Supplementary Memorandum from the Countryside Council for Wales

Electoral arrangements of the National Assembly for Wales: issues and questions for consultation

Introduction

The Countryside Council for Wales (CCW) welcomes the opportunity to respond to this consultation. We responded to the earlier consultation on the powers of the Assembly; some of the observations we made in that response apply equally to this part of the consultation.
The Commission’s Terms of Reference include 3 distinct elements:
  • whether the size of the Assembly is adequate to its present job
  • whether the present electoral system is sufficiently representative
  • whether any change in functions would be needed if the Assembly were to acquire further powers.
Our comments below are mainly confined to the first of the above points, although any increase in powers and / or numbers is likely to impact on the workload and resources of our organisation. We would be happy to explain the implications in more detail if required. Our overriding concern would be to ensure that any changes in legislation, arising from greater powers and that affected out interests, were consistent with our statutory duties in respect of European law and our joint UK responsibilities for nature conservation.

General comments
The party system of determining electoral power inevitably means that there will be talented people in opposition parties whose abilities cannot be fully deployed to the benefit of Wales. With this in mind, we suggest the Commission gives due weight to any proposals that seek to maximise the potential for such people throughout Wales to contribute to public life through the Assembly, whether or not there are to be changes to the Assembly’s powers or its electoral arrangements.
The size of the Assembly - with no change in functions :
  • scrutiny – examining the actions of the Assembly Government
  • policy development – analysing problems and recommending solutions
We confine our comments to the above two roles. In both cases we argue that the issue is more to do with how the Assembly in its current size is organised and how its resources are delpoyed. In theory, most of the scrutiny and policy development work of the Assembly (by the 44 Members that are not Ministers, Deputy Ministers or Presiding Officer and DPO) is done through Subject Committees. There is criticism that this function is not undertaken effectively, a view we by and large share. It appears that these Committees will from now on meet less frequently than the two week intervals in the Assembly’s first term, with the obvious consequence that Committees will do less scrutiny and policy development. In the case of our particular interests, two portfolios - those of Environment and Planning and of Agriculture - have been amalgamated into one portfolio and respective Subject Committee. This must inevitably exacerbate the problem encountered in the first term.
One way of increasing the Assembly’s capacity within its existing overall numbers would be to appoint bespoke ‘task-and-finish’ groups or standing sub-committees, to undertake scrutiny and policy development on behalf of Subject Committees, with their work presented to the ‘main’ Subject Committees for ratification. This could represent better deployment of the Assembly’s existing Members and consideration could also be given to co-option of academics, businesspeople and NGOs to assist the Assembly’s policy making.
We feel that there is also scope to improve the efficiency of Subject Committees. Time spent on some previous Subject Committee reviews has, in our view, been disproportionate to the use made of their findings (the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee’s Review of Diversification is an example). Some reviews have covered already well-researched ground and others have produced no clear outputs. There have been good examples of policy review; the former Environment, Planning and Transport Committee’s review of Biodiversity was relatively short, involving a high standard of debate in Committee with representative organizations and produced good recommendations, most of which were taken up by the Assembly Government.
The chairmanship of Committees has been of mixed quality. Much of the Subject Committees’ time in meetings has been swallowed up by overlong presentations by invited organisations together with tangential debate and questioning. This is easily rectified through affording training and guidance.
We welcome the institution of the Presiding Office Members’ Research teams which will we hope sharpen up questioning of Ministers and ASPBs by Committee members, help develop policy and scrutinise legislation.
In summary, therefore, it is not easy to judge whether more Assembly Members are needed as there appear to be opportunities for more efficient and effective working arrangements within the present establishment.
The size of the Assembly with the acquisition of further powers
We do not feel it appropriate for us to comment on this. However, we reiterate our comments above that any deliberations on increasing the size of the Assembly should be preceded, and informed by, a review of the potential for streamlining current operations.
Is the Assembly sufficiently representative?
the extent to which Members’ policy priorities represent the concerns of the people of Wales
We restrict our comments to one of the definitions of representativeness. It has become clear from the Assembly’s first session that the policy development process involves a number of factors:

lobby group influence
party political beliefs and traditions
beliefs of individual AMs
personal contact between the public and AMs
objective research
Assembly Committee policy work
ASPB advice
Civil service advice (including legal considerations of policy decisions)

Whether, put together, these represent the concerns of the people of Wales is difficult to assess. Our observations of the process to date are that;
Business interests are under-represented among Assembly Members
Perceived legal constraints (for example European law) have limited the development of some radical policy-making, such as on the Common Agricultural Policy and GM crops
The Assembly’s success in engaging the wider public (for example in Regional Committees and the ballot box) has been limited.
With this in mind, it cannot be said with surety that the Assembly is representative in terms of the interests or policy priorities of the people of Wales, though this may well be compounded by ambivalence on the part of the electorate itself.
In conclusion, the Assembly is in our view improving as it develops and has already made a significant contribution to improving the environment in Wales. We welcome the accountability and closer scrutiny brought by the Assembly of our work and look forward to contributing to its work in future years.
Countryside Council For Wales
June 2003

Memorandwm Ychwanegol Cyngor Cefn Gwlad Cymru
Trefniadau etholaethol Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru: materion a chwestiynau ar gyfer ymgynghori
Rhagarweiniad
Mae Cyngor Cefn Gwlad Cymru (CCGC) yn croesawu’r cyfle i ymateb i’r ymgynghoriad hwn. Ymatebasom i’r ymgynghoriad blaenorol ar bwerau’r Cynulliad; mae rhai o’r sylwadau a wnaethom yn yr ymateb hwnnw yr un mor berthnasol i’r rhan hon o’r ymgynghoriad.
Mae Amodau Gorchwyl y Comisiwn yn cynnwys 3 elfen wahanol:
  • a yw maint y Cynulliad yn ddigonol ar gyfer ei waith presennol
  • a yw’r system etholaethol bresennol yn ddigon cynrychiadol
  • a fyddai angen unrhyw newid i swyddogaethau pe bai’r Cynulliad yn cael mwy o bwerau.
Cyfyngir ein sylwadau isod yn bennaf i’r cyntaf o’r pwyntiau uchod, er bod unrhyw gynnydd mewn pwerau a/neu nifer yn debygol o gael effaith ar faich gwaith ac adnoddau ein sefydliad. Byddem yn falch o egluro’r goblygiadau yn fanylach pe bai angen. Ein pryder mwyaf fyddai sicrhau bod unrhyw newidiadau i deddfwriaeth, yn deillio o fwy o pwerau ac a fyddai’n effeithio’n buddiannau, yn gyson â’n dyletswyddau statudol mewn perthynas â chyfraith Ewropeaidd a’n cyd-gyfrifoldebau dros warchodaeth natur yn y DU.
Sylwadau cyffredinol
Mae’r system bleidiol o benderfynu pwer etholaethol yn golygu yn anochel y bydd pobl dalentog mewn gwrthbleidiau na ellir defnyddio eu galluoedd yn llawn er lles Cymru. Gyda hyn mewn golwg, awgrymwn fod y Comisiwn yn talu sylw priodol i unrhyw gynigion sy’n ceisio mwyafu potensial pobl debyg ledled Cymru er mwyn cyfrannu i fywyd cyhoeddus drwy’r Cynulliad, pa un a fydd newidiadau i bwerau’r Cynulliad neu ei drefniadau etholaethol ai peidio.
Maint y Cynulliad - heb newid i’w swyddogaethau :
  • archwilio – archwilio gweithredoedd Llywodraeth y Cynulliad
  • datblygu polisi – dadansoddi problemau ac argymell atebion iddynt
Cyfyngwn ein sylwadau i’r ddwy rôl uchod. Yn y ddwy achos rydym yn dadlau bod a wnelo’r mater hwn fwy â sut y trefnir y Cynulliad yn ei faint presennol a sut y defnyddir ei adnoddau. Yn ddamcaniaethol,gwneir y rhan fwyaf o waith archwilio a datblygu polisi’r Cynulliad (gan y 44 o Aelodau nad ydynt yn Weinidogion,
Dirprwy Weinidogion neu Swyddog Gweinyddol a Dirprwy Swyddog Gweinyddol) drwy gyfrwng Pwyllgorau
Pwnc. Ceir beirniadaeth nad yw’r swyddogaeth hon yn cael ei gwneud yn effeithiol, ac ar y cyfan rydym yn gytun â’r farn hon. Ymddengys y bydd y Pwyllgorau hyn yn cwrdd yn llai aml o hyn ymlaen nawr na’r cyfnodau o bythefnos yn nhymor cyntaf y Cynulliad, a’r canlyniad amlwg yw y bydd Pwyllgorau yn gwneud llai o waith archwilio a datblygu polisi. Yn achos ein buddiannau arbennig ein hunain, cafodd dau bortffolio – Amgylchedd a Chynllunio, ac Amaethyddiaeth - eu cyfuno i un portffolio a Phwyllgor Pwnc. Bydd hyn o angenrhaid yn gwaethygu’r broblem a gafwyd yn y tymor cyntaf. Un ffordd o gynyddu galluedd y Cynulliad oddi mewn i’w rhifau cyfannol presennpol fyddai penodi grwpiau un pwrpas ‘gwaith a gorffen’ neu is- bwyllgorau sefydlog, i wneud gwaith archwilio a datblygu polisi ar ran Pwyllgorau Pwnc, gan gyflwyno’u  gwaith i ‘brif’ Pwyllgorau Pwnc i’w gadarnhau. Gallai hyn olygu gwell defnydd o Aelodau presennol y  Cynulliad a gellid ystyried cyfetholi a phobl academaidd, pobl fusnes ac Sefydliadau Anllywodraethol i gynorthwyo’r Cynulliad â’r gwaith o wneud polisi.
Teimlwn hefyd fod lle i wella effeithiolrwydd Pwyllgorau Pwnc. Yn ein barn ni, mae’r amser a dreuliwyd a rai arolygon blaenorol gan Bwyllgorau Pwnc wedi bod yn anghyfartal â’r defnydd a waned o’u casgliadau (un enghraifft yw’r Arolwg o Arallgyfeirio gan Bwyllgor Amaethyddiaeth a Materion Gwledig). Mae rhai arolygon wedi ymdrin â materion sydd wedi eu hymchwilio’n dda yn barod ac mae eraill wedi methu â chynhyrchu allbynnau clir. Cafwyd enghreifftiau da o arolwg polisi; roedd arolwg y Pwyllgor Amgylchedd, Cynllunio a Chludiant gynt yn gymharol fyr, yn cynnwys safon uchel o ddadlau’r pwnc mewn Pwyllgor gyda sefydliadau cynrychioladol, cyflwynodd argymhellion da, a derbyniwyd y mwyafrif ohonynt gan Lywodraeth y Cynulliad.
Mae cadeiryddion y Pwyllgorau wedi bod o ansawdd gymysg. Cafodd llawer iawn o amser y Pwyllgorau Pwnc mewn cyfarfodydd ei lyncu gan gyflwyniadau rhy hir gan sefydliadau a gafodd eu gwahodd, ynghyd ag ymryson a chwestiynau amherthnasol. Gellir cywiro hyn yn hawdd drwy hyfforddiant ac arweiniad. Croesawn sefydlu timau Ymchwil Aelodau’r Swyddfa Weinyddol a gobeithiwn y bydd hyn yn rhoi min ar holi Gweinidogion ac ASPBs gan aelodau Pwyllgor, ac yn helpu datblygu polisi ac archwilio deddfwriaeth. I grynhoi, felly, nid yw’n hawdd barnu a oes angen mwy o Aelodau Cynulliad gan ei fod yn ymddangos bod cyfleoedd am drefniadau gweithio mwy effeithiol ac effeithlon yn y sefydliad presennol.
Maint y Cynulliad gyda mwy o bwerau
Nid ydym yn teimlo mai ein lle ni yw gwneud sylwadau ar hyn. Fodd bynnag, ailadroddwn ein sylwadau uchod, sef y dylai unrhyw bendefyniadau ynghylch cynyddu maint y Cynulliad gael eu rhagflaenu, a’u nhysbysu, gan arolwg o’r potensial am ffrydio gweithrediadau presennol.
A yw’r Cynulliad yn ddigon cynrychiadol?
I ba raddau y mae blaenoriaethau polisi’r Aelodau yn cynrychioli pryderon pobl Cymru
Cyfyngwn ein sylwadau i un diffiniad o gynrychioldeb. Daeth yn amlwg o sesiwn gyntaf y Cynulliad fod y broses datblygu polisi’n cynnwys nifer o ffactorau:

dylanwad grwpiau gwasgu
credoau a thraddodiadau pleidiau gwleidyddol
credoau Aelodau unigol
cysylltiad personol rhwng aelodau o’r cyhoedd ac Aelodau o’r Cynulliad
ymchwil gwrthrychol
gwaith polisi Pwyllgorau’r Cynulliad
cyngor ASPB
cyngor y Gwasanaeth Sifil (yn cynnwys ystyriaethau cyfreithiol o benderfyniadau polisi).
Mae’n anodd asesu, wedi eu rhoi at ei gilydd, a yw’r uchod yn cynrychioli pryderon pobl Cymru. Dyma ein sylwadau ar y broses hyd yn hyn;
Mae buddiannau busnes yn cael eu tangynrychioli ymhlith Aelodau o’r Cynulliad
Mae cyfyngiadau cyfreithiol canfyddedig (er enghraifft, cyfraith Ewropeaidd) wedi cyfyngu datblygiad polisi radical, fel y Polisi Amaethyddol Cyffredin a chnydau GM
Mae llwyddiant y Cynulliad i gynnwys aelodau o’r cyhoedd (er enghraifft, mewn Pwyllgorau Rhanbarhol a’r blwch pleidleisio) wedi bod yn gyfyngedig.
Gyda hyn mewn golwg, ni ellir dweud â sicrwydd bod y Cynulliad yn gynrychiadol yn nhermau buddiannau neu flaenoriaethau polisi pobl Cymru, er y gall hyn gael ei gymhlethu gan amwysedd ar ran yr etholwyr eu hunain.
I orffen, yn ein barn ni mae’r Cynulliad yn gwella wrth iddo ddatblygu ac mae eisoes wedi gwneud cyfraniad sylweddol i wella’r amgylchedd yng Nghymru. Croesawn yr atebolrwydd a’r archwilio tynnach a ddaeth i’n gwaith yn sgil y Cynulliad ac edrychwn ymlaen at gyfrannu i’w waith yn y dyfodol.
Cyngor Cefn Gwlad Cymru
Mehefin 2003