| "Does the Government of Wales Act provide the Assembly with
the Powers it needs to operate effectively and meet the
expectations of the people of Wales?
The two key words in the question are ‘effectively’
and expectations’. A position on this question
is driven by whether you would want the Asembly to have
primary legislative powers or not; that is a more independent
Wales from Westminster or not. If more independence
is desirable then the Government of Wales Act does not
go far enough in that the power of primary legislation
is not afforded to the Assembly. I am not sure that
the ‘expectations of the people of Wales are clear.
What is reasonable accepted ground is a disillusionment
with politics in general and uncertainty about the role
of the Assembly. It is seen by many as a waste of time
and money; by others as a statement of national identity.
Whether, and if so how, the powers should be extended,
strengthened or changed and whether they should include
tax varying powers.
In essence this question covers the same territory
– more independence reuiqres more direct legislative
powers. Tax raising powers are the most obvious example
of how the institution of Government can directly assert
its influence and it is usually recognised the single
largest difference between Scotland and Wales is the
issue of tax raising powers. Other issues that occur
include, for example, control of police force.
If the Assembly were to acquire greater law making
powers – it is inevitable that it would need to
be reconstituted on the Parliamentary model?
‘Inevitably’ is probably a little strong,
but it is nevertheless very likely. It is important
that citizens recognise how the institutions of government
work and in the UK the parliamentary system is well
understood. There are however different designs, not
least of which is the European model, which accords
the same principles but organisationally looks very
different.
If so what organisational changes would be needed to
support this model and what would be the gains and losses
from making this change?
The citizenry would see a style of government that
they are used to if modelled on the Westminster way
of doing things. It is debatable whether the current
model has produced a more consensual form of politics
and the ability to work thematically has not been very
evident in the first term. It is therefore likely that
the losses will not be too great; the benefit may be
clearer government for the public.
How effective has the Assembly been in influencing
UK Government policy
making in relation to Wales – what are the practical
examples which illustrate the strengths and weaknesses
of the process?
Given that the art of influence is sometimes a hidden
one, it is very difficult fo rthe lay-person to determine
the relative success or failure of the Assembly in influencing
national policy. There are examples of where secondary
legislation has been used to abolish testing in primary
schools, to provide free school milk for infant children
etc, and there is the high profile issue of Wales receiving
Treasury support to match fund Objective 1. The ‘distinctly
Welsh’ policies do tend on the whole to be products
of secondary legislation and regulation. It is arguable
however, that this has only been possible through ensuring
sufficient space was created in the UK wide primary
legislation. Reality is unclear.
What are the advantages and disadvantages in principle
of having a law making process which is shared between
Cardiff and Westminster and what are the respective
contributions of AMs, MPs and Peers?
Respecting that the question is asked at a principles
level, the construct recognises the principle of subsidiarity
with decision making being delegated to the institution
closest to the public interface that has the capacity
and competence to make the decision. In keeping with
this AMs by their nature should be able to lead and
articulate locally based issues in a much more intense
way than MPs are able to. Similarly MPs should be able
to represent constituency views and interests at the
national level.
What would be gained or lost if powers to make fundamental
policy changes through primary legislation were passed
from Westminster to Cardiff?
Again the answer depends on personal position. Unionists
would claim that the inherent strength of a collective
UK position on issues of national concern would be weakened
in circumstances where Wales were empowered to take
a different view to Westminster. The scale of this threat
in reality is debatable as it is unlikely that primary
legislation on issues such as defence will be devolved.
There may be issues of economy of scale to address as
well as capacity questions about the ability of the
Civil Service to effectively service another institution
with primary legislation capacity. Supporters of more
independence would counter such positions based on the
principle that decisions that influence people’s
lives would be taken closer to home and are therefore
likely to be more informed, relevant and better.
How would Welsh interests be affected if the role of
Welsh MPs were to be
reduced as a consequence of the acquisition of primary
law making powers by the National Assembly?
It is necessary to be clear about how much devolution
is on the table. Absolute devolution would make it difficult
to justify the role of Welsh MPs. Reality suggests however
that such a position is unlikely and that primary law
making, at least initially would be limited. As such
Welsh MPs would continue to have a role in representing
the interests of the Principality in all arenas where
sovereignty of decision making remains in Westminster.
How would Welsh interests be affected if the Secretary
of State’s role was reduced as a consequence of
the acquisition of primary law making powers by the
Assembly?
The same argument as that rehearsed in the previous
question applies.
What would be gained or lost if there was a clearer
separation between
England and Wales in policy development and implementation?
The gain may manifest as more specific policy positions
directly aligned to Welsh needs rather than perhaps
UK wide interests. The most obvious loss would be the
skill and tacit knowledge that is currently ‘trade’
between Wales and England based policy teams and civil
servants. It would be difficult for a country the size
of Wales to replicate this pool of talent.
How should we evaluate the costs and benefits
of moving to a different form of
devolution in Wales?
Such a complex judgement would have to develop in the
medium term. Progress against national strategic targets
for improvement which tend to be outcome based are the
litmus test of success. A model to make such a judgement
would probably need to apply the principles of the ‘balanced
score card’ technique although making such a determination
is not possible without meaningful information around
which to form a judgement.
What are the benefits which should be included in this
evaluation – and what values should be attached
to them?
No view to offer.
On Electoral Arrangements:
Is the current size of the Assembly adequate to undertake
its responsibilities in meeting the needs of Wales?
It would seem difficult to justify an increase in the
number of AMs, particularly given the recent public
debate about how many days they actually spend in the
Assembly.
What evidence is there that the current duties as set
out in para 12 above are not being fulfilled adequately
and what scope exists to re-organise working arrangements
to improve effectiveness without creating more Members?
To a degree the comment in the previous question is
relevant here. If there is pressure on AMs then perhaps
a rethink in terms of how Assembly sessions are organised
to allow for more days would be helpful. Is there a
justification in the modern age for the lengthy periods
of recess that the Assembly has?
In terms of the earlier part of the question, it is
difficult at a distance to form a view o the effectiveness
of the processes of the Assembly. Perhaps it is relevant
to suggest that the current ELWA experience is case
studied to determine whether the Assembly could have
acted differently in the establishment, assistance or
monitoring of this Assembly Sponsored Body.
If reorganisation would not achieve the necessary improvements,
what number of Members would be required for the existing
responsibilities to be discharged effectively?
This is an impossible question to have an informed
view on. Public perception of more reasonably well paid
AMs is likely to be mixed at best.
What are the advantages, other than cost, of a
relatively small Assembly which might be lost if numbers
were increased?
- It is reasonably straightforward to identify accountabilities
in a small organisation;
- It is possible that relative size incentivises more
partnership working with other layers of government,
particularly local government.
Would the present number of Members be able effectively
to take on the additional work involved in acquiring
either significant new functions or primary legislative
powers?
To a degree there may need to be a ‘suck it and
see’ approach. More work may incentivise better
priority setting and better delegation of issues to
other bodies, particularly local government. If there
were no new AMs there would have to be better focus.
Are there areas of current work which could be reduced,
or could existing arrangements, such as the size of
Committees and the frequency of meetings, be changed
to accommodate such extra responsibilities and if so
what changes would you recommend?
We are probably not close enough to the Assembly to
comment in detail. One area that offers opportunity
however is to dramatically reduce the number of Plans
that the Assembly require of Local Government. This
would streamline processes significantly and create
capacity to take on additional responsibilities.
Is there is a case for increasing the number of Members
if additional powers are conferred on the Assembly–
and if so, what would be its appropriate size?
Possibly, but without knowing the nature of the new
powers and the resources required to discharge them,
it is difficult to offer an informed view. It would
be necessary to disaggregate workload issues between
AMs and civil servants before coming to a view on numbers.
What is your experience of the operation of the present
electoral system – what are its advantages and
disadvantages and what changes would you like to see?
The position you take very much depends on your view
of proportional representation. The current system clearly
is designed to promote this and all the advantages and
disadvantages it brings. Its downside perhaps is that
the public struggle to understand the ‘list’
system and fail to see how candidates who failed to
win a constituency seat still end up in the Assembly.
This would be the place to express any view on only
being able to stand as a constituency or a list candidate
but not both.
Should more be done through the electoral system to
influence the characteristics of the candidates put
forward by the political parties and if so what measures
would you recommend?
You may choose to offer a view on political parties
retaining the power to determine their own candidates
or not. A more direct electoral system change challenges
the sovereignty of the party to ultimately decide. Is
this a good thing or a bad thing?
Bearing in mind that the number of Welsh Parliamentary
constituencies may change in the future – how important
is it to maintain common boundaries for Assembly and
Parliamentary constituencies?
The issue here is perhaps not so much a technical one
as keeping clarity with the electorate over who represents
them. Parliamentary boundaries are understood by the
public, local government ward boundaries are reasonably
understood – to introduce a third set of boundaries
is hardly likely to promote a better understanding of
electoral representation than is currently the case.
In providing comments for you to consider I have
attempted to maintain a neutral position and any lapses
are unintentional. I trust you will find these comments
helpful.
Councillor Jim Davies
County Borough Councillor for the Crosyceiliog North
Ward
Torfaen County Borough Council
|
