Money well spent: why one ‘No’ campaigner applauds the All Wales Convention
Does the end justify the means if the end is bad democracy?
DO YOU recall those enthusiastic cries by rival crowds of voters demanding and opposing a referendum when Sir Emyr Jones Parry presented the All Wales Convention Report 2009 last November? No, because there weren’t any. The populace were not interested (although one couple did travel from Hay-on-Wye). Afterwards, a group of the Convention members admitted that they could have written the general outline before they started, but they could not have written the detail. Much has since been written about the outline. Little is known about the detail.
The brief given to the AWC has similarities to the question, ‘Can Wales beat the All Blacks?’. The answer is of course yes, sometime in the future. This is the position taken by Lord Morris of Aberafan and Peter Hain, who say that the referendum should not take place until the a ‘yes’ result can be guaranteed. Sir Emyr, forever the diplomat, said a ‘yes’ vote was possible but could not be guaranteed. Peter Hain has pointed out that in the previous two referendums the strong support for devolution shown in the polls did not materialise on the day. He counsels delay, with the opinion that the longer the referendum is left, the more likely people are to become accustomed to the Assembly. True Wales is against delay. If the referendum must be held, it should be held as soon as possible.
The AWC Road Shows were pathetically attended. Only around 1,000 people turned-up, including some who did so more than once because many were committed supporters of either the ‘yes’ or ‘no’ camps. Sir Emyr has defended the unreliability of his source material by referring to the 3,000 pieces of evidence gained during the consultation period, including membership organisations. Sir Emyr’s explanation for his conclusion is that the Report could only contain the things people said to the Convention. The pity is that the Convention didn’t go out on the streets and do as True Wales does: ask the ordinary voter. A very different picture would have emerged. Despite the £1.3M spent by the AWC Peter Black AM observes, “…if you talk to people they remain confused, disinterested or just indifferent to the need for extra powers.” It is this lack of direct contact with ordinary voters that calls into question the validity of the winnabilty aspect of the AWC Report.
Voters remain steadfastly indifferent. The only reason why a referendum is being mooted at this stage is the One Wales stitch-up between Labour and Plaid. No serious consideration is being given to how to inform people so that they can make a reasoned judgement; instead the only question is whether the proposal can be sqeezed through. This has all the hallmarks of an undemocratic imposition on an uninformed electorate.
Sir Emyr spent some time explaining the dangers of people not knowing how they are governed, describing it as bad democracy. His solution is to make the system simpler. He may well be right, but there is another danger to democracy that is as bad or even worse and that is to force a referendum on a disinterested electorate. People are turned off by the mention of Part 3 and Part 4 and LCO and after three sentences the conversation is over. We could face the spectre of a very low vote, as low as 32%. This is bad democracy.
A low vote is Plaid’s hope. They know they will get their supporters out and there will be Lib Dem votes, misled Labourites and some ill-advised Tories following the party line of lacklustre Nick Bourne. Plaid supporters and their fellow travellers blithely defend this by arguing that decisions are made by those who turn up. That is not only unfair, but also potentially dangerous. It is a repeat of Machiavelli’s maxim that “the end justifies the means.” The trouble is that the end might not be justified by even noble means.
Sir Emyr’s presentation drew attention to the fact that bringing the police under the control of the Assembly would bring complications. The current practice of using officers from the South Wales police, Avon and Gloucester interchangeably would have difficulties and make policing along the M4 corridor more difficult and have an adverse effect on the quality of policing and enforcement. This cannot be swept under the carpet. The police are now facing terrorism, international crime, UK crime gangs and internet crime, and the present policing arrangements are not suitable arranged to combat them. The solution recommended is not to split the forces into smaller, less connected forces, but to increase the connectivity between the forces. Separating the Welsh police from the UK is a move in the wrong direction.
On its own, this might justify the £1.3m spent on the report. But Sir Emyr highlighted something even more important: inadequate scrutiny in the Government of Wales Act 2006 (GOWA), in either its Part 3 or Part 4 applications. Under Part 3, LCOs are scrutinised by MPs and are improved by their input. However, even under this arrangement, once the legislative power reaches Cardiff there is no further scrutiny of any enacted legislation. Under Part 4 things get even worse. There is no scrutiny of either the access to legislative powers or of the enactment of legislation. Sir Emyr spent time describing how the lack of understanding by people of how they are governed is bad democracy. Knowing that the politicians can pass any kind of legislation without checks and balances is the worst kind of democracy.
There is a general consensus that the GOWA is unsatisfactory. So how is moving from bad Part 3 to a worse Part 4 a sensible solution? The best solution is to re-write GOWA 2006 as GOWA 2012 before moving on. The current methodology might be a bit of a bind but it is better to have sound legislative powers than powers that are inherently bad.
So the AWC Report is worth £1.3m because it has drawn attention to a serious flaw in the current legislation. Having had the Report we should now have the courage as democrats to act on its most important and least discussed aspect. Winning only matters if you know that the prize is worth it. What is now clear is the prize will deliver us a bad democracy. The real challenge that arises from the AWC is not how we embrace Part 4, but how we improve GOWA 2006. The challenge is not to amplify bad democracy, but to introduce good democracy.
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flickr
As always from Len, a thoughtful, detailed and well-written piece, and True Wales are lucky that people like him are there to counteract the vituperative and paranoid drivel that some of those who claim to be TW supporters leave anonymously on other blogs (notably Betsan Powys’s and the Western Mail’s).
The future for the debate about democracy in Wales is going to be held according to these standards or it is not going to be held at all.
That said, and predictably, I disagree with a lot of what Len says (apart from anything else, the police question is hardly clear-cut, even among senior police officers…), and with a great deal of what True Wales says. I’m probably not going to make any more comments after this one, because there’ll be many others.
But I’d like to say that I think it’s ironic that Len should advocate a rewriting of the GOWA 2006 as the ‘best solution’. I thought TW were against overlegislation, wasted money on Welsh constitutional matters etc? It seems odd to be against moving towards an existing outlined settlement in order to rewrite a new one. Second, Len says that the GOWA and LCO system is generally agreed to have been hopeless. But I thought Tue Wales was until recently saying it was fine? But then again True Wales also wanted a referendum asap (‘bring it on’), but Rachel’s most recent essay for this site suggested they didn’t want one after all.
The problem is that True Wales stand for so many things in so many different places that I’m having a hard time seeing a simple set of constructive things that they believe in. Their apparent terror of criticising or suggesting improvements to the Westminster system continues to trouble me when it comes to the sincerity of their belief in any kind of genuine new politics.
I saw Rachel on Dragon’s Eye in, I think, Port Talbot, ask someone if they believed in more powers for the Assembly, and the person said ‘well, yes I suppose so’, or something like that. Then Rachel said ‘the slippery slope to independence’ and the person said no. If that’s consulting the ‘ordinary person in the street’ and ‘explaining the issues’, then it’s a new one on me. Len talks about an informed electorate, but it’s his outfit that has the biggest interest in keeping them uninformed.
There are many informed , intelligent and sincere people in True Wales, as there are in the No camp generally, and we have to respect them and their views. But in the end True Wales are not interested in governance, and their recent detailed attention to such matters is essentially an alibi against charges of negativity.
OK, I’ll let it rest – thanks for a good article, Len. As I hope you know, and Rachel too, I disagree with you but I’m glad there are people like you making the best of the No case. And, as always with these things, we doubtless have a wide range of things we agree on and share belief in.
So it seems we’re all agreed that the current system needs improving. I had undestood tha True Wales saw the solution in ‘greater democracy’ through Citizens Juries and more power to Local Government. Now a new Government of Wales Act is advocated. What would this new Act do?
Short editorial note: before we all rush headlong into pushing fag papers between the positions of various True Wales spokespersons: this piece was commissioned and is being run as the views of one True Wales supporter, not as those of the organisation corporate.
That is, I think, clear from the headline.
“The only reason why a referendum is being mooted at this stage is the One Wales stitch-up between Labour and Plaid.”
It shows the angle that the author is taking when he describes a coalition between Wales two biggest parties as a “stitch up.” It is worrying how out of sync some people in True Wales are that they do not understand that coalition politics is now the norm in Wales and not a stitch up. Indeed who is the deal actually supposed to be stitching up? The majority of people in Wales who voted for these two parties?
Thanks for the comment, Adam, was about to post the same myself. As with the discussion on last Saturday’s piece, and the discussion Rachel Banner and I had, it is clear that people within True Wales share different standpoints on certain aspects, but that there is more that unites than divides them on the constitutional issue.
Similarly, those on the yes side will have differences of opinion – both within and between political parties and those outside the party structure.
It is therefore important to bear that in mind when analysing statements from both sides. Len’s piece today, thoughtful as it is, is not in its entirity the platform of True Wales any more than Cymru Yfory, who base their arguments on the Richard Commission report and argue for different things compared to the next referendum proposition, represents an embryonic yes campaign.
“Plaid supporters and their fellow travellers blithely defend this by arguing that decisions are made by those who turn up.”
Setting aside the simplicity of this grouping (I assume it was meant to annoy?), who else other than those who turn up should make decisions? Only the electorate who bother to vote deserve to be counted; and only Assembly Members, Members of Parliament or councillors who attend appropriate meetings where votes are taken deserve to have their votes counted.
It’s good to see a mature debate on this issue, though, and thanks to Len for his interesting and stimulating contribution.
Good point from Adam, though surely the ability of True Wales to present a consistent message is important to both the health of the ‘No’ campaign (seeing as it is being more and more accepted that TW will form the backbone if not the entirety of such a campaign) and the dynamism of any referendum contest. I’m not talking about word-for-more party-political style consistency at all, but consistency on things like does True Wales think we should be having a referendum.
At the same time, I would argue that this is the first credible and rational argument that someone from the ‘No’ side of the debate has presented publicly, dealing with the mechanics rather than the scares over “separatism” and “national identity”. He is right that the All Wales Convention represents a worthwhile project because of the work it did on examining the GOWA. The fact that Len can’t see a benefit in the current system OR the enhanced system on offer does lend itself to the view that Peter Hain’s GOWA is riddled with problems and errors and is not good for democracy. A new Government of Wales Act is definitely needed.
“No serious consideration is being given to how to inform people so that they can make a reasoned judgement;”
Unfortunately this is as true for “True Wales” as it is for those in favour. TW regularly veers off into implying that the referendum is about independance, how is wales’ buget deficit to be made up, that it will lead to an extra 20 AMs with assocoated costs and expenses etc..
What is truly uninspiring is the narrowness of the issue really at hand. As the author mentions it is about moving from Part 3 to Part 4 of the GOWA. The Act accepts as a matter of principle, that the Assembly should be able to legislate on a primary basis. The issue is whether it should have to go through the tortuous LCO process, gaining the permission of Whitehall every single time, or whether it should just get on with it. This is the first time I’ve heard anyone from TW argue in favour of this long winded process. They normally veer off into the irrelevancies mentioned above.
Whether the input of MPs improves the legislation is a matter of opinion and will be subjective on each occasion
The “checks and balances” are really about the “Mother of Parliaments” refusing to let go of what it still sees as a child.
patrick mcguinness:
Don’t we just love you Patrick…thanks for the nice things.
There is a simple answer to your critique. True Wales is willing to explore possibilities, and when a solid reasonable case is put to us, it is willing to modify its case. Rachel did this recently on Waleshome in response to the Daran’s comment. Prior to the publication of the AWC Report there wasn’t a focus of attention, but now there is a document we can address the details. The final sentence of the article is an open invitation to improve democracy, and we invite you Patrick, and everyone else, to join with us in that.
Lee:
You write, “Now a new Government of Wales Act is advocated. What would this new Act do?”
To amend from the current position to another the existing Act would have to be amended or replaced whatever the nature of the amendment. As to ‘what would this new Act do’ I can repeat my reply to Patrick, “an open invitation to improve democracy, and we invite you Lee, and everyone else, to join with us in that.” True Wales offers a way forward in its published Charter. Discuss.
Link: http://www.truewalesnocampaign.org.uk/The_True_Devolution_Charter.html
Carl and Daran:
You take up sentences that I knew would annoy, but they were included for a reason. I wanted too high-light the subjects, and here we are discussing them. I could have, with tongue in cheek, been more polite and used the One or Two Wales Agreement, or some other description, such as The Compromised Wales Agreement or the Blackmail Wales Agreement. I wish I could have used the one much more to my liking, The ALL Wales Agreement. See the invitation above.
‘What would this new Act do’ I can repeat my reply to Patrick, “an open invitation to improve democracy, and we invite you Lee, and everyone else, to join with us in that.”
Len, that’s what the Richard report spent 18 months doing. You clearly disagree with their conclusions and that is your right, but don’t pretend it never happened. A coherent alternative to the status quo has been presented. The 2006 Government of Wales Act interpreted that and there is now statutory provision to move towards it. That’s what is on the table.
I’m not clear on what alternative you are offering. A return to the days of the Welsh Office? I must says I found the ‘The True Devolution Charter’ disingenuous, not to say ironic as many of the ‘reforms’ you suggest are precisely the sort of the process issues you criticise the political class with being obsessed with. Moreover, these aren’t either / or alternatives.
I’ve no doubt that you are right to conclude that there is disenchantment with the democratic system and especially with politicians. But rather than trading on cynicsim, where is your alternative vision of a Wales that will keep the coming generation in their communities rather then feeling they have to get out if they want to get on?
It’s a mystery to me why would be opposed to primary law making powers for the assembly. It has taken so long to make sprinklers in new homes a Welsh law. If anything it shows the major ineffectiveness of the current LCO system. It has taken years to get to this stage.
What I would like to know is how many lives have been lost during all this time because the Welsh Assembly does not have Scottish style powers to introduce its own law? The same goes for the smoking ban in public places. Please answer me Mr Gibbs.
It’s an absolute scandal that we are burdened with this cumbersome system of governance that is muddled and unclear.
Note: I’ve included a reply to J H Jones before you have posted it. Please post this after you list his comment. Thank you.
Davey:
You make the observation, “TW regularly veers off into implying that the referendum is about independence”. Notice, not a word about it in the article because it is a critique of the AWC Report 2009. The referendum is not directly about independence but it is an interwoven topic.
You also comment, “This is the first time I’ve heard anyone from TW argue in favour of this long winded process.”
The article says I don’t. See my response to Illtyd below.
If you want my critique on the subject of independence go to:
http://www.truewalesnocampaign.org.uk/Grassroots_Comment.html
and read the article on Carwyn Jones: “Hence home, you idle creatures”
(Then scroll down to:-)
the article on Rhodri Morgan: “Sell, sell, sell!” “Rhodri Morgan talks to Martin Shipton about the difficulties surrounding the further powers debate”
Illtyd Luke
Asks, “does True Wales think we should be having a referendum.”
I say in the article, “True Wales is against delay. If the referendum must be held, it should be held as soon as possible.” So the answer is that in the current political environment and the issues at hand, YES!
Comments: “GOWA is riddled with problems and errors and is not good for democracy. A new Government of Wales Act is definitely needed.”
This, I would have thought, describes the general tenure of the article. The GOWA is unsuitable as either Part 3 or Part 4. The final sentence of the article says, “The real challenge that arises from the AWC Report is not how we embrace Part 4, but how we improve GOWA 2006. The challenge is not to amplify bad democracy, but to introduce good democracy.”
Lee:
You write, “A coherent alternative to the status quo has been presented.”
It has but it is not acceptable. It contains elements that are undesirable and overall it is not the way forward. You may think the same of the True Wales Charter but we are trying to engage ALL of Wales in developing the democratic form of government for Wales within the UK.
Your final observation is important: “… vision of a Wales that will keep the coming generation in their communities rather then feeling they have to get out if they want to get on?
It is decidedly not in a Wales isolated from the UK. We want a Wales where the decisions are made for the betterment of the people of Wales and not the advancement of political ideology. For instance, the demolition job done on the WDA by the Assembly was totally political motivated and a decision devoid of commercial justification.
You might like to read an article today, “FSB calls on Assembly to focus on economic growth” on http://www.walesonline.co.uk/business-in-wales/business-news/2010/01/15/fsb-calls-on-assembly-to-focus-on-economic-growth-91466-25604588/
JH Jones
Requests, “Please answer me Mr Gibbs. It’s an absolute scandal that we are burdened with this cumbersome system of governance that is muddled and unclear.”
I haven’t been called Mr Gibbs since my old barber died many years ago! Part of the answer is that the article is a critique of the AWC Report and not the Assembly in general. However, as you ask…
I didn’t write the Act and wouldn’t have. Governace, in a democratic form requires scrutiny. The GOWA2006 doesn’t have that. I wrote, “The best solution is to re-write GOWA 2006 as GOWA 2012 before moving on. The current methodology might be a bit of a bind but it is better to have sound legislative powers than powers that are inherently bad.”
Len, thanks for the response
You really shouldn’t confuse process with outcomes. There is much that the Westminster Parliament does that I think is wrongheaded but that isn’t an argument for stripping it of powers.
Why does devolution have to result in an isolated Wales? Is Florida isolated from the US because it has autonomy in certain areas? Are the German regions isolated from Germany because they are able to vary their priorities acording to need and local demand?
It makes no sense for there to be identical approached to transport in every part of the UK. Why should Westmintser legislate over the Welsh Langauge? And why should the Assembly have to go though such a faff to get the powers devolved?
Lets not get hysterical. The changes in question are far from radical, not indeed out of step with advanced countries across the world.
Len – sorry, me again – the WDA was demolished by the Labour party. They’re in power. The Assembly and devolution are not responsible for it. The conflation of WAG with the Welsh Assembly is your and True Wales’s most pernicious tactic.
Be careful here: if you’re going to blame political and party-political errors and crap policies on the institution and on devolution, then you’re opening yourself up to being asked why you refuse to blame Westminster as an institution for the policy failures of the parties in charge.
It strikes me that True Wales is in the business of blaming devolution and the Assembly for failures that are just political failures by the party or parties running in government. It’s a logic you don’t seem to apply to Westminster. Odd that. I’ve noticed that the Labour apparatchiks who attack devolution don’t blame their own party which has been in power, but devolution itself. It’s something I noticed in Rachel Banner’s last article, and it puzzled me. Why not complain about the party in charge, instead of laying the blame for policy failures on the institution or on devolution. After all, if the policy has been bad, why not attack the politicians who designed and implemented it? Then I saw the byline ‘Rachel is a long-standing member of the Labour party’. Ah, now I get it.
Frankly, if I was to use True Wales’s anti-devolution arguments (competence, ideology, wrecking the WDA etc etc) and apply it to Westminster , I’d probably suggest that on the basis of New Labour’s policy failures, Westminster as a whole should have powers of foreign policy (illegal wars), economic policy (increasing inequality), environmental policy (missed targets) and anti-poverty policy (ditto) removed from its remit.
I won’t argue that of course, because I can tell the difference between a system of government and who governs. True Wales can also tell the difference. But it’s a pity they like to blur that difference in order to advance a cause riddled with double standards.
You want to attack policy failures? Then attack the people who came up with the policy. It’s what you’d do if you were attacking a policy passed by Westminster.
Until you stop blaming the institution for policy failures of the ruling party or parties, or at least applying the same contorted standards to Westminster as you apply to the Welsh Assembly, then you’ll be conflating the issue in misleading ways.
I accept that your article, Len, does something else, but you’ve done the True Wales thing in the end: shifted the goalposts.
A very well wriiten “piece” and encapsulates many of the concerns that “ordinary” and unpolitical people like myself hold on this “subject”. I voted against the setting up of Assembly. However, if it had proved that it could manage public money and produce “bigger bang for my buck” then, being a pragmatist, I would vote for more powers
But the reverse has happened. What “specific” powers do they need, other than create more public sector jobs in management etc, whilst our basic services are going downhill. Let’s see what they do with the real CUTS in public money thats coming in next ten years before they get more powers.
Patrick:
“…the WDA was demolished by the Labour party. They’re in power. The Assembly and devolution are not responsible for it.”
Sir Emyr in his verbal presentation raised the issue of the relationship of WAG and the AMs as being too closely identified and suggested WAG be renamed WG. Devolved Labour and the cosy AMs are responsible for terminating the WDA.
The article is a critique of the AWC Report 2009, and as you can read, I am not hostile to it. The discussion is about The National Assembly for Wales and not Westminster. I am sure there is a lot we have in common about the behaviour of some of the people there. True Wales is a cross-party group and there is a diversity of opinion and loyalties. I don’t have a party. I have restricted my comments, as far as possible, in this article, to the observations of the AWC Report and not in defence of a political grouping.
“Then attack the people who came up with the policy.”
The easiest thing to do would be to attack Peter Hain for framing GOWA2006 and Rhodri Morgan for accepting it, but it would not achieve anything. The goalposts haven’t been shifted. GOWA2006 is defective. It needs changing…ask Barry Morgan…he agrees.
Lee:
You ask, “Why does devolution have to result in an isolated Wales? Is Florida isolated…”
Thank you for making the argument for me. The Constitution of the USA is such that a State cannot leave the Union. I haven’t suggested stripping anyone of any powers. The AWC Report is not about returning to 1997 or 1999 but a provision in GOWA2006. I have made the point a few times today that the GOWA 2006 needs amending because it has a serious defect. The only restriction I have said I agreed with is powers over the police. The other issues you mention are in the provision of GOWA2006 and the AWC Report is not directly concerned with the detail. Neither are my comments. Advanced countries do not abolish a second house or endeavour to operate without third party scrutiny.
Howell Morgan:
I think most people would vote for more powers if they were sure they would get “bigger bang for my buck”. But I also want a safe constitutional arrangement.
Would someone like to make my day and tell me that they are willing to transfer legislative powers from an established law-making body whose proposed legislation is subject to third part scrutiny, to a single body whose legislation cannot be scrutinised. If so, I’ll see you at the barricades.
Illtyd Luke – It would be a very sad day indeed if True Wales were to suppress the views of its individual members and fall into the same kind of sterility as the majority of our political parties. A thoughtful approach such as Len’s is invaluable to any organisation.
Patrick (we wish we could poach you from the opposition!) – just to clarify, True Wales isn’t advocating a new Government of Wales Act and we have accepted that the LCO system can be made to work. We are in favour of a referendum – bring it on indeed – but are also most concerned to ensure that the question is meaningful, given that a considerable amount of public money will be spent on it. A question as to whether the Welsh Assembly should have primary law-making powers now or later (or more sweeties from the sweetie jar bit by bit or all at once, as the All Wales Convention put it) would not only be a pointless waste of money but would also be patronising to the people of Wales who are more than capable of making rational judgments about the type of democracy they want. As Davey says, “the narrowness of the issue at hand” is “truly uninspiring”.
In our True Devolution Charter we have suggested some improvements to the UK parliamentary system which is, as we have acknowledged, seriously in need of reform – and not just on the matter of expenses, either. As you’ll appreciate, though, since this is a Welsh campaign we preferred to focus on Assembly and local government reform in this first document, though we will certainly be revisiting the Westminster issue shortly. Believe me – we are sincere in our belief that devolved power in Wales must be shared with the people, not hoarded by 60 (or 80) people in Cardiff Bay.
What we object to is that Welsh Assembly politicians across the political spectrum seem far more passionate about getting more powers for themselves than about jobs, health and education. Why the obsession with law-making? Can our politicians not see that there are far more pressing needs in recession-hit Wales? And is it not a worrying indictment on our democracy that no one in the Assembly – with potentially one or two exceptions – seems willing or able to take an alternative stance on this issue? Dafydd Elis-Thomas himself has rightly said that the people of Wales “expect us to do our job whatever powers we are given, before they agree to give us more”. He, at least, understands that the people matter.
Daran – you’re right – I accept your entirely valid point that the stance of Cymru Yfory is not necessarily that of the Assembly Government or a future ‘yes’ campaign (although their prominence in the media makes it hard to view them as anything other than an embryonic ‘yes’ campaign). However, when the referendum is declared, I would like to see any politicians who head the ‘yes’ campaign categorically stating that there will be no increase in the number of Assembly members following a ‘successful’ outcome. If they do decide to support the notion of an additional 20 members, I hope that they will argue the case for that before the vote is held.
Howell Morgan wrote: “But the reverse has happened. What “specific” powers do they need, other than create more public sector jobs in management etc, whilst our basic services are going downhill. Let’s see what they do with the real CUTS in public money that’s coming in next ten years before they get more powers.”
Transforming public services, including the creation or abolition of public sector jobs, or in many cases public sector bodies, does not necessarily require primary legislation. Just look at the recent restructuring of NHS Wales, or the merger of the WDA and other bodies into the Welsh Assembly Government, both done using secondary rather than primary legislation. (And by the way, I’m not discussing the merits or otherwise of those policies, rather the procedure which allowed such a change to be made.)
Most of the ways in which the Assembly is already exercising the primary powers it has – and there are numerous examples – do not necessarily increase the numbers employed in the public sector.
This is another conflated and confused argument.
And is the use of captialisation intended to convey some relish, as that’s how it comes across to me.
“Would someone like to make my day and tell me that they are willing to transfer legislative powers from an established law-making body whose proposed legislation is subject to third part scrutiny, to a single body whose legislation cannot be scrutinised. ”
It sounds like you are arguing for a second chamber at Cardiff to play the role of the House of Lords to scrutinise the legislation WAG will develop when it gets primary lawmaking powers.
Len – thanks for keeping the thread going here. It’s an interesting discussion. By third party scrutiny, I take it you mean a revising or second chamber? If so, then that’s an interesting point.
Assembly Measures, the equivalent of UK Acts of Parliament, are already being passed in areas where the Assembly has accrued primary law making powers. Measures are passed through a unicameral system – the Assembly has no revising chamber. The scrutiny is done mainly at Committee stage (akin to the Commons committee stage) but also through external input and consultation (where arguably the Assembly has a more open system of interaction with civic society).
I’ve barely ever heard anyone make a case for a Welsh second chamber (elected or otherwise), though it’s an interesting idea. I wonder whether such a proposal has ever been seriously considered in Scotland. They have far broader primary powers than Wales would have even after moving to Part 4. I genuinely wonder whether that has led to calls for a second chamber in order to help improve legislation.
Let me make my personal position clear: I want as much Government in Wales by Welsh people as is sensible, but isn’t all this discussion about Process rather than about Vision?
I really don’t care where and how my laws are made provided they are sensible, wise and useful. I would however prefer fewer rather than more. I would also prefer that they were scrutinised, and I don’t care who does that either. Place and people are not relevant. Precision and added value most certainly are.
A second chamber is certainly highly desirable: this does not need to be in Cardiff, again locale is not relevant, but it needs to be created to ensure checks and balances are in place. Can’t we utilise the MP’s from Wales as a second chamber pro tem?
Finally: a question, Why must we wait for a winnable referendum before going for it? That isn’t particularly democratic. Is it embedded in the GOWA that this is a one shot wonder for a referendum? Cant’ we take the Irish route of asking the question again if the answer is wrong?
For goodness sake, let’s be clear on what this is all about. If we want more (but limited) powers for Wales then say so, if we want a Wales that is free then say so but articulate how that will happen and how we will pay for it. I see absolutely no long term vision with steps to achieve it. That is a serious failing.
If it is wise to sort out the mess that is the GOWA then that is the right solution, short term pain for long term gain may well be right answer, but faffing around with process is most certainly not the right way to move forward.
Daran Hill makes the point that the electorate that bothers to vote deserves to be counted,its a good point but why did Tony Blair go for a devolution vote when he knew the majorty of the Welsh people were not interested in it .Only 10% voted for it in the first vote in 79 ,this climbed to 25% after a government backed yes campaign in the second vote in 97. But crucially the 40% thresh hold for success applied in the first vote was dropped, you can guess why. Mr Blair had other political reasons behind it. How can you call this Democracy .If the Welsh people vote for it in a sizable majority that’s fine by me but after all it is major constitutional change and should not be treated lightly.
JH Jones & Daran Hill
“It sounds like you are arguing for a second chamber at Cardiff to play the role of the House of Lords to scrutinise the legislation WAG will develop when it gets primary lawmaking powers/&/Len – thanks for keeping the thread going here. It’s an interesting discussion. By third party scrutiny, I take it you mean a revising or second chamber? If so, then that’s an interesting point.
In my work as a systems consultant, at times it was necessary to press an argument to its logical extreme. The extreme often disproved the thesis. The argument I have been developing in these exchanges is not about the extent but the principle. In the confines of a theoretical argument I have previously been asked the question, “Would that include a (two chamber) Parliament at Cardiff?” My answer was, “If that’s what it takes.” I wasn’t agreeing, I was allowing the argument go to its extreme point.
Rachel Banner in her posting has made the observation that True Wales is not advocating a new GOWA. I have been pressing the case that moving to an arrangement that permanently grants full primary powers without scrutiny is extremely dangerous. In this context, it makes me wonder why none of the AMs have seen the problem and raised the issue and it is left to a cross-party group to raise the issue. For the opportunity I am extremely grateful to Waleshome.
The discussion today has been conducted with moderation and intelligence, and as a result of these exchanges hopefully we can move forward to look at the problems inherent in moving to Part 4. In doing so we would have made a useful contribution to the issues involved.
Alan Davies
Frustration, frustration, frustration…but you are right!
We need sensible, wise and useful laws wheresoever made – and that they have the benefit of having been scrutinised. Let’s get on with sorting out the system so we can achieve those objectives.
Gareth Jones
I’m not a politician so I can’t answer your question(s) except to agree “it is a major constitutional change and should not be treated lightly.”
Rachel wrote:
“when the referendum is declared, I would like to see any politicians who head the ‘yes’ campaign categorically stating that there will be no increase in the number of Assembly members following a ‘successful’ outcome. If they do decide to support the notion of an additional 20 members, I hope that they will argue the case for that before the vote is held.”
Agree with you 100%. Both sides need to argue on the facts and with honesty.
Len wrote:
“The discussion today has been conducted with moderation and intelligence, and as a result of these exchanges hopefully we can move forward to look at the problems inherent in moving to Part 4. In doing so we would have made a useful contribution to the issues involved. ”
Agree with the general thrust – it has been done with moderation and intelligence. In fact, we’ve had to make very few edits to posts ot delete any. Which is something of a surprise – and not an invitation to push the editorial team further.
Gareth Jones wrote:
“How can you call this Democracy .If the Welsh people vote for it in a sizable majority that’s fine by me but after all it is major constitutional change and should not be treated lightly.”
I stil stand by the point I made. Democracy is an active pursuit. And the question of significant constitutional change is not being treated lightly. If it was, the Assembly would have been introduced in 1997 without a referendum and popular consent.
I am not quite sure what argument is being advanced here, we seem to have several threads. I find True Wales to be an exercise in frustration as they don’t seem to engage in logical argument. Going back to the Richard Commission and the All Wales Convention we see well argued cases for change. In many ways the GOWA 2006 was badly botched. Having read the original act I had assumed the process of transfer of powers would be little more than rubber stamping as, or as it seemed to me, that the level of scrutiny that could be given to transfer of powers was purely technical as you can’t scrutinise the legislation that would flow from that transfer. From my prospective the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs has somewhat overstepped its role by trying to pre-empt any likely legislation that would follow in the National Assembly.
Arguments that this is a slippery slope have never rung true with me, its this belief that independence could happen by stealth that I find unconvincing. We will have the level of devolution that people want. Constitutions are not fixed and for ever the same, there is always change, to pretend otherwise ignores the history of the UK an and indeed the wider world. We have seen radical changes in the UK over the years – indeed in the last 100 years we have seen one nation leave the UK, the abolition of the absolute veto of the House of Lords, devolved legislatures (the first being incidentally the Church of England!), the abolition of a devolved legislature, the doubling of the franchise, the abolition of university seats in Parliament – I could go on.
As for the size of the National Assembly being increased, this is just a scare tactic. If the referendum is won by the yes size there are no plans to increase the National Assembly. Personally I am persuaded by the arguments advanced by the Richard Commission that it should be increased in size, this is a matter of mechanics, 80 being the optimum size for proper scrutiny given our current political landscape. This is a pragmatic view. The argument against seems to be a populist anti politician one rather than one based on any need or analysis of the proper function of the National Assembly.
Lyn Thomas
You say, “I am not quite sure what argument is being advanced here, we seem to have several threads.”
Some of these have been introduced in the course of the discussion and, where I thought they related to the theme of the article, I pursued them. I find your comment “I find True Wales to be an exercise in frustration as they don’t seem to engage in logical argument” rather strange, as one of the things I have tried to do in this debate is to be evidential and based my comments on previously published data. It may only mean that we have a different take on the information rather than being illogical.
“Going back to the Richard Commission and the All Wales Convention we see well argued cases for change.”
I have avoided detouring into the “Richard Commission” as it is outside the remit and scope of the article, but my comments and Rachel Banner’s contribution acknowledge that any move from the present arrangement is change. Once again it may only be a matter of the difference in the type of change we want.
You say, “In many ways the GOWA 2006 was badly botched.”
The thrust of my argument, surely, is that it is inadequate and not fit for purpose and rather proceed to Part 4, we should look at an alternative…that is, change it!
If you want my critique on the subject of independence go to:
http://www.truewalesnocampaign.org.uk/Grassroots_Comment.html
and read the article on Carwyn Jones: “Hence home, you idle creatures”
(Then scroll down a few articles to:-)
Rhodri Morgan: “Sell, sell, sell!” “Rhodri Morgan talks to Martin Shipton about the difficulties surrounding the further powers debate”
- I sure you will find me much more unreasonable.
Your final comment: “The argument against seems to be a populist anti politician one rather than one based on any need or analysis of the proper function of the National Assembly.”
I ‘m sure you are not referring directly to the article or to my responses, as most of the comments have been complimentary, even when the writer has disagreed with me. I have analytically concentrated on one function and need of the National Assembly, and that is the defect with regard to scrutiny.
At election times all politicians resort to being populists. I’m writing my manifesto just now, promising clear roads in and out of Cardiff at all times, abolition of the Brynglas Tunnels, frequent low cost fast direct buses Cardiff to Llandudno, complimentary upgrades to business class Cardiff/ Anglesey, half price super highway broadband in all rural communities, immediate funds to every local authority to repair potholes…and much, much more to come during May …Including duckhouses for everyone!
But then, that is being anti-politician, isn’t it.
As far as I am concerned Len you are a politician, you may not be standing for public office but you are part of a political organisation and one of its spokespeople – thus you are a politician.
As far as I can see the National Assembly has much better scrutiny than exists at Westminster with far more opportunity for people outside the institution to have an input into legislation. I don’t see how the current arrangements where MPs look at LCOs but have nothing to do with any legislation flowing from them provides a good level of scrutiny. I think you need to make the case with some examples of where you see improvements as a result of Westminster’s input.
I thank you though, and I should have before, for opening this debate, at least your arguments are better presented and not tainted by paranoia as are so many of the contributors on other blogs from the No side.
Lyn David Thomas
“you are a politician” If my mother knew she’d hang her head in shame!
Truly, I am an innocent abroad unused to the wily ways of politicians.
I had hoped by this stage that people would recognise that I am not a supporter of the existing position any more than I am of moving to Part 4. Both arrangements are defective and I would prefer to be more radical about what might replace them. But, in all probability the AMs are going to push the ‘trigger’ and ask Peter Hain for a referendum. You might like to look at: http://www.news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/8460214.stm
It will tell you a lot about what might happen.
Overall, everyone has behaved themselves, including me, and I hope that these exchanges of opinion will help to have more reasoned debates in the future. Thanks.
When I consider the intrinsic value of the AWC as a barometer of the public attitude to the transfer of powers from the parliament, that has organically developed from the Star Chamber into a fully representative democracy over centuries, to the fledgling, artificially created assembly (you may construe a slight bias here) I immediatetly recollect the question first posed by Juvenal, in his ‘Satires’: ‘Quis custodiet ipso custodes?’
How did Rhodri Morgan ever rationalise that the Welsh electorate would be so naive as to believe that the Circus of Follies concoted and funded by the Welsh government was an impartial fact finding exercise rather than a thinly veiled ‘Yes Campaign’?
Richard…
One can only speculate…but then perhaps not…
…surely you have read my comments “Rhodri Morgan talks to Martin Shipton about the difficulties surrounding the further powers debate” link…http://www.truewalesnocampaign.org.uk/Grassroots_Comment.html, just below your article, ‘Quis custodiet ipso custodes?’ which is under my other article “Hence home, you idle creatures” on Shipton’s interview with Carywn Jones.
The close link between WAG and AWC was transparent, Betsan Powys of the BBC used the phrase ‘the alias” to describe the AWC. Anyone who attended a roadshow, I did twice could see it instantly. I went to the first at Port Talbot where I was left confused as to what the AWC was supposed to be doing and wanting to achieve and the other at Swansea where members of the Judge Ray Singh and Prof Parry, openly advocated just not Part 4 but autonomy. The only comfort was that not very many people bothered to turn up at either.
However, Sir Emyr has made the verbal comment that there is something in the Report for both the yes and the no groups to take from the Report. My critique was based on that premise.
At the presentation I made the comment to Sir Emyr that the Report’s analysis of public interest indicated that there would be a minority vote. I reference it above and describe it as bad democracy.
In a democratic society, sometimes we have to put up with poor behaviour of an administration using £1.3 as a ploy to promote their minority political objectives. But it has served an good purpose. One of the things that the ‘NO’ campaign can take from the Report is that Sir Emyr highlighted in his presentation a defect in the GOWA 2006 that needs addressing, and that is the issue of scrutiny.
For that I think it is worth the £1.3M if it wakes people up and stops them sleep-walking into one of the poorest forms of constitutional government known to mankind…well I may be exaggerating a little. I’d be quite content if it wakes peoploe up to what is really behind the One Wales Agreement push for a referendum. And if you haven’t read my two articles, I recommend you do so because…Rhordi wants autonomy and I. W . Jones wants a full law-making Parliament for Wales and Carwyn, enough said…he seems to live in another planet.
The words autonomy and full-law making Parliament for Wales words are not mine, they are Rhodri’s and IWJ.
I am grateful that we have had the AWC Report because it is a benchmark for reference in the forthcoming referendum campaign, in which True Wales will be all over the place drawing attention to the defects of the GOWA and the STATED intentions of WAG. Reference AWC Report 2009 and the Shipton interviews.
It is disquieting that Howell Morgan makes the claim that “basic services are going downhill”. This assertion is completely unproven, and the surveying by the WLGA suggests that the opposite may be the case.
It is a myth that the devolved insitutions and devolved politicians focus more on constitutional and nation building issues than they do on public services. This is a myth that needs to be challenged as it is plainly untrue. The fact that a lie forms one of True Wales’ main points does somewhat reassure me as a pro-devolutionist that their arguments can be taken apart.
Might I make one point about the idea of replacing the Government of Wales Act 2006 and starting again with something better (whatever that might be)? The point is simple: it isn’t going to happen. Getting a legislative slot at Westminster is always tricky – such slots are almost the most scarce commodity available in government. Securing one for the 2006 Act was, in fact, a major achievement (and one that was in doubt practically right up to the Queen’s Speech in 2005).
How scarce slots are in the coming years depends heavily on who is government. A majority Tory government will probably have a full legislative programme for its first two sessions (2010-11, a long session, and 2011-12). Thereafter, it’s less clear, but it will still come very late. A hung parliament might open the chances up more as there will be little that the 3 main UK parties can agree on, but whether a new Welsh devolution bill would fall into that category has to be questionable.
The reality is that the 2006 Act’s provisions are all that there are available for the present, and indeed the foreseeable future, and why they need to be made to work as best they can. They may be flawed, but they are all there is.