Respect, Fair Funding and the Referendum
It is good to see that David Cameron and the UK coalition government intend ‘respect’ to be the hallmark of its relationships with devolved governments. In Wales the agreement to ‘take forward the Sustainable Homes Legislative Competence Order’, which the Conservatives in opposition had managed to block, may be an indication of that respect.
The proposals on funding for Scotland and Wales however suggest that the former is to be accorded more respect than the latter.
On page 28 of the Programme for Government document we read that ‘we will review the control and use of accumulated and future revenues from the Fossil Fuel Levy in Scotland’. That’s pretty unequivocal, and the advantage to the Scottish Parliament’s budget is likely to be substantial.
Not so the issue of the demonstrable injustice of the current funding arrangements for Wales. The ‘concerns expressed by the Holtham Commission’ are recognised (which is some way short of accepting the substance of Holtham’s findings), but action to correct the injustice must await ‘the stabilisation of the public finances’ which, need one emphasise is likely to take a long time. The spin that the ‘priority must be to reduce the deficit’ is of course is irrelevant: correcting an injustice in funding terms is as important in times of scarcity as it is in times of plenty – indeed it is probably more so.
The gross inequity in the funding for Scotland and Wales under the Barnett formula has a long pedigree. Those interested in the story should read Tomorrow’s Wales’s evidence to the Holtham Commission and the House of Lords Barnett Committee of Inquiry. It has nothing to do with justice and everything to do with the comparative esteem in which Wales and Scotland are held by the UK Government.
What has this to do with the forthcoming referendum and the issue of proper law-making powers of the National Assembly? Quite a lot, it seems. The Coalition’s Programme for Government document also says, ‘Depending on the outcome of the forthcoming referendum, we will establish a process similar to the Calman Commission for the Welsh [sic] Assembly.’ (Calman considered issues of funding as well as further powers for the Scottish Parliament.)
Try breaking the code and you might get something like: ‘We shall see from the result of the forthcoming referendum whether you Welsh deserve to be taken seriously and your grievances addressed’.
It looks as if a resounding Yes vote is vital, not just to get a more effective, more democratic system of government for Wales, but to get at least some of the extra cash we need to protect us in what promises to be a time of hardship.