A GREEN BELT FOR WALES?

There is a need for a Welsh equivalent to Green belt, to fringe our urban areas, to help focus out of town and fringe of town developments, not to mention helping to protect green spaces in and around some of our urban areas. It's worth noting that 'Green belt' is a useful planning tool, which was introduced for London in 1938 but then ended up being rolled out to England as a whole by a government circular in 1955 but not to Wales.

The original idea was that the opportunity to develop green belt which would allow local councils to designate green belts when they wanted to restrict urban growth.  The idea worked and worked well, as by 2007, Green belt covered something like 13% of England (around one-and-a-half million hectares) which despite the best efforts of previous Conservative and New Labour Governments it is still relatively well protected both by normal planning controls and against "inappropriate development" within its boundaries.

Wales only has one patch notional green belt, and that lies between Cardiff and Newport, Scotland has seven and Northern Ireland has 30 - each has its own policy guidance.  The preservation of green spaces aside, it comes down to planning permission, which can be a touchy subject, especially when a development (whether for commercial, housing or energy development) is controversial or the final decision is made against the wishes of local people by a fairly distant and indifferent authority.

It's pretty obvious that we lack a coherent national strategic development plan for Wales judging by the half-baked way local unitary development plans have been put together over the years. A number of which are focussed on housing developments, which have done (and will do) some pretty serious damage to our environment in the process.

In the south east, along the coastal belt and in and around Torfaen (not to mention in and around Cardiff) the last twenty five years has seen a significant if not spectacular growth in the amount of housing, a significant percentage of which has never aimed to fulfil local housing needs. As a result the infrastructure along the coastal belt between Chepstow, Caldicot, Rogiet and Magor is struggling to cope with existing developments and this is well before the projected expansion of housing on and around the former Llanwern site kicks in.

The north of Newport has now effectively been linked to the south Cwmbran - something that has brought little material benefit to the residents of either urban area but has contributed much to traffic congestion. Similarly linkng Cwmbran with Sebastopol will bring little benefit to local residents. Even if eventually housing is built on the land just exactly how much of it will be affordable to local residents?

Now the National Assembly should know better and act accordingly, the institution is supposed to have sustainability enshrined in its actions, but, at times you really have to wonder, especially when it comes to the impact of some of the proposed developments on our communities. We need to protect the green wedges around and within our urban communities – because once developed they are gone for good.

The problem caused by a lack of protection to our Green wedges, etc is aggravated by the fact that what one generation of elected officials (and council officers) envisages as a green wedge, green lane, etc is often seen by later generations of elected officials (and council officers) as either prime land for development or a nice little earner to help balance out the books - this means that there is a lack of stability and a long term vision for many of our urban areas.

If the National Assembly took the long view and created Welsh Green belt land with legal and planning protections then, we might go some way to calming things down when it comes to development planning and also manage to introduce a more long term sustainable democratic element into the process. This is something that could be accomplished by creating Welsh Green belt land, as part of the process we also need an urgent and open debate into the planning process in Wales - something that has been long overdue.

The Westminster government (in England) refrain over the next few years will be about getting planning officers "off people's backs" with a relaxation of current rules. When they talk about ‘people’ they actually mean developers. In true Spiv fashion ‘for a limited period, people are able able to build larger extensions on houses (up to eight metres for detached homes and six for others). Shops and offices will also be able grow to the edges of their premises as Plan A (harsh Public Sector Cuts) unravels and a note of desperation creeps in Westminster ministers seek to boost the economy.

These sounds good; it seems very reasonable save for the fact that somewhere amongst the smoke and mirrors the plan will reduce developer’s obligations to build proportional amounts of affordable housing and avoiding flood risk will go out the window. Not that long ago, a matter of a few months, the previous Westminster government rewrote the entire planning framework (for England) despite some fierce resistance from countryside campaigners. Now Westminster ministers want further changes to planning rules (in England) in an attempt to boost house building and revive the economy.

Not wanting to be left out, the Labour in Wales Government in Cardiff has also pursued major changes to planning rules in Wales aiming to ‘tilt the balance in favour of economic growth over the environment and social factors’. This decision may be aimed quite specifically at overturning those few occasions of late when our Local Authorities have rejected some developments (often at the behest of local residents) rather than putting economic needs ahead of economic and environmental benefits and will do little for sustainable, flood free development to deal with local housing needs let alone preserve our green spaces.

SIMPLY HOLDING US BACK

Plaid Cymru MP Liz Saville Roberts has drawn attention to the disparity between the UK Government’s intention to devolve further energy powers to Wales and the insufficient capacity currently available on the National Grid to accommodate new energy generation projects.

Liz Saville Roberts MP has called on both the UK and Welsh Governments to urgently ensure grid capacity is upgraded, so that efforts to increase energy generation in Wales, including renewable schemes, are not prevented from being implemented.

Under the Draft Wales Bill, energy schemes of up to 350MW would be devolved to the National Assembly, but there is currently no control over capacity where transmission is in question.    

Speaking ahead of questions to the Secretary of State for Energy & Climate Change tomorrow (Thursday 07.01.16), Liz Saville Roberts MP said,

“Plaid Cymru has repeatedly called for power over major energy projects to be devolved to the Welsh Government, with a particular desire to increase Wales’ renewable capacity, such as tidal schemes.

But as things stand, the UK’s ageing National Grid network is known to cause transmission problems for new energy projects.  

Given the UK Government's intention to devolve further energy consenting powers to the National Assembly for Wales, it’s vitally important that the Secretary of State works with the Welsh Government to ensure Grid capacity is upgraded and efforts to develop new energy generation projects are not held up by capacity issues with the National Grid in Wales.

Community energy groups wishing to generate renewable energy are prevented from doing so by the extortionate fees they are charged to upgrade the grid.

We require a concerted effort from both Government and energy providers so that potential energy generation schemes don’t fall foul at the first hurdle. Plaid Cymru is committed to an energy plan that is green and that can power Wales’ economic renewal and meet our global obligations in combatting climate change, but to do that we require the infrastructure and energy capacity which we are currently lacking.

Plaid Cymru is committed to making Wales self-sufficient in renewable electricity by 2035 if we form the Welsh Government. The Party has pledged to publish its route map to 2035 within 100 days of forming the next Welsh Government in May.”

FLEECED FOR CHRISTMAS!

The January 2016 increase makes the Severn Bridge toll one of the most expensive per kilometre; this hinders economic growth and punishes commuters, businesses and visitors. The tolls are quite simply a tax on jobs, a tax on businesses and a tax on commuters. 

In 1966, it cost 12p per car to cross the bridge (around £2 pound in today’s money) it now costs £6.60 per car. The concession holders have been fleecing us for as much as they can get for as long as they can with little but warm words from Westminster to restrain or regulate them. On the matter of the Severn Bridge tolls over the years Westminster has simply failed.

We used to hope that the tolls would eventually be removed, possibly when the concession came to an end  - currently the franchise should end in 2018. However, in December 2014, the UK Government admitted that the tolls could be maintained for potentially for another NINE years (potentially until 2027) to recoup its costs on the Severn Bridge crossings after they return to public ownership, according to information obtained by Plaid Cymru.

In a response to a Freedom of Information Act by Plaid, the UK Highways Agency, said:

“Severn River Crossing (SRC) is entitled to collect a defined sum from the tolls (£1,028.9m  in July 1989 prices) and the current forecasts indicate that this sum will be recouped in 2018. 

“After this time, the crossings will be handed back to the Government. No decisions have been made regarding the future of the Severn bridges.  From this point onwards, government has the right to recoup its own costs from the construction, maintenance and management of the bridge until 2027.  This would be for costs that fall outside of the scope of the current concession for example costs incurred for cable corrosion work. 

“Based on a continuation of current arrangements it is expected to take 1-2 years to recover this money, however, the exact nature of that regime has yet to be determined.”

The Highways Agency has listed spending on work on main cable corrosion on the first Severn crossing as  £5,272,000 between 2010-11 and 2014-15. Then in the following three financial years the project spending costs will be another £4,767,000 from next April through to 2017-18.

Back in 2012, Plaid Cymru submitted a Freedom of Information request to the Department of Transport seeking details of any correspondence between it and the Welsh Government on the level of tolls since May 2011, the last Assembly elections. In its response the Department of Transport merely listed emails between the Highways Agency and the Welsh Government advising of planned increases in tolls for 2012 and 2013. An FOI request revealed that there was no other correspondence between the Welsh Government and the Westminster Government. 

In 2012 a report for the Welsh government suggested that abolishing the tolls would increase traffic by an estimated 12% - equivalent to about 11,000 vehicles a day – and that businesses and commuters forked out around £ 80 million pounds a year crossing the Severn bridges.

http://wales.gov.uk/about/aboutresearch/econoresearch/completed/severntolls/?lang=en

In October 2010, Professor Peter Midmore's independent economic study of the Severn Bridge tolls which has recommended that the revenues should stay in Wales, once the crossings revert to public hands. This study of 122 businesses was commissioned by the Federation of Small Businesses revealed that the tolls had a negative impact on 30% of firms in South Wales, this compared with 18% in the Greater Bristol area.

Severn Bridge Tolls since 1976

While noting that the economic impact was not substantial for most, the 2010 study found that transport; construction and tourism-related companies reliant on regular crossings suffered increased costs and reduced competitiveness. The 2010 study found that Welsh businesses were unfairly penalised by the tolls and concluded that the money should be shared with the Assembly Government and used to improve Wales’ roads and public transport.

The general political consensus to do something about the tolls is nice but somewhat vague on the details. Based on their record in at Westminster I would not hold my breath in anticipation of any action on the Severn Bridge tolls. Labour (New and not so New) in power at Westminster from 1997 to 2010 did nothing. The Conservative and Liberal Democratic Coalition when in power at Westminster from 2010 to 2015 did nothing. Likewise the now unrestrained Conservative Party currently in power at Westminster will also probably do nothing

In 2018 the franchise will revert back to Westminster and the Department for Transport - what concerns me is that this income may prove too useful to let go. The ominous silence from the Westminster on the fate of the tolls should concern to us all of us. I think that it is perfectly reasonable for the Department For Transport (and the Westminster Government) to clearly state what it intentions in relation to the Severn Bridge tolls.

Plaid Cymru wants the transfer of powers (to Wales) and the tolls initially reduced to £2, something that could have a considerable impact on businesses and the economy. For simple clarity the ownership of the Severn bridges should be transferred to the National Assembly in 2018, and that decision needs to be made sooner rather than later and preparations for the transfer need to begin as soon as possible.

IT’S BROKE – TIME TO FIX IT!

Rail fares have risen (1.1%) today; something that will directly impact on regular and occasional rail travellers, at a time when they can least afford it. 

At present rail fare increases are determined with a calculation based on RPI (retail price index) – a system that has attracted repeated criticism from respected economists and rail travellers alike. 

Passengers and commuters should not be hit in the pocket because the Government is intent on clinging onto a broken and outdated system.

For 2016 the rail fare rise was relatively small as a result of low inflation but at some stage inflation will return to normal, and the RPI based rail fare calculator will hit rail passengers hard as they are exposed to the substantial annual increases. 

A much fairer way of calculating fares would be to use the CPI (consumer prices index) that is consistently lower than RPI. The UK Westminster Government already uses CPI to calculate its liabilities such as social security.

Plaid Cymru believes in the public ownership of railways, and the full transfer of powers over railways, including the transfer of full funding for railway infrastructure, to Wales. A Plaid Government would work to devolve Network Rail and set up a not-for-dividend company in which profits are reinvested into better services rather than used to pay dividends. 

Our priority in Wales must be to deliver higher standards and lower journey times for passengers and commuters in all corners of Wales and invest profits to improve services.

HALF MEASURES OR A GLASS HALF FULL?

The devolution of control of the rail franchise (back in 2014) was welcomed along with the news that the Welsh Government would actively seek for the rail franchise to be run on a not for profit basis (something that Plaid have been calling for several years). This was important as it meant that we in Wales would be able to choose who operates its own railway for the first time. The not for dividend profit option makes the most sense as any profits made will remain within the franchise area rather than paying share holder dividends.

While that is positive stuff, it may be a case of glass half-full, as yet the element of Network Rail that covers Wales (and the marches) remains under the remit of the Department for Transport. Without full control of that portion of Network Rail the next Welsh Government will face a significant challenge when it comes to preparing for and delivering the next franchise; it is a task that must be accomplished.

One of the key elements in rebooting our economy is infrastructure investment and investing in our neglected railways.  Many of our existing railway stations suffer from some pretty significant gaps in services, and so are underused. The final stage of the rail-link from Ebbw Vale to Newport needs to be completed and new railway stations at Caerleon (which has been in the local UDP since the 1980’s), Llanwern, Magor and Little Mill (with secure park and ride facilities) provide local communities with a regular rail service and reduce the ever-increasing traffic burden from already overcrowded roads.

Over twenty five years ago as a trainee journalist with the Pontypool Free Press, I interviewed commuters on wet and windy mornings at Cwmbran and Pontypool railway stations and  wrote up news stories about the poor service and train overcrowding. I am consciously aware that we have not progressed as far as we could when it comes to developing and sustaining a decent rail service for commuters here in the South East - something which goes someway to explain why so many people chose to drive to and from work.

We need our railway stations to be real transport hubs with fully integrated local bus services and expanded safer secure reasonably priced parking. We also need better facilities at Abergavenny, Caldicot, Chepstow, Pontypool, Severn Tunnel Junction and Lydney railway stations. We need feasibility studies into the development of a Parkway Station at Little Mill and the possibilities of re-opening the old line from Little Mill to Usk along with the development of a new railway station at Usk.

Outside of the South East, the next Welsh Government should take a more strategic view and commit to rebuilding and reopening the line from Carmarthen to Aberystwyth and push to redevelop the line north to Caernarfon and Bangor.  In Scotland, significant strides have been made to reopen; redevelop and build a coherent and integrated public transport system, something that we in Wales need to aspire to.

In Wales, we lag significantly behind Scotland, over the last 16 years there have been two successful railway re-openings carried out by Network Rail at the request of the National Assembly; the Vale of Glamorgan Railway Line (re-opened on Friday 10th June 2005) and the Ebbw Valley Railway Line (which was partially re-opened on Wednesday 6th February 2008). Unlike in Scotland here in Wales we have lacked any real political dynamism; as these were largely administrative rather than legislative projects.

Plaid Cymru believes that a revitalised not for profit railway service in Wales can and should lead to more areas of our country being opened up to both new and reopened rail services. This combined with the long overdue electrification of the valley lines no to mention the Great Western mainline to Swansea would be the basis for a decent rail network. Yet the job will remain only half done until full control of railway infrastructure is devolved to Wales so that both the development of the franchise and the development of our railway infrastructure can be planned together.

A WELSH VETO ON TTIP

The UK Westminster Government appears to be entirely set on pushing ahead with TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership) regardless of any potential consequences for our public services. Devolution, even the flawed settlement we have, means our public services are devolved to Wales, the devolved government should be granted a veto in order to protect our NHS and other services from sweeping privatisation.

Public services should be in public hands and markets should be democratically accountable for their decisions. Public services such as our Welsh national health service should not be put at risk as a result of shadowy dealings that the UK Government is so desperate to sign up to. We need to ensure that our public services are protected from being plundered for profit by multi-nationals companies and that they remain democratically accountable.

The impending US-EU trade agreement aims to merge the EU's common market with that of the United States, but without any of the built in social and political safeguards, which are at least nominally supposed to exist within in the EU. The problem is that much of the negotiations have been conducted in secret.

Surely if there was nothing to hide then the discussions should be held in full public session and full texts of the proposals published as a matter of routine. For any trade deal to have wider public support, it must unquestionably drop any proposals for a shadow corporate legal system and ensure that the EU’s already existing environmental and social safeguards are maintained.

Any trade deal that does go ahead should definitely not be a large corporation closed shop in relation to trading across the Atlantic, as it most definitely appears at the moment. 99% of Welsh companies are SMEs, they make up the backbone of the Welsh economy - and they deserve as much of a look in with any trade deal as the big companies.

The agreement is highly controversial, the TTIP agreement risks opening up more areas of public services (including within the NHS) to private competition (something which suits the privatisation agenda of most of the Westminster based political parties), particularly those services where there is already non-government provision such as with social care.

The reality is that a strong and very productive trading relationship already exists between the EU and US. And this is a good thing. What the TTIP agreement as it is proposed will do, is give corporations unprecedented power over our public services and seriously threaten democratic decisions in the pursuit of company profit.

By discussing these issues in secret, negotiators from both sides are doing deals behind closed doors, which do not have public support and will remain largely un-discussed and un-scrutinised. We need a full honest and open debate about what TTIP should include, based on what is best for people, not multi-national companies and American trade and our own Welsh government should be standing up for our national interests.

After the financial crisis of 2007/08 and the resultant bail out of the private sector it might have been hoped that the pendulum might have swung in favour of democracy to rebalance flawed corporate power. That said, it is apparent that the Westminster based political parties don’t think so hence their relative silence on the implications of TTIP on our public services.

We need a much more democratic economy, driven and shaped by the needs of the people it serves. The TTIP agreement threatens this basic principle and as is should be rejected. The complete lack of transparency is disturbing particularly as much of the negotiation have ominously been conducted behind closed doors and little has been divulged in terms of the exact content and the level of the risk to our public services.

In its current form TTIP means that Europe will be subject to American-style 'light touch' regulation for corporate take-overs and practices. It threatens to open up our public services to the possibility of aggressive private take-overs. More disturbingly the profits of corporations will be 'future proofed’ so that any changes to laws or regulations by democratically elected governments will be open to corporate challenge.

As if bailing the banks out with public money was not bad enough, this means that all of us taxpayers may end up having to pay to make up for the potential loss of projected corporate profits. That loss of democratic accountability over our public services may well also mean that future decisions will not be subject to review by our own judiciary, but instead referred to private, corporate, closed-door courts.

THE CASE FOR UN-MAKING THE MIDDLE EAST

Next week there will be a vote on whether or not the UK bombs Daesh in Syria - the vote will probably give David Cameron more than a few sleepless nights. The PM’s real problem is not the real possibility of Daesh atrocities on the streets of Britain along the lines of the appalling atrocities that took place recently in Bamako, Paris and Beirut.

There are deeper or perhaps shallower unspoken motivations, after the Labour (a case of miscalculation rather than design) and Conservative parties failed to get a mandate to bomb Syria (the then Assad controlled bits of it at least) in Westminster last time - Cameron found himself dangerously adrift from US interests and cozy photo opportunities on the White House lawn. If Mr C makes of mess of the forthcoming vote and fails to secure a mandate then he will move from being a partially useful US ally to being a downright liability, at least as far as the White House is concerned. 

Short-term political gain aside the appalling carnage in Lebanon, France and Mali is one grim aspect of an ongoing humanitarian catastrophe has been building for the last two decades. Where we are just now in the Middle East is the result of the end of the Cold War, a whole series of largely failed 'Western' generational interventions, the result of the failure of the Arab Spring and the weakening of the grip of some grim dictators.

If twenty years plus of war and bombing ended up producing Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, we should be entirely unsurprised that the chaos unleashed in Iraq since 1991 had ended up producing Daesh (IS).  Despite occasional weasel-like verbose rhetoric to the contrary - the Brit and American elite probably quietly prefer working with their chosen tyrant(s) they know or in the case of the Brit elite literally went to school with some of them (although these days the despots spawn probably go to school in and around Washington DC) rather than dangerously unpredictable democracies who may end up delivering unpalatable electoral results (at least as far as the West is concerned). 

In relation to the current crisis David Cameron's indecision (he is a natural follower than a leader) is as irrelevant to solving the refugee problem, as is the UK's input in the Middle East. Historically Britain was an imperial power in the region, but, now in reality is a bit player, having squandered any real influence through its self-interested support for despotic regimes. When it comes to intervention, humanitarian or otherwise it can be said that you get what you put in. The UK spent around £326 million pounds bombing Libya (to get rid of Gaddafi) and around £25 million pounds on reconstruction - the end result of which is that the Libyan state ceased to exist.

An arc of instability stretches from North West Africa, through the Middle East and on through Pakistan, Afghanistan to the western fringes of the People's Republic of China. Some of this instability has been fed by local wars, local repressive dictatorships (historically supported by various sides in the Cold War) and a whole series of unresolved on-going political problems - some of which, but certainly not all relates to the failure to peacefully resolve the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

A significant measure of responsibility lies with the West and it's history of inept irresponsible intervention and self serving foreign policy, some of which dates back to self interested decisions made during the First World War as the Ottoman Empire was dismembered by interested parties up until the emergence of the Turkish Republic in 1923. Refuge wise we have been here before, at the end of the First World War, waves of refugees from Armenia, Greece and what was about to become the Soviet Union fled to find safety and security. At least in the 1920’s the League of Nations managed to create an internationally recognised system of identity / travel documents, known as Nansen certificates for refuges.

A measure of responsibility also lies with the Arab states themselves, initially largely creations of the Imperial powers (Britain and France) - the Arab governments have almost entirely failed to integrate refuges from 1948 into society and choose to leave them to rot in refugee camps on the fringes of society. Repressive Arab governments of various persuasions conveniently raised the issue of the Palestinians and Israel to periodically distract their own oppressed citizens. Quite understandably the current refugees from Syria have no desire to find themselves in the same situation as the Palestinians.

Lebanon, Turkey and Jordan have all taken in large numbers of refuges - but it’s time for the Gulf States to fork out some cash to pay for significant no strings attached humanitarian aid in Turkey and Lebanon each of whom have taken in over two million refuges. The Turks are playing their own game, largely allowing the two way transit of people and oil into Turkey and out of the Daesh controlled fragments of Syria and Iraq - something that NATO is probably well aware of – and trying to lump the Kurds in with Daesh. Trying to recreate a unified Syria and a unified Iraq will have to involve a serious commitment of aid and probably ground troops for many years - after the costly failures in Iraq and costly partial successes in Afghanistan - this is probably not an option that can easily be sold to most of the electorates in the West. 

The case for air strikes in Syria remains as yet un-made - there are still too many unanswered questions - as vile as Daesh is (these are the people who brought back enslavement, beheadings, and other appalling atrocities) the case for war has not been made. The PM's claim that there are 70,000 moderate Syrian fighters on the ground ready to fight Daesh is dubious at best – a doubt shared by the Chairman of the House of Commons Defence Committee, amongst others. Simply dropping bombs from the air will not lead to the defeat of Daesh. Nor will it secure peace for the people of Syria and Iraq or bring stability to the wider region. What is needed is a UN agreed plan for a process of reconciliation and reconstruction something that can be quantified, measured and delivered.

All governments must redouble their efforts to secure a comprehensive peace deal for Syria and the wider region. World leaders cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of past Western military interventions in the Middle East and we need renewed commitments to support and aid civilians who are suffering as a result of the war, and real pressure on Saudi Arabia and others who are financing Daesh.

Above all there must be practical support for those currently defending themselves on the ground from Daesh such as the Kurdish Peshmerga fighters, and a commitment from Turkey to cease attacks upon the Kurds in Syria, Iraq and Turkey. At present UK military action as currently proposed risks further escalation in Syria and runs the risk of making our own communities at home less secure and simply plays into the Daesh narrative.