FUW Evidence to the Richard Commission on the Assembly’s Powers and Electoral Arrangements

Introduction
The Farmers’ Union of Wales (FUW) welcomes the opportunity to submit views to the Richard Commission. In preparing this submission, the Commission’s Terms of Reference have steered the content.
The FUW was established as an independent farming union to represent and promote the best interests of traditional family farms in Wales. Its policies are determined by its grass-roots membership and are never compromised to satisfy the differing aspirations of farmers outside Wales, though it has developed links with organisations in other parts of the UK and the EU with similar priorities.
The Union was the only farming organisation to pledge its support for the National Assembly for Wales (NAW) in advance of the referendum, believing that the interests of farmers and the rural economy of Wales would be best served by policies determined and fashioned, where possible, by the elected representatives of the NAW who, the Union was confident, would be more attuned to the particular concerns and needs of Wales’ rural areas.
The first Assembly elections on 6th May 1999 represented a major landmark in the history of Wales and, irrespective of our views on the success or otherwise of the NAW during its first term, we must remember that we now have a national body dedicated to looking after the affairs of Wales and its people. The past four years have been extremely difficult for agriculture, and have also been turbulent ones for the Assembly. The foot and mouth disease crisis destroyed the livelihoods of farmers, tourist operators, and rural businesses, and dominated the agricultural agenda during 2001 and for much of 2002. There has been a great deal of debate over the lessons to be learned from this tragic episode, and one lesson which we sincerely hope the Richard Commission will address is that of granting the Assembly legislative parity with Scotland and Northern Ireland. During the course of the FMD outbreak, a number of decisions crucial to Wales were either delayed or implemented ineffectively by DEFRA due to a lack of understanding of the nature of Welsh agriculture - decisions which could have been taken by the Assembly had they had the same legislative authority as the Scottish Parliament.

The Union believes that there is a fundamental weakness in the Government of Wales Act, in that in Wales, despite the devolution of executive and secondary powers together with power of investigation and debate, not one single area of responsibility has been transferred from Westminster.

Instead, the Assembly has inherited the powers that previously belonged to the Secretary of State. Over the years, the Secretary of State was given these powers which, at first, were very limited, but over a period of time, responsibilities were added to this remit, but on an ad-hoc basis.

In Scotland, the Scottish Parliament is responsible for areas including agriculture, police, transport, education and health.
There is confusion as a result of this incomplete transfer of powers - confusion which exists at many levels, the most apparent being that of the general public. Rather than exercising powers by specific subject areas as in Scotland, the NAW exercises powers by reference to specific Acts of Parliament.

There is also a need to distinguish between the Welsh Assembly Government (WAG) and the National Assembly for Wales (NAW). The FUW has led the way in so doing at every opportunity.
Trying to establish the precise powers and detailed responsibilities of the NAW is very difficult and time consuming. The Welsh Assembly Government’s lawyers in particular face difficulties in trying to establish exactly what are the powers of the Assembly to administer and to pass subordinate legislation are.
Whilst Scotland does have a separate legal system, the Northern Ireland legal system is not substantially different from the law of England.
The FUW is therefore firmly of the view that there should be no need for the WAG to seek Parliamentary time via the Secretary of State for Wales to pass legislation essential to Wales.

Committee structure
The FUW is not persuaded that there are enough members to carry out the work of the committees. Scrutiny of subordinate legislation by Committees is determined largely by civil servants and is often time constrained.
The Scottish Parliament has 128 members. The population of Scotland is five million.
The NAW has 60 members. Wales has a population of three million.

The Northern Ireland Assembly has 108 members. The population of Northern Ireland is one million.
Many Assembly Members (AMs) sit on more than one subject committee, which means that time is a limiting factor in terms of Committee’s ability to scrutinize subordinate legislation. The Chairs of the 14 Assembly Committees are therefore unable to fully participate in the scrutiny of legislation, and are largely limited to addressing procedural matters. Many of the 60 Assembly members are unable to fully involve themselves in policy making and scrutiny of legislation, given the pressures which exist on their time.
Unless Committees are able to influence primary legislation through Assembly Ministers prior to legislation being drafted in Westminster, then the opportunity to shape the content of such legislation is, in the Union’s opinion, compromised.

The transfer of Animal Health powers to the National Assembly
The State Veterinary Service (SVS) is not legally accountable to WAG ministers. Responsibility for the eradication of Foot and Mouth disease rested with DEFRA. SVS staff were answering directly to DEFRA whereas WAG staff were acting as agents for DEFRA under Section 41 of the Government of Wales Act 1998. Powers to enact primary legislation for Wales in the animal health area remain with Parliament in Westminster.

During the Foot and Mouth disease epidemic, the FUW did not believe that MAFF/DEFRA understood the needs of Welsh farmers and were preoccupied with the disease situation in areas of England such as Cumbria. At the height of the crisis, MAFF/DEFRA was encountering 70 new cases per day whilst the total number of cases in Wales, at the time, amounted to 70.
The approach to eradicating FMD in Wales was complicated by the number of Government agencies involved. Whilst MAFF/DEFRA had overall responsibility for eradicating FMD in the UK, the National Assembly for Wales (NAW) only had responsibility for certain aspects of disease control, acting as agents for MAFF/DEFRA. Responsibility for the State Veterinary Service (SVS) also lies in London with MAFF/DEFRA. The Assistant Chief Veterinary Officer (ACVO) is based in Cardiff but answers to the CVO in DEFRA, London.

Liaison meetings between the FUW and the Minister for Rural Affairs were crucially important in terms of information dissemination and constructive criticism. These meetings provided an opportunity to assess developments on a regular basis and proved to be a highly effective link between the industry and the Welsh Assembly Government.
One of the main features of the whole FMD experience related to the close working relationships established between FUW and WAG staff. Such co-operation developed in an endeavour to influence DEFRA decision-makers in London, who obviously knew very little about the needs of Welsh agriculture.

Ultimately, the roles of the NAW & the WAG were often confused and unclear. Centralisation of decision-making in London, firstly at MAFF and latterly at DEFRA, led to serious delays. Farmers (and others) became increasingly frustrated by a situation where channels of communication were poor between MAFF/DEFRA, the WAG and Local Authorities.
DEFRA’s lack of understanding of Welsh agriculture is perhaps reflected most vividly with regard to common land, which covers approximately 10% of Wales. Many FUW members experienced problems when exercising their common rights, and the legislation governing the movement of sheep on and off commons was subject to major delay, thereby exacerbating an already difficult animal welfare situation. Often, farmers with fully enclosed commons grazed by a single flock were refused licences in the same way as farmers wanting to move sheep onto open commons where flock grazing rights were held by thirty or more farmers.
A telephone call to the MAFF/DEFRA helpline throughout the crisis would very often result in greater confusion than clarity for the caller as the advice was often vague, and contrary to the situation ‘on the ground’, and sometimes contradicted the advice coming from the State Veterinary Service (SVS) Divisional Animal Health Offices. For example, Ynys Môn was initially described by MAFF/DEFRA as Gwynedd.
Breakdowns in communication between MAFF/DEFRA and the WAG resulted in cases where MAFF/DEFRA culled out border farms and subsequently failed to inform Welsh officials, resulting in carcases being left on farm unnecessarily.
The FUW believes that WAG departments and Local Authorities, with their much better understanding of local circumstances, retained the confidence of the farming community during this extremely difficult period. By contrast, MAFF/DEFRA proved to be much less effective in dealing with the problems which were of greatest relevance to Welsh farmers, with the result that they are perceived as being unable to provide informed and consistent advice during any future disease outbreak.

Whilst animal health is not a devolved function, the NAW has responsibilities covering bovine TB, Brucellosis & warble fly.
The transfer of animal health powers to Wales is dependant upon the UK Government allocating Parliamentary time and has been the subject of detailed discussions between the WAG and UK Government since the three independent inquiries reported in Summer 2002.

The National Assembly for Wales & Europe
The Union welcomes the important step taken by the Welsh Assembly Government in joining with nine other Regional Governments to promote a Declaration in response to the Commission White Paper on European Governance. The Declaration called for greater involvement by the European Regions in European policy formulation, with the European Commission consulting directly with regional governments rather than via member states’ governments.
Whilst EU policy is mostly influenced via the UK Government on a member state level, the FUW believes that a positive response from the Commission to the above declaration would be to the benefit of the people of Wales. Despite having no legal basis, the Concordat on Co-ordination of EU Policy Issues, signed by the UK Government and the devolved administrations, has ensured that Wales has a certain amount of influence vis-à-vis the European Union policy of the UK Government. However, there is concern that, due to the greater legislative power of Scotland and other regions which came together to sign the ‘Political Declaration by the Constitutional Regions’ in May 2001, Wales may be in danger of being left behind by those regions demanding a formal distinction between the competences of the EU and those of its member states and constituent regions.

CONCLUSION
The Farmers’ Union of Wales is firmly of the opinion that the interests of the farmers and the rural economy of Wales are best served by policies determined and fashioned, where possible, by the elected representatives of the National Assembly for Wales. Comparison with the constitutional settlements achieved in both Scotland and Northern Ireland expose the weaknesses in the current arrangements, and the Union believes that the incomplete transfer of powers has led to confusion at all levels over the powers and functions of the Assembly. This contrasts with the Scottish situation and, to a lesser degree, the settlement in Northern Ireland, where there is much greater clarity, and the opportunity to act on the particular concerns of rural areas. There are numerous examples, including foot and mouth disease, the Hunting with Dogs Bill, and the Countryside and Rights of Way Act, where legislative parity with Scotland would have ensured an approach more attuned to the distinctive needs of Wales.
APRIL 2003