Ieuan Wyn Jones explains why Plaid Cymru is calling for a new Government of Wales Act to make policy delivery more effective

October 22nd, 2012

Plaid Cymru secured the 2011 referendum on law-making powers as part of the historic One Wales coalition deal four years earlier. The referendum secured an overwhelming ‘Yes’ vote and the rest should have been history.

After all the latest survey of public opinion, by ITV Wales in their excellent feature Who runs Wales? just over a week ago, showed a clear majority who agreed with us that the Welsh Government should have the most influence over life in Wales. This reflects what we saw in the referendum result and in other polling since then.

Little did we think that the new settlement would be called into question so quickly. The UK Government has referred the first two pieces of Welsh legislation to the Supreme Court. The Local Government Byelaws Bill, supported by all four parties, has been interrupted by the Conservative-Lib Dem UK Government on the grounds of a technicality involving a residual power that no Secretary of State has ever used. The Assembly Commission’s legislation on Official Languages has similarly been delayed by a legal issue over whether the Assembly can legislate on the English language. Even more worryingly, the legislation on Organ Donation looks almost certain to be challenged, despite being included in several party manifestos at election time.

Plaid maintains that the current legal disputes were avoidable. In particular, the Local Government Byelaws Bill could have been allowed to pass through by the UK Government, which could have given consent as part of the so-called ‘Respect agenda’, recognising that local government is a devolved policy field. In an equivalent situation in Scotland, the UK Government’s role in byelaws could have simply been altered by Scottish Ministers of their own accord.

Reports on ClickonWales from the Supreme Court are already suggesting that the Judges “seem perplexed as to why the UK and Welsh Governments are appearing in court”, and the no doubt substantial legal costs could have been avoided.

Yet at the same time, the potential for conflict is obvious when you have two governments trying to govern within a devolution settlement that is as unclear and confusing as that which was bestowed upon Wales. It might be assumed that local government is fully devolved. But as the Byelaws case shows, it isn’t. Are there other policy fields that are devolved, but where the UK Government has residual powers that have been left in the original 1999 Transfer of Functions Order and those that followed?

The Party of Wales has a clear proposal to solve this mess, remove the need for costly and distractive legal cases, and put Wales on a footing that matches public opinion. We are calling for a new Government of Wales Act and will be presenting this case as part of our evidence to Part II of the Silk Commission’s inquiry.

The purpose of such an Act would be to bring Welsh devolution into line with public opinion, by clarifying and simplifying the Welsh Government’s legal powers. The basis of the Act should be the Richard Commission recommendations of 2004. This means moving to a ‘ reserved powers’ model – in which everything is devolved, and Westminster retains a number of agreed reserved fields. A clearly defined legal jurisdiction would accompany this.

The Party of Wales will also be proposing bringing new policy fields into the new Government of Wales Act. For example, public opinion consistently supports Welsh control over criminal justice and policing. We would also need to look closely at job creating levers, and at powers equivalent to Scotland over rail infrastructure. We would hold a National Conversation aiming at gauging public opinion and the thoughts of industry, business, trade unions and other groups that have a stake in our emerging Welsh democracy.

The Party of Wales believes that we can achieve better for value for money if the National Assembly acquires more powers over say the railways.  We have a specific transport policy agenda that brings together infrastructure and train operations, and proposals for a not for profit rail franchise. The same can be said on issues to do with housing finance, or if we wanted to administer the Barnett allocation for teachers’ pay in a standardised national way in order to prevent localised pay.

Confusion over legal powers is a constitutional quagmire and is a distraction from policy delivery in Wales. This is because a clear and rigid settlement on the same grounds as Scotland has never been implemented, flying in the face of public opinion. More importantly, the job of delivering on the ‘bread and butter’ issues is made extremely difficult when devolution in Wales is so limited and scaled back. Attempts to improve the situation have only ever been accepted in part, with the pace of progress being dictated by whoever happens to be in power in Westminster. Surely it is time for Wales to take more control over its own future.

As the constitutional writer Alan Trench wrote for the Institute of Welsh Affairs after the referendum in 2011, “Law-making powers are far from the end of the Welsh devolution story… Instead, they are merely the start of a new chapter”. With a new Government of Wales Act we will create a better Welsh democracy, a more competitive political environment, and more opportunities to drive economic prosperity and achieve social justice. More would be at stake in Assembly elections. And importantly, the Wales that exists would reflect more closely how the people of Wales want to be governed.

Tags: , , ,

Ieuan Wyn Jones is AM for Ynys Mon and Plaid Cymru’s spokesman on constitutional affairs.

3 Responses to:“Welsh Government’s legal powers must be simplified”

  1. tredwyn says:

    A reserved powers model would be cleaner – as in Scotland and Northern Ireland. But will the Westminster Parliament find time for a new Welsh Bill? Who will support it and where will the pressure come from to make it happen? The indifference of the Welsh electorate to the legal challenges means little will happen. Change will follow only a real and evident popular demand.

    (Report comment)

  2. scrutineer says:

    Tredwyn – the support can come from the electorate if the issue is communicated using the right language and the right mediums.

    (Report comment)

  3. Martin Jones says:

    Tredwyn is partly right. I think what we do we have with regards to further devolution is obvious public support, but it is passive rather than a “demand”. So it won’t become really evident, especially in a time of economic crisis, except through opinion polls that go out of their way to ask the question about parity with Scotland or Government influence. Ultimately these issues have to be carried through boring, stuffy “constitutional” channels; but they can only ever work if public opinion supports them. This has always been the case. We had the All Wales Convention, the Richard Commission, Scotland had various commissions. The parties than put the resulting proposals to voters as part of manifestos. As ever, governance is something that is vitally important but seems remote, so I don’t blame people for being indifferent. But Tredwyn is partly right because the public needs to be on side. In this case all the evidence suggests the public in Wales does support a much greater level of devolution and the establishment of an effectively federal UK. A self-governing Wales within Britain is probably the majority feeling in Wales, which is what Ieuan Wyn Jones’ proposal would achieve.

    (Report comment)

Have your say

Please let us know in your message if you do not want the IWA to contact you in future or related IWA activity.