Assembly Commission steps up to the oche

"OOONE HUNDRED OR EIIIGHTY!?"
Has the National Assembly just made itself a bigger target for anti-politics darts?
(Pic : via digitalspy.co.uk)

• How many AMs do we need? (7.12.13)

Last week, the Assembly Commission published its response (pdf) to calls from Welsh Secretary, Stephen Crabb MP (Con, Preseli Pembs.), for a cross-party agreement on future devolution arrangements for Wales to be in place by March 1^st.

The headline Commission proposal (covered by BBC Wales, Western Mail and South Wales Argus) is an expansion of the National Assembly to somewhere ranging from 80 to 100 members.

The Commission's Reasoning

The Assembly is too small by all national and sub-national benchmarks – The paper says a 100 AM Assembly would be in line with the European norm for a nation of Wales' size, while 80 AMs would still provide constraints. Even if the Northern Ireland presses ahead with plans to reduce the size of Stormont to 90 MLAs, they would still have greater per-head representation than Wales.

Assembly Committees are at the minimum size to enable effective scrutiny – The Commission say the ideal number of AMs to properly reflect party balance is 12 per committee. Due to the limited number of backbenchers, the biggest subject committees (what Westminster calls Select Committees) have a membership of 10 AMs, with other committees having between 4 and 8 members. The number and size of committees has been "cut back to the bone", and the Commission find it hard to see how this can be reduced further without seriously impacting the ability to scrutinise legislation, budgets and policy.

AMs are juggling too many roles – The paper lists 109 different roles for the 60 AMs, ranging from ministerial positions, officer posts (committee chairs, presiding officers, party whips, business managers, Assembly Commissioners etc.) and being a committee member itself. This is before including their role of representing a constituency or region. This means a large number of AMs can't give a particular role their undivided attention. 80 AMs would improve the situation slightly, but 100 AMs is described as "the ideal position".

The Commission estimate that expanding the Assembly to 80 AMs would cost £7-9million, 90 AMs would cost £11-13million and 100 AMs would cost £14-17million. As the Assembly's running costs would only rise from 0.3% to around 0.4% of the ~£15billion block grant, the Commission believe the costs are justified as :

"....a reasonable price to pay for effective democratic representation, and would be offset by the benefits of more effective policy, legislative and financial scrutiny."

Other recommendations include :

• Giving the Assembly Commission the power to promote public awareness of devolution, the Assembly's electoral system and to encourage political engagement at all levels.
• The Assembly should be made "permanent" (can't be disbanded by the UK Parliament).
• The removal of several roles of the Welsh Secretary and UK Parliament in devolved affairs, which the Commission believes are outdated.
• Power over the number of members, electoral system to the Assembly and all other matters relating to the electoral system within Wales (such as lowering the voting age) should be devolved.

"What's that smell?"

The problem the Assembly Commission face is we didn't vote "yes" to the above either.
(Pic : The Independent)

On all grounds of reason and logic, the case for expanding the Assembly is as clear as crystal, and I support an 80-member Assembly. Unfortunately, modern politics isn't about reason, as the reaction of the public always has to be at the forefront of decision-makers' minds.

We should've had 80 AMs from 2007 – when it was agreed the Assembly would get legislative powers – but it wasn't implemented (as set out in the Richard Commission). Labour didn't want it as it came with a caveat of increased proportional representation. AMs are now living with the consequences of Peter Hain's legacy.

The argument comparing the Assembly with other institutions doesn't stand up very well. Scotland and Northern Ireland have criminal justice powers, which take up a hefty amount of legislative time. Meanwhile, many sub-national governments in Europe – like Flanders, Basque County and even the Faroe Islands and Isle of Man – have powers above and beyond those offered to Wales via the Silk Commission. New York City, for example, has what we would call "Devo-Max", yet it only has 51 councillors, and up to 40 committees and sub-committees.

The Commission have also sacrificed "quality" for the sake of "quantity". Imagine an Assembly with 10-15 Gwyn Prices and Mohammad Ashgars because that's what we would end up with.

At the risk of repeating myself from last time, they're going to have to consider alternatives whether they like it or not. They could :

• Argue for a reduction in the size of the Welsh Government to ~8 members (to free up backbenchers).
• Scrap/merge some committees. Do we need a Finance and a Public Accounts Committee? Scrutiny of the First Minister is the job of FMQs, isn't it? There's no equivalent in Scotland either.
• Create separate Westminster-style Select and Public Bill Committees (the Constitutional & Legislative Affairs Committee are holding an inquiry into Welsh law-making and this has been proposed by some witnesses).
• Rethink how AMs are briefed before committee meetings, including the mooted option of expert advisers.
• Greater use of short/one-day committee inquiries.
• Greater use of plenary sessions to scrutinise policy rather than committees (perhaps by scrapping some opposition debates, which tend to be repetitive).
• Here's a radical suggestion; devolve more power down to a local level – perhaps an elected regional tier of government – so scrutiny burdens on AMs decrease.

The only way I see an Assembly of 80, even 100+, AMs being palatable to the general public is if it's accompanied by a massive reduction in the number of politicians elsewhere : local councillors (perhaps down to 500-600) and MPs (perhaps 30, then 20 once a legal jurisdiction is established/criminal justice devolved). So not for the first time I'm in agreement with the Welsh Conservatives for pragmatic rather than ideological reasons.

I don't want to sound haughty, but I understand how hard AMs work as I routinely see a fair chunk of legislative paperwork they get through over the course of doing this blog. Having said that, someone with a reasonable level of intelligence and conscientiousness should be able to handle the workload as long as they have the right support staff.

99% of the public don't see any of this, and think AMs meet for a few days a week as a toy town Westminster to hold inconsequential debates, then spend Mondays and Fridays in their taxpayer-funded offices – when they're not on "holiday" (recess), of course.

If the Assembly Commission go out and say they're going to spend between £9-17million on an extra 20-40 full-time politicians (with all the associated baggage that comes with that), they shouldn't be surprised if they get a curt four-letter response from the public.

Add this to the recent proposals for changes to AMs' pay and it has the potential of being a PR equivalent of a collision between a sewage tanker and a lorry full of durians - with AMs caught in the headlights of both.

Meanwhile, Rachel Banner and UKIP will be looking on, rubbing their hands. As I said, modern politics isn't about reason.