Probably the Worst Question in the World
Bubble — By David Melding AM on November 20, 2009 6:00 am
Victorian Prime Minister Lord Palmerston whose turn of phrase is as apt for our time as it was in his
SO IT LOOKS like coming down to a Welsh version of the Schleswig-Holstein question. As you may recall, this 19th Century conundrum was so devilishly complicated that according to Lord Palmerston only three people had ever understood it. One was dead, another mad, and he (Lord Palmerston) had since forgotten the details. Eventually the matter was settled not by the great statesmen of Europe, but by the people of Schleswig-Holstein in a referendum. A rather obvious and humdrum way to settle an important constitutional controversy, you may think.
The Emyr Jones-Parry Convention had to look at a similarly opaque problem and the best way to resolve it. Having grappled with the notorious complexities of Welsh devolution they think it’s time to ask the people what sort of Assembly they really want. But this is only the beginning, for the devil in this detail is what sort of question to ask? I doubt even Lord Palmerston would have had a quick answer.
Just consider some of the more obvious possibilities. “Do you agree that the Assembly should acquire the powers laid out in the Government of Wales Act 2006 (Part 4)?” I am not sure whether I would even understand that! Other versions of this question are less complicated but more loaded. “Should the Assembly have powers similar to the Scottish Parliament?” (too leading, who would want the inferior article?). Or “should the Assembly acquire full law-making powers?” (this sounds like independence).
We had better come up with a question pretty soon. There is no ‘leave it in the long grass option’ now that the Emyr Jones-Parry Convention has spoken so decisively. Indeed the Convention thinks we had better get a move on and decide whether to call a referendum. Perhaps some were hoping that David Cameron would threaten to veto any referendum request in the first term of a Conservative government. What question to ask would then hardly be relevant. A referendum request could have been made in the confident knowledge that it would be rejected by heartless Tories. Thankfully that “anti-Welsh” bear-pit has been artfully avoided after effective lobbying by Nick Bourne.
I suspect that some senior Welsh Labour politicians are disappointed by these developments. How can the One Wales commitment to hold a referendum by 2011 be avoided? Peter Hain’s line that a referendum should only be held if it is overwhelmingly likely to be won is hardly democratic. The Emyr Jones-Parry Convention was right to say that the Assembly’s future is a vital question that should be put to the people now and not only when the result is considered a formality. Those who believe that the Assembly should have primary law making powers must accept the need for a real debate – one where the outcome is uncertain.
David Cameron’s “Broughton declaration” will be seen as decisive as Emyr Jones-Parry’s report. Between them they have set the parameters for this important national debate. Cameron’s announcement also tells us much about what sort of PM he would make. As election day draws ever nearer, his decision making is becoming firm, clear and pragmatic. The Lisbon Treaty cannot now be unratified (any attempt to do so would be akin to leaving the EU) so the iron-clad promise to hold a referendum lapses. And in Wales, with the difficult choices of government approaching, devolution policy has almost over-night become deft and realistic.
Yet of even more significance to us in Wales was David Cameron’s conference speech in which he bravely said “not everything Labour did was wrong. Devolution; the minimum wage; civil partnerships, these are good things that we will keep”. This has not been said before by a leader of the Conservative Party. It was a big signal to Scotland, of course, but it has been applied with full force to Wales. Above all it is a clear sign that the Conservative Party thinks it can win the general election. And parties that expect to win have policies forged here on earth and not in some ethereal Neverland of ideological purity.
I think the party has also gone a long way to establishing itself as a real force in Welsh politics. Any veto option would have massively enlarged the Tories “anti-Welsh” label. But a price has been paid because once the referendum campaign is underway senior Welsh Conservatives will be active in both the Yes and No camps. Not since Labour permitted its Cabinet members to campaign on either side of the European question in 1975 would such an open split have occurred. Indeed the position of the Welsh Conservative Party is even more diffident than Labour in 1975. Labour then at least had an official policy to vote Yes.
Quite a cost, and pro-devolution Tories like me must pay it cheerfully. It would be neither right nor fair to gag the Tory devo-sceptics. They represent an honourable part of the Conservative tradition in Wales. But the Welsh Conservative Party is in for a bumpy ride. Its opponents will slap on the war paint and portray neutrality on law making powers as being “anti-Welsh” on devolution.
But our critics should pause for a moment. It is a political paradox that the Welsh Conservative Party has most closely followed the Welsh electorate’s meandering attitudes to devolution. Once firmly opposed, then mildly in favour, and now more fully accepting. Yet while the river has meandered it also seems to be making progress to primary law making powers. Just five years ago, the multi-option referendum was thought a distinct possibility, with the abolition option on the ticket. No one now is calling for that. The Assembly is here to stay – an emphatic triumph to mark the 10th anniversary of devolution.
But back to the Schleswig-Holstein question. My best effort at an intelligible question is as follows: “The Scottish Parliament and Northern Ireland Assembly have the power to make laws for Scotland and Northern Ireland on devolved matters. The National Assembly for Wales can also make some laws with the consent of the Westminster Parliament. Do you support the proposal that the Assembly should be fully responsible for Welsh laws on devolved matters?” Too long? Well yes, but I am still working on it!
Trying to understand the Assembly’s current powers is probably even more difficult than making sense of the Schleswig-Holstein question. I doubt there are three people (be they alive, dead or forgotten) who can understand the intricacies of the Assembly’s powers. But we can surely agree on the Assembly’s central duty. It is to hold the Welsh Assembly Government fully to account. In parliaments and assemblies all over the free world, this essential democratic function is carried out by legislative and budgetary powers. While the Assembly controls WAG’s budget it does not have the legislative powers commonly found elsewhere, be it in Scotland, Northern Ireland or even the Isle of Man! At the moment trying to scrutinise the Welsh Assembly Government with our present powers is like piloting a super tanker with a rubber dinghy.
So what should we do? Sir Emyr’s advice is to call a referendum and resolve a difficult issue with a simple question. But that question is probably the most difficult to frame in the world!
Tags: All Wales Convention, Assembly, constitutional reform, David Melding, devolution, referendum, Welsh Conservatives
Tweet This
Share on Facebook
Digg This
Bookmark
Stumble
17 Comments
How about:
“Do you support the current proposal to increase the law-making powers of the Welsh Assembly?”
Simple to understand – not leading?
Sorry to disappoint everyone but the Scleswig Holstein question was settled not by a referendum but by Prussian and Austrian troops in the 1864 war against Denmark. Although the Prussians didn’t perform very well and this caused the Ausrians to believe that thye could win any future war. By 1866 the Prussians had got it right and the result was a crushing defeat for the Austrians. The referendum merely confirmed what had been won by the needle gun. Bismarck would have laughed at the idea of a referendum solving anything.
Very well put. We’re all obsessing so much about the answer that we’ve not properly thought about the question…
Penddu, I’m afraid your suggested question is too open-ended and leaves open the possibility that people may believe a Yes vote to be for Independence. (remember 25% of those polled by the AWC equate ‘full law-making powers’ with independence’).
Though probably too long, David’s proposal is good in that it emphasises two important points that the electorate need to understand about the question that is being asked: namely the UK context in that a Yes vote would bring Wales nearer in line with Scotland and NI rather than take us further (i.e to independence), and the fact that the Assembly would only be aquiring law-making powers over areas which are in fact ALREADY devolved, i.e the devolution settlement is being deepened but not broadened.
How about:
‘Do you believe that the National Assembly for Wales should have law-making powers over those policy areas which are devolved to it, as is already the case for the Scottish Parliament and Northern Ireland Assembly?”
‘Do you believe that the National Assembly for Wales should have law-making powers over those policy areas which are devolved to it, as is already the case for the Scottish Parliament and Northern Ireland Assembly?”
Hmmm, that’s a bit leading isn’t it? Think the question will need to be a lot more neutral than that. The Electoral Commission will insist on it
What’s wrong with ‘Should the National Assembly for Wales gain primary law-making powers?’ anoraks may point out that the GWA does that incrementally anyway, but to add caveats and make the q longer and more complex is self-defeating. You could have a simple, impartial note below the voting section of the ballot paper explaining clearly what is on offer and that this is nothing to do with independence
“You could have a simple, impartial note below the voting section of the ballot paper explaining clearly what is on offer and that this is nothing to do with independence”
Someone else made that point to me earlier, Anthony. It sounds a very attractive option.
How about::
Should the National Assembly should gain limited law making powers in certain areas?
Or we could include a further clarification:
Should the National Assembly should gain limited law making powers in certain areas? (not full law making powers as is the case in Scotland and not independence)
or we could ask people to chose between 2 statements:
The National Assembly should gain limited law making powers in certain areas immediately.
or
The National Assembly should continue to gain limited law making powers in certain areas incrementally.
On his blog, Glyn Davies also deals with this issue and has come up with:
“Do you support progressing to Part 4 of the Government of Wales Act 2006, which entails vesting in the National Assembly for Wales, law making powers in those areas currently devolved?”
http://glyndaviesam.blogspot.com/2009/11/whats-to-be-question.html
Would be amazed if “vesting” made it into the final version Glyn
Really enjoyed this interesting thread ever. As ever, David Melding has kicked off a good debate – we’re lucky to have him on waleshome.org and we know it
Agree, a very worthwhile debate. Still feel some suggestions above are far too complex. Voters will interpret any perceived complexity or ambiguity negatively – especially in the modern political climate if mistrust. Better to ask a simple, straight question, even if it offends some of us anoraks in terms of strict accuracy.
(btw, has ever a more prosaic or nerdy thing been written in the interval of an Eddie Izzard gig? I must get a life)
I like Glyn’s suggestion, his use of ‘vested’ not withstanding of course!
I’d be interested to know how you define ‘leading’ Daran, or indeed how you think the EC would define it.
Idris – “leading” as in posing a non-neutral question. The question needs to be factually correct (or perhaps a preamble does) and then posed in such a way that it does not automatically prompt an answer. It’s a tricky balancing act.
I think everyone should calm down and leave this question until after the general election. Then “all the people” in Wales can be included in a thorough analysis of the pros and cons of more powers for the Assembly.
There does seem to be an unhealthy rush on the part of the few to railroad the many on this issue before a proper reflection of the implications. Relying on one or two dubious opinion poll results is hardly a solid foundation on which to build a compelling case to make a further major change in the constitution.
It’s quite ironic that the same enthusiasm and sense of mission is absent in the very same voices when it comes to finding and delivering imaginative, creative and practical solutions to the germane, urgent and profound challenges facing Wales going forward.
Back in February I was impressed with the simplicity of the way Bethan Jenkins framed the question, namely:
“Do you believe the National Assembly for Wales should have primary law-making powers on devolved matters?”
To save repeating myself, my thoughts at the time are here
http://forums.walesonline.co.uk/viewtopic.php?p=97276#97276
but, to cut to the chase, my answer was:
“Do you believe the National Assembly for Wales should have primary law-making powers in the areas devolved to it, as set out in Schedule 7 of the Government of Wales Act 2006?”
But I gave it a bit more thought last night and you can see the result here
http://syniadau–buildinganindependentwales.blogspot.com/2009/11/simple-proposition.html
In essence, we can’t say “like Scotland” because it’s not exactly true … it is more emotive than precise. Nor can we say “in the areas devolved to it” without qualifying exactly what those areas are, or what the exceptions (which are many) are.
There is one definitive list, and that is Schedule 7 of GoWA 2006. So referring to it is not only as precise as it is possible to be, but is also as simple as it is possible to be.
Most people seem to prefer talking about “moving to Part 4 of GoWA 2006″. And yes, that is correct … but it primarily describes the mechanism of making Acts of the Assembly as opposed to making Measures. In the end, all that really matters is what the Assembly can and cannot make laws on. Schedule 7 is the definitive list.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/ukpga_20060032_en_19#sch7
You have a point there David. To be fair, I was impressed though that via this forum we’ve been able to discuss this issue without resorting to lazy and facile name-calling – ridiculous tags like Anti-Welsh have been gladly absent. Buy, yes, delivering on social justice should always be what drives us on, especially with the task of winning a General Election looming large.
“To be fair, I was impressed though that via this forum we’ve been able to discuss this issue without resorting to lazy and facile name-calling – ridiculous tags like Anti-Welsh have been gladly absent.”
So was I!
It’s a tricky topic but there’s been some serious and informed discussion here. Maybe setting the question can be Sir Emyr’s next task…
The problems raised here in response to the various suggestions for questions, many of which seem good at first glance, shows how difficult it will be to get a question that is fair and clear. On the clarity point, I think that both “primary law-making powers” and any reference to the Schedule of the Act will be too complicated for the average voter to understand.