After nearly 20 years, it's time to get serious

I normally wouldn't comment on an organization's response to a formal consultation without reading the whole thing. But because the British Medical Association have gone to the media with the aim of publicizing the key points of their position on the Welsh Government's proposal to improve Welsh-language services in health, social services and social care, I feel justified in commenting on what they've said.

The BMA’s response to the consultation said: “While Welsh-language service provision for some patients is essential, and does need to be recognised and effectively supported, it should not be a one-size-fits-all policy. If the aim is to improve patients’ experience of care, government efforts and investment would be better placed in tackling waiting times and filling staffing vacancies with the best professionals to deliver the best care.

“Today, the NHS is at breaking point; everyday we hear the same warnings. Imposing duties to offer NHS services in Welsh in a sector which in some areas is struggling to offer any service at all to its population is quite another.

“The time, and financial situation, is not right for imposing language duties on NHS organisations aiming to deliver world-class healthcare, but which in reality are many light-years away from that.”

Western Mail, 14 May 2012

The first paragraph contains a typical straw man argument. Nobody is suggesting that there should be a "one-size-fits-all policy" in respect of the Welsh language. But if the BMA is in fact acknowledging that a Welsh-language service is, to use their own word, "essential" for some patients, then we should welcome their acceptance of that. It's a start.

-

Next, the BMA uses the argument that because the NHS is struggling, efforts to improve the service would be better directed elsewhere. The implication is that the standard of medical care is more important that the language in which it is delivered. My response is to point to the English NHS to see whether they accept that argument. Only a few months ago the UK government introduced new language rules on doctors working in the English NHS:

     Foreign doctors must prove they can speak good English

In essence, the GMC has been given explicit new powers to be able to take action against doctors when there are concerns about their ability to speak English, and at a local level "responsible officers" are to be appointed to ensure that doctors have adequate language skills. In practical terms, this means that even the very best doctors in the world will not be allowed to treat patients in England unless they have adequate language skills. It blows out of the water the BMA's silly suggestion that the "best professionals" should be appointed irrespective of their language skills.

Why should we accept lower standards in Wales? The same mechanism set up for assessing an employee or prospective employee's skills in English is just as appropriate for assessing an employee's skills in Welsh as well, so no additional administrative or cost burden would be imposed. Neither does it cost any more to employ someone who speaks both Welsh and English rather than just English. Nobody is advocating that every medical or care professional in Wales should speak both English and Welsh, but registering their language proficiency is an important step towards ensuring that sufficient Welsh-speaking health and care workers are employed and, more importantly, readily available to provide a service appropriate to the level of demand. This might well mean that Ysbyty Gwynedd in Bangor will need 70% of its front line staff to be able to speak Welsh, but that Nevill Hall Hospital in Monmouthshire would only need 10% of its front line staff to be able to.

-

Lastly, the BMA claims that "the time and financial situation is not right" to impose any language requirements on the NHS. My response to that is much more dismissive. The Welsh Language Act of 1993 imposed a duty on all public bodies to treat Welsh and English on the basis of equality. Almost two decades have now passed, including times of economic boom and an unprecedented amount of money being poured into all public services, but especially the NHS.

But how did the NHS in respond to its obligations under that Act? There are some honourable exceptions, but in the main the NHS in Wales did not take them seriously. Getting a service in Welsh, either in health or social care, is generally more a matter of luck than of planning or forethought by the organizations that should have been providing it.
 

     

As it happens, today marks the start of a non-statutory public consultation by the Welsh Language Commissioner about the new language standards which will be applied under the new Welsh Language Measure. The consultation documents are here but, as we can see in this news item, the media focus seems to be on the private bodies that have now come under the scope of the Measure.

     

For me, a more important aspect of the new Commissioner's role will be to get public bodies which largely ignored their obligations under the old Act to now start doing what they should have been working on for the last twenty years. The old Welsh Language Board did not have any way of enforcing the old Act, it could do little more than name and shame those bodies which failed to do what they agreed they would; but the new Commissioner now has powers to set standards and some powers to enforce them.

The standards haven't yet been finalized and there is no way of knowing to what extent the Commissioner will have the appetite to enforce those standards when they are—and of course the BMA were responding to a similar consultation exercise by the Welsh Government, which has a different and more direct responsibility for the standards of health and care services in Wales—but my advice to Meri Huws would be not to go gunning for the bodies newly brought under the scope of the Measure.

To start with, it will be better to use enforcement powers on those public bodies which should have been doing much more than they have over the last twenty years ... and the providers of health and social care services should be right at the top of that list.

Bookmark and Share

More Stations

It was good to see that the disused railway station at Wdig has been rebuilt. There are many people who can rightly take credit for this, but undoubtedly the main factor was the decision to increase the train service from just two trains a day timed to link with the ferry service to seven trains a day in each direction, which enabled the service to be used for by local people for commuting or shopping too.

     

     

Ben Davies of Arriva Trains Wales was excited and asked where else in the world a new station was being opened today. But in fact there are several more in various stages of planning that I can think of:

•  Energlyn in Caerffili is advanced enough for Network Rail to have produced a video of it.

•  Holywell/Greenfield, Queensferry and Broughton on Deeside are mentioned in this document from Network Rail.

•  Bow Street and Carno on the Cambria line to Aberystwyth when an hourly service is introduced, see this document.

•  In the SEWTA (south east Wales) area, this document mentions new stations at Brackla, Crymlyn, Pye Corner, Hirwaun, Trecynon, Albany Road/Crwys Road in Cardiff, Upper Boat, St Mellons, Coedkernow, Caerleon, Llanwern and Sain Ffagan.

Not all of these will come to fruition, but many of them have positive benefit-to-cost ratios, with some of them rated as good (i.e. a BCR of more than 2:1) particularly if the service frequency can be enhanced.

So yes, let's celebrate the opening of one new station ... but it's a celebration that we could repeat many times over in the next few years if we have the foresight and political will to press ahead with these plans. It's exactly the sort of capital investment we need.

Bookmark and Share

Borrowing money for the wrong things

I think most people reading this will know that the Welsh Government (unlike the Scottish Government) is not able to borrow any money, but that our local authorities can. So on the face of things it looks like the Welsh Government's decision to co-ordinate existing council borrowing powers, and specifically to pay the cost of that borrowing through its annual revenue grants to local authorities, is a clever idea.

     Welsh councils' £60m road repair borrowing could pave way for new money

And in principle it is ... but everything depends on what that money is spent on.

-

Borrowing to pay for capital investment projects is generally a good idea. We need things like new schools, new hospitals and new transport links, and it is simply a question of doing the sums to see if the benefit to cost ratio of any particular scheme is favourable. It very often is: especially if, for example, the new school or hospital replaces an old building that will cost more to maintain and provide energy for than a new building would, or if a new road or railway investment will save people and businesses time and money and thus boost the economy. In both cases the investment will pay for itself in the medium to long term.

But borrowing money simply to pay for the maintenance of existing infrastructure is something very different. It doesn't pay for itself, and never can. Even if this £170m over 3 years pays for some badly-needed repairs to our roads, no-one in their right mind could imagine that it will be 22 years (the time it will take to pay this loan off) before many of the very same roads will need repairing again. What will happen after five or ten years? Will the Welsh Government co-ordinate another round of borrowing on top of this one ... and yet another round of borrowing five or ten years after that? It is mad-house economics. It is a short-term fix at the expense of long-term planning.

Co-ordinating local authority borrowing powers is a good idea, but only if used for capital investment rather than maintenance.

Bookmark and Share

Four votes, or four "quarter-votes"?

I've been looking through the local election results, and have again been struck by how difficult it is to get an accurate overall picture of how people voted, either within a particular local authority or across Wales as a whole.

The main reason for this is that some wards return more than one councillor, and each voter in these wards has as many votes as there are seats to be won. This makes it almost impossible to meaningfully analyse how people voted, because different voters have different numbers of votes.

I have wondered if the best way to get a clearer picture would be to say that instead of having more than one vote, voters in a four-seat ward have four "quarter-votes", that voters in a three-seat ward have three "third-votes", and that voters in a two-seat ward have two "half-votes". This wouldn't affect the individual election results in any way, but would mean that each voter had only one vote in total.

This is just a question, but has anyone ever seen an analysis of local election results done on this basis?

Bookmark and Share

Sinking even lower

In response to the LibDems losing 48% of their council seats in Wales, 53% of their seats in Scotland and 40% of their seats in England—not to mention losing their deposit in the London mayoral election—Lembit Öpik has now told us that Nick Clegg can't be in government and leader of the party at the same time. He said,

"You can't do those two full-time jobs at once and get away with it."

BBC, 6 May 2012

That will be news to David Cameron, who would have to choose between being Prime Minister of the UK and remaining leader of the Tories; and to Alex Salmond, who would have to choose between being First Minister of Scotland and remaining leader of the SNP.

Just when we were left wondering if it's possible for the LibDems to sink any further, we get proof that they can.

Bookmark and Share

Silk and a possible referendum

There have been several comments in the last few days about the Silk Commission and specifically on whether a referendum would be needed before implementing any recommendation it might make on whether the National Assembly should have tax setting and borrowing powers. The situation is perhaps best summed up here:

     Silk Commission split on referendum about tax powers

Obviously the result of the Wales Governance Centre/YouGov poll is interesting. But I think there is a danger of focusing too much on details at the expense of the bigger picture. When presented with a "shopping list" of options it's easy to say you want items 1, 3, 6 and 7 but not items 2, 4 and 8 ... and that you don't care one way or the other about item 5. But sometimes it's impossible to have one thing without also having to accept another thing.

-

I've always seen the Silk Commission as a way to resolve a fundamental stand-off between Labour and the Tories.

Labour primarily want the borrowing powers (and a fairer funding formula, although this is not part of Silk's remit) but don't want to be held accountable for how money is raised. In general UK terms, their traditional electoral advantage/selling point is that they're good at spending money. To a large extent, this explains why Labour do well in Wales and in other peripheral parts of the UK that depend on a net fiscal transfer from the more wealthy parts. It's always easier to spend money that, to a degree, has come from somewhere else.

So Labour will obviously say Yes to borrowing and fair funding without a referendum, but are currently holding out for a referendum on tax setting powers (except for a few very minor taxes) because they think they'll be able to get a No in such a referendum. They could eat their cake and have it.

The Tories primarily want the Welsh Government to be responsible for raising some of the money it spends because, again in UK terms, their traditional electoral advantage/selling point is that they will lower taxes. If levels of taxation become a factor in Welsh elections, the Tories believe it will enhance their electoral prospects.

-

So the name of the game is to put together a package that includes both, which is what Plaid Cymru and the LibDems have consistently wanted. From my point of view, I want Wales to have some control (even if limited for now) over a wide range of economic levers, because it is by carefully balancing these levers that we can put Wales on course to become more prosperous. Having control of just one or two levers isn't much use. It's like flying a plane: you can't get where you want to go with control over only the ailerons; you need to control the flaps, rudder and throttle too.

If a balanced package can be hammered out and agreed by the Silk Commission—which includes a nominee from each of the four main parties in its seven member team—then there won't need to be a referendum. It would be no more than an expensive and time consuming rubber stamp.

Referendums are only useful if there is a reasonable degree of uncertainty about what the result would be.

Bookmark and Share

Is being British a matter of nationality?

I've waited a few days before commenting on the report entitled This Sceptred Isle by British Future, which came out on Monday, because I wanted to see the full polling data. This, for some questions at least, is now available here on the YouGov site.

The thing that struck me was the way that this report was headlined. For example the Western Mail said:

     England and Scotland "could learn" from Wales about national identity

As it happens, the poll didn't ask any questions about national identity. The actual questions asked were:

Would you say you see yourself as ...
... English/Scottish/Welsh/None of these?

and

And which, if any, of the following best describes how you see yourself?
... Welsh not British/More Welsh than British/Equally Welsh and ... etc, etc.

I don't want in any way to dispute the figures in the YouGov survey. 37% of those in Wales who identified themselves as Welsh (or who did not identify themselves as Welsh, English or Scottish) said they saw themselves as "equally Welsh and British", and that's fair enough.

My point is about the conclusion to be drawn from this figure. To illustrate what I mean I would like people to consider what conclusion we would draw from a poll in Denmark in which 37% said that they saw themselves as "equally Danish and Scandinavian" or a poll in the Netherlands in which 37% saw themselves as "equally Dutch and European". It seems clear to me that Danes who answered in that way would certainly not be saying that they consider their nationality to be Scandinavian.

Yet from the headline David Williamson chose for his article in the Western Mail it seems clear that he has interpreted the finding as being about nationality; YouGov themselves refer to this poll on their website as "Nationality Perceptions"; and it is clear that the people behind British Future have been very quick to interpret this as a statement specifically about national identity rather than about identity in general.

I'm not particularly blaming anyone for this—least of all David, who is a thoroughly decent guy—but I am saying that this unspoken assumption needs to be challenged. I would suggest that it is not so very different from the unspoken assumption that being English and British are one and the same thing. That's what many people used to think, particularly in England, and it is still a fairly common assumption in most of the world. We can be glad that this perception has started to shift, and I think that our perception of what Britishness means needs to shift in a similar sort of way.

-

I fully accept that there are many nationalists for whom "Welsh not British" is a core conviction. In terms of nationality I fully agree ... but only in terms of nationality. I believe that the nations of Britain have plenty of things which we share and can celebrate, and for that reason I won't object to being called British any more than a Dane would object to being called Scandinavian or a Jamaican would object to being called Caribbean.

As we are seeing in the debate about Scotland, independence will not destroy the things which the nations of Britain have in common any more than Norway gaining its independence from Sweden, or Iceland gaining its independence from Denmark, have destroyed the common social, cultural, historic and economic ties between the Scandinavian nations.

Until someone digs a ditch and tows the rest of this island off into the middle of the North Sea, Wales will remain British and we can be proud to be British ... although I hope we will balance that with a proportionate sense of shame for what Britain has got wrong. But it is a mistake to jump to the conclusion that this must mean remaining part of the United Kingdom.

Bookmark and Share