Trade Union Bill: Senedd picks a fight

(Pic : Wales Online)

The latest - and slightly controversial - Welsh law was introduced by Finance & Local Government Secretary, Mark Drakeford (Lab, Cardiff West) earlier this week.

Read More

Assembly Committee Slams Wales Bill

(Pic : BBC Wales)

Last Thursday, the National Assembly's Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee published its report into the latest draft of the Wales Bill, which is now in the unelected House of Lords (pdf).

Read More

Senedd debates draft Wales Bill

Following the stronger words said on the draft Wales Bill over the last
fortnight it was rightly time for more measured discussion on the issues it raises.
(Pic : BBC Wales)

Yesterday, following the suspension of standing orders, the National Assembly held an extraordinary debate on the controversial draft Wales Bill.

Read More

The Draft Wales Bill (Number Two)

(Pic : ITV Wales)

Yesterday, the Welsh Secretary, Stephen Crabb MP (Con, Preseli Pembs.) introduced the draft Wales Bill to the UK Parliament on behalf of the UK Government – you can read it here (pdf).

Read More

A St David's Day Deposit

Legend says the ground beneath St David rose so all of his audience could see and hear him.
Like his namesake, the ground beneath David Cameron rose too, but it was a steaming mound of dung.

Most people don't care about the constitution, what powers the Assembly has or the intricacies of how devolution works. They're more concerned about public services, and what the decisions made by politicians mean for themselves and their families.

Some of us realise the constitution determines what decisions politicians are able to make in the first place – all of which has a direct impact on the public.

As you probably all know, the Silk Commission published two reports between 2012-2014 as part of "the next step in Wales' devolution journey" etc.

The first report (Silk I) covered taxation powers for the National Assembly. Those powers are now on the statute book in the Wales Act 2014, meaning from 2018 the Assembly will have the power to set landfill tax, stamp duty and the aggregates levy. It also means the Assembly can call a referendum on whether they should have the power to vary income tax - which the First Minister is already attempting to scotch. This is despite the inclusion of a new funding review, which Carwyn Jones said would be required for his government to back a referendum.

Holding a referendum on such a technical subject is, as Borthlas said today, "one of the silliest ideas ever to be proposed by a government" and very easy to lose.

As I've said before (Marching out of lockstep) a referendum on a general principle of fiscal powers - i.e. "Should the National Assembly have the power to fund devolved services by borrowing money and collecting taxes devolved to Wales?" - would be a juicer topic for the public to have a debate on and would definitely necessitate going to the polls to get a mandate from the electorate.

The second report (Silk II) covered extra powers, which was taken forward by the Welsh Secretary, Stephen Crabb MP (Con, Preseli Pembs.), who set a deadline of 1^st March – St David's Day – for a cross-party, cross-government consensus on Silk II's recommendations. You can read the full report, which was published last Friday to great fanfare, here (pdf).

Whisper it quietly, but I've been impressed with how Stephen Crabb has gone about his job. He's done more for Wales in 8/9 months than his predecessors have in the best part of a decade. I don't blame him personally for this brown whale, rising from the depths of the bowl to mock Ahab.

This may well be another "step forward on Wales' devolution journey", but it's also one last blast of Westminster's brand of constitutional Poodigree Chum out of the tradesman's entrance before the election.

What's been agreed?

• A reserved powers model, which should clear up what the Assembly's powers are by listing what the Assembly can't do. Except it won't clear anything up because of the piecemeal nature of Welsh devolution. Reserved powers would be like putting the current Schedule 7 in a mirror (if you see what I mean).
• Inter-governmental relations – Puts relations between the two governments on a more equal footing, with better co-ordination of policies in areas like training, economic development, cross-border rail routes and franchises as well as cross-border health services.
• Ports policy and development.
• Speed limits.
• Bus and taxi regulation, along with Traffic Commissioner functions.
• Places a duty on the UK Government to consult with the Welsh Government, and take into account Welsh energy policy, when approving energy projects of up to 350MW. This effectively means the Welsh Government will have a veto on "fracking".
• Sewerage and some aspects of water (with further negotiation).
• Marine licensing.
• At least one appointee to the Supreme Court should have an understanding of Wales.
• Local government elections.
• The Assembly itself – The Welsh Secretary will no longer have to appear before the Assembly, or have a right to participate in Assembly proceedings. The Assembly will also gain control over the age to vote in Assembly elections, the size of the Assembly and its name/branding. The National Assembly will also be recognised as "permanent".
• The First Minister should have the power to recommend appointments to Lord Lieutenancies (more on this from me later this month).

What's been taken off the table?

Some significant stuff – arguably the only significant powers outlined in Silk II.

• Youth justice and probation services.
• Policing (all aspects).
• There'll no longer be a review of devolution of the criminal justice system (courts, prisons, criminal law) in the 2020s.
• Drink-driving limits – this has already been devolved to Scotland.
• Network Rail funding – Scotland currently receives a population-based proportion of Network Rail's UK-wide funding (around 9%). In 2013, just 1% of Network Rail's budget was spent in Wales compared to a population share of ~5%. This means Wales will continue to, in nominal terms, "subsidise" English rail projects, resulting in significantly less than our "fair share" to invest here.
• The Crown Estate – It currently generates a £9.4million surplus in Wales, and is devolved to Scotland and Northern Ireland.
• State funding for S4C and appointment of S4C board members.
• Any and all aspects of social security - aspects of which will be devolved to Scotland.
• Responsibilities in relation to the Equalities and Human Rights Commission.
• Teachers' pay and conditions.
• The civil service.

What does this mean?

Thanks to the efforts of Nick Clegg and the "true party of Wales", the
National Assembly is set to have power over shit. Literally.

Not only are the UK Government hamstringing devolution, but there are people in and around the Assembly doing so as well.

The reason criminal justice powers have been taken off the table – the devolution of which would've finally put Wales on a near equal footing with Scotland – is because the Welsh Conservatives oppose it and must've vetoed it.

Welsh Labour probably did too, but they support devolution of policing at least (What's all this then?) – though Ed Miliband doesn't even want to go that far, promising some bizarre role in report-writing. It doesn't help that Owen Smith is arguably the most devo-sceptic Welsh Secretary-elect since 1999. He has to justify his position somehow.

The UK Government have also, quite literally, devolved shit to Wales. So we need to be grateful for the existence of Nick Clegg. Without Nick, Wales wouldn't have powers over faecal poltergeists and used tampons – but, at the same time, we're not good enough to run policing. Lib Dems should put that on their election leaflets.

I'm sure quite a few AMs from all parties will be underwhelmed by the St David's Day agreement, but this is a mess partly of their own making, as they put far too much faith in the "proper process" to the point of being gullible. In short, the UK never has been, and never will be, a union of equals; while constitutional reforms are pushed through in reaction to immediate threats to the status quo, not political consensus and grand commissions.

The UK is a very dysfunctional "family" indeed.The Scots have proven that if you want something you need to rattle your sabres. In political terms that means electing nationalists but, unfortunately, even then Wales would have very few sabres to rattle.

I'm not going to use the same old tired clichés about Wales "being slapped in the face" or "insulted" or "offered third-rate devolution" because this is exactly the outcome I was expecting :

The question there is if Scotland votes no in September, and as a result acquires further devolved powers or devo-max, Wales will be left behind yet again when - based on this report - Wales is tantalisingly close to achieving parity with Scotland (if criminal justice powers were devolved in future).
- See more at: http://www.oggybloggyogwr.com/2014/03/silk-ii-wrath-of-paul.html#sthash.TZafNehB.dpuf

The question there is if Scotland votes no in September, and as a result acquires further devolved powers or devo-max, Wales will be left behind yet again when - based on this report - Wales is tantalisingly close to achieving parity with Scotland (if criminal justice powers were devolved in future).
- See more at: http://www.oggybloggyogwr.com/2014/03/silk-ii-wrath-of-paul.html#sthash.TZafNehB.dpuf

The question there is if Scotland votes no in September, and as a result acquires further devolved powers or devo-max, Wales will be left behind yet again when - based on this report - Wales is tantalisingly close to achieving parity with Scotland (if criminal justice powers were devolved in future).
- See more at: http://www.oggybloggyogwr.com/2014/03/silk-ii-wrath-of-paul.html#sthash.TZafNehB.dpuf

04/03/2014 : "....if Scotland votes no in September, and as a result acquires further devolved powers or devo-max, Wales will be left behind yet again when - based on this report - Wales is tantalisingly close to achieving parity with Scotland (if criminal justice powers were devolved in future)."

The question there is if Scotland votes no in September, and as a result acquires further devolved powers or devo-max, Wales will be left behind yet again when - based on this report - Wales is tantalisingly close to achieving parity with Scotland (if criminal justice powers were devolved in future).
- See more at: http://www.oggybloggyogwr.com/2014/03/silk-ii-wrath-of-paul.html#sthash.TZafNehB.dpuf

he question there is if Scotland votes no in September, and as a result acquires further devolved powers or devo-max, Wales will be left behind yet again when - based on this report - Wales is tantalisingly close to achieving parity with Scotland (if criminal justice powers were devolved in future).
- See more at: http://www.oggybloggyogwr.com/2014/03/silk-ii-wrath-of-paul.html#sthash.TZafNehB.dpuf

There have been several opportunities down the years to put the devolved powers issue to bed once and for all and ensure Wales has a settlement that would last more than a decade. People like me can then shut up about independence and further powers, and AMs can concentrate on running the country, safe in the knowledge that they would be on a clearer footing within the UK's constitution.

Nope, not going to happen. Again.

A cross-party commission's reasonable and proportionate recommendations have been watered down. Again.

Scotland is moving leaps and bounds ahead of Wales. Again.

Powers which, by rights, should be devolved (like abortion limits, medicine licensing, drink-drive limits, and Network Rail funding....because subjects like health and transport are devolved) have been taken off the table. Again.

The only person who has a right to be chuffed with this is the Llywydd, Rosemary Butler (Lab, Newport West). Her recommendations (Assembly Commission steps up to the oche) are included almost word for word.

So don't worry. The National Assembly might, in future be called Welsh Parliament because "National Assembly" isn't a good enough name for Wales....but it is for France, Greece, South Korea, Hungary, Pakistan and South Africa.

Oh, and all those 16 year olds chomping at the bit to vote may be able to (The X-Factor). Great stuff. Meanwhile, the "Assemblement" will be able to block "fracking" but won't be able to control any energy project that produces more power than a BMX dynamo. The UK Government will retain ultimate control.

I look forward to the recommendations of the Baroness Kirsty Williams Commission on Devolution for Wales in 2024, which will outline a lasting settlement and put the issue of constitutional reform to bed for....

Read More

Marching out of lockstep

On Tuesday, the National Assembly debated the draft Wales Bill - I outline what the Bill itself proposes here.

Although many parts of the draft Wales Bill should proceed without a hitch, senior figures in Welsh politics have been critical of aspects surrounding the potential partial devolution of income tax, which has - subsequently - had knock-on political consequences.

What the Assembly Said

The Assembly debate was dry, but became interesting for events
outside the Siambr.
(Pic : indymedia.co.uk)

It's grey stuff, but if you want to follow it you can here.

The First Minister started by saying the Silk I recommendations should've been enacted in full, expressing regret at the absence of powers over air passenger duty. He also criticised the "lockstep" on income tax powers -  tax rises/falls have to be set in all income tax bands at the same time. He described it as a "significant restraint" that "ties the hands of the Welsh Government".

He ended by saying the Leader of the Opposition Andrew Davies's (Con, South Wales Central) view - who's spoken out against the lockstep - was closer to his own than that of the Welsh Secretary, David Jones (who supports the lockstep and who introduced the draft Bill).

Leanne Wood (Plaid, South Wales Central) argued that the lockstep prevents Wales from becoming competitive with the rest of the UK. She said the Silk Commission members, Welsh Government and all opposition parties opposed the "lockstep", but the UK Government are pursuing it anyway.

David Melding AM (Con, South Wales Central) broadly supported the draft Bill's provisions, but called for the Assembly to decide its own electoral arrangements and for a name change to Welsh Parliament. He also called for the Assembly to have powers to amend its budgetary procedures, which be believes will be essential should there be fiscal devolution.

Lib Dem Leader, Kirsty Williams (Lib Dem, Brecon & Radnor), welcomed the non-fiscal measures in the draft Bill, supporting a shared income tax arrangement between the Welsh and UK Governments....though saying the lockstep was unnecessary.

As you can tell, there's a running theme developing here.

Shadow Finance Minister, Paul Davies (Con, Preseli Pembrokeshire), said he was "proud" of the UK Government's record on devolution, citing the 2011 referendum, saying these proposed powers would "provide more financial accountability" to the Welsh Government. He said although he supports a referendum on income tax powers he - surprise,surprise - opposes the "lockstep".

Then things started to get "interesting".

Antoinette Sandbach AM (Con, North Wales) argued with Mick Antoniw AM (Lab, Pontypridd) that the Treasury said there could be no devolved income tax powers without the lockstep. Mick continued by saying the income tax powers (as they are currently) were "worthless", and also outlined his opposition to the removal of a ban on dual candidacy.

Nick Ramsay AM (Con, Monmouth) then described the lockstep argument as "one rather minor aspect". Antoinette Sandbach asked if Nick agreed it were better there were some fiscal devolution – even with the lockstep – than none at all? Nick said yes, saying he "had no issue with the lockstep". Uh oh.

Carwyn Jones was presented with an open goal - considering his own party has been split on the issue -  finishing by saying he "did not think Nick Ramsay would so publicly disagree with his own leader", cheekily suggesting that what Nick said was a leadership speech. Andrew Davies tried to drag Owen Smith's own embarrassing contributions into it, but it was too late.

Although both the debate motion, and Plaid Cymru amendment criticising the "lockstep", were passed with no votes against or abstentions, four Conservative AMs refused to join their party colleagues in voting on the amendment at all.

Bull Lets Whip

After being undermined publicly on party policy, Andrew Davies was
left with no option but to sack four of his Shadow Cabinet.
(Pic : Click on Wales)

The party you would expect to benefit most from fiscal devolution would be the Welsh Conservatives. When the powers were first announced, it was clear their (Welsh) policy would be to cut the top rate of income tax to encourage wealthy people from the rest of the UK to move here.

The lockstep (UK Government policy) prevents them from doing that because cuts to the top rate have to be matched by cuts to the basic rate – making tax cuts (or, indeed, tax rises) more expensive. This has led to a very public spat between Andrew Davies and David Jones over who speaks for the Welsh party and membership, and who decides policy in Wales.

So, as a sort of distraction, the Welsh Conservatives have since switched their public attentions from income tax to cuts to stamp duty – the latter of which would come regardless of a referendum and without any conditions attached.

Following the events of the debate and vote, news broke Wednesday night that four Shadow Cabinet members – the four who refused to vote on the lockstep amendment - had been sacked.

It's a big public slap-down, though I've always questioned why every single opposition AM needs a portfolio responsibility in the first place (Lib Dems aside for obvious reasons).

The South Wales Argus reported Nick Ramsay will also lose his role as chair of the Business and Enterprise Committee as a result. That's a shame because, as regular readers will know, I believe he's done an outstanding job there. Nick described the move as an "old fashioned coup", but last time I checked coups happened against leaders.

Andrew Davies hasn't set the world alight as Leader of the Opposition, but - in my opinion - he was left with no choice after such an open rebellion and challenge to his authority.

It's been said elsewhere that there was, slightly bizarrely, a three-line whip on this vote, which is very unusual for such a technical matter, and shows Andrew wanted his party to back both himself in his tussle with David Jones and his opposition to the lockstep. So I doubt any of the four can have grounds for complaint other than the method by which they were sacked, which seemed hamfisted.

Serves them right.

Andrew's shown decisive leadership, but this will have hurt. These things rarely have happy endings, and the early signs were matters could take a turn for the worse. Since then, it appears he's been given the equivalent of a "vote of confidence". Politics isn't football, but....


Useless

The "lockstep" is a political and fiscal hazard, and another depressing
indication of Westminster's patronising views towards Welsh devolution.
(Pic : via wordpress)

When it comes to Labour party policy in Wales, the party's devolution policy or the Welsh Government's stance, only Carwyn Jones is worth listening to. When it comes to UK Government policy, only David Cameron is worth listening to.

We also have three other party leaders in Wales to flag up Welsh issues. We don't need MPs yapping like chihuahuas over them to give themselves work. At least some MPs know their place.

There are two main reasons why the income tax powers are useless. Firstly, the "lockstep".

The reason Welsh devolution doesn't work properly, and why we have all these tiresome constitutional arguments, is because powers have been incrementally transferred on a piecemeal basis. If we're going to have devolved powers, those powers should be devolved in their entirety – as happens to a great extent in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

That's one of the main reasons I've come round to supporting independence, as promising to give us "tools to do the job", then instead giving us parts of tools, is an insult.

In terms of income tax, that should include the powers :

• To set the rates in their entirety – not just 10p in the pound.
• To create, merge or scrap tax bands.
• To set income tax rates in each tax band independently of each other.

The block grant would be then adjusted accordingly. Wales gets a "grown-up responsible government", parties in Wales would have the freedom to come up with income tax policies in their entirety, and the Welsh Government would be responsible for raising a fair chunk (about a quarter) of its current income.

We're not getting any of that. Instead we could be, effectively, getting income tax powers in name only as no party would want to hike or lower taxes across the board at the same time.

Secondly, there's the referendum.

A referendum on a general principle that the National Assembly should have tax-varying powers would be a referendum worth getting out of bed and voting in. Any tax powers could then be granted after negotiation between the two governments – with or without a fair funding formula in place.

It would also make it easier to devolve other taxes (like corporation tax and air passenger duty) in future, because a referendum yes vote would've given the two governments a mandate to transfer any tax powers at their convenience.

However, a referendum on whether the National Assembly should have the specific power to vary income tax by 10p in the pound in each tax band at the same ti....

I challenge anyone to explain to me how they would campaign in favour of the income tax powers as they are on the table, and how they would explain it to the man or woman in the street?

Why stop there? Why not have a referendum on landfill tax powers? Or business rates? Should we have a referendum on every single legislative consent motion proposed by Westminster in devolved areas?

The First Minister and others are right to say the lockstep renders the powers useless. Welsh Labour have confused things by saying they don't want income tax powers at present, even though they support the implementation of Silk I in full....which would bring income tax powers, subject to a referendum.

Wanting to tax gravel and rubbish, but not incomes (in principle), and using relative underfunding that amounts to around 2% of the block grant as an excuse not to pursue income tax varying powers, verges on the ridiculous.

Whether they like it or not, it underlines an inherent lack of ambition – not necessarily anti-devolutionism - on Welsh Labour's part. You wonder if they're really up to the rigours of running a country, and if instead they should retreat to their comfort zone of local government and move aside for the big boys and girls.

Roger Scully and Richard Wyn Jones warned of this back in November 2012 as Silk Commission Part 1 was reporting back. Richard has since been kind enough to provide a link to the Wales Governance Centre's detailed submission on the draft Wales Bill, and argument against a referendum, here (pdf).

I warned of it too, saying the whole exercise was "pissing into the wind", but what do I know?

If even people like me could see these problems coming 14 months ago, and nobody else foresaw this outcome, then we should all be worried. Some senior personalities in Welsh politics clearly have an excessively idealistic view of how Welsh devolution works. This isn't a union of equals, everyone. Get it into your heads. It never will be.

Bring on the jam. Income tax powers are toast.

Read More