In a Western Mail article by Martin Shipton exploring the question of whether there is a danger that a referendum on further devolution could be postponed until after 2011, Tomorrow’s Wales member Cynog Dafis articulated clearly that the main thing pro-devolutionists have to fear is fear itself. If only those in favour of further powers were more prepared to make the case for change, and to explain how the current arrangements are unsustainable, then there is every chance of winnaing a referendum - whatever the economic situation. He says:

All of those who support moving on from the current position to one where the Assembly has primary lawmaking powers should be exuding confidence. It is very important that we talk up the virtues of the Assembly acquiring such powers. There is no justification at all for a pessimistic view of the outcome of a referendum. As long as the current settlement is properly explained to people – and that is partly the responsibility of the All Wales Convention – we have every reason to be optimistic….

One argument that some are putting around is that the current economic crisis means that the issue of how Wales is governed is not important enough to be considered. I would take issue with that. The economic crisis and the governance of Wales are two quite separate matters. I don’t see how the fact that there is an economic crisis makes it any less urgent that we should seek to improve the way Wales is governed – indeed, it seems to me that it makes it more important to do so.

The report in the Western Mail on Friday on Sir Emyr Jones Parry’s call for politicians to give concerete examples of laws they would like to see passed in order to better explain why the Assembly needs primary law-making powers raises some interesting question about what the Convention’s role is and how the case is best made for giving the Assembly primary legislative powers.

Firstly,  politicians obviously have a responsibility to put the case for further powers to the people, and would by neccessity have to do so during any referendum campaign. But it is also one of the core purposes of the All Wales Convention, as set out in its terms of reference, to explain to people how moving to primary legislative powers would affect the future governence of Wales. It is rather worring if the members of the Convention see this as a role for others to fulfil while the Convention sits back and simply assess the effect of such arguments on public opinion.

Secondly, while examples of what kind of new laws could be passed can indeed be useful in ‘ensuring that the debate takes place on as concrete a basis as possible’ it can also be an unhelpful distraction from the real debate, which is about the contitutional principle of the Assembly being able to make its own laws. People could be opposed to a specific idea for legislation while still being fully supportive of the principle of the National Assembly having the power to make that law. To confuse the principle with the practice distracts attention from the real issue and could lead to confusion. 

In the evidence which we submitted to the Convention last week, we highlighted five priniples of good governence which the current settlement fails miserably to fulfil, but where a move to Part 4 would go some way to doing so. It is principled questions on how and from where Wales should be governed that will be the subject of a referendum, not any specific legislative proposals, and it is these issues that the Convention should concentrate on explaining to the public.

The case for giving the National Assembly for Wales primary law-making powers is overwhelming and a matter of simple common sense since the present arrangements are inherently unable to provide good governance for Wales. That is the conclusion of a document of evidence submitted by Cymru Yfory / Tomorrow’s Wales to the All Wales Convention and which is published today.

Tomorrow’s Wales’ submission looks at both the workings of current arrangements as set out under Part 3 of the Government of Wales Act 2006 and at the arrangements that would be brought into effect by the bringing into force of Part 4 of the Act and judges both sets of arrangements against five fundamental principles which we believe any satisfactory constitutional settlement must satisfy. These are based to a large extent on the principles of good governance identified by the European Commission in its 2001 White Paper on Good Governance and are that the settlements bust be:

- stable;

- effective and efficient;

- comprehensible and transparent;

- encourage maximum participation;

- respect the autonomy of the National Assembly.

It is Tomorrow’s Wales’s conclusion that the current devolution model does not live up to the standards of good governance and cannot constitute a lasting settlement. Our submission provides evidence of how the experience of working under the terms of Part 3 to date proves that it does not meet the core principles that define an acceptable system of governance, and of the difficulties it causes in practice. A further concern is that the present arrangements are likely to deter people from becoming involved in matters of public concern, rather than encourage, it and that the present constitutional structure discourages rather then encourages public participation. 

Implementing Part 4 of GOWA 2006 would bring about a vast  improvement on the current arrangements under Part 3.  The extension of power that implementing it would bring about would constitute considerable progress toward the criteria we have identified as being necessary for an acceptable devolution settlement for Wales.

By conferring a clear and broad range of legislative powers on the National Assembly, implementing Part 4 would provide a settlement that had a meaningful prospect of being stable. It would also, in the view of Cymru Yfory, significantly improve the stability, efficiency and effectiveness, comprehensibility and transparency of devolution in Wales as well as encouraging wider public participation in the Assembly’s activities. The autonomy of the National Assembly would also be respected under the new provisions.  For these reasons, Cymru Yfory supports the move to implement Part 4 of GOWA 2006, and will support a Yes vote in a referendum.

However, it must be noted that GOWA 2006 is the outcome of pragmatic political compromises based on what was achievable at a particular point in time. As a result it has several imperfections that mean it should not be regarded as the end-point of the process of devolution in Wales.  We believe that a number of significant improvements will be needed in order to meet the fundamental criteria that we have set out and that each of these changes could be made either before or after a referendum. These changes are:

an increase in the number of Assembly Members to 80;

- a review of the voting method;

- establishing Wales as a separate legal jurisdiction;

- a move to the ‘reserved powers’ model used in Scotland;

- a review of the Assembly’s fiscal powers.

We believe that the benefit from revisiting these issues would be great as we would then have a constitutional settlement that was fit for purpose and that could meet the test of time. We believe the Convention provides an unique opportunity for considered reflection on the constitutional future of Wales, and that its terms of reference give it the scope for a wider consideration that allows it to take into account issues beyond the confines of GOWA 2006. It should therefore take these issues into account as part of its work.

Chair of Tomorrow’s Wales, Archbishop Barry Morgan, said:

“Having looked at how the current arrangements have operated over the past 18 months we have come to the conclusion that there is no way that the present arrangements can constitute a lasting settlement as they do not, and cannot, meet the principles that define a good system of governance. There can be no justification for remaining with the current unsatisfactory arrangements under Part 3 of the Act when Part 4 is available and already on the statute book and would constitute a vast improvement on the present situation. The precise time for holding a referendum is a matter for others, but it is Cymru Yfory’s strongly-held view that the establishment of a satisfactory system of democratic governance for Wales should not be long delayed.”

This letter from Tomorrow’s Wales member Pip Ford appeared in today’s Western Mail, echoing the comments on the LCO process made by Helen Mary Jones in her essay last Friday.

An essay in the Western Mail by Helen Mary Jones, written to coincide with the Bevan Foundation’s ‘Evolution of Devolution’ conference, shows clearly how the current system of piecemeal devolution through LCOs is ineffective, inefficient and unsustainable, and that from the perspective of one who had first hand experience of the process.

Of the many faults of the current system, there are few more damning than the extra pressure it puts on the precious time and resources not only of AMs and the Assembly, but also of civil society organisations. The duplication of work involved in getting an LCO through the Assembly and Westminster before then having to lobby again on the Measure itself puts an unacceptable and uneccessary strain on many organisations who want to engage with the governmental process in Wales.

Moving ahead to giving the Assembly primary law-making powers in the twenty fields where it has policy competence would remove the wasteful and uneccessary LCO process, allowing everyone to put their time and resources into making laws that can change the lives of the people of Wales for the better.

And so, Obama has been elected President of the United States. But does the success of his campaign hold any lessons for us here in Wales? In particular, can we learn from the success of his movement for change as we seek our own change to a law-making Parliament for Wales?

The idea that the young have become disinterested in politics is one that has become increasingly accepted as truth over recent years. However, Obama’s success in persuading young people to go out and vote shows that the young are interested in politics if they are inspired, and that their mobilisation can be key in securing change.

One of the findings of the recent research conducted by the Institute of Welsh Politics on behalf of the National Assembly for Wales was that young people are much more pre-devolution that the older generation. The results for the constitutional preference question, when broken down into age groups were as follows:

The difference in attitudes between the age groups is marked. While the research showed an average of 48.8% of the population being in favour of giving the Assembly more powers (i.e. chosing either a Parliament or Independence as their most favoured option), the percentage of 18-24 year olds who want more devolution is an astounding 67%. Clearly, the cause of the capaign for a Yes vote in a referendum would be well served if the young could be motivated to turn out and vote for change.

It would appear to us that it should be a core task of the All Wales Convention to engage with young people in Wales and explain to them how a law-making Parliament for Wales would affect their lives, and to draw them into the political debate and electoral process. Combined with effective targeting of this group of voters by the Yes campaign, there would be every reason to be confident of a positive outcome to a referendum.

The All Wales Convention has issued a call for evidence, inviting organisations and individuals to make formal submissions to the Convention by the 31st January 2009. In addition, organisations wishing to present oral evidence to the Convention should inform the Convention by 12th December 2008 by emailing info.convention@wales.gsi.gov.uk. 

Tomorrow’s Wales will be responding in full to the Convention’s call for evidence, outlining why we believe that moving ahead with giving the Assembly law-making powers is the only way to ensure a devolution settlement for Wales that is stable, democratic and accountable. Details of our response will be published here in due course. 

We would urge all other interested organisations and individuals to submit their evidence to the Convention, so that they gain as full a picture as is possible of the deficiencies of the current situation and the need for change.