating a seamless robe of care" to describe the joint working arrangements between county councils and health authorities required under the Care in the Community legislation. An admirable aspiration which would have meant the experience of the patient would be unaffected by whether their needs for care and support were being met by social services or by health services. But it was an aspiration that could never be met as there's no such thing as a seamless patchwork. The component elements of the partnerships were too far apart structurally, culturally, financially and even ideologically for it to work. Put crudely, no-one ever resolved the issue of how Mrs Jones was to get a bath without bare-faced stand-offs between the two authorities arguing about whether Mrs Jones's ablutions were driven by a medical or a social need (i.e. who would pick up the bill). In the meantime Mrs Jones is probably still part of the great unwashed if, indeed, she hasn't died waiting.
Creating co-terminous health and social service authorities, along with bringing health and social care into the same Ministry at least hinted at a desire to resolve these issues, but it was a half-hearted attempt at best.
Of course 22 Local Health Boards is far too many, and the ditching of this structure is good news. But the ensuing debate should not revolve solely around the health service as if it were a structure in isolation of other services. There must be consideration of the social care dimension in whatever replacement structure is created. Neither should the the issue of democratisation of the new Boards be ducked. Edwina has proven herself as a Minister with the bottle to tackle difficult issues. Are there other ministers with the bottle to tackle the huge, glaring reality that 22 Local Authorities is far too many? Will anyone really open the batting by declaring that the elections on May 1st should be the last throw of the dice for these councils?
Friday 14 March 2008
Think again Jane
One of the drawbacks of very intermittent blogging is that people will get out of the habit of looking for Pilchard's rantings. Therefore I'm writing this in the knowledge that it will probably be posted and disappear into the ether. However, as you're reading this I've already been proved wrong. As you've stumbled across it, please feel free to circulate the link to anyone you think might be interested, and I undertake to blog more frequently in future!
So what's awoken my muse after all this time? In two words - Jane Hutt. Now I quite like Jane, but her decision this week regarding the provision of advocacy services for vulnerable children and young people beggars belief. I can think of many adjectives to describe it - crass, illogical, arrogant, ill-thought-out, dangerous... the list could go on. But they can all be simply expressed. Jane, your decision is WRONG, and I suspect you know it. After all, you've been told so by no less than the Children's Commissioner, Sir Ronald Waterhouse Q.C., Children in Wales, the Assembly's own Children and Young People's Committee, and probably most importantly of all, by Voices From Care who directly represent the young people who most need an independent advocacy service.
Virtually the only serious players who have argued for the commissioning model Jane has adopted are the collected vested interests of the local authority service providers. So we have ended up with vulnerable young people who need an advocate to express their concerns and complaints against their care provider, being offered an advocate paid by that care provider. Even if this is an arms length arrangement, such a relationship can never earn the trust of the young people. There is a fundamental conflict of interest.
So the only conclusion we can reach is that Jane has capitulated to the WLGA in a manner that debases her own honourable record in the voluntary sector. She should be worried about that.
The question now arises as to what can be done to right her wrong. To me it's quite simple. The decision should be put to a vote on the floor of the Assembly and overturned. For this to happen Plaid members would need to vote against their coalition partners. Not a step to be taken lightly. But there are good reasons for doing so. This is not a policy that is integral to the One Wales agreement, so while it won't foster wonderful friendly relationships with Labour, it certainly won't wreck the coalition. The positive political effect it would have would be to spell out clearly that Plaid remains its own party in spite of its coalition role, and that when a Minister makes a decision that is as perverse and patently wrong as this one, it will be overturned.
The other positive outcome would be that vulnerable children will be protected and supported in an appropriate manner which they themselves can trust. And that is well worth the short term embarrassment that would be felt by Jane Hutt.
So what's awoken my muse after all this time? In two words - Jane Hutt. Now I quite like Jane, but her decision this week regarding the provision of advocacy services for vulnerable children and young people beggars belief. I can think of many adjectives to describe it - crass, illogical, arrogant, ill-thought-out, dangerous... the list could go on. But they can all be simply expressed. Jane, your decision is WRONG, and I suspect you know it. After all, you've been told so by no less than the Children's Commissioner, Sir Ronald Waterhouse Q.C., Children in Wales, the Assembly's own Children and Young People's Committee, and probably most importantly of all, by Voices From Care who directly represent the young people who most need an independent advocacy service.
Virtually the only serious players who have argued for the commissioning model Jane has adopted are the collected vested interests of the local authority service providers. So we have ended up with vulnerable young people who need an advocate to express their concerns and complaints against their care provider, being offered an advocate paid by that care provider. Even if this is an arms length arrangement, such a relationship can never earn the trust of the young people. There is a fundamental conflict of interest.
So the only conclusion we can reach is that Jane has capitulated to the WLGA in a manner that debases her own honourable record in the voluntary sector. She should be worried about that.
The question now arises as to what can be done to right her wrong. To me it's quite simple. The decision should be put to a vote on the floor of the Assembly and overturned. For this to happen Plaid members would need to vote against their coalition partners. Not a step to be taken lightly. But there are good reasons for doing so. This is not a policy that is integral to the One Wales agreement, so while it won't foster wonderful friendly relationships with Labour, it certainly won't wreck the coalition. The positive political effect it would have would be to spell out clearly that Plaid remains its own party in spite of its coalition role, and that when a Minister makes a decision that is as perverse and patently wrong as this one, it will be overturned.
The other positive outcome would be that vulnerable children will be protected and supported in an appropriate manner which they themselves can trust. And that is well worth the short term embarrassment that would be felt by Jane Hutt.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
