Referendum - bring it on!

Today sees the publication of the report by the All Wales Convention, and it seems that a majority of people favour the Assembly gaining law making powers, and moving to become a Parliament, similar to Scotland's.

The All Wales Convention, chaired by Sir Emyr Jones Parry, has hosted public consultations to gauge opinion on further powers for the Assembly, received 700 pieces of evidence and has spoken to 2,000 people.

We have seen time after time that the current LCO system has acted as a barrier preventing us in Wales from introducing strong legislation. This halfway house system has enabled MPs to put blocks on our efforts to ensure more affordable housing. They've tied our hands as we tried to ensure that our children can travel safely on buses. They've limiting our powers over the Welsh language and ignored our attempt to legislate to tackle climate change. I hope this report will help to change the system into one where people in Wales can have a much greater input into the laws which we live by.

From the record - prepearing for Copenhagen Climate talks

Assembly Record of proceedings 3rd November 2009
Leanne Wood: Plaid Cymru supports the calls from the environment movement for wealthy industrialised countries to commit to a cut of at least 40 per cent in domestic emissions by 2020. This call is not just about getting the UK Government to agree to such a target, but about persuading other industrialised countries to agree that a 40 per cent cut in emissions is a fair and just approach for the sake of a global deal. If you agree with that call, Minister, there are clear implications for the One Wales Government and the commitment to cut our emissions by 3 per cent per year after 2011. I know that the climate change commission is looking at the feasibility of emission cuts of 3 per cent, 6 per cent and 9 per cent, so I would be grateful to hear whether you think that Wales can commit to cutting emissions by 40 per cent by 2020.

We also support calls for the rich industrialised countries — those of us who have grown relatively rich on the back of fantastically high emissions historically — to provide additional money for non-industrialised countries to grow in a way that does not cause more harm to our planet.

We are all aware that climate change will bring more desertification, floods, droughts and famines. Some countries will need support to cope with the mass movements of people that are bound to arise as a result of that, as well as the finance to green their existing industries. Oxfam has called for an additional 0.7 per cent on top of existing aid commitments. I would be grateful to hear the Welsh Assembly Government’s view on that.

We would also like to see action to reduce the use of large-scale biofuels, as well as action to halt the destruction of the world’s forests. We recognise that we need to make adjustments to our own lifestyles, which help to promote the destruction of those forests. We should be making strong representations to the UK Government, which is the body that has the seat at the top table in Copenhagen. We in Wales should be prepared to make our own share of the cuts.

My final point is that Plaid Cymru is of the view that Wales should have direct representation in Copenhagen. We should have our own seat at that top table, and I would be grateful to hear whether the Minister agrees with that.

Jane Davidson: An awful lot of figures are bandied around in this debate. With regard to some of the early issues regarding the targets, the initial target in the Climate Change Act 2008 was to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 34 per cent by 2020, against a 1990 baseline. There was then a call for a 40 per cent reduction by 2020, against a 1990 baseline. To look at our reductions against a 1990 baseline, greenhouse gas emissions are now 14.7 per cent lower, and carbon dioxide emissions are 9.5 per cent lower, as shown by the figures for 2007 that I announced in September.

The Climate Change Commission for Wales met with the independent Committee on Climate Change, which came to launch its report in Wales on the further action that needs to be taken, and when it should be taken, in the context of the UK Government meeting its 80 per cent target by 2050, it said clearly that our 3 per cent reduction target in relation to our devolved responsibilities was the most ambitious target in the UK; it is over and above the reductions that will come through the EU emissions trading scheme for example — for the large emitters — which will also improve reductions. Therefore, the figures are complex. We are determined to achieve a minimum of a 3 per cent reduction. Further work has been undertaken by the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, which is probably the foremost climate change centre in the United Kingdom, in looking at reductions of 3 per cent, 6 per cent and 9 per cent a year, and what those would look like. That work is due to be published before Copenhagen, so we will have a chance to look at that as well.

The Government has always made it clear that the 3 per cent reduction target was a political target; science leads us in a further direction. If every country in the world achieved a 3 per cent reduction, we would not restrict global warming to a 2 per cent rise. Therefore, in a sense, there are major stakes for us all. I am looking at the maximum reductions that can be achieved in our final climate change strategy, which will come out in the early part of the new year.

I agree with you on the relationship with developing countries. One important element of the role that Wales has been given in the nrg4sd, and others, has been our commitment to sustainable development and the ecological footprint. The ecological footprint relates to bringing our share of the Earth’s resources down to our fair share, in the same kind of timescale as in the context of climate change. We have already put more than £0.5 million into our Wales for Africa programme, some of which will contribute towards the territorial approach to climate change, whereby we are one of the 10 pilot regions in the world of the United Nations development programme, and we have a link with the Mbale region of Uganda. That gives us a real opportunity to work on that agenda.

From the record... ASW pensions

I raised the issue of ASW workers' pensions with the Leader of House, Carwyn Jones yesterday:

I would be grateful if you would consider making time available for either a statement from the First Minister or a debate in the Chamber on a matter that is not devolved but which has caused immense strain for a group of workers in Cardiff. I am, of course,talking about the Allied Steel and Wire workers who lost their pensions, as well as their jobs,back in 2002. I am asking for time to be set aside to discuss this here, because I believe that there are representations that the First Minister could make to Ministers in Westminster. The recommendations of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman state that the former ASW workers should be paid 100 per cent compensation for their pension losses. Those recommendations have yet to be implemented, and the unfairness of the situation is
exacerbated by the fact that the workers know that, had they saved that money themselves, they would not have lost it. Instead, they invested in a private pension and lost the lot. That is a bad message for younger workers to receive, as they may then think that investing in a private pension is a complete waste of money. We need to ensure that the First Minister does everything that he can to press the case for the former ASW workers so that they can receive 100 per cent compensation for the loss of their pension funds. I would be grateful if you could find time for such a debate in the Assembly.

Carwyn Jones: You raise an important point. Many of us remember the difficulties—and
that is an understatement—that the workers went through when they lost their pension
entitlements. It affected a large number of families in this area and I know that they are still fighting. One way of dealing with this matter might be this: if those affected feel that there are fresh representations that could be made on their behalf by the First Minister, perhaps they could communicate with the First Minister’s office to see whether something can be done on their behalf. That might be a more effective and quicker way of getting their representations across to the First Minister and of seeing whether anything further can be done for them.

Mrs Windsor and me

Something from the archive / Rhywbeth o'r archif:

The lost 'War On Drugs'

The news that Home Secretary Alan Johnson has sacked the chair of his Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) reminds me of kids sticking their fingers in their ears and singing loudly when someone is saying something they don't want to hear. Professor Nutt has been consistent in his questioning of the success of the so called 'War on Drugs'. Like Afghanistan, it is a war that cannot be won.

Professor Nutt is a respected scientist. He and his colleagues make recommendations based on evidence. Alcohol and tobacco kill many more people than cannabis, ecstacy and LSD, yet alcohol and tobacco are legal while the three less harmful substances are not. Professor Nutt's mistake was questioning this. He also opposed the government's reclassification of cannabis from a Class C to a Class B drug. That decision was not based on evidence, but on "public perception" and "the need to send out a message". Possession of a Class B drug carries a sentence of up to five years inmprisonment. Class C carries a maximum of two. The classification makes very little difference in people's decision to use the drug, even though the penalties for being in possession of cannabis are much harsher now than they were a year ago, when cannabis was a class C drug. Professor Nutt says "Overall, cannabis does not lead to major health problems" and that it should not have been reclassified. Facing an election drubbing, the government are desperately trying to maintain a tough image on drugs and crime. The science is politically inconvenient. Professor Nutt, defending his evidence just had to go.

Why the striking postal workers deserve our support

It may be an inconvenience and it may cause major problems for some, but this week's postal strike was unavoidable. Royal Mail's plans for the 'modernisation' of the service, if implemented, will end postal services as we know them.

As Billy Hayes, leader of the Communication Workers' Union (CWU) has said:

"right now we can't avoid a dispute about the heart and soul of the future of mail delivery. It's important that the public know that Royal Mail are running down the public services and we are determined that this will not happen. Running down those services has meant running down jobs and terms and conditions of the workforce. It also means you will pay more for a worse service and be expected to pay for one you currently get for free. This can all be reversed - mail is not in serious decline, despite what the company claims."

At the Plaid conference last month, a motion opposing the privatisation of the Royal Mail was passed. The CWU are not opposed to modernisation. All they ask is that their members are involved in the plans, and not bullied into accepting proposals which will privatise their industry and downgrade their terms and conditions, should they be lucky enough to hold on to their jobs. The CWU are ready for mediation, yet Royal Mail bosses refuse to talk through ACAS.

Compass have come up with proposals to save a public mail service which include the creation of a people's bank using post offices, a call which has been supported by my colleague Dai Lloyd.

Like the bankers, Royal Mail bosses have been creaming off hefty bonuses while the company squeezes the workers and customers. It'll be a long and tough fight, but anyone who values our public mail service should back the postal workers in this dispute.

More on AA and DLA - from the record

Q10 Leanne Wood: What discussions has the First Minister held on the implications for Wales of the UK Government Green Paper 'Shaping the Future of Care Together’? OAQ(3)2328(FM)

The First Minister: That is for England. We will publish next month a Green Paper on the same subject in Wales. Our proposals will be set in the context of our overall approach to policy for older people, described last week in the report by the Institute for Public Policy Research as the most coherent long-term commitment to improving the position of older people of any administration in the United Kingdom in the last decade. That was Wales.
2.30 p.m.

Leanne Wood: First Minister, as you know, I have raised concerns about the future of the attendance allowance and the disability living allowance with you and the Deputy Minister for Social Services. Despite claims that the disability living allowance is not under threat, Lord McKenzie of Luton, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, said last week that no options were being ruled out and that all disability benefits were under consideration. Clearly, that has implications for people in Wales. In her letter to me, the Deputy Minister recognised that any plans to replace those benefits with a different system were likely to be met with considerable opposition from stakeholders in Wales. Can you confirm that the Welsh Government will listen closely to the concerns of organisations such as Age Concern, Help the Aged and the Royal National Institute of Blind People about these proposals? Will you confirm that the Welsh Government will oppose any plans from the UK Government that will reduce the incomes and the independence of disabled pensioners and other disabled adults in Wales?

The First Minister: The issue is that the attendance allowance, per se, on its own, is not a devolved matter. If the UK Government decides that it wants to change the attendance allowance, it will. The points that we have made already to the UK Government are that there is a greater degree of dependence on attendance allowance in Wales than in most areas and that how you integrate the attendance allowance with either NHS continuing care or local authority social care will be crucial to any proposals for modernisation. Therefore, when our Green Paper comes out in November—Gwenda Thomas will be the Minister who will publish it—it will provide an opportunity for a full consultation over a 12-week period, I guess, with all stakeholder organisations. To put it in context, there is an English Green Paper and our Green Paper and I am confident that ours will be far better because of the recent compliment from the IPPR on just this kind of issue—an integrated, coherent and holistic policy. However, it cannot be completely different from the English system. It will be a co-payment system. If that is what England is having, that is what we will have in Wales, but it will be far better integrated with what the NHS and local authorities do by way of continuing and social care.