Politics
Westminster risks ‘souring relationships’ claim
THE WALES Civil Society Forum on Brexit, a partnership between the Wales Governance Centre and Wales Council for Voluntary Action funded by The Legal Education Foundation, has responded to the UK Government Consultation on the UK Internal Market.
The UK Government did not consult with any of the UK’s devolved administrations about its proposed legislation before publishing the White Paper and announcing an unusually brief consultation on such an important policy.
On July 16, the UK Government launched a four-week white paper consultation on its post-Brexit UK Internal Market proposals.
The response highlights that the proposals, which suggest an unusually broad system of mutual recognition and non-discrimination, are lacking in detail and represent a serious threat to the regulatory autonomy of the devolved nations.
Under the suggested system, goods and services produced in England would be able to bypass Welsh regulatory requirements by virtue of mutual recognition. This principle states that goods lawfully sold in one part of the UK, can be lawfully sold in the other regions without having to comply with local requirements.
By way of example, if Wales bans a particular single use plastic product but England does not, then this product could not be produced and sold in Wales, but producers in England would be permitted to sell that product in Wales.
The UK Government narrative that this system represents a ‘power surge’ for the devolved administrations by allowing them to maintain their own approach to regulation while preventing internal market barriers resulting from powers returning from the EU has been strongly denounced, especially in Cardiff and Edinburgh.
Charles Whitmore, author of the response, commented that: “From a devolved perspective these proposals are problematic in both process and substance. This is a major constitutional reform that procedurally needs far more than a four-week consultation, in the middle of summer, during parliamentary recess, while many stakeholders are busy tackling Covid-19. This may be a symptom of the UK Government’s self-imposed Brexit deadline, but it is doubtful that the scale of the problem being addressed even requires a legislative response of this nature be rushed through prior to the end of transition.
“It is particularly problematic that a system of mutual recognition is suggested, as this is heavily reliant on effective intergovernmental working and trust. Yet not only has the UK been sorely in need of a reformed system of Intergovernmental Relations for a long time, on this specific issue, the UK Government ceased engaging with the Welsh Government prior to launching the White Paper and did not share it with them beforehand.”
The response draws on examples from Australia, Canada and the European Union to argue that the proposals risk substantively cutting across devolved competence and triggering a race to the bottom by creating pressure to lower standards in areas like the environment, food, and animal welfare.
This stems from an overarching lack of consideration in the white paper both on how to balance frictionless internal trade with the value of devolved autonomy, and how to ensure a level playing field for the devolved administrations in the much-needed intergovernmental governance structures.
As such, key issues like how exceptions and derogations will be managed, as well as how dispute avoidance and resolution will function, are all absent or insufficiently addressed in the proposals.
They also include a highly controversial direct reversal of devolution by suggesting that the UK Government will legislate to provide that subsidiary control is a reserved matter.
Legislation on the UK internal market is expected in the Autumn, but if the UK Government does not revise its position considerably, it is unlikely that legislative consent will be granted in Wales.
The Westminster Government could press ahead regardless, but the Forum claims such a move would ‘undoubtedly further sour relationships – a far cry from the trust and cooperation needed for mutual recognition’.
The FUW’s Dr Nick Fenwick responded to the consultation, saying: “The consideration of such matters in a White Paper within months of the end of the Withdrawal Agreement period gives us very little time to hold proper detailed discussions and introduce the type of structures and bodies we truly need to make recommendations, enforce regulations, arbitrate on matters etc. in a way that is fair.”
“It also gives us very little time to sort out what are huge constitutional issues which also happen to be crucial to the running of Welsh businesses,” he added.
Politics
Last-minute council tax lowering to come under spotlight
A CLAIM at last-minute use of reserves was used to lower Pembrokeshire’s council tax increase to avoid senior councillors being defeated during the setting of the council’s annual budget is to come under the spotlight later week.
Pembrokeshire County Council was facing a 16.3 per cent council tax increase when setting the council budget for 2024-’25 in March; that figure dropping to 12.5 per cent after an 11th-hour alternative budget proposal by deputy leader Cllr Paul Miller was narrowly backed.
That drop in the council tax rise was made by using additional reserves of £1.5m, as well as £1m target for council efficiency savings.
Members of the council’s Governance & Audit Committee are, at its April 18 meeting, to consider concerns raised by Councillor Huw Murphy about the budget process following that meeting, along with assurances provided responding to his concerns.
A report for members states: “On March 25 Councillor Murphy raised concerns to the Chair of the Governance & Audit Committee regarding the council’s budget setting process for the 2024-25 budget, and associated issues, which council considered and set at their meeting on March 7.
“The Chair of the Governance & Audit Committee asked the Chief Executive to review those concerns and report to the Committee to provide assurance that there were no procedural failures in the budget setting process.”
Cllr Murphy has written: “An email was sent out on behalf of the Director of Resources on Feb 1 making it clear that no alternative/amendment budget could be presented after Feb 14. However, on March 7 at full council this is exactly what occurred.”
He has raised concerns about why an alternative budget proposal was allowed after February 14, and has asked whether there was sufficient time for the accepted alternative budget to be analysed.
He says his political group advanced a potential budget alternative to use £750,000 in reserve, which was refused, with a maximum of £375,000 offered, along with a later proposal refused, claiming Cllr Miller’s £1.5m proposal may have been submitted just 18 hours before the budget D-day.
In his lengthy document raising his concerns he states: “I am also aware that some ruling group councillors arrived at County Hall very early on March 7 to possibly refine the amendment that was then put before council.
“I form my opinion on becoming aware of a councillor having been contacted repeatedly in an effort to ‘persuade’ him in the weeks before full council to support a council tax of 16.31 per cent who was contacted on two to three occasions on the morning of March 6 and bravely refused to relent and made it clear he could not support a CT of higher than around 12 per cent.
“This councillor is in the ruling group and, in my opinion, his refusal and the refusal of others on the ruling group to buckle to a CT rise of 16.31 per cent caused panic in a Cabinet now facing imminent defeat at full council the next day and as a result they drafted a last-minute alternative/amended budget to appease ruling group councillors who had rebelled.”
The report for members concludes: “There is no evidence of procedural failings in the budget setting process and the legal budget setting procedures have been adhered to. There was sufficient time for officers to properly assess the alternative budget proposed and for the S151 Officer to make a properly informed statement at Council on March 7.”
It is recommended members consider the concerns raised by Cllr Murphy and notes the assurance provided in response to those concerns, and the committee notes that there were no procedural failures in the council’s budget setting process.
Business
Bluestone National Park Resort payments expected to end
A CALL to end a legal agreement for financial contributions associated with the creation of Pembrokeshire’s Bluestone National Park Resort is expected to be backed next week.
In a submitted application to Pembrokeshire Coast National Park on behalf of Bluestone Resorts Ltd, legal firm Red Kite Ltd asks for a cessation of a 2004 Section 106 legal agreement used to pay towards various projects including enhancements to footpaths and bridges.
In a supporting statement says most agreements of this type are time limited, and “today such an arrangement without a timeframe would likely not be considered acceptable by either side.
“However, no such end date was placed on this one. More recently, it was agreed between the parties that the payments would cease in 2025, also known as a ‘statement of common ground’. This is why a formal agreement now has to be made by each of the parties involved.”
The statement says that, since the agreement was made, Bluestone has paid nearly £280,000 through the agreement, adding: “As part of the Statement of Common Ground, it was agreed by Pembrokeshire County Council, Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Authority and Bluestone that a final fee of £113,000 would be paid, spread over 2023, 2024, and 2025 in annual payments of £38,000.”
A report by national park officers, ahead of the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Development Management Committee meeting of April 24, where it is recommended for approval, says: “The applicant has applied to discharge the Section 106 Legal agreement but the supporting text notes that they applicant is agreeable to making two final payments.
“Having considered the information submitted, officers consider that provided the two final payments are received the legal agreement has served its purpose and can be discharged.
“In order to ensure the two final payments are made, a modification to the Section 106 legal agreement is supported. This decision is supported by Pembrokeshire County Council, who have received a concurrent application which is also recommended by officers for modification.”
The report says the £280,000 figure presented by Bluestone actually amounted to £318,703.87, taking into account a 2023 payment of £38,891.73, with Pembrokeshire County Council’s S106 monitoring officer confirming the contributions have been spent on a range of public rights of way improvements, primarily in nearby Canaston Woods.
Recommending approval, the report adds: “The authority is satisfied that subject to two further payments of £38,000 to be made in August 2024 and August 2025, the obligation no longer serves a planning purpose and can be discharged and as such the obligation should be modified accordingly.”
The 500-acre Bluestone resort near Narberth has, since its opening, contributed to “more than £100 million to local suppliers, £7 million annually into the local supply chain, £13 million annually into the Pembrokeshire economy through its payroll, and more than £1.5 million spent annually on marketing Bluestone and Pembrokeshire.”
Politics
Slurry lagoon near Boncath conditionally approved
AN APPLICATION for a slurry lagoon near the north Pembrokeshire village of Boncath has been conditionally approved by county planners.
A H & V F Picton sought permission for a slurry lagoon and associated works at 230-acre Ty Mawr Farm, a mixed farm of a herd of dairy cattle plus followers, beef cattle, and sheep, some 150 metres north of Boncath.
A supporting statement by agent Cynllunio RW Planning Ltd said: “The proposed development seeks to increase the farms slurry storage capacity to above the five-month storage required by NVZ regulations. The existing slurry store and slurry handling facilities are not adequate to comply with the new regulations.”
It stressed the applicant does not intend to increase livestock numbers on farm as a result of the 48 by 30 metre development.
It added: “The lagoon proposed will have very low banks and as such the proposal will not be visible from the surrounding area. The proposed will be screened by the adjacent building and hedgerow and will have no adverse impact on the landscape in line with relevant policies of the Pembrokeshire LDP.”
One letter of objection to the scheme was received by planners, raising concerns including potential noise, odour, and the impact on property value for their property and properties within the wider village of Boncath.
An officer report said: “It is considered that the location of the development, within a rural setting, is appropriate and sustainable.
“The development allows the operation of the existing farm business and results in positive economic, social benefits and improved welfare facilities. It is considered that sufficient need is evidenced and that the lagoon is justified.”
The application was conditionally approved.
-
Business2 days ago
Bluestone National Park Resort payments expected to end
-
Community3 days ago
The Harbourmaster: Special rail excursion draws crowds to Milford Haven
-
News2 days ago
Dragon LNG ‘monitoring’ scrap car blaze in Waterston
-
News3 days ago
Search for Luke, 19, reported missing in the Pembroke Dock area, continuing
-
News5 days ago
Major search in the area of The Cleddau Bridge and Hobbs Point
-
News7 hours ago
Search for missing teenager Luke continues at Pembroke Dock
-
Crime1 day ago
Estate agents admit health and safety failings following fatal market incident
-
News12 hours ago
Man jailed after scarring police officer in Narberth altercation