Category Archives: Welsh Assembly Government

Make it pay to go green

A survey for BBC Wales reveals that nine in ten (93%) Welsh people believe that the world’s climate is changing and three in four (72%) think that the lead to combat climate change should come from the Government, even if it means using the law to change people’s behaviour.

Of course, using the law to change behaviour can mean carrot as well as stick.  One respondent to the BBC set out his suggestions:

“The Council could do more with your poll tax: if you recycle 50% of your waste, you get 20% discount on your poll tax. Something like that would motivate everyone.”

He is, of course, absolutely right.  Last week, George Osborne unveiled Conservative plans to encourage people to recycle more by actually paying them to do so:

In a speech just over a year ago, I mentioned a company called Recyclebank, which had successfully increased recycling rates by up to 200% in 500 cities and communities across America.

They had achieved this by paying the public to recycle – without the need for any extra government spending.

The reason they could do this is that in America, just as in the UK, local councils have to pay landfill tax for every tonne of waste they fail to recycle.

And what companies like RecycleBank do is say to councils and city administrations: if we reduce your landfill tax bill by pushing up recycling rates, then how about we split the savings?

Recyclebank then use this money to pay households up to £20 a month for their recycling.

And the more they recycle, the more they get paid.

Windsor and Maidenhead council have already trialled a similar scheme and have found that recycling rates have increased by as much as 30 per cent.

As George said, carrots usually work better than sticks.  It is a pity, therefore, that the Welsh Assembly Government has decided to penalise people for using new supermarket carrier bags rather than encouraging them to reuse old ones. 

Companies such as Tesco already offer “green” loyalty points to customers who provide their own carrier bags.  If WAG had a bit more imagination, it could surely come up with a scheme that encourages customers to reuse bags and rewards them for doing so, rather than resorting to the old socialist model of hammering them financially.

Nuclear reactors

There must be something about the sea air on Anglesey: it miraculously turns even the most hardened opponent of nuclear power into an enthusiast for a new generating station at Wylfa.

The Damascene conversion of Plaid Cymru’s Welsh Assembly leader, Ieuan Wyn Jones, is already well known.  Plaid Cymru is deeply anti-nuclear; its 2009 Euro manifesto confirmed its “total opposition to the construction of any new nuclear power stations in Wales” and its Assembly spokeswoman, Leanne Wood, declared in a plenary debate in September, 2007, that:

“Plaid Cymru, under all circumstances, will oppose any future proposal to locate a new nuclear power station at Wylfa”

Mr Jones was accordingly very much out of step with his own party when, in January 2008, he enthusiastically welcomed the Government’s announcement of its commitment to a new generation of nuclear power stations as “good news”. 

Mr Jones admittedly is the Assembly member for Anglesey, and Wylfa is a major employer there, but nevertheless it is rather odd to see a party leader putting his name to a manifesto policy which he manifestly considers to be a load of old cobblers.

Now Carwyn Jones has also experienced the Wylfa effect.

Mr Jones is one of three candidates for the leadership of the Labour group in the Welsh Assembly.  He visited Anglesey yesterday as part of his campaign tour and announced that, as the debate on nuclear energy had “shifted considerably”, he now believed that nuclear power will form part of Wales’s low-carbon response to the serious challenges we face in the years to come”.

Mr Jones’s dramatic turnabout will, I am sure, please the local MP, Albert Owen, who is staunchly pro-nuclear and has put his name to Mr Jones’s nomination papers.

It may, however, be less pleasing to another of his sponsors, the Welsh environment minister, Jane Davidson.  Ms Davidson has always strongly adhered to the official Assembly Government line (to which Mr Jones is still nominally committed) of opposition to new nuclear development in Wales.  Only two months ago, she demanded a public inquiry into the Government’s proposals for Wylfa B “on the grounds of concern over the safety and security of the management of future nuclear waste”.

Ms Davidson may now be wondering whether she has backed the right man.  Perhaps she, too, should take a trip up to Anglesey and breathe the balmy Wylfa air.

Time to behave like grown-ups

Spoke yesterday lunchtime at the Welsh fringe meeting, which was extremely well-attended.  There were speeches, too, from Cheryl Gillan, Nick Bourne and our new Conservative MEP, Kay Swinburne. 

Cheryl spoke about the need for a new and improved working relationship between Whitehall and Cardiff.  At present, the national and devolved administrations seem to operate to a large extent in silos, each oblivious to the other; sometimes, indeed, it is possible even to discern an unhealthy mutual antagonism.

This is not good for users of public services on either side of the border and is, frankly, silly.  We need a more mature, grown-up dialogue and a new spirit of co-operation; and that is precisely what the Conservatives intend to create.

No obvious successor

I was sorry, though naturally not surprised, to hear that Rhodri Morgan has decided to step down as Labour leader in the Welsh Assembly in December.

I have always found Rhodri to be both courteous and good-humoured, qualities sometimes lacking in today’s politicians.  He is also a remarkably erudite man, one of highest calibre Assembly members.  I hope he has a very happy retirement.

The Labour group will not find a successor of anything approaching Rhodri’s stature.  At present, there appear to be three likely contenders: Carwyn Jones, Edwina Hart and Huw Lewis; there is some suggestion, too,  that Jane Hutt may also enter the contest.

My suspicion is that Carwyn Jones and Edwina Hart are fairly closely matched, with Mrs Hart having the slight edge by virtue of her strong union support.

All the potential candidates represent Glamorgan constituencies, as, indeed, does Rhodri Morgan, illustrating the extent to which Labour is now a party almost entirely dominated by South Wales interests. 

Disadvantaged by devolution

Last week, I was approached by a constituent whose teenage son had been offered a two-year apprenticeship with a Football League club in the north of England.  It was a condition of the offer that, in parallel with the apprenticeship, he should pursue an academic course at a further education college in the same town.

My constituent and her son were both naturally delighted that he had been given such an opportunity.  The problem was that he needed financial support to help pay for his accommodation while living away from home. 

My constituent discovered that the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) operates a residential support scheme worth up to £3,458 per annum to assist students who need to live away from home in order to study.  The snag is that the scheme applies only to students resident in England.

Yesterday, I approached an official of the Welsh Assembly Government to enquire whether WAG operated a similar scheme to the LSC’s.  I was told that it did not.  It had reciprocal arrangements with Whitehall for the payment of Educational Maintenance Allowance if a student from Wales wanted to study in England, but nothing more.  There was nothing, the official told me, that WAG could do to help my constituent and her son.

Earlier this year, the Welsh select committee published its report on the provision of cross-border educational services.   Among its conclusions was the following:

There is not only a need for some further education learners to cross the border between Wales and England to attend college, but it should be welcomed and encouraged. Geographical convenience for those living close to the border, or a wish to attend a specialist course which is not available locally and conveniently in the learner’s home country are not the only reasons for crossing the border. There are advantages to colleges and learners on both sides of the border if this type of crossborder provision is made available when required and driven by learner and employer choice rather than by regulation. The evidence suggests to us that some processes to enable this to operate are in place, but that the border does act as a barrier, or at least as a perceived barrier, to colleges in their recruitment and to students in their search for the right course. We recommend that the Learning and Skills Council and the Welsh Assembly Government take steps to improve the level of cooperation…

It would appear that the committee’s recommendations have fallen on deaf ears.  I keep making the point, but it’s worth repeating: Welsh residents pay their taxes at the same rate as anyone else.  They therefore have an absolute moral right to the same standard of public services as anyone else. 

The consequence of the failure of WAG and the LSC to put in place reciprocal arrangements for residential support for FE students is that a talented young footballer is unable to take up a place on the course of his choice that would be available to him if he lived a few miles to the east.  He is therefore disadvantaged by devolution – or, at least, by WAG’s inept oversight of it.

He and his mother are very angry about it.  And I am, too.

If the swine flu doesn’t kill you, the bureacracy will

Swine fluA friend of mine who works for a medical practice just on the Cheshire side of the Welsh border has sent me a copy of the following swine flu procedure note circulated by his local Primary Care Trust: 

Welsh Residents

Welsh residents who call the National Pandemic Flu Service will be refused triage as they do not meet the residency criteria (postcode).

Welsh residents who are registered with a Welsh GP must call their own GP to be triaged and, if they meet the Welsh criteria i.e. deemed to be at high risk, will be authorised to receive antivirals. Wales is using FP10 forms which are not acceptable at English Antiviral Collection Points which are using the National Voucher scheme.

Welsh residents who are registered with an English GP must call their GP who will issue national voucher if they meet the English criteria i.e. they are symptomatic.

English residents who are registered with a Welsh GP must call their own GP to be triaged. If they meet the Welsh criteria they will be authorised to receive antivirals from a Welsh Antiviral Collection Point.  Welsh FP10 forms will not be accepted in England.

The practice in question has a large number of patients living within Wales, as, indeed, do many other practices in the area.  Similarly, local practices on the Welsh side of the border have a considerable number of patients who are resident in England.

Given that we are now in the throes of a major pandemic that may last several years, one might have expected the NHS in Wales and England to come up with a somewhat less Byzantine, more user-friendly arrangement than this.  Notwithstanding devolution, the NHS is supposed to be a national health service.  So far as the patient is concerned, it should be seamless and invisible. 

The last thing one needs, after all, when suffering from the flu, and feeling bad enough already, is to have to put up with this nightmarish, Kafkaesque nonsense.

Dropping our defences?

One of the most important projects planned for anywhere in Wales is the defence training academy at St Athan in the Vale of Glamorgan.  When the £12 billion scheme was announced in January, 2007, it was enthusiastically welcomed by politicians of all parties (with the exception of Plaid Cymru). It is projected to open in 2014 and will train up to 25,000 students every year.

The academy will need the appropriate infrastructure to support it, most importantly road links.  This is what the local MP, John Smith, had to say at last May’s Welsh Grand Committee:

We must ensure that the infrastructure is right for the people of west Wales and mid-Wales, so that we have easy access to and from the site.

Consequently, one of the most important projects being considered right now is the airport link road from the M4 to Cardiff airport. It is absolutely critical that that project remains on track and is delivered. Following the Budget, I recognise that there will be pressure because of the constraints on public expenditure growth and the pressure to look at projects that may be viewed as providing easy savings. However, it would be a disaster if the airport link road was delayed any further, or shelved or dropped by the Welsh Assembly Government between now and 2014, when the college will open. If that road is not built, the college will still open and the job opportunities will still be there but they will not go to the people of Wales, or rather they will not go to the proportion of people in Wales to whom they should go.

John Smith will consequently be disappointed at yesterday’s announcement by the Welsh transport minister that the airport link road is to be abandoned, together with a long-planned improvement to the M4 in South Wales.  Indeed, John has gone further and called the decision “economic lunacy”.

The announcement will undoubtedly cause uncertainty over the future of the St Athan project.  Such uncertainty will not have been relieved by the following exchange at yesterday’s Welsh Questions:

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con): The defence training project at St. Athan would bring huge opportunities to Wales. Will the Minister confirm that the Secretary of State is co-ordinating with the Ministry of Defence and that the pre-contract agreement letter will be issued to the preferred bidder this week, on time on 17 July—or will the Government delay that? 

Mr. David: The hon. Lady is correct to stress the importance of that investment to Wales. It will be the largest single investment ever in the Welsh economy. The defence technical college will be of tremendous benefit, not only to the Welsh economy but obviously to the United Kingdom armed forces. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State fully recognises the importance of that; he has had discussions with the Secretary of State for Defence and they are going forward together. The hon. Lady can rest assured that we recognise the importance of the project for Wales. 

Wayne David’s answer was unsettlingly lengthy; I hope that it was not deliberately obfuscatory.   It could, and should, have been a simple: “Yes, it will be issued”. 

Recognising the importance of the project is one thing; issuing the pre-contract agreement letter is another.  The Wales Office should immediately clarify the position.  It would be extremely worrying if there were any doubt whatever over the Government’s commitment to St Athan.

Another ill-tempered outburst

Mr Rhodri Glyn Thomas, the Welsh Assembly member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr, has launched what the Western Mail calls a “blistering attack” (attacks are always “blistering”, just as defences are always “spirited”) on the Welsh select committee over its report on the proposed Welsh language Legislative Competence Order (LCO).

Mr Thomas has clearly attended the Dafydd Elis-Thomas school of anger management, if the following is anything to go by:

“Who do these people think they are?

“Nobody seriously doubts that decisions about the Welsh language should be taken in Wales, yet this group of MPs is desperately trying to cling on to a right of veto.

“The Assembly Government has spent two years looking at this and consulting widely, only to have the Welsh Affairs Committee say that the LCO (Legislative Competence Order) should be fundamentally rewritten…

“For some reason it seems that the Westminster committee has decided to delay the LCO’s progress…”

And so, apoplectically, he goes on.  And on.

When he has calmed down a little, Mr Thomas might like to consider the following:

  1. The select committee was requested to carry out the scrutiny of the draft LCO by the Secretary of State; it didn’t simply wade in uninvited, as Mr Thomas seems to think;
  2. The committee has no “right of veto”, as Mr Thomas could have found out for himself if he had spent more time studying the process; that right resides with the Secretary of State for Wales.  The committee merely scrutinises and reports;
  3. The select committee, which is comprised of  MPs of all parties, including Mr Thomas’s own Plaid Cymru, was unanimously of the view that the draft LCO was deficient in many respects and needed redrafting.  It is up to the Secretary of State to decide whether he accepts that advice;
  4. The difficulties identified by the committee could have been avoided if more attention had been paid to the draftsmanship of the Order at the Assembly.  The fact that it was so poorly drawn is no  fault of the committee.

Mr Thomas should bear in mind that he is talking about a legislative process, which has to be got right.  The public expect, and deserve, nothing less.

Mr Thomas observes in the Western Mail that he was the Welsh Minister responsible for the draft LCO in its early stages of development.

Perhaps, therefore, rather than blaming the select committee for pointing out the Order’s deficiencies, he should instead be accepting his own share of responsibility for the fact that it was so poorly prepared and presented.

Lost in translation?

The Welsh select committee today published its report on the proposed Welsh language legislative competence order.  This will please a certain well-known Welsh journalist, who has talked of little else, and has probably scarcely slept,  for several months.

The report recommends a transfer of competence to the Welsh Assembly, albeit hedged with many caveats, provisos and reservations.

The Welsh Assembly Government will now have enter into a negotiating process with the Wales Office to determine  how the proposal should progress.

Peter Hain, for his part, has made it abundantly clear that he expects significant changes to be made to WAG’s original proposal:

“The committee is calling for a fundamentally different approach to the Welsh Assembly Government’s proposed Welsh language LCO and this will need very careful consideration and discussion in the weeks to come.”

 The story isn’t over yet; this one will run and run.

Hain told where to get off

Peter HainMPs were, to put it at its mildest, somewhat surprised when a press release from Peter Hain appeared on the Wales Office website on Tuesday evening announcing that:

A Welsh Grand Debate on the Welsh Affairs Committee report on the Welsh Language Order, expected for publication in the next fortnight, will be held on Wednesday, July 8, to allow MPs to fully debate the content and scope of the Order and its proposed impact on Wales, particularly Welsh business and industry.

Regular readers will know that I am a strong supporter of the Grand Committee and approved wholeheartedly of Paul Murphy’s decision to increase the frequency of its meetings.  However, even I raised an eyebrow at the prospect of a Grand Committee debate on July 8. 

The problem, you see, is that the Welsh Affairs Committee hasn’t reported yet.  It is likely to do so in the relatively near future, but for the Wales Office to arrange a debate before the report is even published looked a tad premature.

The response of the committee’s chairman, Hywel Francis, to the announcement was a study in glacial pique.  He has, quite simply, told Peter Hain where to get off:

“I have informed him he will need to consult with me and the opposition parties before a Welsh Grand Committee can meet to discuss my Committee’s Report.”

Hain has now done a swift U-turn and confirmed that the debate has been called off.

And the Wales Office’s excuse for not consulting the chairman?  Well, they did try to give him a quick bell, but couldn’t contact him because he’d lost his mobile phone.

Perhaps, just perhaps, they might consider a letter or even an e-mail next time round.

A very special adviser

The delightful Betsan Powys, who has a truly impressive, absorbing  interest in the Legislative Competence Order (LCO) process, has written a lengthy blog post about the Housing LCO, which the Welsh select committee considered as long ago as October last year.

Readers will recall (or perhaps won’t) that the committee reported to the Secretary of State that the draft Order should be approved, with one important proviso:

The full scope of the power to be transferred under a proposed Order, rather than just the current policy intention, should be clearly expressed in the Explanatory Memorandum. Proposed Orders should be drafted so as to transfer only those powers which are required and for which a clear purpose has been established. The same considerations apply to granting to the National Assembly for Wales the ability to abolish the Right to Buy/Right to Acquire. We recommend that the proposed Order be revised so that this power is specifically excluded from its scope. We further recommend that the proposed Order should not proceed unless this proposed revision is made.

Given that the Assembly Government had made it very clear in evidence to the committee that it did not intend to abolish the Right to Buy, one might have thought that this would cause few problems to WAG and that the LCO would proceed fairly swiftly.

Not so; it caused fury in certain quarters of Cardiff Bay and outrage on the part of the Assembly’s presiding officer,   Lord Elis-Thomas.  The committee’s recommendation, it seemed, had caused a grave constitutional crisis of the greatest magnitude.  Everybody got terribly aerated.

So the LCO sat on a shelf for a bit, gathering dust, while tortuous, protracted negotiations proceeded between WAG and the Wales Office.  Eventually, a compromise, not to say fudge, was agreed, which provided the Secretary of State with a veto if WAG should ever decide it wanted to abolish the Right to Buy.  I personally thought that was a constitutionally questionable solution to the non-problem, in that it effectively turned the Secretary of State into a Governor-General.  However, both sides – WAG and the Wales Office – were by now intent, above all, on saving face and both seemed to regard the rather dodgy lash-up as acceptable.

The draft Order was duly tabled; but then disaster struck.  The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments examined it and reported it for “doubtful vires”.  In other words, the committee was less than satisfied as to  the Order’s legality.

The Order was consequently pulled;  heaven knows when it will proceed.  Betsan talks of a “third way” to restore it, but, as to what that may be, gives no inkling.

All this is, of course, awfully silly.  WAG is effectively holding its breath and stamping its feet in an effort to obtain a competence it never, ever intends to exert.  Where’s the sense in that?

One other point of interest that emerges from Betsan’s post is that it reveals that the individual who proposed the Secretary of State’s veto as a solution to the impasse was a Plaid Cymru special adviser.  I understand that the gentleman in question is a very special, special adviser who carries a great deal of clout within the Plaid hierarchy.

What, one might ask, was a senior Plaid official thinking, in proposing that the Secretary of State in Whitehall should have the  power to inhibit Assembly legislation by extending a downward-pointing thumb?

I have my own theories, but I really don’t want to deprive Betsan of the opportunity of penning  another post about this truly fascinating subject.

Are you all still with me?

Rhodri’s logic

rhodri morganThe strange logic of Rhodri Morgan manifested itself again today.

Quoted in the Western Mail, the Welsh First Minister pronounced that:

“Coalition government [in Cardiff] looks like the norm 50% of the time, with one-party Labour administration always possible as an outcome in Wales, but more likely to be achieved when there are Tory governments in Westminster.”

In the first respect, Mr Morgan is correct.  Labour created the Welsh Assembly as a fiefdom that would preserve its sway in Cardiff, whatever the outcome of a general election.  Labour, they thought, would always hold Wales, come what may.

As it turned out, one-party rule in Cardiff coincided with Labour’s high-water mark nationally.  As Tony Blair’s popularity waned, so Labour were obliged to seek coalition partners in the Assembly.

Labour are very unlikely to enjoy 1997 levels of popularity again for some considerable time; consequently, coalition is, as Rhodri says, likely to be a normal state of affairs in Cardiff.

However, to suggest that a Conservative victory in a general election will be good for Labour in Cardiff is bizarre indeed.  

The people of Wales don’t inhabit another planet; the political tide will move there, to a greater or lesser extent, just as it does in the rest of the country.

Rhodri’s bizarre thesis, however, is that, while  the rest of the country is turning Tory, the Welsh electorate will decide, perversely, to do the very opposite and  back an unpopular Labour party.  In fact, more Conservative MPs across the country as a whole  will also mean more Conservative MPs in Wales and, very likely, more Conservative  Assembly members, too. 

So Rhodri had better get used to coalitions.  Furthermore, he should come to terms with the fact that Labour may not form part of them. 

There is no reason at all why opposition for Labour at Westminster should not go hand in hand with opposition in Cardiff Bay.

Marriage of convenience

Speaking of the Welsh Grand Committee, I was hugely entertained by attacks by Plaid Cymru Members on Labour’s economic competence and the dodginess of Treasury figures for the reduction in support to the Welsh Assembly Government.

I intervened twice to enquire why, if they considered Labour to be so incompetent and unreliable, they were happy to prop them up in Cardiff;  I received no satisfactory answer.

I suppose Plaid would say that I don’t understand the political niceties that permit simultaneous opposition at Westminster and coalition in Cardiff Bay. 

Maybe I don’t, but I do recognise opportunism when I see it.

Holiday blues

visit-wales

The weather prospects for Easter are not good; according to this morning’s forecast, Good Friday will be particularly rainy, although things may buck up on Saturday.

Good weather is particularly important to North Wales, especially this year.  The tourist industry is banking on a decent summer, after two washouts in 2007 and 2008.  Friends who are involved in hospitality tell me that bookings for Easter are holding up reasonably well; however, they are not yet seeing the rash of summer bookings they have been hoping for.

With sterling at almost an historic low against the euro, many hoteliers have been hoping for a silver lining to the general economic gloom in the form of increased interest from holidaymakers from both the UK and the continent.  However, Welsh tourism operators are up against stiff competition from other parts of the country; Scotland, England and Northern Ireland are all pitching strongly for their  share of the credit crunch dividend.

In Wales, tourism promotion is the responsibility of Visit Wales, now an arm of the Welsh Assembly Government.  This year, Visit Wales’s total marketing budget is only £7.5 million, compared with £21 million for Visit Scotland, which is majoring this year on the “Homecoming”, marking the 250th anniversary of Robert Burns’s birth.

£7.5 million therefore looks inadequate, by some considerable margin, to promote the attractions of Wales in what looks like a crucial year for a crucial industry.   Wales is in danger of losing out heavily to the other parts of the UK.

The Welsh Assembly Government should take another look at its tourism budget, and urgently, too.

Opposite sides of the planet

In Cardiff, for the Welsh Conservative party conference, which is being held at the Swalec cricket stadium.

I drove down from North Wales yesterday afternoon, through a sunny spring landscape of greening hedgerows, lamb-filled fields and verges of jostling daffodils.  

Idyllic countryside, but the journey took over four hours, as it always does, and that in a small, agile, reasonably powerful car.  Imagine, I pondered, how much longer this would take in an ambulance.  And how uncomfortable it would be in the back of that ambulance.  Particularly if you needed a brain operation. 

Almost two years have passed since the Welsh health minister, Edwina Hart, made the spectacularly silly announcement that she intended to divert all elective neurosurgery generated in Wales to hospitals in Cardiff and Swansea.  The plan caused outrage in North Wales, followed by a high-profile campaign, including a gratifyingly well-attended public meeting at Colwyn Bay.  Mrs Hart went into reverse thrust, and, after commissioning the usual inquiry, concluded that North Wales patients should continue to be treated at the Walton centre in Liverpool. 

Yesterday, the Welsh select committee published an important report on the issue of cross-border health provision.  I’d urge everyone interested in this important issue to read it.  It is highly critical of the absence of coordination between the Welsh Assembly Government and the Department of Health.  It speaks of longer waiting times for Welsh patients seeking treatment in English hospitals, which are not paid for treating Welsh patients at the same rate as English patients.  

It talks of the Welsh NHS putting up “bureaucratic barriers which stand in the way of patient needs being met swiftly and efficiently” and concludes: 

It is unacceptable that individual providers and commissioners have been left to negotiate ad hoc solutions to problems caused by government-level decisions, apparently taken without regard for their impact on crossborder commissioning. Even where local arrangements work well, patients should not have to rely on the good will of those involved to ensure that their health care pathways are coherent. A solution must involve a sustainable and enforceable long-term agreement between the relevant Ministers and Departments so that future disputes will be avoided. The key test must be whether all parties demonstrably have as their highest priority the need to secure the best possible service for patients. 

The lack of coordination of policy between Whitehall and Cathays Park does not end with healthcare.  The select committee has noted similar problems in education, and only this week we heard from the Welsh transport minister, Ieuan Wyn Jones, that the “all Wales” freight transport strategy is not coordinated with policy in England.  This is a bit odd, given that it is there that most freight journeys in Wales either start or finish. 

Over the years, devolution has resulted in inevitable divergence of policy between Cardiff and London.  This is understandable, but it should not impede the efficient delivery of public services, which is what is happening at the moment.  Administrations at either end of the M4 sometimes behave as if Wales and England are on opposite sides if the planet. 

This problem needs to be tackled before it gets any worse, and that is what the next Conservative government will do.  I’ll be speaking about this at the conference this afternoon.