Carwyn's tests

Tweet

In a lecture in Aberystwyth, the First Minister has set out his criteria for deciding whether or not further powers should be devolved to Wales.  Superficially, his three tests (“devolution of responsibility would benefit the Welsh public, be accommodated within existing Welsh Government structures, and have limited impact on the wider UK”) seem to be straightforward, but are they really as simple as they look?

Clearly, I start from a very different perspective; his second and third tests are not really ones which any nationalist would propose or support in any event.  As for his first, well, if I didn’t believe that an independent Wales ‘would benefit the Welsh public’, then I wouldn’t argue for it, so it’s not a test that anything would ever be likely to fail from my perspective.

But does it stand up, even from his perspective?  I’m not sure that it’s as clear as he suggests.  In what is presumably a précis of a much longer speech, the newspaper report refers to only three specific examples highlighted by Carwyn.

The first is the devolution of consents for renewable energy projects; something which he says would meet his tests.  It is left unexplained why devolution of renewable consents meets the tests, whereas devolution of non-renewable consents does not.  Why does the one ‘benefit the Welsh public’, whilst the other does not?

I suspect that what he’s really saying is that his government would take a different view from the current UK Government on the one, but really wouldn’t want the responsibility of the other which would merely highlight the difficulties all Welsh parties face over issues such as Wylfa B.  And that highlights a common problem – it seems to me that those arguing that a particular decision should be taken at a particular level are often doing so not from any basis of principle, but from the basis that that is the level most likely to take the decision that they want.  It may well be a valid approach, but we shouldn’t pretend that it’s based on a series of objective tests.

The second is the devolution of corporation tax.  In truth, I share his concern about the danger of a ‘race to the bottom’, but that’s taking a very narrow view of the power.  It highlights another problem with his approach – breaking things down into single-issue decisions avoids any attempt to look at the bigger picture. 

Having control over a range of taxes, as well as other economic powers, would enable different administrations to use different combinations of policies to promote their own economies.  That doesn’t necessarily lead to a race to the bottom at all.  But looking at individual powers on a case by case basis, in the way that Carwyn seems to be doing, will almost inevitably lead to a rejection of all.  His three principles don’t seem to allow for taking a broader view.

He also rejects the devolution of any power over income tax, but here he seems to be introducing a fourth test, that of a requirement for a referendum, although there doesn’t seem to be any hard definition of which items require a referendum and which do not.

One issue which he did not refer to was the devolution of criminal justice and the establishment of a Welsh jurisdiction.  It’s something he has himself supported in the past, but I don’t see how it can ever pass his second test, that of being “accommodated within existing Welsh Government structures”, so presumably he would now reject it as an option.

In principle, I welcome any effort by Labour’s leaders to spell out where they see devolution going, and what principles should underlie that; but in this case, Carwyn’s attempt falls a long way short of the clarity which is needed.