Advertisement
BBC BLOGS - Betsan's Blog

Lessons learned

Betsan Powys | 09:10 UK time, Saturday, 28 November 2009

Comments (9)

stig_large.jpgOn Monday morning a room full of seventy and eighty-something year olds taught me a lesson. No, they taught me a few.

Lesson number one: as far as a future referendum goes never talk in terms of 'full law-making powers' being devolved to the Assembly because a room full of men who've spent their lives leading people, curing people and playing it straight as civil servants are still sharp enough to know that's really not the case. Most of them, at a guess, don't want any more powers devolved to the Assembly but they'd like to know what they're in for if they vote Yes or No.

Lesson number two: never talk in terms of powers 'akin to' the Scottish Parliament, not unless you have the time and the nifty mechanism to explain exactly what 'akin' means in this instance. What it actually means is not very like at all. If there is a referendum and if there's a Yes vote in that referendum then the 'akin' comes down to the fact that in Cardiff, as in Edinburgh, politicians could get on with it without having to refer to Westminster first.

What it is they could 'get on with' - in other words, what sort of powers they'd have - would remain very different.

And lesson number three: when your audience can hear lunch being served next door, try not to talk about a move from Part 3 of the Government of Wales Act (law-making powers delivered bit by bit) to Part 4 (law-making powers delivered all at once) if you don't want to lose them.

When Sir Emyr Jones Parry talked about a 'fog' surrounding the devolution debate in Wales, he was right. And so much blood and ink is being spilt about when and whether a referendum should be held it's perhaps not surprising that few people have thought too much about what happens if and when Wales gets there. Carts and horses and all that.

But it should be - hence yesterday's quiz. The Order of the Golden Anorak is shared between Tomos Livingstone, the Western Mail's political editor and the Stonemason, who is made Holder of the Goblet of Perpetual Cynycism for not being help himself from framing his answer as he did.

Anyway, back to the quiz. The link between the ten things on the list? They're all things that the National Assembly would still probably not be able to pass laws on even after the move to Part Four, even though each fall within areas which are devolved to Wales. See what I mean about "full law-making powers" not really cutting it?

At this point - stop. Switch on the kettle. Make yourself a strong cup of coffee. This next bit gave me a headache to work out and is, in all honesty, the work of what feels like an ad-hoc constitutional committee. The chief adviser was the Stig - our tame constitutional expert who prefers to remain behind a tinted crash helmet a la Top Gear.

So, Stig, is the move from Part 3 to Part 4 after a successful referendum the Welsh legislative equivalent of trading in a Trabant for a Lamborghini?

No. And here's why. Let's open our hymn books to Schedule 7 of the Act. Schedule 7 is currently sleeping, that is, it only comes into force after that successful referendum on Part 4.

Part 4 will give the Assembly the power to pass Acts, or pieces of primary legislation, in each of the 20 devolved fields - think health, education, agriculture, the Welsh language, environment and so on. Schedule 7 is, in a nutshell, a list of exceptions and there are a fair few.

So for example under field 10, which is Highways and Transport, there are a list of exceptions, which include road freight transport services, including goods vehicles operating licensing, drivers' hours, public service vehicle operator licensing, and several more, relating to rail security and heritage, shipping, aviation, and so on.

Under field 3, Culture - broadcasting is excepted, under field 4, Economic Development, consumer protection is excepted.

In many cases, it's just common sense that the exception should mean that powers should stay at Westminster - look, for example, at field 9, Health. There, the exceptions include abortion, human genetics, human fertilisation, human embryology, surrogacy arrangements and xenotransplantation for example. No one would want a misguided Act of the Assembly resulting in Wales becoming a kind of Frankenstein tourism destination.

But once Schedule 7 wakes up, it becomes a living thing - that it, it can be changed, updated, refreshed, however you want to put it. And how? Via an Order in Council, approved by the Assembly, and both Houses of Parliament. Sound familiar? Those who thought we'd see the last LCO vanish with a Yes vote might want to think again.

Of course, the whole Government of Wales Act has been a living document, with matters and exceptions being added to Schedule 5 - Part 3's equivalent of Schedule 7 ... keep up at the back ... every time an LCO is passed. This means that when we move from 3 + 5 to 4 + 7, there will need to be a tidying up exercise - one Super-Order that will rewrite Schedule 7 as it was originally drafted at the time the Act was passed in 2006.

But that one first Order, according to the Act, will not be passed with any reference to the Assembly. It will be drawn up by the Wales Office, or its successor and voted on by both Houses of Parliament. This could be a tidying up exercise but it could, in theory, give a significant boost to the Assembly's new powers, by removing some of the exceptions.

Contrast the current lengthy LCO process to get powers over the Welsh language - when powers over broadcasting could be devolved at the stroke of a pen in Whitehall by removing it from the list of exceptions in the new Schedule 7. Of course, DCMS would probably have a view on this, but I'm sure the savvier advocates of maximum devolution -and its sharpest critics - will be looking with interest at this process.

The lesson then?

On a very basic level, it's about terminology. When it comes to Part 4, full law-making powers it certainly ain't. Post a Yes vote, the Assembly will be keen to flex its muscles by passing Act after Act perhaps but how long before it finds something it's not strong enough to lift?

Then our new friend Schedule 7 may become of interest to more than just anoraks and Stigs.

Fight the Fog Quiz

Betsan Powys | 11:51 UK time, Friday, 27 November 2009

Comments (14)

I'm not around today but don't want you to 'leave with nothing' ... as someone who's not known for her love of Wales likes to say.

So: try this for size. I'll post the answer - and reason for bothering to ask the question - later.

What do these ten things have in common?

*Repealing the hunting ban in Wales
*Imposing new rules on laboratories which test on animals
*Bringing in stronger protection for consumers
*Minimum standards for hearing aid providers
*Stronger licensing of public sector vehicle operators
*More stringent limits on lorry drivers hours
*Minimum pricing for alcohol
*Tougher anti social behaviour orders
*Higher safety standards for ships and boats using Welsh ports

Have a go.

Holding your breath

Betsan Powys | 13:15 UK time, Thursday, 26 November 2009

Comments (35)

So what has Peter Hain announced this morning?

If you're in his shoes, the answer is "a major breakthrough for Wales".

If you're in Adam Price MP's, it's "a betrayal of the people of Wales".

What is 'it'? It's the UK Government's response to this man's report. Gerry Holtham chaired an independent commission that looked at the way Wales is funded. It concluded that by the end of the next decade, without reform, Wales could have lost out by more than £8 billion pounds - the equivalent to £2,900 per Welsh resident - due to the formula being used at the moment to work out how much public money comes to Wales - the Barnett Formula.

The Holtham Commission report also said there should be an immediate "funding floor", so that Wales doesn't slip any further behind, ahead of the whole system being fundamentally reformed.

That was the wish-list. What's been delivered?

Mr Hain is clear that the Barnett formula so far has delivered a fair deal for Wales but that if in future it does, then he's got a commitment from the Chancellor Alastair Darling - for the first time as he points out - that "the UK Government will take action if Wales becomes disproportionately disadvantaged by the Barnett Formula".

What does that commitment amount to?

It's not Gerry Holtham's "floor" - the interim measure whereby the Treasury would amend the Barnett formula to effectively freeze funding at the current level.

There is no specific floor in this commitment and it's not clear either to what extent a future Conservative chancellor, should there be one any time soon, would be bound by Mr Darling's Welsh deal.

Gerry Holtham isn't talking major breakthroughs but neither is he talking betrayal. He's welcomed the promise "to take steps to ensure that Wales is not 'disproportionately disadvantaged' in the future". He is clearly on side.

Then comes the qualifier: "Evidently there is work to be done to make the pledges operational, and also to consider the other recommendations that are not covered by the UK Government's statement".

So what of those who see in Mr Hain's statement a betrayal?

They hone in on one word in the key statement and cry foul: "if Wales becomes disproportionately disadvantaged by the Barnett Formula". If? It already is disproportionately disadvantaged, they argue. That's exactly what the Holtham Commission concluded after all and the UK Government don't seem to be saying he's wrong.

No ifs. No buts says Adam Price.

"They recognise implicitly that Wales is 'disadvantaged' by the Barnett Formula, as it has been for decades and for which we are acutely suffering, but will only step in once Wales is 'disproportionately disadvantaged', whatever that means. Quite simply, this is a betrayal of the people of Wales and, in every area of Wales, people will now know that Labour has simply let them down".

I doubt somehow whether you were waiting for a cheque for £2,900 to land on your mat - or even appear in your account in instalments. IF you were by any chance, now's the time to stop holding your breath and start wondering just what the Conservatives would do about reforming the Barnett Formula.

Explore the BBC

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.