THE HERALD FRIDAY FEBRUARY 10 2017
Like us on Facebook
facebook.com/thepembrokeshireherald
Youth with Llyr Williams UNSURPRISINGLY, Brexit
they have an out when things go the familiar shape of a pear. Keith was fair bouncing, readers.
He wanted to know was there any way for the Council to get its money back from those who had advised it to enter into an agreement or agreements to save poor Elwyn Morse the trouble of having to do anything for his Cabinet member’s stipend. Now there are a few intervening
steps to consider at this point. Shovelling the lot over to a trust or trusts was only one of a range of options. It was the Cabinet which considered the options and councillors who voted to approve the deal at a meeting of the Full Council. The advisors presented a range
of options, the councillors decided which one to follow. If only someone had known that there was a number of intractable problems with the whole scheme, or if only someone should have known about the intricacies of the Council’s arrangements with schools and leisure facilities. In fact, if only the Council was not well aware of the problems before it proceeded to advance with a consultation on disposing of the family silver. But they did. The issues had
arisen in the context of schools reorganisation and had been well- flagged up in previous internal council documents. This was a case of councillors turning a blind eye to the evidence that had been put before them on a number of occasions by the same officers who assisted with the leisure and cultural services consultation. It is as though some
form of collective amnesia descended over County Hall. Badger diagnoses a
nasty case of consultantitis – a delusion that forking over money to get an outcome you want will ensure that the desired outcome will be achieved. There is scarcely a single
report by an external consultancy provided to any council in Wales that has not recommended outsourcing as the solution to all local
authority ills.
Funny that,
when those making the recommendations – although not in the case of the leisure sell off – stand to make a mint at either end of the deal. It’s as though all those smart
consultancies come along with their PowerPoint presentations and common sense flies out of the window. It’s all those synergies, readers:
at least, synergistically speaking in a pushing the envelope way with our fellow stakeholders and key development partners. And all the while, there sit a
disturbing number of other officers and councillors, drawing on their corncob pipes, picking out tunes on the banjo, not bothering with that learning and reading thing, and nodding happily. Let’s just thank goodness they
were not offered magic beans, readers.
has rumbled on during the past week. The focus of debate was firmly fixed in Westminster, where MPs finally got to see a government White Paper outlining the road to Brexit and had a chance to propose amendments. Plaid Cymru MPs focused on
putting down a series of amendments highlighting Welsh interests. The most important of these related to what will happen to the level of funding Wales receives annually through the Welsh Block Grant after we leave the EU. At present we receive £245 million more each year than we contribute, thanks to EU support. Plaid has been seeking a UK government pledge to maintain this level of funding after Brexit. Prior to the Brexit Referendum
prominent Leave campaigners, including Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and Chris Grayling pledged that regional funding would indeed be maintained after Brexit. This
would mean that Westminster would ensure that the EU funding lost to Wales would be replaced. Their exact words on the matter came in a joint letter stating: “There is more than enough money to ensure that those who now get funding from the EU - including universities, scientists, family farmers, regional funds, cultural organisations and others - will continue to do so...” With the ink barely dry on such
a clear promise, it seems important that it is honoured following the Leave vote, especially as several of the Leave campaigners who made the pledge are now government ministers. The key Plaid amendment was
a very modest one. It asked only that the UK government calculate the effect that leaving the EU would have on funding Wales receives and present a report to parliament and the National Assembly of Wales: “Continued levels of EU funding for Wales. Before the Prime Minister
exercises the power under section 1, the Secretary of State must lay a report before— (a) Parliament, and (b) the National Assembly for Wales outlining the effect of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU on the National Assembly for Wales’ block grant.” Such a report could inform future
policy and debate and help ensure fair play for the people of Wales beyond Brexit. The Plaid amendment received support from Labour, SNP, SDLP, Liberal Democrat and Green MPs, but Tory opposition to even this modest request saw the amendment rejected by 330 votes to 267. The attitude of the UK
government is disappointing to say the least. They have no wish to uphold the pledges of the Leave campaign or give any guarantee that Wales won’t lose out after leaving the EU. Regardless of this, we can be sure that the campaign to ensure fair funding for Wales won’t end here.
IN RECENT weeks the issue
of business rates support has been one of the key Assembly issues both at the Senedd and here in Pembrokeshire. As many readers will know,
the Valuation Office Agency has conducted a revaluation of all non- domestic properties to come into force in April 2017 – the outcome of which has been that some businesses will face a huge increase in the amount they will pay in business rates. Here in Pembrokeshire, some
businesses have told me that they’re facing an increase of a whopping 60% or higher, which puts the viability of their business at a serious risk and is holding back investment in our high streets. That’s why it’s crucial that relief is offered to these businesses, to protect their assets and keep their head above water. We know that for some small
businesses, non-domestic rates can represent a higher proportion of
overheads and that some businesses are less able than others to adapt to periodic increases in their rates bills. Indeed some businesses simply do not have the expertise or resources to launch appeals against the revaluation, which of course puts them at a great disadvantage to those that perhaps have access to those resources. Now in response, the Welsh
Government announced a £10m transitional relief scheme for small businesses affected by the revaluation and that funding will be available from April 1st to those businesses – but that initial funding simply did not go far enough and the Welsh Government then decided before Christmas, to allocate more funding, as a result of pressure from opposition parties. This commitment is very much
welcome, but the lack of detail or information on how businesses will be able to access that vital cash, has yet to be confirmed. As a result, this doesn’t help those businesses
planning to renew their leases or take on new staff in the next few months – there are no guarantees on how that funding package will be delivered and how businesses can access it. That information is crucial and my colleagues and I will keep pushing for more details about this package, so that businesses know exactly where they stand. We all want our businesses
to flourish – they’re an important component of our high streets and are the backbone of our local economy. Support to address the huge hike in rates that some businesses are facing is welcome, make no mistake. However, we need the detail of that funding package so that businesses can see how it will affect their finances for the next year. For some it could be the difference between hiring more local staff or not…or even more worrying, it could be the difference between staying open – or closing for good.
61 Comment
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 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80
