|
 |
| |
THE POWERS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY FOR
WALES: ISSUES AND QUESTIONS FOR CONSULTATION
|
|
RESPONSE TO THE RICHARD COMMISSION BY
THE COUNTRYSIDE COUNCIL FOR WALES
|
|
|
1
|
The Countryside Council for Wales (CCW)
is the Government’s statutory adviser on sustaining
natural beauty, wildlife and the opportunity for outdoor
enjoyment throughout Wales and its inshore waters. With
English Nature and Scottish Natural Heritage, we deliver
our wider statutory responsibilities - for Great Britain
as a whole and internationally - through the Joint Nature
Conservation Committee.
|
| 2 |
CCW welcomes the opportunity to respond to
the Richard Commission consultation. Our comments arise
from two perspectives; from that of an executive and advisory
agency working within the existing legislature and from
dealing at first hand with the Assembly Government, Members
and staff. Our response below follows the convention of
your consultation document although, as the specific questions
posed are often not particularly relevant to us, we have
instead commented on each of the major issues. It is also
important to remember that our locus is on environmental
legislation, now largely emanating from Europe. |
|
| 3 |
CCW’s powers are derived primarily from
Westminster legislation. We are funded, to approximately
£60m in financial year 2003/04, by the Assembly. About
2/3 of this funding is allocated by our Assembly sponsor
(Countryside Division) for our overall natural heritage
work. The remaining 1/3 of our funding comes under the
Agriculture and Rural Affairs Division and is provided
for delivery of the flagship Tir Gofal agri-environment
scheme. We have some 650 staff, located in 11 offices
throughout Wales and delivering nationally-consistent
services within a local context. We are the only all-Wales
ASPB to have its headquarters in North Wales. We champion
the natural heritage of Wales – our land- and sea-scapes,
habitats and species – by: |
|
|
|
- safeguarding the most important
examples through statutory designation (National Parks;
Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty; access land; National
Nature Reserves; Special Areas of Conservation; Sites
of Special Scientific Interest etc.) and ongoing sustainable
management, generally in partnership with owner-occupiers. |
|
- improving the general quality through
managing grant-aid schemes and other means of assistance
that enable others to practice environmentally-sustainable
management. Tir Gofal represents the most extensive scheme
in our current portfolio. |
|
- enthusing the people of –
and visitors to – Wales about the quality of our
environment, the wealth of opportunities for enjoyment
it affords and the importance of caring for it for future
generations. Our primary aim, in this respect, is to connect
people with nature. |
|
- advising all levels of government
– but especially our National Assembly – on
every aspect of this economically and socially important
asset |
|
We ensure, through close working with our
sister agencies, that our approach is consistent UK-wide.
Our joint funding of the JNCC allows us to develop common
standards of delivery, to pool our common research and
development needs, to deal with offshore marine work efficiently
and to satisfy the UK’s international obligations.
Whilst delivery across the UK is to consistent standards,
the extent of delivery is for us – as for all the
countries – largely dependent upon the environmental
priorities of Wales. |
|
|
|
First Issue : Are the powers
of the National Assembly sufficient to meet the needs
of Wales?
|
|
4
|
In general, yes, but an ability akin
to Scotland’s so-called ‘Sewell provision’,
whereby the National Assembly could simply decide to
adopt without change legislation being carried forward
in England would, we believe, be a useful and practical
advantage to Wales. Under this provision, the Assembly
would retain the devolved function and the power to
"opt back out" of legislation being developed in Westminster
if, during its preparation and course through Parliament,
it was amended in a way that made it less acceptable
to Wales. However, particularly in respect of secondary
legislation, most provisions drafted outside Wales have
passed through the Assembly without amendment and, based
on experience to date, the need to "opt back out" would
seem to be rare.
|
| 5 |
A current example of where such provision
would benefit Wales is given by the Hedgerow Regulations,
which are being updated in England. DEFRA has directed
staff resources to consultation on changes and subsequent
drafting of amendments which are entirely logical, necessary
and uncontroversial. The problem and solution is almost
identical for Wales and, rather than Assembly resources
being devoted to "shadowing" the work done elsewhere,
a ‘Sewell provision’ would enable Wales to realise
the benefits more immediately and efficiently. |
| 6 |
We also have concerns over the impact of
some non-devolved matters on the ability of the Assembly
to deliver its aspirations, particularly with respect
to the sustainable development duty – a duty that
does not apply in the same way to the rest of the
UK. The National Assembly has a clearly articulated energy
policy but it does not have the power to take decisions
on major energy projects (over 50 megawatt), as these
powers currently reside with the DTI. The Assembly is
thus accountable to the people of Wales but does not have
the devolved responsibility that is necessary for its
policy to be fully delivered. We believe that such responsibility
should be devolved to the Assembly, enabling future energy
development in Wales to be delivered through the Wales
Spatial Plan. The Cefn Croes windfarm project is a recent
example of an energy development in Wales determined by
DTI and there will, as matters stand, be many other such
projects determined outside Wales in the near future.
|
|
|
|
Second Issue : Structure and working
arrangements of the National Assembly
|
|
7
|
We enjoy a close and harmonious working
relationship with the staff of the National Assembly
for Wales, particularly our sponsorship division (Countryside
Division) and the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Division.
We welcome the consensual nature of the Assembly but
are concerned that scrutiny may not always be effective.
We find, for example, that Subject Committee lines of
inquiry and questioning are not, on occasion, sufficiently
searching or thorough and could be improved by:
|
|
- Enhanced understanding by the relevant Subjet
believe Subject Committees should formalise arrangements
whereby members can gain first hand experience of
the work of ASPBs early in their appointment to Committees.
|
|
- Committee members’ tenure (length of service)
being governed by the Assembly’s Standing Orders,
in order to ensure continuity and the development
of personal expertise.
|
|
8
|
Although the Assembly is increasingly
proficient at developing secondary legislation
and has generated momentum in this area, we would observe
that insufficient opportunity is provided for Subject
Committee scrutiny of this legislation. This could,
in our view, be partly resolved by wider use of the
procedure adopted by the Agriculture and Rural Affairs
Committee - of appending a list of proposed secondary
legislation to the Minister’s Report on a monthly
basis - offering Committee members an opportunity to
comment on draft legislation at an early stage. This
does not, however, address the resultant issue that
taking advantage of any additional scrutiny would add
further pressure to already-full Committee timetables.
A potential solution might be to develop scrutiny sub-committees
reporting to the main committees.
|
|
|
|
Third Issue : The relationship between
the Assembly in Cardiff and the Parliament at Westminster
|
| 9 |
The way in which the National Assembly promotes
legislation onto the Westminster agenda could be clearer.
We also feel that the restriction (in practice) of a single
piece of Wales-only legislation in the Queen’s Speech
each year may be inadequate. |
| 10 |
We are also concerned that the Assembly needs
to increase its capacity for effective scrutiny of primary
legislation. The Countryside and Rights of Way Act was
drafted early in the Assembly’s life when, for various
reasons, it was not able to devote sufficient time to
this important piece of legislation. As a result, the
Assembly relied heavily on CCW to scrutinise and propose
amendments to the draft Bill. The present practice of
scrutiny of primary legislation by the relevant subject
committee may not provide sufficient resource for this
task. |
|
11
|
Despite this, we are encouraged at the
rate of increase in the Assembly’s secondary law
making programme in the past two years. Should any primary
powers be devolved, it must be cautioned that the necessary
skills – particularly of Bill drafting and technical/scientific
expertise – will need to become significantly more
developed.
|
|
12
|
A linked issue - though it has yet to
arise in either Scotland or Wales - is what happens
when the governing political party in a devolved country
is different to that in Westminster. We believe the
Commission has an opportunity to clarify the extent
to which current co-operation over primary legislation
between the two administrations depends on a shared
political agenda. There probably needs to be a much
clearer procedural understanding between the two legislatures
including, from our narrower perspective, clarification
of the ability of Select Committees at Westminster to
call Welsh ASPBs to account or for ASPBs to submit evidence
independent of a Welsh Assembly Government view.
|
|
|
|
Fourth Issue : The role of the UK Government
and the Secretary of State for Wales
|
| 13 |
Please refer to our response under the first
issue. In addition, we consider that the absence of a
mechanism whereby the Secretary of State for Wales can
be scrutinised regularly by the Assembly is an omission
and we would invite the Commission to include in its report
recommendations to remedy this. |
|
|
| Fifth Issue : Relations between
the Assembly and Whitehall |
| 14 |
As stated earlier, most of the legislation
which we implement arises from Europe and is, through
our close working relationships with our sister agencies
and our funding of the JNCC, delivered to a common standard
across the UK. However, we would again commend to you
the adoption of a ‘Sewell provision’. |
|
|
| Sixth Issue : The financial
context |
| 15 |
We offer no comment on this issue other than
to say that financial arrangements must allow the Assembly
to deal with the priorities facing Wales. |
|
|
| Seventh Issue : Funding streams |
| 16 |
Currently this is not a major issue for our organisation,
because we are almost wholly-funded from within Wales.
However, this situation could change if modulation of
agricultural support increases. |
|
April 2003 |
|
|
|
