Senedd hears future generations law ‘lacks teeth'
The Senedd's equality committee took evidence as part of follow-up scrutiny a decade on from the Welsh parliament passing the Well-being of Future Generations Act in 2015.
Labour's Mick Antoniw warned the Act, which aims to put sustainable development at the heart of decision making, lacks impetus and risks being a "bureaucratic tick-box exercise'.
Mr Antoniw, who was involved in early stages of scrutiny of the then-bill, said: 'It started off… as a sustainability bill until no one could actually define what they meant by sustainability… came up with the term future generations and… that might be seen to be equally nebulous.'
As well as describing the Act as vague, the former minister suggested Wales' future generations commissioner has few – if any – powers to hold public bodies to account.
He said: 'I always thought that was a mistake right from the beginning, [you] don't give it proper teeth to actually have the impact that shifts decision making.'
Calvin Jones, an environmental economist, said the commissioner and his predecessor told him their only 'big stick' is to 'name and shame' which they are reluctant to do. 'As soon as you get the stick out, people take their eyes off the carrot,' he said.
'There's this constant tension between wanting to chivvy the laggards along but realising once you get a reputation as somebody who's an auditor effectively then games start being played and boxes start being ticked.
'That tension has always stymied the way in which the commissioners have been prepared to name and shame which was, I think, the only serious bit of teeth in the Act.'
Prof Jones, who left Cardiff University in May, suggested Audit Wales should have more of a role in holding public bodies to account in a similar way to their bookkeeping duties.
He warned of a major lack of funding for the commissioner's office, describing the money allocated by the Welsh Government as akin to using a sticking plaster on the Titanic.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News
14 minutes ago
- Sky News
Extra 150,000 people will still be forced into poverty despite welfare U-turn
Why you can trust Sky News An extra 150,000 people will still be pushed into poverty despite the government making significant concessions on its plans to cut welfare, according to its own analysis. The government document, published today, reflects its decision to water down some of the more severe changes to Personal Independence Payments (PIP) and the health top-up for universal credit. It states that an estimated 150,000 people will now be pushed into poverty after housing costs if the new welfare cuts come into effect - down from 250,000 under the government's original plans. Under the original reforms, the eligibility criteria for PIP would have been tightened for both new and existing claimants. Ministers also intended to freeze the health top-up of Universal Credit at £97 a week during this parliament. However, in the face of a large rebellion by Labour MPs, the government changed the proposals for PIP to apply to new claimants only from November 2026. All current recipients of the health element of Universal Credit will also now have their incomes protected in real terms, as will any new applicants who meet the "severe conditions criteria". The government will hope that the reduction of 100,000 people will be enough to persuade Labour MPs to vote for the new package of reforms when they are put to a vote on Tuesday. 0:43 The new assessment also states the impact on the number of pensioners and children in poverty is "expected to be negligible" after the original analysis said 50,000 children would be in relative poverty by the end of the decade. The new modelling does not take account of extra money the government is putting in to support people with disabilities and long-term health conditions into work. Before the government announced its changes, 127 Labour MPs signalled publicly that they would be willing to vote down the welfare bill in its entirety by signing an amendment that would have stopped its progress through parliament. It has been reported that the number of Labour rebels now stands at around 50 following the concessions. 1:30 Nadia Whittome, the Labour MP for Nottingham East, indicated she would still vote against the bill despite the concessions. In a post on X, she said: "Even with the concessions, the government's own analysis forecasts that 150,000 people could still be pushed into poverty by disability benefit cuts by the end of the decade. "As Labour MPs, we didn't enter politics to make struggling constituents poorer. We must stop this bill." Downing Street said the updated modelling on the impact of the government's welfare cuts "doesn't reflect the full picture". A spokesperson said there was still "uncertainty" around the projections because they don't take into account other government action, including NHS investment and employment support.
Spectator
24 minutes ago
- Spectator
How big will the Labour welfare rebellion be?
This afternoon Liz Kendall will update the House of Commons on her revised plans for welfare, following the concessions wrung out of her by Labour MPs. The Work and Pensions Secretary announced plans on Thursday night for £3 billion in additional funds. This will allow current claimants of personal independence payments to keep their current benefits. It ensures, too, that existing recipients of the health-related element of Universal Credit will have their incomes protected in real terms. The U-turn came ahead of tomorrow night's vote on the welfare bill's second reading. The whips estimate there will be around 50 Labour MPs who defy the government Ahead of Kendall's statement, there is only one question that everyone is asking: how big will the Labour welfare rebellion be? The whips and those in the rebel camp estimate there will be around 50 Labour MPs who defy the government – the largest rebellion of Keir Starmer's premiership. Some names will be the 'usual suspects', but others, such as veteran Clive Efford, are seen as loyal and mainstream. He told the Today programme this morning: For me, the situation hasn't changed for those people who will be adversely affected and until we know and understand the impact on them, we shouldn't be taking what I think is a leap in the dark. A good rule of thumb for judging how much trouble Starmer is in is the prominence of Andy Burnham at any given time. The Greater Manchester mayor calls the concessions merely 'half a U-turn, a 50 per cent U-turn', saying: 'I'd still hope MPs vote against the whole bill when it comes before parliament.' With 24 hours to go until the crunch vote, how many of his Labour colleagues in Westminster will oblige?
The Guardian
26 minutes ago
- The Guardian
British law firm coached universities on how to obtain sweeping protest bans
A law firm that helped a UK university obtain a year-long ban on unauthorised protests, which could lead to students being jailed for up to two years, has quietly coached several others on how to take similar legal action, the Guardian can reveal. Shakespeare Martineau LLP, which represented Cardiff University during proceedings that led to it being granted a sweeping anti-protest injunction this month, promoted the controversial type of court order to universities at a webinar last October, according to documents obtained by the Guardian and Liberty Investigates under the Freedom of Information Act. Cardiff staff and students could now face prison and unlimited fines for holding protests on large stretches of their campus without permission, which must be sought three weeks in advance. It follows conflict between the university and students over a pro-Palestine encampment on campus. Lawyers who argued against the injunction said it was so broad that it potentially covered all unauthorised protest-related activity ranging from industrial action to bake sales – though Cardiff disputes this – while a UN watchdog for protests rights called the move a 'flagrant violation of international human rights law'. When approached for comment, a Shakespeare Martineau spokesperson said this interpretation was 'inaccurate', insisting the injunction related only to 'unlawful encampments'. They reiterated that the order did not not prohibit 'lawful' protest, where the university had given its permission. But two independent legal experts who examined the order's wording agreed that it could apply to other protest activities besides encampments. Other universities that registered for the webinar include Reading, Exeter, Northumbria, Hertfordshire, Birkbeck, Bath Spa and Liverpool John Moores. Spokespeople for these universities variously said their staff commonly attended webinars and attendance did not mean they had adopted or agreed with the measures discussed, while Exeter and Northumbria said their staff had not attended but received slides. Falmouth and Warwick, whose staff were also recorded as having attended, did not respond to requests for comment. Slides from the webinar show Shakespeare Martineau suggested the 'newcomer injunctions' – so called because they can be used 'against persons unknown' and those not involved in protests at the time it was made – like that taken out by Cardiff could represent 'the future' for universities. One attender asked whether the use of injunctions could 'be seen as attempting to curtail [freedom of speech] unlawfully', according to notes provided by a university. The presenter said: 'No I don't see any difficulty in principle with that […] You would of course need to show to the court that the restrictions imposed by an injunction do not interfere with freedom of speech and that you can demonstrate this is a proportionate response.' But the European Legal Support Centre, which has intervened in four university injunction cases, including Cardiff, said the tactic represented a 'chilling precedent for academic institutions', calling the injunctions 'legally complex and financially impractical for affected students to challenge in court'. Gina Romero, the UN special rapporteur for freedom of assembly, said 'profiting from the […] curtailing of human rights is despicable', in comments critical of the law firms' promotion of the tactic to universities. Last week England's Office for Students published guidance due to take effect in August, advising universities against making 'sweeping' protest restrictions. While the move has been welcomed by free speech lawyers, they have cautioned that it will not stop universities applying for injunctions and will need to be tested in court. Twelve-month temporary injunctions were this week month granted to two Cambridge colleges, as well as a temporary injunction at a third. Smita Jamdar, the head of education at Shakespeare Martineau, said it was working with universities to facilitate peaceful protests while dealing with unlawful encampments and trespass. She said: 'Universities are dealing with complex situations on campus every single day. Understandably, many institutions are seeking guidance on how to manage a whole host of situations effectively and safely, while upholding the law and balancing the rights and freedoms of the whole campus community.' A spokesperson for Cardiff University said it remained 'absolutely committed to free speech and to the right to peaceful protest' but had seen 'an escalation in practices that put protesters and the community at risk'. Cardiff's injunction is due to be reviewed in July 2026.
