No change there, then

Tweet If I understand the proposed timetable for the new Wales Bill correctly, the plan is to publish a draft of the bill tomorrow, then to hold a consultation on that draft before publishing the final version in February 2016, with the intention that the bill will become law in 2017.

I think that I also understand the political differences about the content of the bill.  Pro-devolutionists are seeking a clearer definition of the reserved powers model which does not take any powers back from Wales, and the instinctive anti-devolutionists, largely amongst the Tories, are trying to find a way of honouring previous commitments with minimum change.  (Speaking personally, when the proponents of the bill talk about giving the Assembly power to change its name as one of the main changes, it simply makes me deeply sceptical about whether the changes are worth the effort.)

What I find much harder to understand is the political statements being made around the bill.

For reasons which escape me completely, the First Minister is arguing that this is rushing things through.  But if he thinks that a two and a half year timetable for something which has been long discussed is a rush, I hate to think what slow might look like.

The Secretary of State’s position is no more logical.  He won’t delay it because that would merely allow Labour to make an issue of it in the run up to next year’s Assembly elections.  So publishing a draft in October, and a final version in February with the legislation therefore under discussion one way another for the whole period between now and next May’s Assembly elections means that it won’t be an issue?

What should have been an opportunity to put the clarity of a reserved powers model in place of the often vague definitions which currently exist has become just another front in the yah boo politics of Labour and the Tories.  I suppose we should never have expected anything else.

What is to be done?

Tweet

I quite enjoyed David Davies’ little outburst yesterday about the likely outcome from the Silk Commission.  It’s a real problem, isn't it, when opinion is moving so strongly in one direction that it becomes difficult to find anyone willing to put the opposing case.

I suspect that his suggestion – just publish the report now, and scrap the consultation and evidence taking – was born of frustration and intended to be sarcastic.  But what would he have people do?  Ban most of those supporting further powers from giving evidence so that the committee only hears an equal number of fors and againsts?  Fund some new groups to argue against to try and even the numbers out a bit?

In fact, his tongue-in-cheek suggestion may well be the best and most sensible one, even if he’s likely to be the last one to recognise that.  On those issues where there is an overwhelming consensus, perhaps moving straight to a recommendation and decision really is the easiest way to proceed.  After all, the only reason for holding long drawn-out commissions to consider matters is to appease the vociferous minority who want to stop progress.  People rather like David Davies, in fact.