Legislation and delivery

Tweet

The comments made by Sir Emyr Jones Parry on the Welsh Government’s legislative programme have been extensively reported.  And it’s no surprise that some critics of the current government have been quick to seize upon the comments as justification for their stance.

It’s hard to disagree with the suggestion that integrated cycle paths may not be the most relevant response to the economic problems being faced by Wales.  And it’s equally hard to disagree with the suggestion that the Welsh Government’s legislative programme shows a certain lack of imagination and willingness to use the new powers devolved to the Assembly.

But reality, as always, is rather more complex than that.

I don’t know to whom in the four parties Sir Emyr spoke during the referendum campaign about how they would use the new powers, but I may have been involved in responding to the question on behalf of one of them, when giving evidence to the Convention.  (And, thinking back to what we said, probably not the party which gave him half an answer!)  It was a point that he was very keen to raise during the Convention’s hearings.  It was – and is – a valid question to ask at one level, but it wasn’t – and still isn’t – that easy to answer.

Even with the new powers, the situation in Wales remains one where specific powers are devolved under a multiplicity of different Acts and Orders, and no-one really knows exactly what the Assembly can and can’t do until a specific proposal is put forward and examined in detail by the lawyers.  It’s quite different from the situation in Scotland, where everything is devolved unless otherwise stated, and it makes it quite difficult to put forward a detailed legislative programme without a lot of legal work in advance.

Plus, from my point of view in trying to respond to his question, the new settlement wasn’t what I really wanted anyway.  It would have been much easier for me to say how I would use the powers of an independent Wales; what can be done within the current system is necessarily a compromise for those of us who want to see Wales as a member state of the EU.

At another level, it’s also a very one-sided question – it suggests that those who wanted powers devolved had to say how they would use those powers, but those who felt that the powers should stay where they were had no need to provide a similar justification for their opinion.  As I recall, Sir Emyr suggested that it was arrogant of us to ask for more powers without providing such justification.  But the argument for where powers should sit is not – certainly from a nationalist viewpoint – predicated on how they will be used.

Returning to the substance of Sir Emyr’s criticism, I’ve commented before that I thought that all of the manifestos for this year’s Assembly election were lacking in imagination, but in the case of new legislation, that would inevitably be the case for any party trying to put forward a legislative programme which was entirely achievable within the current settlement.

The more important question is the extent to which we judge a government on its legislative programme compared to the extent to which we judge it on its delivery performance.  Governments exist to do rather more than pass new laws – there’s far too much of a tendency to respond to any situation with a proposal for a new law.  It shows the sort of macho responsiveness so beloved of politicians, but often more can be done – and more quickly – by using existing legislation creatively and imaginatively.

Assuming that one can adduce a government’s priorities, and then judge that government, purely by considering its legislative programme doesn’t seem to be a sensible approach to me.  In the field of economics, delivery is more important than new laws at this stage. 

And it is on delivery rather than on legislation which we should judge the current Government.  Judging them on the content of their legislative performance may well give them a very negative score, but it is letting them off the hook on the far more important issue, which is their poor performance in delivery.

Red, White, and Blue

Tweet I've never been a fan of football. In fact, I don't think I've ever watched a whole football match from beginning to end in my life. When I was a small boy, watching the Swan Stars play on the Murch Field in Dinas Powys consisted of spending ten minutes on the touchline before we all got bored and went to kick around a ball of our own in a far corner of the field.

So no-one will be surprised if I don't particularly suffer from world cup fever. I don't think that I've paid any attention at all to the world cup since 1966.

I didn’t pay a lot of attention then either, to be honest, but my youngest brother did manage to collect a complete set of the little plastic coins of the England team's players which were being given away with petrol. That was quite an achievement, really, considering that we didn't have a car. Indeed, only about three families in the whole street owned cars, but one of those had no small children of their own, and were feeling kindly towards us…

I can still remember the song, though. World Cup Willy it was called, although a name like that would probably be taken to mean something rather different today.

Insofar as I and my friends supported any team at all, it would inevitably have been England. There simply wasn't, in my part of the world at least, anything like the same awareness of the difference between England and Britain as there is today. For most of us in Wales, that has changed, and markedly so. But it still hasn't changed that much in England, and we don't always understand that.

So, when Cameron pointedly urged MPs from Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland to get behind the England team, I think that he really didn't understand the way that will sound to many of us. We've moved on; they haven't. He simply doesn't understand that his remarks are likely to have precisely the opposite effect to that intended.

As for me, well with the avowed lack of interest in the game itself which I outlined above, I won't be supporting anyone. But I usually feel a slight surge of pleasure when any small nation defeats a much larger one at any sport. I somehow doubt that Cameron would understand that, either.

Processes and outcomes

Tweet One of the more throw-away comments made by Sir Emyr in publishing his report, according to the Western Mail, was "It may be that some wit will say that you could have told us this on the back of an envelope in a day. Yes, but it wouldn’t have been evidence- based".

It's an obvious temptation to wonder whether he had any particular wit in mind. I have to admit, though, that I do actually have some sympathy for the viewpoint that the conclusion is, in some ways, a statement of the obvious. But...

In a previous existence, I did a lot of project management, and projects are generally about achieving change. One of the things that I learned about project teams is that there are often two types of people involved. The first type are totally focused on the outcome, and will seek to achieve that by whatever means are possible, and in the shortest and cheapest fashion possible. And they don't always worry too much about who gets hurt in the process, or how happy anyone else is. The second type are more focused on the process followed to get to the result; or perhaps more accurately will only be fully engaged if they are happy with the process. Over-simplistic, of course, but broadly true.

The most successful change projects are not always the cheapest or the fastest; getting the maximum buy-in from all participants often increases costs and timescales. But it's an approach which is more likely to achieve deep-rooted and effective change, and establish a more consensual base-line for the future.

I've been confident from the outset about the probable conclusions of the Convention; and confident that the referendum would be held within the agreed timescale. I suspect that history will judge that the work of the Convention has been of great importance, not so much for its conclusions, as for the process followed. There's nothing unusual about a longer term view varying from the assessment which many make at the time.

All Wales Convention

Tweet As Betsan has already blogged, yesterday evening saw the final event in the grand tour by the All-Wales Convention. It wasn't all they did yesterday, however - earlier in the day, they were taking oral evidence from bodies and individuals, and Plaid's Chief Executive, Gwenllïan Lansdown, and I were there to give evidence formally on behalf of Plaid.

No surprise to anyone, I'm sure, that our view was that there should be maximum devolution of powers to Wales in the shortest possible timetable; and that the referendum on implementing Part 4 of the Government of Wales Act should be held within the timetable agreed by ourselves and the Labour Party, and set out in the One Wales agreement. What other position would anyone expect Plaid to adopt?

The line of questioning was interesting, but it's hard to know whether Sir Emyr, in particular, was revealing his own attitude in asking questions, or merely playing devil's advocate. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume the latter, which means that it's hard to read any hint about the probable outcome of their deliberations from the line of questioning.

The points raised with us about how we enthuse people in Wales to vote for what is in a sense a technical change - a matter of 'when not what' - were entirely valid, and they are issues which those of us who want to see a referendum held, with a successful answer, will need to consider. I'm not entirely convinced that they're relevant factors for the Convention to be worrying about; but that doesn't detract from their seriousness and relevance to the wider debate.

All too often, people are referring to a Scottish-style Parliament - but that, of course, is not what is on offer. I firmly believe that it would be a much easier proposition to sell than the content of GOWA 2006, largely because it's so much clearer. But if the problem in selling the next step is a direct result of the lack of clarity over the difference between where we are and where we would be after implementing Part 4, then what is the mechanism which ends that lack of clarity?

I have to admit that I don't see one; to argue that it will take more time for people to understand the issue (which seems to be the position of some who want to delay holding a referendum) leaves me cold. I don't think any amount of time is going to enthuse people about a largely technical change - the only thing more time will do is to continue to highlight the problems of the current system. There is a real danger that using the difficulty of getting people to understand and vote for change on the basis of lack of understanding becomes a permanent cop-out.

We got into an interesting debate with Sir Emyr about seatbelts on school buses at one point. We mentioned it as an example of the Assembly Government wanting to act but being unable to do so under the current settlement. He asked why they needed to legislate; why couldn't they just impose the change through the contracts individual councils have with the bus companies. It's an entirely valid point about the style of government – should governments always seek to resolve matters through legislation or should they look at other approaches? Entirely valid at a philosophical level; but surely irrelevant to the debate about where the power should lie?

Our final parting shot was a very simple, but I think very important, message. The Commission has done a great deal of detailed work and analysis. That will be reflected in their report when they conclude their work. That report will be an input - a very important input – into the final decision as to whether and when to hold a referendum. But the decision on that issue will be taken by politicians, not by the Convention's members. The One Wales Government has appointed the Convention's members to do a job of work and return with some considered advice; it has not abdicated its responsibility to them.

When it comes to commissioning and considering reports, governments can't win. If they do whatever their appointees advise, they can be accused of hiding behind others; and if they ignore reports, they can be accused of wasting time and money on an unnecessary exercise. I think it's more subtle than that. Good government uses all sorts of tools and methods to obtain views, to make assessments, and to provide advice. But good government also means that the final decision rests with elected representatives, who take their decisions having heard all the advice and considered the implications.

Finally, lest anyone jump to the conclusion that I am expecting a negative result from the Convention and seeking to justify over-ruling it in advance, let me add that this works both ways. If the Convention recommends an early referendum, the politicians have the right to decide otherwise, just as they have the right to decide to go forward if the Convention recommends no progress.