 |
| The debate on how many AMs we now need is well and truly underway, but like many other things, could this issue have been put to bed years ago? (Pic : The Telegraph) |
Most of us will laugh at the suggestion that – amongst all the problems presently – we need more Assembly Members.
At the moment I'm firmly, but reluctantly, in the latter category. That's because although the case for more AMs is watertight, it's a poisonous proposition.
The Richard Commission famously recommended the number of AMs be increased from 60 to 80, which would put Wales – representative per head wise – in line with Scotland (with 129 MSPs for ~5million people) but behind Northern Ireland (108 MLAs for ~1.8million people).
Regardless of its potential impact on the referendum result, an extra 20 AMs should've come alongside primary law-making powers in 2011. It'll be a racing necessity should financial powers come in future.
We don't do things like that in Wales though because constitutional change here is driven by a mix of compromise and cowardice.
The Assembly chamber was designed to accommodate 80 AMs (eventually), and 80 AMs should be more than enough - not only for the current and future devolved settlements but independence too – presuming there were some sort of significant local government reform alongside it.
UK Changing Union and the Electoral Reform Society went one step further, suggesting the number of AMs should be increased to 100 in their comprehensive report, Size Matters (pdf).
The electoral mechanics of that is an issue in itself. The Elections in Wales blog has done a lot of work on that, though if I had to pick one system it would be 40 FPTP and 40 list members. It's all academic for the time being though.
The two big issues that have prompted this debate are levels of scrutiny and workloads.
The Scrutiny Issue
 |
| The impact of too few AMs in the debating chamber is obvious, but little attention has been paid to the impact in the Assembly's committees - which is perhaps more critical in scrutiny terms. (Pic : Click on Wales) |
Julie Morgan AM (Lab, Cardiff North) recently told The Western Mail that more AMs, or other changes to how the Assembly functions, were "urgently needed". Around half of Labour's AMs are on the government payroll (plus the Llywydd), meaning only 15 Labour AMs are left to scrutinise their own government's work. Many are – let's face it – not very good at it.
You could say that's down to good party discipline – with Janice Gregory (Lab, Ogmore) being an effective enforcer for Carwyn Jones.
You could also say the atmosphere is claustrophobic, with little wriggle room for discontent, meaning party whips are disproportionately more powerful that they would be in Westminster or the other devolved administrations. Significant Labour rebellions have happened before, but they've usually cost the rebel dear, which is typically Welsh.
I don't think it matters too much in plenary debates, because you would expect AMs of all colours to act tribally.
When it comes to the committees though, the situation's more worrying. According to Size Matters, only 42 AMs are available to work in the Assembly's 11 committees - not including Assembly Commissioners and Business Committee - once ministers, the Chief Whip, presiding officers and party leaders are excluded (though Kirsty Williams still sits in committees).
The detailed, line-by-line scrutiny of government takes place in the committees, so that's where the real "damage" is done. Labour AMs are often more critical of government policy in the committees than they are in the Senedd chamber. That's presumably because they have "freedom" to do so in a more deliberative atmosphere where they, not ministers, call the shots.
The remit of some of the committees is also very broad, meaning AMs lack opportunities to develop specialist expertise. Meanwhile, AMs have reportedly complained they don't have time to properly read material before committee sessions, meaning ministers are often at an advantage when being questioned.
As Julie Morgan found out herself earlier this year, committees have been manipulated by the government. Three pro-smacking ban Labour AMs were shunted out of the Health & Social Services Committee to prevent a Plaid Cymru amendment to the Social Services and Wellbeing Bill – that could've outlawed smacking – being added.
Obviously with more AMs, committees could be larger, or committee workloads would be spread out a bit more, giving AMs more time to digest evidence and develop their skills and expertise in certain areas. There would perhaps be an extra 6-10 Labour AMs (in an 80 member Senedd), possibly improving backbench scrutiny on the government side because backbenchers might be a little harder to control.
The Workload Issue
 |
| AMs are certainly paid enough, but has anyone ever considered the amount of work they need to get through in a typical week? (Pic : positivesharing.com) |
The Hansard Association report The Assembly Line (p19) from January said the average AM's workload is divided thusly:
- 22% in plenary
- 21% in committees
- 21% on casework
- 18% on constituency matters
- 20% "campaigning" at local and national level
....which is 102% (sic).
So only ~40% of AMs work is the stuff we see "on camera" (plenary and committee). The rest of it happens in their Cardiff and local offices or, I presume, at the various events hosted at the Assembly for charities, lobbyists etc.
The report said it tots up to a 57 hour week, with two thirds of that spent in Cardiff. Although people in professional jobs work longer hours anyway, to put that in perspective, in 2011 (pdf) 43 hours (including overtime) was the average in Wales.
Most of that work will consist of reading. Lots and lots of reading. E-mails, casework, committee evidence, legislation, accounts, and reports of various descriptions.
Because I keep my eye on things like committee reports and legislation, I appreciate how much legalese sludge an AM (and their support staff) gets through in an average week, but even then I perhaps only see a quarter to a third of it.
So, in the spirit of the season, AMs – all of them – work pretty damned hard. I don't think I've ever criticised "how hard" AMs work and I never will. Performance is a different matter. A 57 hour week – even if it might be slightly exaggerated – is a potential health hazard and needs to be brought down to something more reasonable.
We expect "value for money" from elected representatives, but an overworked AM is an ineffective AM.And yes, if workloads come down, pay and expenses should come down with it.
Committee work, in itself, is a pretty big commitment in terms of time and effort. Many AMs might sit on 3 or 4 committees (if you include filling in for absentees) when, ideally, they would perhaps only sit on 2 committees and no more than 4 Cross-Party Groups (some AMs are involved with 10+ CPGs).
The easiest solution is more AMs. In the absence of any consensus though....
What can be done with 60 AMs?
The Assembly will have to do at least 4 things :
Spread the workload out (to reduce working hours)
This could be done – as the Size Matters report suggests – though the use of Senior Advisers to provide specialist support to individual AMs when dealing with "issues of strategic significance locally and nationally". The numbers of support and research staff could also be increased to ensure AMs are properly briefed on significant legislative and scrutiny work over shorter timescales.
However, this approach wouldn't address the democratic factor. After all, support staff can't question ministers in plenary or committees.
AMs will have to help themselves too by limiting the number of committees and Cross-Party Groups they're a member of. Committees should also perhaps make better use of one day inquiries for technical, narrow-focused topics instead of spreading them out over several months in a "full" inquiry.
Increase the number of backbench government AMs
This could be done by capping the number of government ministers to 8-10 AMs (including deputies and Chief Whip, but not the Counsel General or Llywydd). This can increase as the number of AMs increases, or as more powers are devolved. However, if some deputy minister positions went it would reduce the amount of "apprenticeship" future ministers get to build up experience, and it would likely mean heavier workloads for other ministers.
Rethink Assembly scheduling and procedures
Welsh Conservative leader, Andrew Davies, recently proposed an extra plenary sitting on Thursday mornings. I presume that's because the Conservatives are Stakhanovites who want to work themselves and you to death for no reason other than to prove they're/we're all "working hard".
I don't judge politicians by how close they are to giving themselves a stroke or how little sleep they get. Working for show is idiotic.
There is, however, a more practical side to it that shouldn't be dismissed.
There's a case for short notice, extraordinary plenary sessions on Thursday afternoons (after committee meetings) if a plenary meeting on a preceding day is expected to run significantly beyond 6pm. They could also be used to discuss matters of urgent national importance that couldn't be fitted in to other meetings. At the moment, only the First Minister has the power to recall the Assembly, via the Llywydd, for that reason. Maybe the power to hold extraordinary Thursday sessions should pass to AMs as long as a minimum number of AMs agree.
If you want examples of when that might be useful, you could easily see the Stage 3 debate on the Social Services and Wellbeing Bill lasting 5 hours+. So instead of debating it on the Tuesday or Wednesday – probably leading to the Assembly sitting until beyond 9pm – it might be worth debating it in its own right on a Thursday afternoon.
Something like the recent PISA results could be seen as a "matter of national importance" that warrants its own plenary debate, with as many AMs as possible wanting to make a contribution, instead of the usual 30-45 minute discussion slotted in on Tuesday afternoons – which is what we're going to get next week.
Grant committees more independence and empower backbenchers
Ministers should fear the committees, it goes without saying. You get the impression though that Welsh Ministers are given an easy ride by Assembly committees. That could be – as said earlier – because AMs don't have enough time to get through the material before committee meetings. It could also be that AMs, especially of governing parties, are scared of putting their own ministers on the spot and potentially embarrassing them.
We probably need the Assembly Commission to undertake something similar to the Wright Committee in Westminster, which proposed (pdf) : direct election of committee chairs and committee members by secret ballot, a decrease in the number of committees (which might not be possible in the Assembly), and more frequent debates on both backbench motions and public petitions.
So only ~40% of AMs work is the stuff we see "on camera" (plenary and committee). The rest of it happens in their Cardiff and local offices or, I presume, at the various events hosted at the Assembly for charities, lobbyists etc.
The report said it tots up to a 57 hour week, with two thirds of that spent in Cardiff. Although people in professional jobs work longer hours anyway, to put that in perspective, in 2011 (pdf) 43 hours (including overtime) was the average in Wales.
Most of that work will consist of reading. Lots and lots of reading. E-mails, casework, committee evidence, legislation, accounts, and reports of various descriptions.
Because I keep my eye on things like committee reports and legislation, I appreciate how much legalese sludge an AM (and their support staff) gets through in an average week, but even then I perhaps only see a quarter to a third of it.
So, in the spirit of the season, AMs – all of them – work pretty damned hard. I don't think I've ever criticised "how hard" AMs work and I never will. Performance is a different matter. A 57 hour week – even if it might be slightly exaggerated – is a potential health hazard and needs to be brought down to something more reasonable.
We expect "value for money" from elected representatives, but an overworked AM is an ineffective AM.And yes, if workloads come down, pay and expenses should come down with it.
Committee work, in itself, is a pretty big commitment in terms of time and effort. Many AMs might sit on 3 or 4 committees (if you include filling in for absentees) when, ideally, they would perhaps only sit on 2 committees and no more than 4 Cross-Party Groups (some AMs are involved with 10+ CPGs).
The easiest solution is more AMs. In the absence of any consensus though....
What can be done with 60 AMs?
 |
| Should there be extraordinary Assembly sittings on Thursdays? (Pic : Click on Wales) |
The Assembly will have to do at least 4 things :
Spread the workload out (to reduce working hours)
This could be done – as the Size Matters report suggests – though the use of Senior Advisers to provide specialist support to individual AMs when dealing with "issues of strategic significance locally and nationally". The numbers of support and research staff could also be increased to ensure AMs are properly briefed on significant legislative and scrutiny work over shorter timescales.
However, this approach wouldn't address the democratic factor. After all, support staff can't question ministers in plenary or committees.
AMs will have to help themselves too by limiting the number of committees and Cross-Party Groups they're a member of. Committees should also perhaps make better use of one day inquiries for technical, narrow-focused topics instead of spreading them out over several months in a "full" inquiry.
Increase the number of backbench government AMs
This could be done by capping the number of government ministers to 8-10 AMs (including deputies and Chief Whip, but not the Counsel General or Llywydd). This can increase as the number of AMs increases, or as more powers are devolved. However, if some deputy minister positions went it would reduce the amount of "apprenticeship" future ministers get to build up experience, and it would likely mean heavier workloads for other ministers.
Rethink Assembly scheduling and procedures
Welsh Conservative leader, Andrew Davies, recently proposed an extra plenary sitting on Thursday mornings. I presume that's because the Conservatives are Stakhanovites who want to work themselves and you to death for no reason other than to prove they're/we're all "working hard".
I don't judge politicians by how close they are to giving themselves a stroke or how little sleep they get. Working for show is idiotic.
There is, however, a more practical side to it that shouldn't be dismissed.
There's a case for short notice, extraordinary plenary sessions on Thursday afternoons (after committee meetings) if a plenary meeting on a preceding day is expected to run significantly beyond 6pm. They could also be used to discuss matters of urgent national importance that couldn't be fitted in to other meetings. At the moment, only the First Minister has the power to recall the Assembly, via the Llywydd, for that reason. Maybe the power to hold extraordinary Thursday sessions should pass to AMs as long as a minimum number of AMs agree.
If you want examples of when that might be useful, you could easily see the Stage 3 debate on the Social Services and Wellbeing Bill lasting 5 hours+. So instead of debating it on the Tuesday or Wednesday – probably leading to the Assembly sitting until beyond 9pm – it might be worth debating it in its own right on a Thursday afternoon.
Something like the recent PISA results could be seen as a "matter of national importance" that warrants its own plenary debate, with as many AMs as possible wanting to make a contribution, instead of the usual 30-45 minute discussion slotted in on Tuesday afternoons – which is what we're going to get next week.
Grant committees more independence and empower backbenchers
Ministers should fear the committees, it goes without saying. You get the impression though that Welsh Ministers are given an easy ride by Assembly committees. That could be – as said earlier – because AMs don't have enough time to get through the material before committee meetings. It could also be that AMs, especially of governing parties, are scared of putting their own ministers on the spot and potentially embarrassing them.
We probably need the Assembly Commission to undertake something similar to the Wright Committee in Westminster, which proposed (pdf) : direct election of committee chairs and committee members by secret ballot, a decrease in the number of committees (which might not be possible in the Assembly), and more frequent debates on both backbench motions and public petitions.
0 comments:
Post a Comment