It is sometimes argued that the constitutional debate over LCOs and Measures, Part 3 and Part 4, has no relevance to the lives of real people in Wales. That couldn’t be further from the truth.

An article in Saturday’s Western Mail looked at the Presiding Officer’s latest correspondence with the Secretary of State regarding the delays which member-proposed LCOs in particular have suffered. The crucial point however is that made by Jonathan Morgan AM, whose own LCO on mental health services is one of those still waiting to undergo Westminster scrutiny when he says that “If the Assembly was able to initiate its own laws without seeking approval from Westminster, I’d be working on the actual mental health legislation for Wales.”

Morgan won the backbench ballot to introduce an LCO in October 2007. So that’s 18 months that have passed during which the Assembly could have been legislating for and implementing policies that would improve the lives of mental health patients in Wales. Instead, time and resources are wasted trying to get the powers transferred that will allow the Assembly to act.

So next time someone says that the debate over a referendum on primary law-making powers has no relevance to ordinary people’s lives, they should remember that the current arrangements under Part 3 mean that there has been an 18 months delay (and counting) in improving mental health services in Wales. A delay that wouldn’t happen under Part 4. How can anyone say that’s not relevant to the lives of ordinary people?

Inevitably perhaps, the BBC and Western Mail’s coverage of the social research published by the All Wales Convention today has focused on the headline figure of 48% who say they would vote Yes in a referendum on giving the Assembly primary law-making powers. This of course is in line with the results of a BBC poll conducted a month ago, though the Convention’s research was actually carried out earlier than that - in November / December 2008. 

Unfortunately, little attention has been given to the survey’s other findings, some of which are truly startling in the levels of ignorance of the issue they reveal amongst the public. It is these findings, the most significant of which are outlined below, that really show how steep a hill the Convention has to climb if it is to fulfil its mission of educating the Welsh public about the devolution debate. They also highlight the kind of misinformation that those who favour law-making powers will have to counter if a referendum is to be won, as well as some of the opportunities.

Here are some of the main findings of The All Wales Convention Social Research First Phase, with Cymru Yfory comments in italics.

• * Only 26% of respondents had seen, heard or read something about possible changes to the powers of the Assembly;
  This means that three quarters of the Welsh population have no idea that there is a debate going on that will have a profound effect on the way they are governed and on which they will soon be asked to vote. Clearly, this has to change!
  
• * 48% of respondents incorrectly thought that ‘full law-making powers’ meant that the Assembly would have law-making powers in all areas of Welsh life;
  Cymru Yfory has never used the term ‘full law-making powers’ as we belive it gives a misleading impression of what is on offer, and this research shows that to be the case. The Assembly will have primary law-making powers over twenty policy fields, not ‘full law-making powers’. The All Wales Convention and politicians alike should be careful of the terminology they use so as to avoid confusion.
  
• * In general, once informed on the details of the debate, there was a sense of cautious optimism in the group discussions;
  Ignorance of the issue is the greatest barrier to support for greater powers. Overcoming this hurdle is crucial, and in many cases, sufficient.
  
• * 35% of people know that the Assembly can’t change the basic rate of income tax;
  This may be indicative not only of a lack of information about what powers the Assembly currently has, but that in some cases that the assumption is that it has more powers than it does in reality. Many people then do not realise the tight limitations on what the Assembly can currently do and this needs to be better explained.
  
• * 88% know nothing at all or little about the possible changes to the powers of the Assembly;
  It is difficult to know what can be added to this bare statistic. Clearly, a proper debate and an informed choice is impossible when nine out of every ten know next to nothing about the issue in hand and its relevance to them. The Convention and politicians need to up their game in explaining the issue to people.
  
• * 26% thought it definitely or probably true that ‘full law-making powers’ would mean Wales being independent from the UK. A further 22% responded ‘don’t know’ to this question;
  Apart from highlighting again the danger of using the inappropriate term ‘full law-making powers’, it is very concerning that those who wish to confuse the issue by giving the impression that the referendum is about independence are pushing at such an open door. Their dangerous and irresponsible misinformation must be countered. Independence is not on the table. On the positive side, since 94% of people oppose independence we must assume that the vast majority of these 26% would therefore have told the pollsters that they would vote ‘No’ in a referendum, when in fact they might well vote Yes if they knew what it was really about. These 26% then comprise a huge pool of potential Yes voters here if only they could be informed of the real choice facing them. 
  
• * There is a srong correlation between believing Wales should remain part of the UK with its own elected Assembly with limited law-making powers (i.e. a preference for the current settlement) and being undecided about how to vote in a referendum;
  This is interesting. A significant proportion of those who expressed a preference for the current settlement also said they were undecided when it came to how to vote in a referendum. Again then, there is a sizable group of ’swing voters’ here who could well support primary law-making powers once the issue is prpoerly explaind to them. Of course, there is probably a significant overlap between this group and those who currently believe the question to be about independence.

The full report can be read here. A second phase of social research will be conducted over the coming months with results to be published by the autumn. Hopefully by then, the Convention will have had some effect on the public’s level of knowledge of the choice facing them.

If the Barnett Formula had ears, they would surely be burning at the moment as its has surely never had so many people talking about it. In Scotland, it is one of the issues being considered by the Commission on Scottish Devolution chaired by Sir Kenneth Calman, while WAG has set up its own review into how Welsh devolution is financed in the form of Gerald Holtham’s Independent Commission on Funding and Finance for Wales.

Not to be left behind, the House of Lords is also conducting a review through the specially convened House of Lords Barnett Formula Select Committee, which is chaired by Lord Richard of Ammanford, who is the man of course who chaired and gave his name to the Richard Commission whose report remains a key reference point in the devolution debate.

Today, the House of Lords Commitee meets in Cardiff to take evidence from Welsh-based academics and civil society organisations. Among those giving evidence will be Tomorrow’s Wales, represented by Peter Price and Cynog Dafis. You can read the paper submitted by Tomorrow’s Wales to the Committee here. Its main points include:

• * the Barnett formula is not fit for purpose;
• * Wales suffers significant disadvantage as a result of the way in which the formula works;
• * the formula fails to reflect changing circumstances;
• * the formula does not reflect needs;
• * at the moment, London receives 65% more than it would if public expenditure were allocated on the basis of GVA per head, with Scotland receiving 11% more, and Wales receiving 14% less;
• * if based on GDP, the devolved spending per head should be 27% higher in Wales and Northern Ireland and 6% higher in Scotland than in England;
• * the way allocations are made are opaque and based on spending levels in English departments;
• * a new system for allocating resources should be based on need;
• * the new formula must preserve devolved governments’ autonomy in making decisions on public spending;
• * transparency should be a key principle of the new system;
• * we strongly support the proposal made by a number of experts that a new Territorial Grants Commission, on the lines of the Commonwealth Grants Commission of Australia, be set up;
• * final decisions on funding allocations would have to be unanimous, with GDP per head the proxy indicator of need.

Read Tomorrow’s Wales’ paper in full here.

The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments (JCSI) is not a Committee many will have heard of I’m sure, but one that has just made a very significant intervention in the scrutiny of the Affordable Housing LCO. The JCSI is a joint Committee of the Lords and Commons responsible for scrutinising statutory instruments made in exercise of powers granted by Act of Parliament, including therefore LCOs made under the Government of Wales Act 2006.

As previously reported here, the final text of that LCO included a veto by the Secretary of State for Wales over the Assembly’s use of the power to abolish the right to buy. In its report, the JCSI comes to the conclusion that there is no legal basis for the inclusion of such a veto over a Matter included in Schedule 5 to GOWA ‘06 as it is not provided for in that Act. Such a veto is therefore outside the Secretary of State’s legal powers, and would be open to legal challenge.

The two key passages from the report, available in full here, are:

1.8… Matter 11.1 was subject to the exception that it did not include abolition of the rights to buy unless the Welsh Ministers and the Secretary of State agreed that it should. This seemed a remarkable proposition in the context of an Order setting out part of the constitutional arrangement between Parliament and the Assembly.

1.17… There are no express words in the 2006 Act authorising the determination of the Assembly’s competence by anything other than an Order in Council; nor, in the Committee’s view, is there a sufficiently strong implication in the 2006 Act. The Committee considers there is a doubt as to whether new paragraph 7B in Part 3 of Schedule 5 to the 2006 Act, to be inserted by article 2(3) of the draft Order, is intra vires and reports accordingly.

Since WAG has clearly stated that it has no intention to abolish the right to buy, it is unlikely that this particular veto will be legally challenged. What the JCSI’s report does surely do however is rule out the use of such a veto again in future, and that is to be welcomed.

Tomorrow’s Wales member Cynog Dafis was present at the All Wales Convention’s public meeting in Carmarthen yesterday evening. Below is his report of the event.

A good crowd – over 100 – came together for a discussion group session (tables of about 10) – but discussion groups didn’t happen. Broad age range and good mix of Welsh and non-Welsh speakers. Four Commissioners were present: Paul O’Shea, Paul Valerio, Meryl Gravell, Aled Evans. Meryl Gravell chaired – ‘We’re not a Yes campaign and we’re not a No campaign’.

Paul O’Shea opened with a presentation on Part 3 And Part 4 – he was preparing his notes when I arrived at 5.45 for a 6.30 start. He described the choice between Parts 3 and 4 as either getting the powers gradually or in a ‘big bang’. It seems incredible that the Convention has not prepared an effective visual presentation on the key issues.

As a result the open-mike session that followed  lacked focus and clarity (apart of course for the CY intervention!). But the contributions from the floor were unanimously in favour of legislative powers – and more, including independence. The Town Mayor in his official welcome set the tone: a patriotic and powerful oration expressing total support and highly critical of those who want to turn the clock back. On independence he said, ‘If in the future a majority of the people of Wales want this, then so be it, but that is not the subject to be considered tonight’. It may well be that this establish a positive momentum and that any sceptical voices were stilled from the outset.

The floor contributions were rhetorical in quality. The two most interesting were (1) a woman who asked what checks and balances there would be in the Welsh system (Paul Valerio replied rather vaguely) (2) a representative of the civil servants’ union who spoke strongly in favour and referred to the closure of social security offices.

Then we were invited to jot comments on bits of paper which were then stuck up on boards. But Meryl Gravell announced that they were far too many to summarise and report back to the meeting.

To summarise:

(1)   A remarkably positive atmosphere on legislative powers

(2)   Serious deficiencies in the format and nature of the meeting as an opportunity to enlighten the public and hold an intelligent debate.

Having said all this it is evident that the Convention is operating in diverse ways. Emyr Parry Jones met 6th formers at two schools yesterday and Paul Valerio will be attending a tea dance next week.