Reply to: / Atebi'r i: 47 NOLTON STREET / 47 HEOL NOLTON
BRIDGEND / PEN-Y-BONT AR OGWR
TEL: / FFON: 01656 645432
FAX: / FFACS: 01656 767551
E-mail: birde@parliament.uk

Evidence to the Richard Commission: Win Griffiths MP

In considering the deliberations of the Commission we need to remind ourselves that the form of devolution enacted for Wales was a compromise between those who wanted a parliamentary model and those who preferred the status quo. In the circumstances I believe this compromise had promise as a model which offered the Assembly significant opportunities through secondary legislation and held out the prospect of further developments over time. (In this context the gradual transfer of departmental responsibilities to the Welsh Office provides a precedent).

There is a danger that the Richard Commission could appear to be a rush to judgement. I well appreciate the political pressures which led to the establishment of the Commission, but given the extremely difficult circumstances in which the newly elected Assembly found itself – circumstances completely beyond its control – a year or so was effectively lost before the Assembly was able to focus fully on its role as the new government of Wales (for the matters falling within the purview of the old Welsh Office).

Anecdotal evidence suggests that the Assembly is providing a successful point of contact between government in Wales and the whole panoply of the voluntary sector in a way that was not possible before devolution.

I am also assured that the commitment made before devolution to strengthen ties between the Assembly and local government in Wales is happening through the Partnership Council. Again, anecdotally, I have the impression that contact and communication between the "government" of Wales, as represented by the Assembly, as compared with the Welsh Office is much improved. I must admit I would have been incredibly disappointed if this had not been the case.

Whether the Assembly needs more powers, including tax raising powers, needs to be considered first in the context of the way in which the Assembly is using its current powers and post – devolution relationship with Westminster to meet the expectations of the people of Wales.

On the positive side there have been a number of significant successes at Westminster by way of the Children’s Commissioner for Wales Act, the Health (Wales) Act, Welsh aspects of other Health and Education Acts/Bills with clauses aimed at meeting specific Assembly proposals. Additionally using powers under the Transfer of Functions Orders the Assembly has developed policy initiaves aimed at specific Welsh needs.

On the down side it could be argued that the Assembly has not exploited in full its secondary legislative powers. I was more than surprised to learn that less than 2% of Statutory Instruments had been given detailed scrutiny in committee and that only just over a quarter had been debated in plenary sessions. Over 70% of SIs were not subjected to any debate.

By the time I came to write this submissions I had hoped to have received from the Assembly a detailed analysis of how the Assembly had used its business hours. It has not been possible for me, therefore, to substantiate the feeling I have from press reporting (dangerous to draw conclusions, perhaps!), that the Assembly had the scope in its business hours to look in more detail at secondary legislation.

If, at some later stage, the Assembly were to acquire primary law making powers they would not need to be reconstituted on the basis of the Westminster Parliamentary model though I’m sure some legal/technical changes in the status of the Assembly would need to be made (a subject for the legal/constitutional experts).

I also believe that an Assembly with primary powers would need more members – probably between ten and twenty.

In the main the relationship between the Assembly and Parliament has been good but to be at its best it does require a very high level of co-operation and contact – not just at the statutory institutional level but at the political level between AMs and MPs in general and at party level in particular. This is not easy to achieve.

If the Assembly was to get primary law making powers then there would be a case for reducing representation a t Westminster by about ten seats. I believe there would still be a need for a Secretary of State for Wales but probably not for a Parliamentary Under Secretary. In the circumstances I believe it would be important for contact to be maintained with English departments and the other devolved institutions so that there was an opportunity to benefit from expertise and experience available in the UK.

I do not believe it is possible to develop a cost benefit analysis model on which to base a decision. There should, however, be a full analysis of the financial consequences – bearing in mind the savings that would be made at the Westminster end of the equation.

As far as electoral arrangements are concerned, I feel there is no perfect system but that it is important to maintain an element of proportionality where, under first past the post, it is difficult to envisage anything other than a clear Labour victory in Assembly elections.

The present proportional system – looking at Westminster results – in normal circumstances would make for a Labour majority. We know, however, that this did not happen at the first elections, and that in the second elections Labour did not achieve a comfortable majority.

I do not believe the proportional system can be blamed. It was out own shortcomings that led to the results which so disappointed Labour Party members and supporters. There is, however, a case for refining the present system. I believe that candidates for constituency seats should not be eligible for the list seats, that list members should be clearly designated as List Assembly members (LAM) or Regional Assembly Members (RAM). They should not be able to give the impression that they are constituency members. In this context some thought also needs to be given to the resources made available to them.

To conclude, its too early to make a judgement about moving towards primary law making powers. Should such a move come to be contemplated for parliamentary action at Westminster the issue of a referendum would have to be considered.

Would it be practical for the move to law making powers to be gradual – in the same way that the Welsh Office itself accumulated its own responsibilities over the years? (I only ask the question for discussion!). In this circumstance would it be essential to have a referendum to start the process? (Again, a point for consideration!).