Neither Clear nor Lasting

The draft Wales Bill represents the fourth model of devolved government for Wales since 1999 but, says Elin Royles, in its current form it is unlikely to be the last. 
 
The UK Government’s draft Wales Bill,  will be the fourth model of devolved goverment to be introduced in Wales. Following its inquiry, the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs committee of the Welsh Senedd has published its report on the draft bill and the scrutiny process continues at Westminster. Much of the discussion has focussed on the implications of the transition from the current ‘conferred powers’ model to a ‘reserved powers’ one, ostensibly similar to the model currently in place in Scotland. The difference between the two being that the Scottish Government and Parliament have responsibility over all matters excepting those specifically reserved to Westminster whereas, currently, the National Assembly for Wales and Welsh Government only have competency over those powers specifically conferred upon them, with everything else defaulting to Westminster and Whitehall. 
 
A 'reserved powers' model is intended to establish clearer, simpler, more effective and accountable arrangements for Wales. These characteristics would support the Secretary of State’s commitment to a ‘clear and lasting devolution settlement’. 
 
However, in practice, the reservations and exceptions and complexities in the model outlined in the draft Bill suggest that it differs greatly from the clarity of the Scottish model. That the list of exceptions is both long and convoluted would be confusing in and of itself but the very way these restrictions have been framed - general reservations and their exceptions and specific reservations in Schedule 7A and general restrictions and general exceptions to the general restrictions to the Assembly’s legislative competence in 7B - is itself likely to require significant, and possibly conflicting,  interpretation.  Such interpretation is, in turn, likely to create tension and be succeptible to judicial dispute.  Based on the evidence that it recieved, the Senedd report called for a significant reduction in the number and extent of specific reservations and restrictions and called for the establishment of a Constitutional Working Group to produce lasting and durable constitutional arrangements for Wales. 
 
The complexity of the proposed arrangements could have far-reaching implications for the operation of devolution in Wales. These would make for a system far removed from the clearer and simpler arrangements that numerous inquiries have recommended since 1999. Those recomendations aimed at arrangements that could be communicated to Welsh citizens in order to to increase their awareness of, and engagement with, the process of holding government to account.
 
Against the backdrop of this complexity, the draft Bill’s failure to address the issue of how the UK and Welsh governments should relate to one another becomes particularly problematic. The limitations of the current arrangements for intergovernmental relations have been apparent since establishing devolved government in 1999. Both governmental reports and academic analyses have repeatedly identified and criticized the current situation: informal, non-legally binding arrangements and a dependence on good personal relationships.
 
Calls for improving these arrangements respond to the variable quality of relations and circumstances where Wales has been left vulnerable on many occasions, including not being adequately considered and consulted on UK legislative initiatives or on policy developments. The nature of these relations and their implications is well documented, evident in a range of policy areas including trade and inward investment
 
In response, the Commission on Devolution in Wales produced detailed recommendations (3-9) to introduce more robust formal mechanisms for intergovernmental relations. They include a statutory Code of Practice on intergovernmental relations to be included in a new devolution act; a role for Welsh and UK audit bodies in the joint audit of intergovernmental relations, and a bilateral Welsh Intergovernmental Committee to oversee relations between both governments and enhance consultation, cooperation and accountability. 
 
Given the asymmetry of devolution in the UK, the existing quadrilateral arrangements, such as the Joint Ministerial Committee, have time and time again proven that they do not on their own provide an appropriate basis for relations between governments. Since the parameters of devolution settlements are negotiated bilaterally between the UK government and the three non-English territories, the structures of intergovernmental relations would benefit from being similarly bilateral. More formal bilateral engagement mechanisms could be more attuned to the specificities and differences in constitutional arrangements and political relations between the UK and the respective devolved governments.
 
Even without getting into the details of the precise powers currently being discussed in the pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill, there are considerable obstacles to it forming the type of settlement that the Secretary of State has said he wants to see. The complexity of the proposed arrangements and the absence of a meaningful framework in which they can be discussed, means that the proposed arrangements are certainly not clear and are unlikely to be lasting. 
 

Comments policy

All comments posted on the site via Disqus are automatically published. Additionally comments are sent to moderators for checking and removal if necessary. We encourage open debate and real time commenting on the website. The Centre on Constitutional Change cannot be held responsible for any content posted by users. Any complaints about comments on the site should be sent to info@centreonconstitutionalchange.ac.uk

Elin Royles's picture
post by Elin Royles
Aberystwyth University
10th December 2015
Filed under:

Latest blogs

  • 22nd January 2019

    The UK is increasingly polarised by Brexit identities and they seem to have become stronger than party identities, a new academic report finds. Only one in 16 people did not have a Brexit identity, while more than one in five said they had no party identity. Sir John Curtice’s latest analysis of public opinion on a further referendum finds there has been no decisive shift in favour of another referendum. The report, Brexit and public opinion 2019, by The UK in a Changing Europe, provides an authoritative, comprehensive and up-to-date guide to public opinion on each of the key issues around Brexit. CCC Fellow, Dr Coree Brown Swan contributed a chapter on "the SNP, Brexit and the politics of independence"

  • 22nd January 2019

    In the papers accompanying the draft Environment (Principles and Governance) Bill published at the end of 2018, the UK Government says that it is “exploring opportunities to co-design the final proposals with the devolved administrations.” There are clear benefits in having strong co-operation and collaboration across the UK in the oversight of our environmental law and performance. Yet the challenge of finding a way forward in terms of working together is substantial since each part of the UK is in a different position at present. Given where things stand today, it may be better to accept that a good resolution is not possible immediately and to revisit the issue at a later stage - so long as there is a strong commitment to return and not allow interim arrangements to become fixed. Colin Reid, Professor of Environmental Law at the University of Dundee examines the issues.

  • 17th January 2019

    Richard Parry assesses a memorable day in UK parliamentary history as the Commons splits 432-202 on 15 January 2019 against the Government's recommended Brexit route. It was the most dramatic night at Westminster since the Labour government’s defeat on a confidence motion in 1979.

  • 17th January 2019

    What is the Irish government’s Brexit wish-list? The suggestion that Irish unity, as opposed to safeguarding political and economic stability, is the foremost concern of the Irish government is to misunderstand and misrepresent the motivations of this key Brexit stakeholder, writes Mary C. Murphy (University College Cork).

  • 17th January 2019

    Brexit is in trouble but not because of the Irish backstop, argues the CCC's Michael Keating.

Read More Posts