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.
No comments:
Post a Comment