Ahead of the end of the Electoral Commission’s consultation on the referendum question, the proposals of the Secretary of State for Wales have been criticised by a number of commentators in the press and on the internet.

In the Western Mail yesterday, the Chair of the All-Wales Convention Sir Emyr Jones-Parry said the question was ‘misleading’, as it does not adequately reflect the choice on offer.

On its blog today, the Institute of Welsh Affairs says that the question in its current form is ‘tendentious’, and ’suggests that the status quo that would be delivered by a No vote would be “a moderate, middle ground and common sense way to proceed’.

Meanwhile, on his Devolution Matters blog Alan Trench suggests that the question is ambiguous and imprecise.

What do you think of the referendum question? Have your say by adding a comment below.

Following Cheryl Gillan’s announcement yesterday that the referendum on the Assembly’s powers would take place in the first quarter of next year, Cymru Yfory’s David Llywelyn Davies and True Wales’ Rachel Banner appeared on Good Morning Wales today (about 2h 34m in) to discuss issues surrounding the date and more.

The arguments Rachel Banner put forward in favour of a No vote were depressingly familiar, and far-removed from what is actually on the table in the referendum. We heard how the ‘political elites in Cardiff Bay’ are merely grabbing more power for themselves, that this referendum is part of the process of Wales separating from the UK, that a Yes vote would cost more and that the Assembly should instead concentrate on ‘Health, Education and the Economy’. Let’s take these points in turn:

The political elites

If it is the political elites that reside in Cardiff Bay, why is it that according to recent polling carried out by YouGov and the Insitute of Welsh Politics almost two to one of respondents believe that the Assembly should have more influence over governing Wales than Westminster, let alone the fact that the current UK Cabinet does not have a single Member representing a Welsh constituency?

‘The slippery slope to separation’

This referendum is not about independence. A Yes vote would not mean Wales ‘cutting itself off from the rest of the UK’, it would give us simpler, more effective government within a UK framework, and allow us to act swiftly for the benefit of our people and our communities.

Increased costs

As we have pointed out before, evidence published by the All Wales Convention shows that resources that are currently tied up in the inefficient and wasteful LCO process would be better spent on making laws more quickly and more clearly, and in a more joined-up way.

Health, Education and the Economy

Health and Education are fields already devolved to Wales. And yet, under the current flawed system, we have been unable to legislate fully on issues like improving the rights of mental health patients in Wales and providing safer school transport without wasting years in having to ask permission from Whitehall first. As David said this morning, why on earth wouldn’t we want these powers in Wales, especially given that the responsibility is already with the Assembly? In fact, the Assembly can only begin to properly concentrate on doing all it can to improve Health and Education once this mess is sorted out.

Finally, it was clear once again that True Wales has no answer when challenged on what positive benefits would be retained in the event of a No vote. The example of the smoking ban was proof enough of this – for the families of hundreds of people who lost their lives in the two years it took the Assembly to get powers on banning smoking this referendum is not about banal constitutional debate, or mythical political elites.

Six weeks, eight meetings, dozens of supporters, hundreds of miles, thousands of leaflets. All resulting in a network of supporters with people in all parts of Wales ready to get to work and spread the word about why we need to secure a Yes vote in the referendum on the Assembly’s powers. Meetings were held in Caernarfon, Cwmbran, Swansea, Cardiff, Wrexham, Aberystwyth, Pontypridd and Carmarthen, and it is obvious that there is a strong desire to get a successful campaign going and to make sure that Wales is better governed.

We must thank everyone who came to the meetings and especially those speakers who shared their experiences of the current system with us, and explained why it needs to be changed.

Amongst the politicians were Dafydd Iwan, Mike German and Peter Black. We also had valuable contributions from All Wales Convention members Nick Bennett, Marc Phillips, Alex Aldridge, Paul O’Shea and Aled Edwards. It was striking to hear every one of this group describe the total unanimity amongst the Convention’s members that it was time to give the National Assembly primary lawmaking powers in the areas in which it has devolved responsibility. Even if there was some doubt at the beginning of the process, by the end it was plainly obvious to everyone that there was a need to change the current system for the benefit of democracy in Wales.

In Cardiff and Cwmbran we had speeches from people who experience the dysfunction of the current system in their professional lives. Mark Hinge from Bay Communications and Lee Waters from Sustrans Cymru were completely convinced that the current system is confusing, complicated, and frustrates exciting developments in Wales. Lee described his frustration in trying to introduce an LCO intending to provide a better walking and cycling network in Wales. With proper lawmaking powers, it would have been easier for Sustrans, the UK’s leading sustainable transport charity, to ensure that Welsh councils are obliged to consider the need to maintain such a network in a similar manner to the way in which highways are maintained.

The purpose of these meetings was to prepare the ground for the official Yes campaign when it is established after the General Election. The political parties are very busy at the moment with their election campaigns, but it’s important that networks are created now, in advance of the establishment of the official Yes campaign.

Some of these groups have started to campaign already. The Swansea group, under the chairmanship of Tyrone O’Sullivan, has had considerable attention in the local press. They’ve also set up a street stall to distribute leaflets and collect signatures on the Declaration for Welsh Democracy. Supporters in Arfon are also busy distributing leaflets and the Cardiff group were out leafletting before the final Six Nations match in Cardiff over the weekend. The Swansea, Wrexham and Aberystwyth Student groups have all got their own Facebook groups, which are going from strength to strength.

We will be holding more meetings in the future – after the General Election – in areas such as Pembrokeshire, Powys, Anglesey and the South Wales Valleys. Remember to get in touch if you’d like to see a meeting in your area or if you want to set up a local group.

It’s encouraging to see such enthusiasm and readiness to work on a cross-party basis. Let’s hope that by mid-May, hundreds more will have joined with us to help make sure that there is a positive and decisive vote in favour of primary lawmaking powers when the referendum comes.

True Wales claim that “even more taxpayers’ money will have to be spent on the salaries of lawyers and civil servants” following a move from Part 3 to Part 4 of the Government of Wales Act 2006.

The Convention’s report exposes this as being inaccurate.

It says that “the likely impact on the National Assembly for Wales of a move to Part 4 would be, broadly speaking, financially neutral in terms of current budget allocations. In Whitehall, there should be a small, but unquantifiable, release of capacity if consideration of LCOs were no longer needed.”

“Should the National Assembly for Wales move to Part 4, the saving for the Welsh Assembly Government of £1.98 million from not having to go through the processes of acquiring powers through LCOs and Framework Powers in UK Bills would likely be reallocated to the formulation of policy and drafting of Assembly Bills”.

In other words, it’s clear that moving to a proper parliament for Wales won’t cost more, and that resources that are currently tied up in the inefficient and wasteful LCO process would be better spent on making laws more quickly and more clearly, and in a more joined-up way.

At a briefing in Cardiff this afternoon, Sir Emyr Jones Parry briefed assembled members of civil society and interested members of the public on the conclusions of the All Wales Convention’s report, whose authors are “convinced that Part 4 offers substantial advantage over the present arrangements in Part 3 (of the Government of Wales Act 2006). It would offer greater efficiency, permit a strategic approach to the drafting of the legislation, provide greater clarity, be more consistent with the rule of law and democratic tradition, and reflect the emerging maturity of the National Assembly for Wales”.

Despite having in front of them a document that is perhaps one of the most wide-ranging public consultations ever to have taken place in Wales and an ‘impartial examination of all the evidence received’, those present from True Wales were unable to muster the same objectivity in their own contributions. One contributor alleged that the decision on a referendum on moving to Part 4 would made undemocratically and by an undefined minority; it was left to Sir Emyr to explain that the decision on a referendum would, in the first instance, be made by elected representatives in Cardiff and Westminster, and then the question would subsequently be voted on by the Welsh electorate (‘the people of Wales’, who True Wales claim to speak for). Anyone who did not vote, Sir Emyr added, would be abdicating their civic responsibilities and as such could not complain after the event. It is difficult to imagine how such a scenario can be perceived as being undemocratic.

“The National Assembly and its Government should now commit itself to making the recommendations of the All Wales Convention a reality following the publication of the Jones-Parry report today” says Tomorrow’s Wales.

Tomorrow’s Wales chair Barry Morgan, Archbishop of Wales said: “Following exhaustive study and consultation, the All Wales Convention has found that the case for making the National Assembly into a proper parliament by granting it primary law-making powers is overwhelming. The example of the Scottish parliament since 1997 has shown the enormous advantage of a having a clear set of powers with the responsibilities at the Westminster and Scottish levels precisely defined. Granting primary law-making powers to the Assembly would strengthen Welsh democracy and give us a stable and effective system of government. We could then get on with addressing the needs of the people and communities of Wales by developing practical and  distinctively Welsh policies and deliver them effectively, free from the constraints of a complex and frustrating process of transferring powers”.

The Convention’s findings that public opinion in Wales has moved steadily towards support for law-making powers confirms what Tomorrow’s Wales has found in its work throughout Wales.

Welsh rugby legend and British Lions team manager Gerald Davies said, “It is vital for the people of Wales to grasp this opportunity to establish a clear system of governance that serves Wales effectively.”

Gerald Davies is a member of Tomorrow’s Wales’ executive committee and a signatory of its Declaration for Welsh Democracy which calls for primary law-making powers for the National Assembly. Those who have supported the Declaration include Chair of Tomorrow’s Wales, the Archbishop of Wales, Barry Morgan and the Secretary General of the Muslim Council for Wales Saleem Kidwai; Wales and British Lions international Jamie Roberts and Olympic swimmer David Davies; two of Wales’s National Poets, Gillian Clarke and Gwyneth Lewis, and actor Mathew Rhys. Musicians Gruff Rhys and Rhydian Roberts, as well as DJ Huw Stephens have also signed up.

Archbishop Barry Morgan added, “Following the Convention report, Tomorrow’s Wales will be expanding our activities to promote popular understanding of the devolution process and supporting the campaign for proper law-making powers for the National Assembly. This report gives Wales the evidence and thus the confidence to make that a reality.”  

On his Devolution Matters blog, Cymru Yfory constitutional adviser Alan Trench has argued that a ‘yes’ vote in a referendum on primary law making powers for the National Assembly would benefit those concerned with the UK level of government as well as those concerned with the current situation in Wales.

Alan Trench argues that while the present system, deeply flawed as it is, can be made to work by a Labour-led Governments in Cardiff Bay and Westminster, the logic of the situation is quite different if the Conservatives are in office in London. Devolution means that politically it would be difficult for the Conservatives to impose their will on Wales in the way that John Redwood for example sought to do, and any attempt to try would forfeit democratic legitimacy in a way that would be especially damaging now that Wales is a happy hunting ground for Tory seats for both Westminster and Cardiff Bay. Equally, political preferences of Welsh voters are different on the whole to those in England, where there is less of a desire for social-democratic policies and solutions than in Wales. On an institutional level, discussions around LCOs (where the Welsh Government, an Assembly Committee or a backbench AM asks Parliament for legislative powers in a specific field and which have been contentious enough as it is) would become even more problematic, and publicly so, if problems encountered were to be magnified by party-political differences. It’s hard to see how anyone would gain, and the only certainty is that these issues would further damage the standing of politicians and politics in general.

Giving Wales primary law-making powers in 20 distinct fields by implementing Part 4 of the Government of Wales Act fields would mitigate against this by decoupling policy in England and Wales and creating a degree of political insulation for a Conservative UK Government. It lets Wales be social-democratic, and protects central government from embarassment as Welsh choices are both clearly Welsh  and democratic. In such circumstances, a Conservative UK Government can show how tolerant of pluralism and diversity it is. Labour would benefit as well, as the chance to shape a distinctly Welsh policy agenda offers a way to protect a particular sort of social democracy that its Welsh voters clearly prize – and think they have already.

Part 4 does not offer ‘Scottish-type’ powers, Trench concludes, but it’s closer to them.  It reduces the need for constant liaison with Whitehall, and so the danger of Whitehall misunderstanding how Wales and Welsh devolution work.  It means that the UK moves closer to having a single template for devolved government, which is adjusted to reflect particular circumstances in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.  That will make devolved government easier not just for the general public to understand, but also politicians and civil servants.

The Convention event in Monmouth saw Mai Davies chairing a ‘Question Time’ style panel event with David TC Davies MP well balanced by Plaid Cymru’s Adam Price MP and with Farmers First Terry Bayliss and Sir Emyr Jones Parry also on the panel.

After a bit of a shaky start – accusations against the Convention from a Labour Party candidate saying he would be putting in a formal complaint to the Electoral Commission for staging an event in the run up to an election and not giving equal treatment to all political parties – it settled into an interesting, up beat and, at times, very good-humoured event.

The questions were lively and David Davies and Adam Price gave strong answers to questions about the LCO process, the effect of more powers on the number of MPs and the calibre of Assembly Members.

Contributions from the audience covered a range of viewpoints, but in general those who had direct experience of working with the Assembly or WAG or who worked in the public services believe the Assembly had led to change for the better.

In response to a statement from one contributor that the Assembly had done a lot to improve the lives of older people, another member of the audience who was opposed to devolution  argued that the Assembly had not lived up to expectations and that even the Independent Commissioner for Older People wasn’t an older person!  Adam Price caused some amusement by observing that the Independent Children’s Commissioner wasn’t actually a child either!

An inspired member of the audience asked all the panel members to give 2 arguments in favour of more powers and 2 arguments against more powers for the Assembly.

David Davies gave 2 remarkably strong arguments in favour of more powers:

1)      Wales needs a settlement closer to that of Scotland which would bring decision making closer to the people of Wales;

2)      Assembly members are closer to their constituencies and, in many cases, can travel back and for easily.  They are therefore more accessible and better able to make decisions about and for their constituencies.

He did, of course give reasons against, as did Adam Price and the other members of the panel, but his arguments in favour of more powers really were most persuasive!

Two questions were voted on at the end of the night.

1)  If there was a referendum now would you vote?              

97% yes

2)  Would you vote yes for more powers or no for the status quo?

60% voted yes and 40% voted No

In Monmouth, with a good turn out from ‘True Wales’ this was a very encouraging result for those of us who strive for a stable constitutional settlement.

Pip Ford

Cymru Yfory Executive

Leading members of pro-devolution group Cymru Yfory – Tomorrow’s Wales have written to the Chair of the All-Wales Convention to express their concern over how the Convention is defining the choice that will face the people of Wales in a referendum on primary law-making powers.

Over recent months, both in its public events and literature, the Convention has defined the choice between staying with Part 3 of the Government of Wales Act 2006 and moving onto Part 4 as being between (1) receiving the power to legislate step by step over a period of time and (2) taking all of the powers in one go.

Cymru Yfory’s concern about the Convention explaining the difference in this way is two-fold.

Firstly, by choosing to define the options thus there is a real danger that Part 3 will be seen as moderate, sensible and easier for the Assembly to cope with and for moving to Part 4 to be seen as a daring leap into territory that an inexperienced Assembly would find difficult to cope with. Further, the Convention’s over simplistic explanation gives the impression that Part 3 is a systematic and smooth process of transferring powers gradually: something that is most certainly not the case, and fails to refer to the complex, time-consuming and inefficient nature of the process of conferring powers on the Assembly via LCOs.

Secondly, this definition suggests that the same outcome will be reached in the end, whether we stay with the Part 3 process or move onto Part 4, and fails to explain that no matter how long we remain with Part 3 it can never give the range of powers, the stability or the clarity of Part 4. By downplaying the difference in this way, the Convention is giving the impression to the Welsh public that the choice before them in a referendum will be a relatively insignificant one and a question only of when not if the Assembly should have primary law-making powers. The Convention is therefore in danger of spreading apathy where it should be getting people interested and encouraging debate.

From listening to the Convention, supporters of giving the Assembly primary law-making powers could logically come to the conclusion that they need not bother voting in the referendum as the powers will come eventually anyway.

A spokesperson for Cymru Yfory said:

“We have written to Sir Emyr and made our concerns public in the hope that the All Wales Convention will look again at how it goes about explaining the difference between Part 3 and Part 4 to the people of Wales. As the Convention’s own research shows, the public’s level of understanding of this issue is very low, and there is therefore a massive responsibility on the Convention to be giving people all the facts and not over-simplifying the issue as it has been doing.”

“We hope Sir Emyr will take note of our concerns and take steps to ensure that people are aware that the referendum is about a real choice that will have far-reaching, long-term consequences for the Assembly’s ability to legislate for the good of the Welsh people.”

28th April 2009

Sir Emyr Jones Parry

All Wales Convention

Pierhead Building

Cardiff Bay

CF99 1NA

Dear Sir Emyr,

The difference between Part 3 and Part 4 of the Government of Wales Act 2006

We write to you to you to express concern about one aspect of the message that the Convention is conveying about the choice that the people of Wales will face in due course in a referendum.

We refer to the definition used by the Convention of the difference between Part 3 and Part 4 of the Government of Wales Act 2006 (GOWA 2006). Consistently during the last few months, you have defined the choice as being between (1) receiving the power to legislate step by step over a period of time and (2) taking all of the powers in one go, and we have noticed that it is in these terms that the issue is presented in a leaflet which is currently being distributed.

This is also how the media tend to report on your activities. Here is part of a BBC website report on the Convention event at Rhyl: ‘Sir Emyr told the audience that if a referendum was held, the people of Wales had two choices. The first, he said, was to do nothing and wait for extra law-making powers to gradually devolve from Westminster. Alternatively, voters could decide to transfer extra powers in one go’.

Put thus, there is a real danger that option (1) will be seen as moderate, sensible and easier for the Assembly to cope with and for option (2) to be seen as a daring leap into territory that an inexperienced Assembly would find difficult to cope with.

As you know, and as our evidence to the Convention shows, by no means does Part 3 actually work in the way suggested in the above accounts. It is certainly not a systematic and smooth process of transferring powers gradually. On the contrary, the Legislative Competence Order (LCO) route is complex, time-consuming, very hard to understand, and very uncertain in terms of outcome. To give just one example, the Environmental Protection and Waste Management LCO has still not been considered by the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs almost two years after being published by the Assembly Government.

Also, the other methods of conferring powers such as Acts of Parliament and Conversion orders do so with virtually no scrutiny by the Assembly itself, ad confer powers upon the Assembly and the Assembly Government in a piecemeal and inconsistent manner that will be impossible to rectify for as long was Part 3 of GOWA 2006 remains in force. This issue is discussed in full by two of the foremost experts in the field, Marie Navarro and David Lambert in ‘Bypassing the Assembly’, Agenda, Spring 2009.

Furthermore, this definition of the difference between Part 3 and Part 4 suggests that we would reach the same outcome in the end, whichever option is chosen. Not only is this incorrect – Part 3 can never give the range of powers, the stability or the clarity of Part 4 – but it misleads the public about the significance of the decision which faces them in a referendum. An example of this misleading impression is seen in the Convention’s social research report, when a contributor to the focus group is quoted as saying: ‘I thought it would be a ‘yes or no’ referendum, this is ‘yes or yes’. I’ll be happy with option 1 and delighted with option 2.’

May we urge you therefore, not in order to promote any bias in the debate, but in the name of accuracy and better understanding, to reconsider your definition of the difference between Part 3 and Part 4. It is essential that people understand the difficulties and problems implicit in the current method of granting law-making powers to the National Assembly and comprehend that a true decision with far-reaching implications faces them when a referendum comes.

In order to get this message over to the public, we have decided to release this letter to the media.

Yours sincerely,

Cynog Dafis

Geraint Talfan Davies

Philippa Ford

Katie-jo Luxton

On behalf of the Tomorrow’s Wales Executive