Senedd backs data bill despite constitutional concerns
THE SENEDD signed off on the UK Government's data bill despite constitutional concerns, with the proposed legislation 'completely failing' a key test set by the First Minister.
Senedd Members voted 39-11 in favour of consenting to the data use and access bill, which aims to make better use of data and boost the UK economy by £10bn over the next decade.
But Plaid Cymru members and Labour backbenchers voiced concerns about powers in the bill for UK ministers to make laws in some areas already devolved to Wales.
Alun Davies urged Welsh ministers to withdraw the legislative consent motion or LCM, the means by which the Senedd indicates support for UK laws on devolved matters.
Referring to a speech by Eluned Morgan the same day, which put distance between Labour in Westminster and Cardiff Bay, Mr Davies said the bill fails a test set by the First Minister.
Labour MS Alun Davies
He told the Senedd: 'The First Minister was very clear this morning in a speech that she made at the Norwegian church that where the devolved settlement is engaged, unless consent lies with Welsh ministers then consent would not be provided for UK legislation.'
During the debate on May 6, the former minister – now a member of the Senedd's legislation committee – expressed concerns about the number of LCMs during this term.
He said: 'What we are seeing now is an LCM that deals with devolved matters and where the Welsh Government is seceding the settlement… enabling UK ministers to amend Welsh legislation without reference to… Welsh ministers or this parliament.
'And that is unacceptable. It fails, completely, the tests that have been set by the First Minister to support UK legislation.'
The Plaid Cymru-turned-Labour politician added: 'I think many Labour members who supported the First Minister this morning will feel very, very difficult about voting for this.'
Mick Antoniw, who was previously counsel general, the Welsh Government's chief legal adviser, nodded in agreement with much of his colleague's contribution.
Mike Hedges, the Labour chair of the legislation committee, recommended granting consent but he remained dissatisfied by Welsh ministers 'conceding' constitutional concerns.
Labour MS Mick Antoniw
'This is unwelcome and a serious cause for concern,' he said of delegated powers exercisable solely by UK ministers in devolved areas.
Mr Hedges criticised the 'suboptimal' quality and timeliness of the consent process, with the Welsh Government publishing key documents days before the debate.
Delyth Jewell, who chairs the Senedd's culture and communications committee, expressed concerns about the bill's potential impact on data sharing between the UK and EU.
South Wales East MS Delyth Jewell
Her Plaid Cymru colleague Luke Fletcher warned of 'far-reaching' constitutional implications as well as potential for the bill to 'dilute' data protection standards.
He told the Senedd: 'It's telling in this respect that the UK Government has refused to share this relevant risk assessment on this matter.'
Rebecca Evans, Wales' economy secretary, pointed to amendments to strengthen the bill but she recognised the two governments were 'not aligned in the devolution analysis'.
Recommending the Senedd supports the bill, which is mostly non-devolved, Ms Evans emphasised the importance of UK-wide regulations.
Labour and the Conservatives supported the motion, with Plaid Cymru voting against and Welsh Lib Dem leader Jane Dodds abstaining. Under the non-binding Sewel convention, the UK Government would 'not normally' legislate in devolved areas without such consent.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
2 hours ago
- Times
Starmer must find it in himself to be a true leader
Prime ministerial authority can end with a spectacular tyre-shredding blowout, à la Liz Truss, or more usually a slow puncture. The latter begins with a series of stumbles, which early on are judged forgivable, but as time passes become less so. Once a prime minister is designated 'accident prone' recovery, in the eyes of the electorate, and his or her party, becomes steadily less likely. Irritation evolves into disillusionment, and disillusionment into contempt. From then on, defeat at the ballot box, or a pre-emptive strike from the men in grey suits, is a matter of time. Sir Keir Starmer has not careered off the motorway trailing smoking rubber, like Ms Truss. But his every appearance is now accompanied by an ominous hiss. Labour's inaugural year was never going to be easy, given the legacy of the Conservative era, but the first anniversary of its general election win this coming Friday will be unusually downbeat. Following a series of unforced errors, typified by this week's humiliating climbdown on welfare reform in the face of a mass uprising by Labour MPs, this government is already looking distinctly ragged. And responsibility for its sorry state must ultimately lie with the prime minister. By his failure to plan for power, by his lapses of judgment, by his lack of grip, Sir Keir has created this mess. • A year on, is the Starmer project doomed or can he claw it back? The Labour leader was never going to be loved for his charisma. His selling point was lawyerly sobriety, his prosecutor's punctiliousness. Yet successive fiascos tell a different tale. Depriving pensioners of winter fuel payments, raising employers' national insurance, ditching the Rwanda scheme while not replacing it with a small boats deterrent, understating the harm of grooming gangs: these were the results of Sir Keir's failure to devise detailed plans for the economy and migration in opposition, to devise a coherent narrative explaining difficult choices, and to practise basic politics in spotting approaching danger. Labour rebels, scenting blood, are looking for a scalp in Downing Street. Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, is the ideal prize for unreconstructed statists; or perhaps Morgan McSweeney, Sir Keir's chief of staff, whose brutal but effective silencing of Labour's left before the election inevitably made him enemies. The case against Ms Reeves, to whom Sir Keir appears to have ceded total control over economic policy, is more plausible than that against Mr McSweeney. Her national insurance hike dealt a huge blow to growth, while her winter fuel and working-age health benefits cuts appeared more the result of panic than part of a detailed strategy for reining in a bloated state. • Meet Brian Leishman, the leftwinger holding Keir Starmer's feet to the fire Yet, the chief culprit for Labour's malaise must be Sir Keir. Great prime ministers ultimately delegate to no one in central areas of policy like welfare reform, which must continue if the public finances are to be rescued. Equally, a leader who ignores his backbenchers, especially after a landslide has produced hordes of naive and ambitious new ones, is asking for trouble. In an interview marking his first year, Sir Keir admitted to presentational errors. But the problem runs deeper. This government increasingly comes across as inept: kneejerk rather than strategic in policy implementation, subject to panic and surrender at the first whiff of cordite. Some £4.5 billion has been shaved off its wafer-thin fiscal headroom by the welfare retreat. Autumn tax rises loom; bond markets grow sceptical; deeper unpopularity beckons. Sir Keir handled Donald Trump well, and mended ties with Europe, but he will live or die on the domestic battlefield. Wage growth is forecast to stagnate; Reform would be the biggest party in an election tomorrow. To survive, Sir Keir must become a dominating personality not a bureaucrat, gripping policy, punishing failure, espousing a vision. He must become what he has never truly reconciled himself to being: a politician. If not, there's always someone else willing to have a go.
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
‘You have to fight tooth and nail': PIP claimants tell of struggle to get awarded as Labour accused of making it harder
Sarah has just found out that she will likely be able to keep her Personal Independence Payment (PIP) after months of worry. The 40-year-old mother-of-one works from home, which allows her to juggle life with being a new parent and her disabilities. Chronic fatigue syndrome in her joints means she regularly experiences brain fog and exhaustion, and needs help. And it's her PIP that makes this possible, helping her to afford a carer, stay in work and spend time with her baby. Claimed by 3.7 million people, the health-linked benefit at the heart of Labour's proposed welfare reforms is designed to help with extra costs incurred by living with an illness or disability. The government's concessions on plans to cut welfare spending now mean that Sarah won't be subject to stricter eligibility criteria when next assessed for the benefit. Instead, from November 2026, only new claimants look set to be subject to the tighter criteria, under Labour's bill going through Parliament. But Sarah says she is struggling to see this as a victory. 'If there's another Sarah who's born a few years later, and ended up in this situation, it's still just as appalling,' she says. 'It's encouraging some disabled people to throw other disabled people under the bus. And it's vicious, because it relies on some people being scared enough to say 'well, we'll take what we can get'.' And like so many others, Sarah did not find applying for PIP an easy process to begin with. 'It feels really deliberate' 'It feels like you're being tripped up constantly,' Sarah says. 'It feels really deliberate, how difficult it is. It feels extremely deliberate. Because there are so many ways it can be made more accessible to disabled people.' Halfway through her assessment for PIP, Sarah's infant daughter started to cry in the other room. This caused her to panic, and she shouted to her husband that the baby might need changing. Because of this 'the assessor said I was clearly able to respond to my daughter's needs and assess what she needed,' Sarah says. 'But I said to him I can't care for my daughter on my own, I rely on other people doing that for me. I need somebody with me while I'm with her.' None of this was included in his report, she claims. And it's not just Sarah. Ginny's husband Tim was diagnosed with myotonic muscular dystrophy in 2006, a progressive genetic condition that affects muscles and movement. The mother-of-two works part-time while also caring for her husband full-time. His PIP award means means Ginny is entitled to a £200 Carers Allowance, which she says is essential to support her family. 'Tim doesn't like to admit it, but people frequently can't understand what he says. Every day I'm asking him to repeat himself as his wife, and I know him well,' Ginny explains. 'He was asked to repeat himself at least five times during the assessment. But when it came to the report, it said the assessor had no problem understanding him.' Ginny says the assessor also wrote down that Tim was managing to work part-time for 25 hours as a library assistant. He was actually working just 25 hours a month, just over six hours a week, Ginny says. 'Do you have a dog?' At a PIP assessment, the assessor will decide if an applicant has limited ability to carry out daily living activities. They do this by asking applicants to carry out a range of activities, awarding them points based on how limited their ability is. According to one former assessor, opening questions might include: 'How are you doing today? How did you get here? Do you have a dog?' An applicant could be forgiven for thinking these questions are just small talk, their PIP assessor being friendly and trying to ease them into the process. But in most cases, the assessment has already begun, the former worker says. How they answer these questions could be the difference between a lifeline to pay for their health-related costs or nothing. The former assessor, who wished to remain anonymous, said this approach is standard for PIP assessors. It is permitted under the DWP 's PIP assessment guide, which recommends assessors carry out 'informal observations' that may 'show discrepancies'. 'As soon as you say to them, 'I'm here to do the assessment, is that OK?' and they say yes, it's started,' she explains. 'And then you'll comment, you'll look around the room for photographs of them on holiday, of children. You're looking for evidence that they're not telling the truth.' According to polling by disability charity Sense, over half (51 per cent) of disabled people with complex needs report feeling humiliated during benefits assessment. A further 45 per cent said the process made their symptoms worse. The charity's policy adviser, Evan John, said: 'I think sometimes when you hear some of the discussion around PIP, somebody might think that it was an easy benefit to claim, but that experience is really divorced from the experiences of disabled people.' 'We'd like to see a system that treats disabled people with dignity, that assess people fairly, but doesn't make them feel like criminals for trying to access the support they need.' 'You have to fight tooth and nail' Neither Sarah nor Tim were awarded any points at their PIP assessment. Instead, they asked for a mandatory consideration, but were turned down and faced a lengthy wait for an appeal at a tribunal. 'We went to mandatory consideration fully aware that they would just turn that down because that seems to be the standard with them,' Ginny says. 'But that was just a step to go to appeal.' Sarah was only given the lowest rate of PIP after tribunal, while Tim was awarded his in light of more medical evidence. Around 56 per cent of PIP assessments resulted in a reward between 2019 and 2024. But around two-thirds of decisions are overturned at the tribunal stage, independent of the DWP, by a panel of decision-makers including a judge. 'You have to fight tooth and nail,' Ginny says. 'All the government's talk about 'people just are getting this too easily' or 'supporting people who have the most severe conditions'. 'In my book, my husband has a severe condition and it just feels like they're redefining disability to suit themselves.' It remains to be seen whether the government's concessions over its welfare plans will be enough to appease wavering backbenchers with MPs set to vote on the measures on Tuesday. A DWP spokesperson said: 'The fact is that PIP assessment suppliers and healthcare professionals are involved in the process but are only one part of the evidence used – they have no role in the decision-making process, and are clearly instructed not to base their opinions solely on the situation seen at assessment. 'We're creating a sustainable welfare system that genuinely supports sick and disabled people while always protecting those who need it most, and at the heart of this is our review of the PIP assessment to ensure it is fit for the future. 'We will work with disabled people and a range of experts on this as we deliver our Plan for Change.'
Daily Mirror
2 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
Wrexham owner and Hollywood star files documents to officially change his name
Wrexham FC co-owner Rob McElhenney's wife and his It's Sunny in Philadelphia co-star Kaitlin Olson claimed the couple's kids are not in favour of the name change Wrexham FC co-owner Rob McElhenney has filed documents to legally change his name. The It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia star, whose character in the show is known as Mac, wants to be known .by the name Rob Mac in real-life, according to documents filed in Los Angeles. The shortened versions of his first and last names are a far cry from his full title of Robert McElhenney III. He first mentioned his intention to change his name in an interview with US outlet Variety in May, telling them: 'As our business and our storytelling is expanding into other regions of the world and other languages in which my name is even harder to pronounce, I'm just going by Rob Mac. McElhenney's wife and It's Sunny in Philadelphia co-star Kaitlin Olson has said the couple's kids are not in favour of the change and suggested she is also concerned about it. She said: 'The kids are really not happy about it because they have that last name. And so do I, legally!'. He launched private company 'More Better Industries' in 2024, and was part owner of Philadelphia bar 'Mac's Tavern,' which announced Monday it was closing after 15 years in business. McElhenney, 48, and fellow Hollywood actor Ryan Reynolds, 48, bought Wrexham football club in 2021. They have since been credited with a 50 per cent surge in visitors to the Welsh city after charting the club's rise to the Championship on Disney+ series Welcome to Wrexham. The show is a big hit in the US, where last month alone more than 300,000 people searched for Wrexham content on internet site Reddit. Tourism chiefs say it is part of the set-jet trend inspired by what people see on TV.
