54 Letters
THE HERALD FRIDAY JANUARY 27 2017
Follow us on Twitter @pembsherald
THE WALES BILL
DEAR SIR, This week, I voted to support the
Wales Bill in the Welsh Assembly. This is a new law introduced by the UK Government to establish a different relationship between Wales and the UK Government. Since 1997, when the people
of Wales voted to establish the Assembly, there have been no fewer than four new laws to re-set the relationship. This latest Bill is more contentious than the previous laws, as with all the others there has been a significant transfer of power to Wales from the UK Government. This Bill is different, as it gives with one hand and takes with another. For the first time, the Welsh
Assembly will have control over its own rules and election systems. There will be more powers over energy, transport and the environment, over equality, and, significantly, over tax raising powers. But in the move to a more stable settlement which would be consistent with the Scottish model, there is a danger that powers could be clawed back from Wales to the UK. I was asked by the First Minister
in Wales to return temporarily to the House of Lords to try and knock the Bill into a better shape. We made significant advances, achieving concessions across a whole range of
areas. It was these changes along with the fact that we need to batten down the constitutional hatches before we embark on the journey of leaving the EU which led us to vote for this new law. It is far from perfect, but it will give us a firmer financial and constitutional footing for the future. Eluned Morgan
AM for Mid and West Wales
OUR POSSIBLE FUTURE
DEAR SIR, Because of the delicate balance
of numbers in the various political parties at Westminster, it is likely that the present government will fail a vote of No Confidence during 2017, and a General Election must follow, with only one issue - whether the UK should continue to exit the EU, or rejoin full membership. Northern Ireland will suddenly
find a topic on which all agree to return to the EU. UKIP will hope the two largest parties are divided so that opposition to UKIP will be divided. The Tory Party has sincere
differences on the subject, wishing to keep Westminster power, but unable to agree internally about a hard Brexit. The party politicians and voters may fracture as these separate factions are forced to define their own personal loyalty, by joining either UKIP or Lib Dem.
Some Labour MPs will hope
to cling to past supporters by being vague about support for a hard Brexit but sympathetic to hopes for soft Brexit with access to the Common Market. So, they will unite around that as a compromise. With a single issue topic, both
extremes will increase, both UKIP’s hard Brexit, and Lib Dem, resurgent to rejoin the EU, as the best way to escape from chaos. We might end up with five
big parties - UKIP, Tory, Labour, SNP, Lib Dem - all of equal size at Westminster, having to ‘do deals’ with each other as political parties do in Europe.
C. N. Westerman Brynna Mid Glam
CAR PARKING SERVICES
DEAR SIR, Although the period allowed
for Public/Stakeholder engagement and consultation on the council’s Budget ended on January 9, 2016, I should be grateful if you would allow me to draw attention to an apparent anomaly in the council’s Draft 2017/18 Budget concerning car parking services as approved by Cabinet on that date. The draft budget
report
includes Appendix E in respect cost reductions/efficiencies. This includes Car Parking Services, where the aim appears to be identified as full cost recovery (in line with approved Council Policy) with a target of £28,000 additional income to be recovered in 2017/18. At the same meeting, Cabinet approved a further report on Fees and Charges 2017/18
prepared to inform members of the opportunities identified for further potential development in a Forward Plan. Appendix I of this report
identified Car Parking with the comment: “Reviewed real cost for this area including capital and depreciation. Work in progress to move towards full cost recovery. Service area already progressing.” Reference to the Draft Budget
2017/18 Appendix D Revenue Budget shows that for Parking Services in the Highways and Transportation Budget, Gross expenditure of £870,000 is met by income of £1,395,000 (including the above additional £28,000), resulting in a generated surplus or profit of £525,000. Hardly full cost recovery; based on actual income for the current year 2016/17, the budget report shows an increase in surplus/ profit income from £564,000 to a revised estimate of £536,000. Local authorities can only operate
within the parameters allowed by law. Generally, they do not have legal authority to generate profits in the provision of discretionary charges, unless specifically allowed by legislation, but may adopt a policy of full cost recovery. This allows councils local discretion to meet service expenditure through a mixture of direct charges and council tax depending on local circumstances. In this case, it is clear that the
estimated £1.4m income exceeds the lawful cost recovery limit and the stated Council Policy of full cost recovery. It would appear that this council proposes to ‘regularise’ the legal position by loading the cost side of the equation with Capital Charges and depreciation. Such costs are not usually accounted for in service level expenditure management accounts
required to be kept for council tax purposes, and which Cabinet and council are required by law to approve. Alternative possibilities could
be to reduce the income received from public off-street car parking charges commensurate with the level of expenditure necessary to provide and maintain public off-street car parks. This could be accomplished by increasing the size of car parking spaces, or allowing for an initial car parking period free of charge to encourage footfall and shopping in towns. Both of these suggestions would reduce the council’s income from public car parking charges and benefit the pockets of council tax payers who incur car parking charges. Officers do not appear to have presented this as an alternative option for consideration by councillors. Charging for on-street car
parking and the Civil Enforcement of car parking is governed by separate legislative provisions under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 as amended and are required to be accounted for and reported separately. Four officers are charged with
advising the council on matters of legality - The Head of Legal Service, the Chief Executive Officer, the Director of Finance and the Monitoring Officer. The last three have a statutory duty to ensure that councils do not reach unlawful decisions. Perhaps some councillors may even be inclined to take notice of this apparent lawful ambiguity, contrary to council stated policy, and seek an explanation before voting on the Budget.
John Hudson Haverfordwest
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72
