Fourth Assembly Review : Key Achievements

Although the National Assembly doesn't officially dissolve until April 6^th, as this week is the last sitting week the election campaign will soon ratchet up a gear or two.

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

Assembly Requests "Clear & Durable" Devolution Settlement

When the Prime Minister and that-other-bloke-who-used-to-be-important
announced their response to Silk II, it looked like we were due constitutional clarity.
So far it's still a bit cloudy.
(Pic : The Guardian)

The Assembly's Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee recently reported back on a short inquiry they undertook into the future of devolved powers. This was done in light of Silk Commission Part II, the fallout from 2014's Scottish independence referendum, St David's Day Agreement and the forthcoming Wales Bill – expected to be introduced in the autumn.

Read More

Westminster 2015 : The Key Issues in Wales

What are likely to be the main issues for Welsh voters?
(Pic : Click on Wales)

The first debate's out of the way, I've given my verdict on the Coalition and the manifestos are going to be released over the next few weeks (I'll look at them in more detail once their all out, though UKIP are dragging their heels by the looks of it) - which means it's time to focus on some of the issues that might be fought over in Wales.

Read More

Westminster 2015 : How have the Coalition performed?

As of Monday, every MP will be unemployed and scrounging for votes. So it's fitting
to kick them when they're down, as the Cameron administration know all about that.
(Pic : millenniumhotels.co.uk)

With the formal dissolution of the UK parliament coming on Monday, the time's come to kick-start my coverage of the 2015 House of Commons election.

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

Indyref - The National Assembly Reacts

(Pic : preventdisease.com)

There's been a lot of discussion from the Bay Bubble (too much in my opinion) on what last week's Scottish independence referendum, and its result, "means for Wales" .

I consider yesterday's statement from the First Minister (and debate) the "official" National Assembly and Welsh Government response. Until Westminster decides to put something on paper, everything else is constitutional nut-busting and bean-flicking.

I should take this opportunity to highlight some new features on the National Assembly's website(s) which myself and others played a minor role in helping to develop.

The web pages have been made mobile/tablet-friendly, while the search function has been revamped to make it easier to find specifics in the Assembly's archives; whether that's in the record of proceedings, by committee topic, location, AM etc.

Senedd TV – which was crap – has been radically overhauled. The picture quality's now high-definition, which is better than that provided by BBC's Democracy Live (plus it covers all Assembly meetings, which includes the committees and Assembly-related events).

Senedd TV now has a live rewind and pause facility, a much simpler way of embedding videos in third-party websites with the ability to create clips (unfortunately they always autostart, which created a wall of noise when I attempted it here - hence the slight delay to posting this blog FIXED), and will eventually put transcripts alongside the video to act as de-facto subtitling.

I suppose the time's come to test this out....

The Assembly Indyref Debate



The First Minister started off (clip) by saying that he spoke with the Prime Minister last Friday, and he would hold David Cameron to his promise that Wales would be "at the heart of the debate". Despite Scotland's "positive choice to remain in the UK", he said the status quo was gone and there was no going back to the way things were.

The future of the UK needs to be decided by the whole UK, and we need to move on from "short-term sticking plaster solutions", as "change in one part of the UK should mean change in the others". He plugged Silk I, and called for the "swift implementation of Silk II" – as long as any extra powers considered for Scotland are considered for Wales too.

Leader of the Opposition, Andrew Davies (Con, South Wales Central) said (clip) that the constitution needed to be looked at as a whole, with no nations in isolation – including England. He said there was no automatic need for powers that might be going to Scotland to come to Wales due to the closer interconnection with England in terms of public services. He asked how the Welsh Government would take this forward, and whether the role and number of MPs from the devolved nations needed to be looked at?

The First Minister said the response from the UK Government and Prime Minister was "woefully inadequate", believing a Westminster cabinet sub-committee isn't suitable, with the solution requiring involvement from all of the UK's governments – including on the issue of MPs.

He said English votes for English laws (EV4EL) wouldn't work, citing an example where privatising parts of the English NHS would impact spending in the devolved administrations. He added that each of the nations needed to be recognised as "different, but not second best", saying Scotland remained in the UK "by a whisker", and could still secede if the UK isn't properly rebalanced.

In response to questions from Julie Morgan AM (Lab, Cardiff North), Carwyn said that there needed to be a "sensible and calm way forward" on reform, and that "The Vow" was given in haste. He had sympathy for House of Lords reform (which Julie attempted whilst an MP), and suggested a model similar to the US Senate, where geographical regions are given equal representation. The First Minister supports the voting age being reduced to 16 across all elections - which is becoming a cross-party consensus since the Scottish referendum.

Plaid Cymru leader, Leanne Wood (Plaid, South Wales Central), said (clip) the Prime Minister was yet to elaborate on his comment that Wales would "be at the heart of the debate", and criticised the UK Government's position on the Wales Bill, which she believes is too weak. She also raised the lack of vision from the First Minister on his preferred structure for devolution.

Leanne asked whether a cross-party position would be agreed before any negotiations with the UK Government, or whether individual parties would submit their own proposals? She said Plaid would work for a common agreement if possible, and asked what the First Minister meant by "swift implementation of Silk II" and whether that meant by or during the next Assembly term? She rattled off a list of possible powers including corporation tax and the Assembly's electoral arrangements.

The First Minister expected the "lockstep" to go from the Wales Bill. He also expected the current timetable for Silk II to be adhered to, but it needs to address the £300million underfunding issue first. He said tax powers needed to be looked at across the UK as a whole, with a certain level raised UK wide with devolved top-ups – this should include the tax credit system. He agreed that electoral arrangements should be a matter for the Assembly, but that a two-thirds majority should be needed to make fundamental changes.

Welsh Lib Dem leader, Kirsty Williams (Lib Dem, Brecon & Radnor), said (clip) the status quo was never going to be an option after the referendum result. She said changes to the Welsh devolution settlement "must provide greater clarity....stability....and accountability", and that Silks I & II provided a "blueprint for Westminster negotiations".

She asked whether progress had been made on joint UK-Wales working groups? Whether extra powers beyond those in Silk would be assessed on whether they would be in the Welsh interest? And whether local councils should also have devolved powers?

The First Minister responded by saying the UK Government hadn't committed to any part of Silk II this side of the UK General Election. He said some uncontroversial parts – like reserved powers – could be visited sooner in the current Wales Bill.

He said it wasn't his decision whether powers are appropriate for Wales or not – it's a matter for the Assembly as a whole. However, he added a cautionary note that new powers shouldn't come without financial cover. He also added that the Williams Commission provided an opportunity to devolve powers downwards from the Assembly.

In response to questions from Mick Antoniw AM (Lab, Pontypridd), Mike Hedges AM (Lab, Swansea East) and John Griffiths AM (Lab, Newport East), the First Minister said that it wasn't good enough that Westminster leads with everyone else feeding in - "those days are gone". He also pointed out the importance of redistribution of wealth, which was part of "The Vow" and – as John Griffiths pointed out – played a key part in the referendum debate.

The most interesting contribution came from Simon Thomas AM (Plaid, Mid & West Wales). He said (clip) the high turn-out showed that Scottish independence/the constitution was, "an issue people were concerned about and interested in" (we're constantly told nobody is). He pointed out that it was ironic that what was now proposed for Scotland ("Devo Max") wasn't on the ballot paper and should be proposed for Wales too.

He asked the First Minister to expand on what he means by "Home Rule", and brought up the question of the income tax referendum, and whether it would be better to have a referendum on the principle of "Home Rule" itself (something I've hinted at before too)? He also asked whether a written constitution for the UK would be appropriate?

The First Minister underlined that were "pros and cons" to having an unwritten constitution, one of the pros being the flexibility if offered. He repeated that it was important that the "lockstep" went, and described his definition of "Home Rule" as a guarantee of devolution, with powers clearly under the control of the people of Wales (reserved powers?). He said, "We're all partners in the UK" and, "not all powers under the sun should reside in Westminster."

Constitutional Vinegar Strokes

When the Welsh political class discuss the constitution, it makes me want to pant hoot my way up into the hills and forests on my knuckles never to return, a little piece of me dying each time. Once again I feel as though my soul is being slowly harvested.

Consider just how many constitutional conventions we've had in Wales since 1999. It reads like a war memorial; Richards, Holtham, Jones-Parry, Silk (I, II), Williams – that's on-off constitutional masturbation for the best part of 12 years. You can add the Institute of Welsh Affairs' well-meaning but baffling proposal for a "crowd-sourced" convention to that list too.

Every single time extra powers for the Assembly have been proposed, there's a watering down of said proposals; proposals which could settle the matter now are kicked down the road through "death by committee". 5 to 10 years later, when the political class realise they might actually need the powers they rejected in the last round of constitutional hand shandy, the process starts all over again.

The harsh fact is that while supporters of independence know what we want, and those who want to abolish the Assembly know what they want, those in Wales who fall "in between" (every single party, bubble insider and politician in Wales) don't have a f**king clue what they want - and they've lost control of the debate as events have overtaken them.

It's only now, with the Union suitably threatened, that we're starting to get some strong desire for reform. I've already lost interest.

"Home Rule" (in the Irish sense) is what we would now call "Devo Max" (devolution of all domestic/internal policies, like the Isle of Man and Channel Islands), except Welsh Labour have never wanted that. For all the harnessing of Lloyd-George's ghost, the First Minister is trying to sell Silk II as "Home Rule" as if it'll settle the matter for generations when it'll do nothing of the sort - energy powers for one.

In fairness, the Lib Dems have always supported federalism, but have never outlined what that means in practice. Plus, it's not as if they've pushed hard for that whilst in power at Westminster.

The Welsh Conservatives now appear to back federalism, but couldn't even agree on something as basic as the income tax lockstep. They appear to want all the trappings of a nation state (Treasury, "Welsh Parliament") without the nation state bit, and it looks like Carwyn is willing to go along with that too. I think that's called, "Having your cake and eating it." There are those of us who are a bit more grown up.

Plaid Cymru have launched another discussion paper, this time relating to the constitution (pdf), which is essentially a repackaging and rewording of their Silk Commission submissions (they're not going to pull one over on me that easily). This should be right up their street, but they've wrapped their latent support for independence in so many euphemisms and meaningless management-speak phrases down the years they've confused themselves and the rest of us.

They held another sodding debate on this today; "rebalancing powers between nations" and "sovereignty resting with the people of Wales" becoming the new "self-government" and "independence in Europe/Europe of the regions". The fact they've said more on Scottish independence in the last two years than they have on Welsh independence in the last ten speaks volumes.

This is a debate where Wales is quite firmly on the sidelines. That's wrong, and the First Minister spoke a lot of sense on this yesterday. But because Westminster can't see what's in front of its face constitution-wise, it's been reduced to a matter between England and Scotland.

As far as Westminster are concerned, we've had our constitutional convention – Silk I & II – and if the Welsh political class aren't satisfied with that, too bad, that's all you're getting because it's all you said you wanted. There's no point bleating for more powers (when they were rejected whilst they were on the table) just because Scotland might get them – I'm talking welfare, broadcasting etc. They blew their load too soon.

As I support independence, no tinkering with the UK's archaic constitution is going to satisfy me. Though having said that, I can live with a federal or (preferably) confederal UK, that retains some semblance of wealth redistribution, whilst giving the respective parts maximum control over what to do with those funds and policies (including England and Cornwall).

The biggest mistake Unionists in Wales are making is thinking that the UK is a partnership of equal nations when it's actually an English socio-economic hegemony. Westminster is an English Parliament controlling the whole UK's affairs despite devolution.

Once you take the economics out of the equation, perhaps they'll start to see that unless they can manufacture a working federal model for the UK, Welsh independence isn't as silly a proposition as it sounds. It's actually very practical, and it'll save me some skin on my knuckles at least.

Read More

Silk II : The Wrath of Paul

On Monday, the second and final part of a wide-ranging review into Welsh devolution was published by the Silk Commission – available here (pdf).

The first part looked at fiscal powers, culminating in the current Wales Bill. This second part, however, looked at the National Assembly itself and its devolved powers, as well as other issues like the Welsh civil service and cross-border cooperation.

It was difficult to decide how to approach this, so I decided to split it into one chunk looking at devolved powers, another at key powers taken off the table and another looking at changes to "the machinery of government" (civil service, the Assembly etc).

What further devolved powers does Silk II propose?

The headline proposals are to devolve policing and youth justice, though
without wider criminal justice powers at present.
(Pic : BBC Wales)

Policing – The headline recommendation, which includes crime prevention and community safety. Devolving the police would mean the National Assembly would have legislative competence for the "governance and administration" of the police in Wales – the only emergency service not currently devolved. Things like the National Crime Agency would remain non-devolved. In terms of funding, the current Home Office grant would transfer to Wales, with an estimate £2-3million bill to set up a specialist Welsh Government policing team. Policing should be devolved by 2017.

Youth Justice - This covers the "treatment and rehabilitation" of those aged 10-17 who commit criminal offences. Many of the factors here are intertwined with devolved and local government services like education, social services, training and health. So it's recommended administration of youth justice services be devolved by 2017, which would cost around £300,000.

Transport – There's a package of powers here, the big ones being devolution of Network Rail funding and the Wales & Borders rail franchise, which is what the Welsh Government and Enterprise and Business Committee have long called for. Also included is ports development, which is important for the economy. Elsewhere in public transport, there are proposals to devolve Traffic Commissioner functions as well as regulation of bus and taxi services. In terms of road transport, there's a recommendation to devolve speed limits and drink-drive limits – in line with what's happened in Scotland.

Energy Project Consent – Because the energy needs of Wales (a net-exporter of electricity) would be out of kilter with wider UK needs, the full devolution of energy consent was rejected – however the limit for the Welsh Government to consent to energy projects would be raised to 350MW from the current 50MW (more from A Welshman's Blog).

Water (Partial) – Powers over sewerage should be devolved, and the boundary for legislative competence should be aligned with the national borders, with a formal inter-government protocol on cross-border water issues.

Local government elections – Including their administration and rules of conduct. Technically speaking, the local government electoral system is devolved, but I imagine this recommendation includes that too.

Teachers' pay – In line with Scotland and Northern Ireland, however pensions devolution has been rejected as it would discourage cross-border movement of teachers between England and Wales. The Scottish and Northern Irish education systems are a bit more independent than the Welsh system anyway.

What devolved powers did Silk II reject?

The Commission rejected the devolution of broadcasting, but included
measures that will give the National Assembly an enhanced role.
(Pic :outcasting.org)

Criminal Justice (for now) – This includes the court system, prisons, legal aid, sentencing guidelines, public prosecution and probation services. The costs of creating a Welsh judiciary are much, much smaller than I was expecting - £2million – but the additional cost of a Welsh court system would be £10million. The Commission say the Assembly should instead start off with powers that impact the "day to day lives" of people (policing). So it's rejected now, along with prisons, but something that "should be contemplated in future", with a full review into devolution of criminal justice taking place between 2018-2025.

Further economic powers – The report rejects further devolution of economic powers. Amongst those proposed were DWP work programmes, consumer protection, regulation and inward investment. Instead, the report says there should be better cross-border coordination in policies which overlap (like training programmes).

The Crown Estate – Instead of transferring responsibility for the Crown Estate to Wales, its recommended Wales have similar status to Scotland, with an appointed Crown Estate Commissioner and Crown Estate office.

Broadcasting – As expected, and as I predicted back in September last year, devolution of broadcasting has been rejected due to opposition from both Welsh and UK governments. However, the National Assembly "should take an enhanced role in broadcasting" with a devolved governance body (Welsh BBC Trust), public funding for S4C should be devolved (which doesn't matter as it's moving to whole scale licence fee funding) and appointment of S4C Authority members should require Welsh Government approval. Ofcom should also have a board member with "specific responsibilities for Wales".

Social security – "Social welfare" is devolved to the National Assembly, that includes things like social services and child protection. Social security – aka. the benefits system – isn't, and isn't even devolved in Scotland or Northern Ireland. 46-51% of people polled believed the National Assembly should control the benefits system, however it's rejected because it's an important part of the social and economic union, and the Welsh Government were concerned about exposure to budgetary risks.

What does Silk II outline for the machinery of government?

In addition to reserved powers, by 2021 will this
be home to an 80-member Welsh Parliament?
(Pic : National Assembly of Wales)

Reserved powers – Arguments in favour of a reserved powers model are :

• Certainty in what powers the Assembly has, meaning they can "legislate with confidence".
• Schedule 7 of the Government of Wales Act 2006 is "unclear", because the whole thing has to be consulted before laws are made, while it's obvious in a reserved powers model which powers are explicitly off the table.
• It would "be more stable over time", meaning no challenges to Welsh laws as we've seen in (currently) three cases. A reserved powers model would also reduce the risk of such litigation.
• It would "bring greater consistency" with the rest of the UK, as a reserved powers model is used in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
• It would enable the devolution settlement itself to be redrawn along "clearer and more logical principles" and it would be simpler.

Inter-governmental relations – Welsh and UK governments should share good practice, with a statutory code provided in a new Government of Wales Act. A Welsh-UK Government intergovernmental committee should be established with a new arbitration system for disagreements between the two governments.

The National Assembly itself – Some proposed solutions to the "scrutiny gap" and demands on AMs time have included "smarter working" (which I've covered before) adding co-opted unelected members to Assembly committees (as in local government) or the creation of a second chamber. However, the Commission say it's "convinced the Assembly requires more backbench members....to scrutinise policy and legislation more thoroughly." They therefore propose an increase in the number of AMs from 60 to 80 at a cost of approximately £5.3million. Don't cheer all at once.

Also, the (pseudo-colonial) right for the Welsh Secretary to participate in National Assembly sessions would be removed. The Assembly should also be able to regulate its own financial procedures with the door left open on a possible name change to "Welsh Parliament" – though I don't see the point, personally.

The National Assembly should also be recognised as "permanent" as long as it's the will of the  people of Wales.

The Civil Service & Civil Society – There are no proposals to "devolve" the civil service, and the Commission believe that the Welsh Government should continue to be staffed as part of the "Whitehall" civil service. UK Government departments should also be "clearer about the extent of their responsibilities for the different parts of the UK."

Timescales & The Referendum Question

The proposals will not only mean an increase in responsibilities,
but also an increase in the devolved budget.
(Pic : BBC Wales)

The big thing to note is that the Commission rejects holding a referendum on these extra powers (other than the proposed income tax powers as outlined in the Wales Bill). Instead, it should be a matter left for individual party manifestos in the 2015 UK Election and 2016 Welsh General Election.

I'm not entirely sure I agree with that, for reasons I outlined in Marching out of lockstep.

Some of the proposals can be introduced without legislation, mainly those powers relating to improved inter-governmental working, or things that can be transferred by Orders in Council.

The other powers, and a reserved powers model, would require a new Government of Wales Act. A Bill would be published in autumn 2016 and enacted by summer 2017. If the Bill passes, then the National Assembly would have a reserved powers model following the 2021 Welsh General Election.

Full devolution of rail and policing would result in the devolved budget increasing by £500million, and full devolution of criminal justice would increase that to £800million. If you include the £300million "fair funding" then I guess that takes it to £1.1billion.

Conclusion : A golden mean?

The shelves must be creaking under the weight all these reports...and the dust.

(Pic : Click on Wales)

I'll come back to the political reaction when this is inevitably debated in the Senedd over the next couple of weeks/months.

Silk II has been argued in a logical, pragmatic manner. It's much better than Silk I and undoes a lot of the mess Peter Hain left in 2006. However, at the same time there's also very little on the table. The powers are similar to those devolved to Scotland under the Scotland Act 2012. Copy and paste, almost.

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).

A lot of the things have been mentioned so many times before – like devolution of the Wales & Borders franchise, policing, youth justice, reserved powers and teachers' pay – that it's a bit of a damp squib, albeit welcome.

It would've been exciting, and really made a difference to the National Assembly's standing, if we got criminal justice powers alongside that, but we'll have to wait until the 2020s if it's to happen. It's sensible for it to be reviewed thoroughly, but it seems like a largely unnecessary delay.

Having control over policing without criminal justice powers is a bit like like having control of the ambulance service without running hospitals.

Returning to the Assembly itself, it'll be hard to justify 80 AMs until after the devolution of criminal justice powers because those powers really will increase the workload for AMs above and beyond what they currently have. The current 60 should be able to cope with these powers (like policing, teachers pay etc.) as long as they find ways to – as the report puts it, and as myself and others have put it before – "work smarter".

So I'd say I'm neither blown away nor disappointed - it's pretty sensible on the whole. However, as history has shown us, the final versions of visions of grand commissions often end up watered-down. This is going to have to remain a whole package, as I don't think there's any room for compromise here that won't undermine its intent.

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

Cold and drafty Wales Bill

The formal UK Government response to Silk I was laid in front of the UK Parliament
just before Christmas. What's proposed? And what does it  mean for Wales?
(Pic : Press Association via BBC Wales)

Back on December 18^th, the UK Government launched the draft version of the Wales Bill (pdf) – the "meat" of the UK Government's response to Part I of the Silk Commission (devolution of limited fiscal powers), but also including changes to the Assembly itself and how AMs are elected.

As it's a draft Bill, it could still significantly change between now and whenever the full Bill is introduced to the House of Commons. Pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Bill, due to be undertaken by the Welsh Affairs Select Committee, started today.

So, as you might expect me to do, it's worth looking at the draft Bill in a bit more detail.

Taxation Powers

Subject to a referendum, Wales will have the power to vary income tax rates
for defined "Welsh taxpayers". However, are the powers functionally useless?
(Pic : The Telegraph)

The draft Bill proposes as follows :

Miscellaneous Taxes

• Enables the creation of completely new devolved taxes via an Order in Council.
• Removes existing stamp duty collection and management in Wales, granting the Assembly full powers to introduce its own land transaction tax.
• Ditto existing landfill tax collection and management, granting the Assembly control over landfill tax.

Welsh taxpayers

• Defines a "Welsh taxpayer" as someone who's resident in the UK, pays UK income tax, and meets one of the following criteria :
• Has a "close connection" to Wales (presumably as a permanent resident).
• Has no close connections with England, Scotland or Northern Ireland and spends most of the calendar year in Wales over other parts of the UK.
• Is an MP, AM or MEP representing a Welsh constituency.

Income tax referendum

• A referendum on income tax powers will be triggered when the Assembly passes a vote in favour of holding a referendum by a 2/3 majority.
• The Welsh Secretary will have 180 days from the moment a motion's passed by the Assembly, to present an Order calling a referendum to both Houses of Parliament for approval. The Welsh Secretary will also have the power to "veto" any referendum.
• In the event of a yes vote, an Order will be made by HM Treasury indicating when Welsh income tax powers come into force.
• In the event of a no vote, a referendum on the matter could still be called at a later date via an Order in Council.

Income tax powers

If there's a yes vote in a referendum, the draft Bill :

• Gives the National Assembly the power to set a "Welsh rate" of income tax for "Welsh taxpayers".
• Outlines that income tax powers would be similar to those coming into force in Scotland in 2016 (if they don't vote for independence), which will mean income tax rates in Wales will be lowered by 10p in the pound and the Assembly will then set a top-up Welsh rate. However, the tax is "lock stepped", meaning tax rates in different bands can't be set independently of each other. If income tax is raised or lowered by 1p, for example, it has to apply across all income tax bands.
• Outlines various mechanisms by which a Welsh rate of income tax would be collected by HM Revenue & Customs, how tax relief schemes would fit into it, and monitoring HMRC's performance in collecting a "Welsh rate" of income tax.

Borrowing Powers

Although still out for consultation, the new borrowing powers will
almost certainly be used to fund  M4 improvements in Newport.
(Pic : Sabre Roads)

The draft Bill :

• Changes the circumstances by which Welsh Ministers can borrow as set out in the Government of Wales Act 2006.
• Gives Welsh Ministers the power to borrow :
• to manage volatility in receipts and forecasts, where forecasts differ from incomes (revenue expenditure).
• to fund capital expenditure.
• Sets the borrowing limit at £500million for capital expenditure and £500million for revenue/current account expenditure. However, the borrowing limit can be changed by the Welsh Secretary up or down, subject to approval by the House of Commons.
• Repeals borrowing powers relating to the, now defunct, Welsh Development Agency (WDA) - though it doesn't affect any outstanding debts.
• Gives HM Treasury the power to set a cap on housing debt held by Welsh local housing authorities.

Changes to the Assembly

The "WAG" is dead. Long live the "WG"
- although it's already gone.
(Pic : NHS Wales)

The draft Bill :

• Increases the length of an Assembly term from four to five years.
• Will allow Assembly candidates to stand in constituencies and on regional lists at the same time.
• Bans MPs from being Assembly Members at the same time, except where there's a UK General Election within 6 months of an AM being elected an MP (which is unlikely).
• Formally changes the name of the "Welsh Assembly Government" to "Welsh Government" in the Government of Wales Act 2006.
• Places a duty on the Law Commission to provide advice to the Welsh Government directly, and also places a duty on Welsh Ministers to report any reforms in devolved areas proposed by the Law Commission to the Assembly.

Reaction and Conclusions

The proposals aren't that impressive, but one seemingly overlooked point could leave
the door open for Wales to create a completely new tax to replace stamp duty.
(Pic : The Guardian)

I'm not sure whether to call this an important law or not, as you probably know I wasn't impressed with the Silk Commission's recommendations anyway. This is an even further watered down version of that.

It's basically a transplant of some aspects of the Calman Commission's finding's. Silk I was a complete waste of time and effort by all involved, and even key findings of the Holtham and Richard Commissions have been effectively ignored.

I suppose it's a step in the right direction, but the powers – borrowing aside – are piddling. Air passenger duty (APD) has been taken off the table while, for now, there's no mention of non-domestic(business) rates – though I understand business rates will be devolved at some point.

By "lock stepping" income tax powers, any heady ideas Welsh parties had – including, ironically, the Welsh Conservatives – of creating a "dynamic low tax economy" have been blown apart.

Under these proposals, income tax cuts in Wales would be more expensive because changes will have to apply across all tax bands at the same time. The same goes for tax rises - so tax rises for top rate payers would have to be matched by tax rises for basic rate payers.

Andrew Davies (Con, South Wales Central) seems to have forgotten that, judging by his Click on Wales article today.

The income tax powers, as presented, are functionally useless as - minus an ability to set income tax rates in each band independently from one another - I suspect income tax rates would always be set in line with England to avoid scaring the flock.

Then there's the little matter of convincing Welsh Labour to support a referendum, and winning it off the back of such a mind-numbingly technical matter. As it is, I'd either abstain or vote no. A "hard nat" contemplating voting against further powers for the Assembly - that's how poor a deal this is.

Of course, Scotland wasn't bound to a referendum on Calman. They can ditch the patronisation of Westminster and get real fiscal powers by voting yes in September.

The borrowing powers are long overdue and give the Welsh Government some "grown up" responsibilities. It remains to be seen whether both governments are intent on splashing it up the wall building the Newport bypass, but presumably that's what the borrowing will be used for – at least initially.

The most interesting thing here though is that the wording appears to leave the door open for the Welsh Government to create any tax they want on property transactions – not specifically continuing with stamp duty.

Could that mean Wales could create a "Land Value Tax"? As has been mooted by several people, including Health Minister Mark Drakeford (Lab, Cardiff West)?

In terms of the timing, it might've been wiser to have waited until after Silk II, in order to create a new Government of Wales Act with any (potential) new devolved powers wrapped up in a single piece of legislation alongside these financial powers.

This could hint, firstly, that Silk II isn't going to propose anything significant in way of powers; or secondly, that any new powers will simply be devolved via Orders in Council or amendments to the GoW Act 2006. If we're going to move to a reserved powers model though - as many have called for -  I would expect it to require significant primary legislation in Westminster. Time's running out to get than on the table before the 2015 UK election.

The reaction's been muted. The Welsh Government described it as an "important step forward", though they were disappointed that APD wasn't devolved and that income tax powers aren't set out as outlined in Silk I.

As you might expect, the Conservatives and Lib Dems broadly welcomed it, though the latter less enthusiastically than the former.

Plaid Cymru's Westminster group say they'll try to amend the Wales Bill to ensure the full recommendations of Silk I are included, while Leanne Wood recently ruled out campaigning for a yes vote due to the "lock step" provisions which, as I've also said and has been mentioned on National Left, render the income tax powers useless.

The Institute of Welsh Affairs weren't impressed either. Lee Waters used relatively strong terms to – broadly speaking – dismiss the draft Bill as "hollow".

Returning to the Assembly changes, the Electoral Reform Society welcomed the reversal of the ban on candidates standing jointly on constituency and regional lists, though they called for a 12-month "window/overlap" to allow newly-elected MPs to temporarily retain their Assembly seat(s).

That will no doubt be good news for Leanne Wood (Plaid, South Wales Central) and Leighton Andrews AM (Lab, Rhondda) in particular. When Leanne announced in 2012 that she would stand for a FPTP constituency - subsequently Rhondda -  at the time I said it was a "pointless risk". Depending on selection to the South Wales Central list for 2016 and Plaid's performance, there's probably no risk to her seat now. I wouldn't be surprised if we see AMs from all parties standing in constituencies and on regional lists in 2016, as happened prior to 2006.

The "WAG" is formally no more too, though the name changed (unofficially) in 2011. There was an opportunity, I suppose, to rename the National Assembly to something different, like Welsh Parliament.

There isn't anything wrong with the name "National Assembly" anyway (apart from "for Wales" instead of "of Wales" – yes, it's important) and changing it would result in a whole host of issues like re-branding and deciding what to call elected members.

So, all in all - *grunt of apathetic acknowledgement *.

Read More