Constraining the work of the Senedd

Tweet

 

One of the consequences of the exceptionalism so prevalent in Westminster is that most of the politicians there are incapable of imagining that there is any way of doing things that could possibly be better than that used by themselves. They really do believe that dividing legislators in binary fashion into government and opposition and lining them up on two sides of a room – at a distance equivalent to the length of two swords, just in case things get a bit too heated – to bellow at each other is a rational and reasonable basis for debate. So it’s really no surprise to find that the Secretary of State, who survived the last reshuffle presumably because Boris Johnson had forgotten he was there, is struggling to understand how an opposition party can formally agree to support the government on some issues but not on others. The idea that the political parties in any parliament can set out to work on a more consensual basis is clearly causing his brain some processing difficulties.

It seems, however, that there is indeed a potential problem under the rules of the Senedd, on which the Llywydd is seeking legal advice. Those rules are contained in the legislation governing the operation of the Senedd – which was, of course, written by those who think that Westminster is the only conceivable model for running a parliament. There’s nothing at all surprising that people who believe that a binary division is the only possible modus operandi would end up imposing the same principles on its subordinate legislatures. Whether the deal between Labour and Plaid is good or bad is, of course, a matter of opinion; but the attempt to agree in advance on a deliverable programme in a host of policy areas is in principle a noble one and an entirely sensible approach in a chamber elected by a proportional (albeit imperfectly) system. The idea that a national parliament can be prevented from deciding for itself what processes suit the nation best underlines, yet again, the core problem with devolution. Power, even over what look like procedural minutiae, remains in London.

Federalism brings more problems than the obvious one

Tweet It’s clear that an increasing number of people are beginning to see a federal UK as a way out of the constitutional nightmare which has been created by a poorly thought-out and asymmetrical approach to devolution to those parts of the UK where there was a demand.  It’s also been clear to me for many years that not a few of those who sometimes call themselves nationalists would be, on the whole, content with such a proposal.  Like Home Rule, however, it’s a term whose meaning depends on who is using it.

Plenty of others have already drawn attention to the biggest problem with a federal UK – unless England is broken down into ‘regions’, a federation in which one member comprises 85% of the whole is unlikely to pay much regard to the views of the 15% if they happen to differ.  And whilst I instinctively favour a more local approach to government, I feel disinclined to try and insist that England should break itself up into regions with which there seems to be little natural identity or affinity, let alone demand for more local power.

Certainly some of England’s larger cities can see advantages in having more powers, but unless the country is carved up into regions based on those cities and their hinterlands, what happens to the more rural areas in between them?  London could certainly make out a good case for becoming a self-governing city state, and its mayor has already hinted at such a suggestion.  (Although going even further, and removing London from the UK might be more of a blessing to the rest of us than many realise.)

There is another aspect of federalism though which has received rather less attention.  Historically, federation has usually been much more about bringing diverse ‘countries’ or ‘nations’ together than about separating them.  It’s been more to do with convergence than divergence.  And the history of federal states has often been marked by a tendency for the centre to take on more powers whilst the components see their powers reduced.  It’s a danger which is likely to be even more acute in a federation dominated by one part.

It would be interesting to see how it might pan out in practice, and how strong the safeguards for the smaller parts might be.  I don’t think there’s much chance of it actually happening though.  One thing which would have to be absolutely clear in any federal approach is that the federal parliament and government would have to be separate from the English parliament and government.  I see no sign that any of the politicians and parties wedded to Westminster are even understanding that, let alone being ready to contemplate it.

Not entirely unsympathetic

Tweet There will be few who feel much sympathy for the arguments put forward by Mark Simmonds that a salary of £90,000 plus £27,000 in expenses is inadequate to be able to live in one place and work largely elsewhere.  And I have no faith whatever in the argument that paying MPs more would attract more able people to the job.  Not only does that presuppose that “able” is synonymous with “highly paid” and that able people will only be attracted to highly paid jobs, it also overlooks the fact that since there are no ability criteria for the job, a pay increase would also mean that all MPs - regardless of ability - would get the extra cash.  Insofar as high pay attracts a certain type of person, experience elsewhere suggests that high-paid jobs with no entrance criteria are more likely to attract the greedy and the reckless than the able.

There was a second part of his statement however with which I have considerably more sympathy, and that was about the unrealistic expectations that we have about MPs and more particularly ministers.  It’s not the disruption caused by the mere fact of having to live in one place and work elsewhere, although that’s that way it’s come across.  On that point, firstly it isn’t only a problem faced by MPs, and secondly, he knew that was the nature of the job when he went for it.  No, it’s the fact that local constituents want to see their MP on the ground, whilst MPs are expected to be in Westminster, and ministers are generally expected to be available 24/7 – they cannot meet all those expectations. 

Part of the expectation of constituents has been built up over the years for electoral reasons.  “Being seen” in all the right places can help sitting MPs to keep their seats; and challengers can have an advantage in being available in a way that sitting members can’t, so it’s at least partly about watching their backs.  I’m also sceptical about the 24/7 demands on ministers – being “busy” isn’t always the same as doing useful things.  The attitude of the civil service parodied so well by “Yes Minister” – keeping them busy attending meetings, reading reports, and rubberstamping decisions so that they have no time to take any initiatives of their own – is probably closer to reality than it should be.

But even removing those – to some extent self-imposed – expectations, there is still a tendency to expect our MPs to be doing much more than a 9-to-5 job; and paying them more would only encourage that expectation.

Whilst a fixed 9-to-5 routine is never going to fit the nature of the job, why should the job not be defined in such a way which allows a better home-work balance of the sort that most of us expect?  It’s impossible to escape the implications of having to work in two locations – one in London and one in the constituency – but there are lots of jobs where similar factors can apply: having two bases is no reason in itself for expecting a 24/7 availability.

I suspect that the hours and poor home-work balance (to say nothing of the macho culture) are a larger deterrent to able people – and particularly women – than the salary, but there seems to be an unwillingness to redefine the role to tackle that issue.  And of course the fact that so many of them do other jobs “on the side” doesn’t exactly help the cause of the honest ones trying to do their best…

Swords for AMs?

Tweet Amongst the evidence given to the Welsh Affairs Committee by the Assembly’s Presiding Officer last week was the proposal that her job should be renamed as Speaker, because that was more recognisable and is used in Westminster.

Neither of those strike me as being particularly good reasons to choose a different name.  And it left unanswered the question as to what the Welsh equivalent would be, although my guess is that it would continue to be Llywydd.  I can, after a fashion, understand why so many AMs seem to want to ape what they see as a “real” Parliament doing, although it’s an attitude which disappoints me.  It’s a sign of insecurity.

Choosing a name because it is used elsewhere rather than using an accurate and meaningful description seems to be elevating the arcane over common sense.  The origin of the title of Speaker seems to be tied up with the idea that one brave MP should speak on behalf of the whole house to the monarch of the day, suitably quaking in his boots as he did so (they were all ‘he’ in those days).  In practice, however, the Crown usually got its way over who should be appointed anyway, and dispatched (in rather permanent fashion) any who brought them news that they didn’t want to hear.

It’s certainly true that large numbers of parliaments throughout the world do use the term Speaker, although it’s worthy of note that it is particularly prevalent amongst parliaments in countries which used to be part of the British Empire.  Aping ‘mother’ is catching.  I wouldn’t say it’s never used outside of that sphere, but chairman or president seems to be a much more common title outside the former empire. 

I’d be tempted to say that perhaps we should simply dispose of the English title completely and use only the Welsh, Llywydd.  It would be following the example of Ireland - although it’s not an entirely happy precedent; whilst using only the Gaelic titles, the actual use of the language itself has declined.

What was proposed may only be a minor name change, but once the Assembly starts reverting to Westminster customs and habits, where will it end?

Will we have AMs pretending to be reluctant (as if!) to take on the lucrative rôle being dragged to the chair?  Or perhaps we should keep collapsible top hats under the chair for when members want to raise points of order (after all, it’s not that long since the House of Commons got around to abolishing that peculiar practice), or provide pegs for the AMs swords, or have the AMs walking round in circles when they want to vote?

Let’s just forget Westminster and its arcane procedures and titles, and concentrate on the job in hand – building a rather more twenty-first century democracy here in Wales.

Pantomime and Theatre

Tweet If anything, I thought that Leanne Wood's description of First Minister's Questions as 'pantomime' was far too kind.  At least pantomime provides some entertainment for someone, somewhere.

It's always been something of a mystery to me that the Assembly should have decided to adopt the process in the first place - it's looked like an attempt to emulate the proceedings at Westminster, rather as though those taking the decision believed that was the way a 'proper' parliament should behave.

Certainly, there's more heat and fire in the Westminster version, but I'm not convinced that it generates any more light, or does anything meaningful in terms of 'holding the PM to account' to use one of those phrases that politicians love as an excuse for their weird and arcane procedures.  It's easy to see why the media like it; it's a ready source of sound bites and short clips which would never be available from a more serious debate.

I suppose that's why so many politicians seem to like it too - it's a chance for those few lucky enough to be allowed to ask a question to be judged on performance rather than on substance, whuilst the rest of them can bray and heckle in the background whilst waving papers around in bursts of simulated anger. 

Cardiff Bay was never going to produce the same theatrical performances.  Firstly, they are all too friendly with each other, secondly there aren't enough of them to create the background atmosphere, thirdly, the layout is not conducive to bearpit behaviour, and fourthly, there's little about which they actually disagree very much.  Calls for the Cardiff session to become more like the Westminster one are missing the point.  The point is - well, what exactly is the point?

In both Cardiff and London, it clearly has little to do with eliciting any information; calling it 'questions and answers' ought to lead to prosecution under the Trades Descriptions Act.  And it clearly doesn't hold anyone to account for anything either.  It is, in essence, little more than a piece of theatre, and pantomime is just a sub-genre of theatre.  Trying to 'beef it up' to imitate the Westminster bearpit would simply move it to another sub-genre; it wouldn't address the basic question.

If politicians seriously wanted to 'hold ministers to account' a detailed and lengthy grilling on a focussed area of policy by a powerful and articulate committee would probably be a more effective approach.  It might also, though, expose the serious lack of divergence of opinion amongst politicians which is easily hidden in a more theatrical exchange.  I won't hold my breath.

Have they nothing better to do?

Tweet I probably shouldn’t ever be surprised at any aspect of Westminster’s government processes, but I’ll admit that the news this week that there is a potential problem with bilingual ballot papers for the police commissioner elections in two months’ time really did come as a surprise.

It’s not so much the fact that they’re late in the day thinking about it that comes as a surprise.  Much of what our own government in Cardiff does seems to treat the Welsh language as some sort of add-on extra; a simple translation job once all the real discussion has finished.  And if the Welsh Government can’t treat the Welsh language as an integral part of its activities, there is no reason to hope that the far-removed Westminster Government will ever be any better at it.

No, the part that surprised me was that it is necessary for the UK Parliament to pass an order ‘allowing’ the use of bilingual forms in Wales.  Given that bilingual forms for elections have been very much the norm in Wales for decades, and given the legislation which has been passed over the years in Westminster and Cardiff normalising the use of Welsh for official purposes, and giving the language, allegedly, equal status, why does a specific form for a specific election still need further legislation at all?

Has the Westminster Parliament really got nothing better to do than authorise what should be no more than a minor organisational detail, requiring nothing more than that relevant officials give to Welsh the equality of status which legislation claims it already has?  I find it utterly incredible that we need to seek the consent of a majority of the 650 MPs from across the UK (or however many of them bother to turn up for such a riveting agenda item) before a single form can be made available bilingually.

Heat, light, power, and oppositionalism

Tweet

In response to Wednesday’s post, one anonymous commenter said that (s)he was disappointed that I was so dismissive of the no confidence motion, and wrote “What other form of censure have they got?  How else can they hold the Government to account and ensure that they cannot continue to mislead the electorate?  If the opposition parties were not to go ahead with the vote of no confidence, then the minister would justify centralisation by claiming that it was an independent report”.

There are a number of interesting points there.  Let’s start with this business of ‘holding the government to account’.  It's a phrase which often trips off the tongues of opposition politicians – whether in Cardiff or in London – and it’s one of those phrases whose meaning seems obvious.  But what does it really mean?

Clearly, no opposition can actually sack, or even censure, a government unless that opposition has a majority in the relevant chamber, whether a ‘natural’ majority or else a majority based either on government rebellion or differential absenteeism.  It’s why no confidence motions are so rare in most legislatures; unless the opposition thinks it can win one, there is little point holding one, since the failure of a ‘no confidence’ motion effectively confirms the opposite, i.e. ‘confidence’.

So, if they can't be sacked or censured, ‘holding a government to account’ can really mean little more than forcing them to answer difficult questions, and making sure that the answers are given the widest possible airing.  A motion of censure or no confidence which you know you can’t win, and which, even if you did win, has no effect, doesn’t strike me as a particularly effective way of doing that.  Even more so if it’s held on an issue of process rather than an issue of substance.

Could it be, though, as the anonymous comment seems to suggest (“How else can they…”) that it was actually born, at least in part, out of frustration and impotence, as a result of a lack of any alternative options?  Possibly, but attempting to press the nuclear button because there’s no non-nuclear option isn’t a line of reasoning which appeals to me.

Is it even true that there are no other options, though?  Are the scrutiny processes in the National Assembly so weak and inadequate that tabling a certain-to-fail motion of no confidence is the only option open to opposition parties?  I would hope not; and I don’t believe it’s so either.

If we look at the Westminster model, on which AMs often seem so keen, some parliamentary select committees actually do quite a good job of exposing government failings.  That isn’t to say, however, that all MPs are good at the job.  An observation that I’d make is that some MPs go into those committees with the intention of scoring points and grabbing sound bites, whilst others develop a depth of expertise in their subject and go in well-briefed, with a mastery of the subject, ready for a forensic examination of witnesses.  The first category get the headlines; but it’s the second category which are most effective in ‘holding the government to account’.

Westminster has one obvious advantage over the Assembly in this regard.  The sheer number of MPs, and the corresponding lack of numbers in the Assembly, allows a degree of specialisation and expertise.  It also allows more backbench freedom, on both government and opposition benches, for individual MPs to follow a particular hobby horse without endangering the government’s majority.

Are there, nevertheless, any valid comparisons with the Assembly in Cardiff?  I think there are.  The most effective harrying and scrutiny of government which I can recall in the entire period since the Assembly was created was the work which Dr Phil did over European funding and Barnett.  He mastered the subject better than any minister, was always well-prepared, and challenged the government time and time again.  There weren’t many sound bites, but the centre ground on those issues moved, in large part, I am convinced, as a result of his work.  Policy changed.

It’s an example of the second type of MP to which I referred earlier.  But much of what passes for scrutiny in the Assembly seems to be of the first type.  I don’t know what actually happens, but the impression often given is of opposition AMs who have been given a briefing note, ten minutes before going into a committee, of a few key points, rather than of most AMs having any real mastery of the subject.

And that brings me back to the point raised by Anon.  ‘Holding the government to account’ needs to be about more than scoring points and grabbing headlines.  It may be easier to generate heat than it is to generate light, but generating light will achieve more in the end.

Much ado about very little

Tweet

Later today, our legislature in Cardiff will be debating a motion of no confidence in the Health Minister.  Given the respective size of the party groups, it’s likely to be a close vote, but unless there is an element of “differential absenteeism”, it’s a motion which will not be passed.

There’ll be quite a lot of huffing and puffing as the various opposition AMs rise to their hind legs to express their outrage.  It’s at least possible that there will be an occasional instance of genuine outrage, but most of it will be manufactured especially for the occasion – or rather in the hope of getting a brief clip into the BBC report on the debate.

Ultimately, the vote is about one of those monumental irrelevances of which politicians of all shades seem so fond, but which are a real turn off for the rest of us.  Because they’re not debating the threat – whether real or imagined – to local hospitals, nor even the principle as to whether service configurations (the posh euphemism for changes to what hospitals do) need to be made.

No, they’re debating whether or not the government might have done what all known governments in all known countries have done on a regular basis – try to influence the conclusions of an external report to justify their own actions.  And the evidence that the Minister herself was involved, even if such an attempt was made, is rather less than flimsy.  It's a 'bubble' debate of classic proportions.

It’s just as well, of course, that they’re not actually debating the substance of any proposed or mooted changes to the health service in Wales, because the only thing that unites the opposition parties when it comes to the substance is opposition to what Labour propose - whatever Labour might propose.  (And, in the interests of fairness, I think we can say that were there to be a non-Labour Government proposing the same, or indeed any, changes, then Labour would be equally opposed).

Whilst the three opposition parties are all against Plan A, the chances of them ever agreeing on a Plan B are slim, to say the least.  (And that doesn’t only apply in the field of health care.)

In that context, one has to wonder about some of the calls recently for the three opposition parties to work more closely together in the Assembly.  To what end?  It might make for more exciting television news bulletins, and give print reporters something to write about as they try to hype up the drama around the at-best theoretical possibility of a government defeat, but what would it actually achieve?

The only obvious outcome that I can see is to confirm Labour’s narrative that everyone is either with them or with the Tories.  That certainly helps Labour electorally; and it may even help the Tories by painting them very clearly as the main opposition.  But it doesn’t obviously help either Plaid or the Lib Dems - let alone the electorate.  And it tells us little or nothing about any alternative proposals.

The hope of many of those of us who spent so much time and effort arguing for a new democracy in Wales was to build a different type of institution, not merely to ape the confrontational style of Westminster.  It seems, however, as though many of our AMs, aided and abetted by the media, who are pursuing their own need for something less anodyne to report, are intent on creating a Westminster writ small.  But even Westminster could find a better subject for a motion of no confidence than this one.

Resurrect the WDA?

Tweet

I wonder what the reaction would be if the Assembly set up a committee to look into the war in Afghanistan, and then, when it published its report, criticised William Hague for declining to attend to give evidence.  Actually, I don’t wonder at all – I’ve got a pretty good idea what the reaction would be.

But how different is it really from a position where a committee of the House of Commons decides to look at a devolved issue – economic development – and then criticises the minister responsible for not agreeing to be grilled by the MPs?

I can understand the irritation in Cardiff at the uninvited interference.  I hope, though, that such natural and justifiable irritation will not lead to a too hasty rejection of the report.  The fact that much of what the MPs have to say is none of their business doesn’t mean that they aren’t making some very valid points.

Their call for the UK Government to extend electrification of the railways – a matter for which they still have responsibility – to Swansea and the Valleys lines is one with which many of us would agree, although I’d like them to have gone further and declared that those were merely the next two steps on a programme to electrify the entire network in Wales.  There is life west of Swansea.

Their message about the loss of the WDA echoes what many in Wales have been saying for some years.  It was a mistake at the time – both for the Government of the day and for the main opposition at the time in supporting it, as Elin Jones recently highlighted.  And there were plenty of people saying at the time that it was a mistake.

I never understood why the baby – the WDA – was being thrown out with the bathwater – the system of appointed members of the great and the good to run quangos.  The latter could have been done without carving the WDA up and incorporating it into the civil service.  Getting back the ethos and culture of that body will not be easy at this stage, but it’s disappointing to see such a lack of will to try.

How many MPs is enough?

Tweet

It’s nice to see so many of Wales’ MPs exercised about a single subject and almost saying the same thing; it’s just a pity that the subject in question is how many of them there should be.  It’s hardly the top item on most people’s agenda; fewer politicians (however achieved) rather than more is definitely the flavour of the moment. 

(As an aside, I remember someone once saying to me that ‘if the answer to a question is more politicians, then it must be a very curious question indeed’.)

There are different ways of looking at the issue, of course; a lot depends on one’s perspective.  From a nationalist point of view, the target number of MPs at Westminster is obviously zero, once the constitutional objective is attained.  That’s the easy part; the hard part is, how many should there be in the interim, and what are the factors which should drive change?

Some have argued that as more powers are transferred to the Assembly, then the numbers should be reduced accordingly.  Given the tight control that Westminster still maintains over so much of our lives – and most importantly, over the purse-strings – that seems to me to be superficially logical, but over-simplistic.

If Wales is treated just as a region sending representatives to a unitary parliament, then there is absolutely no basis for continued over-representation, or for treating Wales any differently from any other area in the UK.  Indeed (dare I say it?), from that strongly unionist perspective there is no real logic in the rigid rule that parliamentary constituencies should not cross national boundaries.

If, however, Wales is sending representatives to what may well increasingly become a federal-type parliament, with ‘England-only’ decisions being taken by English MPs only, then there is an argument to be made for deliberate over-representation of Wales.  Many less unitary states than the UK do indeed provide for over-representation of smaller parts, and the UK Parliament is so dominated by English MPs that even our current modest over-representation still leaves Wales with fairly minimal influence.

Plaid’s pitch at European level has long included the statement that, as an independent nation, we would be entitled to about 11 MEPs instead of the current 4.  So treating Wales as a nation within Europe leads to a different approach than treating us as a region within the UK.  Why should the same not apply to Westminster for as long as Wales is part of the UK?

I wish that I could be certain that the heightened levels of awareness of the distinctiveness of Wales amongst Wales’ MPs were motivated by such considerations rather than mere self-preservation.  At the moment, the image which keeps coming to mind is of Harri Webb’s budgie.

Now for Westminster...

Tweet The report by Sir Roger Jones and his panel on the pay and expenses of AMs contains a large number of recommendations. In other circumstances, there are one or two points of detail (mostly minor) which I suspect ought to be subject to a little more debate; but in the current climate, I don't see how any of the parties can do other than accept the report in full, and that's what I expect to happen.

I don't doubt that there will be some AMs in all parties who might harbour reservations about aspects of the proposals; but it would be a career-limiting move to start expressing those reservations, let alone rejecting any of the recommendations.

Westminster has already launched its own review of the system of expenses, which will report later this year. Whilst there may be some minor differences as a result of the different nature of the two institutions, they are likely to struggle to justify any significant differences of principle, and I expect Westminster to follow the lead set by the Assembly.