Mike Hedges
The draft Wales Bill is a disappointment. I have argued for a long time that we need a reserved-powers model. I still believe we need a reserved-powers model. This is the model not just used in Scotland and Northern Ireland, but across Europe. People may remember, a couple of years ago, I ran through a long list of countries in Europe that use the reserved-powers model; you’ll be pleased to know I’m not going to do that today. But, it is something that needs doing.
It is impossible to get clarity without the reserved-powers model. The question then becomes ‘What needs to be reserved?’ A better question is: ‘Which would be the best Parliament to carry out each function?’ What I expected was that functional areas such as defence, currency and foreign affairs would be reserved. If they were not reserved, Wales would be, effectively, an independent country. While some people would see that at a way forward, I’m not one of them. What we appear to have is the solution to a number of Bills ending up in court and several others that could have done: it’s giving Westminster Ministers a veto over Welsh legislation, and then seeing if we end up in court afterwards. It may avoid court initially, but it puts Wales in a worse position than we are in now.
Following the Local Government Byelaws (Wales) Bill, community and principal councils can bring in laws without needing permission from a Welsh Minister, but the National Assembly for Wales, which I’m sure we will agree to rename ‘the Welsh Parliament’, has to ask permission from Westminster Ministers. We are actually being put, again, in a worse position than community councils. At this stage, I am tempted to ask ‘Would they do this to the Scottish Parliament?’, but I won’t ask that question, I’ll ask ‘Would they do this to the Northern Ireland Assembly, where there is a unionist majority?’ Would any devolved legislature in the world have such a veto put upon them within areas that are devolved? With the northern powerhouse, or the Manchester metropolitan county as we used to know it prior to it being disbanded by a previous Conservative Government, being given power over policing, Wales is moving backwards compared not just to Scotland and Northern Ireland, but compared to greater Manchester and London, and possibly any other of the large cities in England that start having devolution.
If I can say something positive, I welcome the super majority needed for constitutional change—pity it doesn’t exist in Westminster. What we need is a rule that all constitutional change requires a super majority. That would mean that, whilst all change might not be unanimous, what it will be is taken forward with the agreement of the overwhelming majority of Members. This would reduce the risk of change and then further change after the next election.
What I would like to see the Bill do are two major things. First: clarification by bringing the reserved-powers model to Wales in the areas we already have devolved, so that we don’t have the problems that we did over the bye-laws Bill ending up in court. Secondly, I’d like to see a list of areas that would be available for devolution when agreed following discussions on the funding after it passes the super-majority test. This is not blue-sky thinking; this is what happened in Northern Ireland over policing. What we would end up with is clarification of the current devolution settlement, and an end point to devolution, with clearly identified areas not available for devolution—the examples I gave earlier, such as currency, foreign affairs and defence, and we’d probably talk about other things, such as border control. These, obviously, would be dealt with at a national level, with the nation being Britain. But, there are a number of areas of government available to be devolved where the Welsh Government had negotiated the funding and the Assembly had agreed to it becoming unreserved. I’m not a fan of having things just passed down to us, because I have a horrible feeling that having things passed down to us may well mean that we get the powers without any money following, and will be told, ‘You can use your own taxation system to pay for it’. I think that’s a matter which must concern anybody who wants Wales to provide good quality services. This would also stop Wales needing a Wales Bill every five years. This Bill is not and end—it’s not even a means to an end. It’s one step on a journey and it’s probably half a step forward and one step backwards. What we need is clarity. We need the reserved-powers model. We need an end point to devolution and, I think, we actually need a different Bill.
No comments:
Post a Comment