Tuesday, 24 July 2018

Angen ehangu cronfa £30 miliwn ar gyfer ysgolion Cymraeg i ateb galw - Plaid

Pob cyngor yn ceisio am arian i ehangu addysg Gymraeg
Dyw’r arian ar gyfer ehangu addysg Gymraeg ddim yn ddigon i ateb y galw, yn ôl ffigyrau swyddogol mae Plaid Cymru wedi gweld.

Yn sgil cytundeb rhwng Plaid Cymru a Llywodraeth Cymru, cafwyd £30 miliwn o arian cyfalaf er mwyn helpu cwrdd â’r galw cynnyddol am addysg Gymraeg.

Mae ystadegau â rhyddhawyd gan Llywodraeth Cymru i ysgrifennydd cysgodol addysg Plaid Cymru Llyr Gruffydd yn dangos fod cynghorau wedi gwneud cais am dair gwaith yr arian oedd ar gael i adeiladu neu ehangu ysgolion Cymraeg.

Mae’r 22 cyngor wedi gofyn am gyfanswm o £103m – yn amrywio o £640,000 gan Ynys Môn i £14,000,000 gan Gastellnedd Porth Talbot.

LA
LA Total (£million)
LA
LA Total  (£million)
Anglesey
0.64
Merthyr Tydfil
1.83
Blaenau Gwent
7.00
Monmouthshire
1.89
Bridgend
2.60
Neath Port Talbot
14.03
Caerphilly
6.13
Newport
13.70
Cardiff
7.40
Pembrokeshire
5.95
Carmarthen
4.09
Powys
5.18
Ceredigion
7.72
Rhondda Cynon Taf
3.57
Conwy
1.29
Swansea
4.86
Denbighshire
2.12
Torfaen
6.10
Flintshire
3.05
Vale of Glamorgan
1.55
Gwynedd
1.11
Wrexham
1.30
Total bid cost: 103.11

Dywedodd Mr Gruffydd: 
Mae’r ffaith fod pob cyngor wedi gwneud cais yn adrodd cyfrolau – mae yna alw sydd angen ei ateb drwy Gymru gyfan. Dyma pam y gwnaethon ni fel plaid wthio am yr arian ychwanegol yn y gyllideb eleni. Rydan ni’n cydnabod fod hwn yn sector sy’n cynnyddu a bod angen arian cyfalaf o ran ysgolion newydd ac er mwyn adnewyddu ac ehangu adeiladau.

“Mae’n amlwg o’r nifer fawr o geisiadau fod angen diwallu’r galw yma a bod angen cynnal y buddsoddiad ychwanegol yma yn y sector Gymraeg. Bydd rhai cynghorau’n cael eu siomi pan fydd y cyhoeddiad terfynol yn cael ei wneud yn yr Hydref a byddaf yn pwyso ar yr ysgrifennydd cabinet i gynnal y lefel yma o fuddsoddiad cyfalaf.

“Os yw Llywodraeth Cymru o ddifrif am gyrraedd y targed o filiwn o siaradwyr Cymraeg erbyn 2050 yna mae ateb y galw ymhlith rhieni am addysg Gymraeg yn hanfodol.”



Rhyfedd o fyd...




Monday, 23 July 2018

BREAKING NEWS: KINGDOM PULLS OUT OF CONWY, FLINTSHIRE AND DENBIGHSHIRE

We have just had confirmation that Kingdom has given notice to Conwy, Flintshire and Denbighshire Councils that it's pulling out of its contracts with the various local authorities in August.  
Ynys Môn and Gwynedd Councils, both Plaid Cymru run, binned Kingdom earlier this year.

That leaves just Wrexham Council of the six councils in north Wales who were using Kingdom earlier this year still stubbornly holding on to this failed method of keeping our streets clean.
Plaid Cymru councillors in Wrexham have attempted to have the Kingdom contract terminated but this was rejected by the Tory-Independent Executive Board that controls the council.
Councillor Marc Jones said:
"It's encouraging that councils across the North are ditching Kingdom because this contract is not keeping our streets clean. It's targetting vulnerable people and benefitting Kingdom's shareholders. For the past six months we have been calling for the council to ditch Kingdom. We desperately need a different approach and now hope that the council can work with other authorities to provide a better service."
Cllr Jones said it was clear that negotiations were happening behind closed doors as Flintshire's Council leader Aaron Shotton had mentioned that informal talks had been held with Wrexham [see attached article]. 


A mass protest is being planned to show how people locally feel about Kingdom. Details to be announced.

Wednesday, 11 July 2018

Secret council meeting rejects Plaid motion to scrap Kingdom contract

Wrexham Council's Executive Board met yesterday and the agenda included a proposal by Councillors Marc Jones and Carrie Harper from Plaid Cymru to suspend the contract with Kingdom Security.

Kingdom is responsible for enforcing littering and has issued more than 9,000 Fixed Penalty Notices in the two years it's been operating in Wrexham.

The Executive Board decided at the last minute to hear the matter behing closed doors and has now published a one-line summary of what was decided: The motion be not adopted.

The Executive Board will have to explain for itself why it made its decision and why the need for secrecy. People will come to their own conclusions and I hope we can explain in full how this council operates very soon.

More importantly, I hope we can change the way this council operates very soon.



THIS IS AN EXTENDED VERSION OF THE ARGUMENT PUT TO THE EXECUTIVE BOARD

As councillors we want to see cleaner streets and our residents are also fed up with rubbish being flytipped and dog mess fouling our communities. That's why Kingdom was initially brought in but the evidence is clear - Kingdom does not focus on dog fouling and flytipping but instead concentrates on cigarette-related littering. This makes up 92% of all the FPNs issued. And yet, according to official stats, the number of cigarettes sold in Wales dropped by an estimated 20% (Office of National Statistics) in the past two years as vaping becomes more popular.

Wxm Council issued 6,400 FPNs in 2016-7. That's more tickets than any other council in Wales. That's eight times more than Cardiff, a city three times our population. Yet, after more than two years of Kingdom, we believe the streets of Wrexham county borough are no cleaner. Our hard-pressed Streetscene workers are seeing no benefit, cllrs are seeing no benefit, businesses large and small are seeing no benefit. Only Kingdom shareholders are seeing the benefit.

Zero Tolerance Policy and the law

The council is putting itself at significant risk as the concept of zero tolerance for litter enforcement is not mentioned at all in statute. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the offence of littering is only complete under the ‘..... and leave it” clause. Defra and the Welsh Government make it clear in the guidance underpinning this legislation that accidental littering should not automatically lead to a FPN, and that a person should be given the opportunity to pick the litter up first. Under a zero tolerance regime, this is not happening, and I would therefore question the legality of all FPNs issued under it.

Previously we've been told guidelines are not law.
But the case of Ali v Newham Borough Council (2012) contradicts that assertion.

This High Court ruling clearly established that a local authority has no lawful justification for departing from government guidelines. Put simply, the guidelines issued must be followed, and an offence is only committed if the litter is left. By adopting the Zero Tolerance approach for litter enforcement, something Kingdom is naturally keen to see happen, the council is at risk of significant legal action being taken to rescind and repay all illegally issued FPNs. This in turn puts WCBC residents at risk, since any financial penalties will clearly be passed on to the taxpayers.

The Council is required by the Regulators’ Code to publish their Enforcement Policy explaining how they respond to non-compliance. It is recognised as an important document for regulators in meeting their responsibility under the statutory principles of good regulation, set out in Section 21 of The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006, to be accountable and transparent about their activities. In particular:

The principles of the Regulators Code apply to enforcement action carried out by local authorities. An effective environmental offences enforcement regime is one that is proportionate, consistent, targeted, transparent and accountable.
The current draft statutory guidance places strong emphasis on a proportionate hierarchical approach to litter enforcement, focussing on education, awareness and warnings as opposed to a blanket Zero Tolerance approach, whereby even accidental littering is penalised.

But Zero Tolerance is not actually council policy.

From the council's own website:
"Dog Fouling and littering impact on all members of the community therefore all should comply with the law. However consideration is given to an individual who may have difficulty picking up dog foul or who is visually impaired”.
In addition, there is some tolerance shown in not prosecuting people under 18 and for people who are described as vulnerable. So there is no policy of zero tolerance.

Defra states in the consultation document ‘Modification to the Code of Practice on Litter and Refuse: Guidance on Effective Enforcement’:
“When exercising their enforcement powers, councils are acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, and we are clear that these powers must be exercised in such a way as to uphold public confidence in a fair judicial system. Fixed penalty notices should therefore only be issued when it is proportionate and in the public interest to do so. Disproportionate enforcement activity undermines legitimate messages against littering and other environmental offences. Our policy is clear that under no circumstances should councils view the use of fixed penalty notices or civil penalty notices as a means to generate income. Where councils choose to use a third-party enforcement service, they should use an approach which is not based on the number of fines issued or revenue raised as this practice undermines public confidence in and support for a fair judicial system.”
The Government therefore makes it clear that a target approach is not in support of the fair judicial system in the UK.

Zero tolerance is fundamental to the Kingdom contract. 

Without a zero-tolerance approach, Kingdom cannot give people who drop litter accidentally or fail to pick up litter their Fixed Penalty Notices. It is a fundamental part of the company's model because, if their street operatives were to give people the chance to pick up their litter, they would not make any money.

The term 'zero tolerance' is not mentioned in Council Minutes. It's also not referred to in the governing legislation, the Welsh Government guidance or the Council's own Environmental Enforcement Policy, which has a structured approach that obliges the enforcement officer to try and achieve compliance in the first instance. This is followed by a 'hierarchy' of enforcement which begins with a verbal warning before formal enforcement procedures are considered. The implications of this are twofold:

(a) that the Council has not authorised a policy of ‘zero tolerance’  
(b) That Kingdom have failed, either wilfully or mistakenly, to adopt and apply the staged approach to litter enforcement, so that almost all steps prior to court proceedings have been ignored, with the result that many thousands of Wrexham citizens have been incorrectly or unnecessarily criminalised, where alternatives could have been applied.
Anyone who has been served with a fixed penalty notice for an environmental offence and feels that they have been treated unfairly are entitled to seek to have their case reviewed and reconsidered.

The council's chief legal officer has confirmed in an e-mail dated June 22, 2018 that the council has no 'zero tolerance' policy regarding Kingdom's contract and therefore the council has a problem.

As a result of the significant reputational and legal risk this council faces, the motion submitted calls on the Executive Board to suspend with immediate effect the contract with Kingdom.

We don't believe the council should delay on this matter - Kingdom's fines amount to tens of thousands of pounds a month and, if we wait until the Task and Finish group reports back in the autumn, that potentially means more than £100,000 extra fines - which could be contested and could see Wrexham Council taxpayers footing the bill. 

I don't want to take that chance. The question is: Does the Executive Board?


Monday, 9 July 2018

Council leaders bid to ban press and public from Plaid debate on Kingdom



Plaid Cymru councillors have condemned plans by Wrexham Council's Executive Board to hear their motion to scrap the Kingdom contracts behind closed doors.

Cllr Marc Jones, who leads the group, said:
"We were informed by email at 5:30pm tonight that the Executive Board wanted to discuss tomorrow's motion in secret. There is no justification for this - the details of the contract with Kingdom are already in the public domain and have been examined in detail by scrutiny committees that were open to the public. 
"Let's be clear, this flies in the face of the huge public interest in this contract. Each year 6,500 people are fined by Kingdom in Wrexham and they and others have every right to hear our argument about why the contract should be ended as soon as possible 
"It's up to the 10 members of the Executive Board to decide but we will challenge any attempt to hear this behind closed doors."
The Executive Board meets at 10am in Wrexham Guildhall and the meeting is open to the press and public - unless the 10 members decide otherwise.

Thursday, 5 July 2018

Tidal lagoon - What's that got to do with Wrexham?

Why the Swansea decision matters to everyone in Wrexham

Guest Post by Phil Rees

Anyone who’s ever driven from Wrexham to Swansea will be very aware of the distance between us, and the decision last week by the UK government not to fund the £1.3 billion Swansea Barrage Project may not seem that relevant to us locally. But it’s symptomatic of a problem that should be of concern to us all in Wales.

The barrage scheme (to create electricity from wave power) is one the most exciting, innovative and forward-looking projects we’ve seen for a long time, not just here but in the UK, and not surprisingly it was supported by all the political parties in Wales. That though doesn’t count for much in Westminster, and it failed because the UK government didn’t see it as value for money.

The decision wasn’t an isolated one. It comes on top of last year’s decision to cancel electrification of the Great Western line to Swansea despite a strong 2015 election manifesto promise from the Tories. 

Wales will remain one of just three countries in Europe (along with Albania and Moldova) without a mile of electrified railway (although the cables on the Great Orme Railway are powered by electric, if you want to include that!)

The £5bn rail electrification project was ditched supposedly because costs had risen, but for the HS2 project (£56 billion and rising) linking Leeds and Manchester to London, and Crossrail in London and the Home Counties (£14.8 billion and rising) that doesn’t seem to be an issue.

We do get some investment here in Wales of course. We get prisons, and we get nuclear power stations - the sorts of projects the UK needs, but that nobody else wants.

But money from the UK government for projects that will improve the infrastructure and economy in Wales but that are too large for the Welsh Government’s relatively small budget (like the road from here to Swansea perhaps)? Nope. Not going to happen.

And that leaves in a bit of a hole, because those big projects are vital to the health of the economy, due to their knock-on effect. It's not just about the original investment, it’s about the way that the injection of capital filters through the local economy and re-circulates, as sub-contractors and employees of the original project spend their money in the area, and others in turn do the same down the line.

Economists argue about how much that multiplier effect is worth but it can be anything from double the original amount up to five times. It tends to be higher in a rural economy, and where an economy is not yet at capacity. So in Wales, it's likely to have a big impact. And beyond that, there can be other benefits too, because a healthy economy is then more likely to attract investment from private investors too, who want in on the action. That initial project can be the seed-corn from which everything else grows; the spark that starts a flame.

How badly do we need that sort of kick-start at the moment? Well the strength of an economy, and the standard of living of its population, is usually measured in Gross Domestic Product or GDP, per head of population. (Actually there are two measures - GDP and GVA, but let’s not go there!). And in Wales GDP per capita is just £16000 (ranging from £11,000 in Ynys Mon to £22,000 in Cardiff). 

Every region of England beats that; in South East England it reaches £25,000, and in London £39,000. Scotland is on £21,000.

Outside the UK, Ireland, similar in so many ways to Wales, but independent since 1937 has a GDP per head of around £46,000. And Iceland, with a population just the size of Leicester, is roughly the same (You may remember that Iceland was one of the countries that struggled during the banking crisis, but it was also the country that recovered quickest too). 

And every country in Western Europe, whatever their size, is performing more strongly than Wales. We need investment desperately.

So if you were managing the UK economy, and London and the South East is already the strongest region, and Wales is the weakest, where would you invest first?

The UK government clearly thinks the right answer to that is London. It has no policy to correct the huge disparity in wealth by investing in its weakest areas, and hasn't had for many years (whoever’s been in power). 

It knows, of course, that the Swansea Barrage had the potential to add around £1000 to those GDP figures just on its own (how is that not value for money?), but it chooses to use that benefit elsewhere.

Incidentally, the EU in contrast does have a policy of trying to spread wealth around. Wales has received roughly £500 million per annum from Europe (we’re a net beneficiary, after allowing for what we put in). But not only is the Conservative UK government failing to invest here, it even refuses to give a commitment that, post-Brexit, it will replace the EU money we’ll lose. It seems that’s just another opportunity for the Tories in Westminster to look after its own at our expense, and widen the gap even more.

If the United Kingdom is going to starve us of that seed-corn investment to this extent, what is the benefit of Wales remaining a member? Why continue to pay our taxes to Westminster, for them to spend on areas of the UK that are already the richest? Isn’t that like giving our pay cheque to our richer neighbour next door to manage for us, and not minding that they spend it all on themselves instead?

And here’s the thing - if our economy is already so weak, and just ticking over at a subsistence level (a kind of ‘minimum wage’) then anything we do will improve it. If we were independent from the UK, and kept our taxes here, then whatever we were able to re-invest will have a positive impact, and our standard living can only go one way. 

We can still trade with the rest of the UK, and co-operate with them in other ways, but the potential for us, when you see what other small independent countries are achieving, is enormous. The UK government are actually creating the strongest argument yet for independence. Put simply, we have nothing to lose, and everything to gain. Probably as much as £10,000 each.

• GDP figures : International Monetary Fund 2017 figures and 2015 Eurostat figures (converted at 2017 & 2015 average rates)

https://discourse.scot/2017/04/10/2015-gdp-per-capita-eu27-uk/

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/7962764/1-30032017-AP-EN.pdf/4e9c09e5-c743-41a5-afc8-eb4aa89913f6

Tuesday, 3 July 2018

Review of schools admission process welcomed

Clare Roberts, a Wrexham mum of three, hands in her 500-strong petition to Wrexham Council's lead member for education Phil Wynn. Her two eldest sons are in separate Welsh-medium schools.
Plaid Cymru’s shadow education secretary has welcomed news that the Welsh Government will be reviewing the schools admissions policy in the autumn.

Llyr Gruffydd, Plaid Cymru’s North Wales AM, said the announcement by Kirsty Williams in the Assembly’s education committee was a welcome step forward after he had previously raised concerns about admissions policies that separated siblings in different primary schools.

He said:
“I’m glad that the education secretary is reviewing the admissions policy. It’s clear from approaches I have had from parents, in particular in the Wrexham area, that there are problems that need addressing. 
"The lack of spaces in Welsh-medium schools over the past few years has meant that a small number of parents have faced the nightmare of having two primary-school children having to go to different schools – often many miles apart. Last year a petition of more than 500 names was presented to the council on the matter, asking that keeping siblings together was given a greater priority. The stress it places on families having to be in two places at one time has not been sufficiently recognised and clearly can have an impact on the children as well. 
“It’s an issue that the council hopes will sort itself out as Welsh-medium provision is expanded to meet that demand but I’d like the Welsh Government to offer clearer guidance on the matter and that’s why I welcome this announcement.”

Pressure grows to keep disability living grant

Pressure is mounting on the Welsh Government to maintain an essential grant for disabled people after 20% of AMs backed a statement of opinion.

Plaid Cymru AM Llyr Gruffydd has tabled a Statement of Opinion in the National Assembly calling for the Welsh Independent Living Grant, which allows severely disabled people to continue to live independently, to be retained. The Welsh Government plans to scrap the grant next year, transferring the responsibilities over to Local Authorities.

Nathan Lee Davies, of Wrexham, has been campaigning to keep the grant for several years, and managed to pass a motion of support for maintain the grant at this year’s Welsh Labour Spring Conference.

Llyr Gruffydd, Plaid Cymru’s North Wales AM, said:
“Recipients of the Welsh Independent Living Grant tell me that the system as it is now works well, and they fear that transferring the responsibility over to councils would compromise their independence. Maintaining their independence is paramount. Their dignity and right to independence should be respected.
“Scotland’s Government has maintained its Independent Living Grant and indeed invested in the scheme. It’s widely supported by disabled people, and it provides a national criteria instead of forcing a prescribed criteria locally that would result in a post code lottery for the most severely disabled people. This is what will happen in Wales under the proposals.
“I’m calling for each Assembly member to sign up to my Statement of Opinion, and urging as many people to contact their Assembly Member asking them to support it. So far 20% of Assembly Members have signed up. I would hope that Labour Assembly Members would support it, as it chimes with their own party policy that was only passed earlier this year following a strong grassroots campaign.”

Disability campaigner Nathan Lee Davies, of Wrexham, gave his backing for the Statement of Opinion:
“This is a very frightening time for disabled people with high care and support needs across Wales as they are being asked to rely solely on cash-strapped local authorities to meet their daily living requirements. The Welsh Government is quite simply washing its hands of all responsibility towards this section of society.

“Care packages were originally agreed upon by the disabled individual, local authorities and a third-party social worker who was entirely independent. Under the new system, who would disabled people be able to turn to if they did not agree with the local authority? The existing tripartite system for deciding care packages MUST be maintained.

“I should also underline the fact that I am an employer who provides work for five other people. The loss of WILG could mean that my personal assistants will be losing significant amounts of work.”

The Statement of Opinion says:

This Assembly:
1. Notes the cuts suffered by local authorities over recent years, and the squeeze on social services budgets across Wales.
2. Further notes that article 19 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities states how people with disabilities should have “choices equal to others”.
3. Commends the Scottish Government on introducing a successful Independent Living Fund that is trusted and has a national criteria.
4. Believes that the Welsh Independent Living Grant should be retained as a national funding package with a national criteria, ensuring the recipients independence, along the lines of ILF Scotland.
Anybody wanting to urge their AM to sign the Statement of Opinion should ask them to support OPIN-2018-0094 The future of the Welsh Independent Living Grant






SOP and signatories here: http://record.assembly.wales/StatementOfOpinion/94


Pressure grows to keep essential disa





Pressure is mounting on the Welsh Government to maintain an essential grant for disabled people after 20% of AMs backed a statement of opinion.

Plaid Cymru AM Llyr Gruffydd has tabled a Statement of Opinion in the National Assembly calling for the Welsh Independent Living Grant, which allows severely disabled people to continue to live independently, to be retained. The Welsh Government plans to scrap the grant next year, transferring the responsibilities over to Local Authorities.

Nathan Lee Davies, of Wrexham, has been campaigning to keep the grant for several years, and managed to pass a motion of support for maintain the grant at this year’s Welsh Labour Spring Conference.

Llyr Gruffydd, Plaid Cymru’s North Wales AM, said: “Recipients of the Welsh Independent Living Grant tell me that the system as it is now works well, and they fear that transferring the responsibility over to councils would compromise their independence. Maintaining their independence is paramount. Their dignity and right to independence should be respected.
“Scotland’s Government has maintained its Independent Living Grant and indeed invested in the scheme. It’s widely supported by disabled people, and it provides a national criteria instead of forcing a prescribed criteria locally that would result in a post code lottery for the most severely disabled people. This is what will happen in Wales under the proposals.
“I’m calling for each Assembly member to sign up to my Statement of Opinion, and urging as many people to contact their Assembly Member asking them to support it. So far 20% of Assembly Members have signed up. I would hope that Labour Assembly Members would support it, as it chimes with their own party policy that was only passed earlier this year following a strong grassroots campaign.”

Disability campaigner Nathan Lee Davies, of Wrexham, gave his backing for the Statement of Opinion: