Huw Irranca-Davies

I want to comment on a speech that Huw Irranca-Davies made last night about the referendum on primary lawmaking powers, at least in so far as it was reported in today's Western Mail:

I don’t think we can have just a sterile passage of time where we entirely park the results of the Convention. This is why the Labour Party will be expected to take a lead in describing the process that needs to be taken forward.

The most essential part of that process is finding a plan to engage with the wider public in Wales and ask their views on these issues, not to launch into some sort of Yes campaign solely driven by the political elite.

Labour must lead on powers referendum - Western Mail, 19 November 2009

Huw is a Labour MP who I have some time for, and I believe I can understand the concerns he expressed about what Labour's response to Sir Emyr's report should be. There is no doubt in my mind that Labour need to reach a common position in the next few weeks, and then come out firmly on one side of the fence or the other.

What concerns me is the phrase "finding a plan to engage with the wider public in Wales and ask their views on these issues". It concerns me because that seems to be a very good description of what the All Wales Convention has spent the last year-and-a-half doing.

-

That is how most people will understand his speech, yet I wonder if that is what he in fact means. From my perspective, the publication of the AWC's report has already set out the case for a referendum in clear and decisive terms. But the way that referendum campaign is now fought is another matter entirely. This is what we need to concentrate our minds on.

Daran Hill wrote what I thought was an excellent piece about it yesterday. This is an extract of what he said:

... there remains a degree of disconnect between the Assembly and the population of Wales – who also happen to be the Welsh electorate.

This should worry everyone who supports more powers for the Assembly. Because in as much as yesterday’s report from the All Wales Convention provides a solid evidence base on which to build, it also illustrates the huge knowledge gap that still exists. The worry – and it is the same worry as in 1997 – is that, come a referendum, lack of knowledge will lead too many people into the camp of resisting change. When in doubt, stay at home or stay with what you know – or don’t know, actually.

When we move to referendum, which looks and feels increasingly like Autumn 2010, our actions and strategy need to reflect what has gone before.

Beware the entitlement to rule - WalesHome, 18 November 2009

As National Organizer of the 1997 Yes Campaign, Daran probably has a better idea than anybody about what will we need to do in order to win this referendum. For even though lots of people have talked about it, we do not yet have any sort of Yes Campaign for this referendum.

We must not fall into the trap of thinking that we have to wait for public opinion to come round, nor that we should fight the referendum only when we know that the outcome is a foregone conclusion. We have to make the case for a Yes vote.

This is not something that can be done by another few years of consultation. Consultations are neutral, but the time for neutrality has passed. It is now time to unashamedly move on.

-

Now of course this will involve engagement with the public, as Huw I-D rightly said. We need to know exactly what people think and why they think it. The most fundamental part of trying to persude or convince anybody to vote Yes is to listen to them, to understand them and to and respect them. Without that, we do not have a hope of convincing them.

We know, from what the GfK NOP Social Research Report tells us, that a very substantial part of the public have a basic understanding of the issues involved, and that more people will vote Yes than vote No, by a margin of some 10%. But those same surveys reveal that a very significant number do not understand the issues. Here is an extract from their report:

The research demonstrated that there was a poor understanding of a number of the terms surrounding the debate on increased powers. Critically, the term ‘full law-making powers’ was not well understood.

• Findings from the second wave of quantitative research suggested that understanding of the concept of ‘full law-making powers’ has not increased since Wave 1. The majority of respondents recognised that full law-making powers mean that the Assembly “will have more powers in certain areas of Welsh life such as health, education, housing and tourism” (80% in Wave 1, 81% in Wave 2);

• Confusion was evident over whether the Assembly “will have law-making powers in all areas of Welsh life”, 48% of respondents in Wave 1 and 49% in Wave 2 incorrectly thought this was true;

• Three in ten respondents incorrectly thought it was true that the Assembly “will be able to change the basic rate of income tax” (30% in Wave 1, 28% in Wave 2);

• A quarter of respondents seemed to equate full law-making powers with independence. Twenty six per cent of respondents in both waves incorrectly believed it was true that “Wales will be independent of the UK”.

The qualitative research also shed light on the effects of poor understanding of ‘full law-making powers’, which was frequently misinterpreted as meaning that the Assembly would be able to make decisions in all areas of Welsh life. This could result in an impression that the debate on increasing law-making powers was one of independence, a less popular option. In this sense, poor understanding hindered the debate on increased powers.

Executive Summary
Full Social Research Report

To repeat:

     28% think that voting Yes will give the Assembly tax setting powers
     26% think that voting Yes equates with independence

Personally, I can't blame people for this "misunderstanding" of what "full lawmaking powers" means. It was always the wrong way of putting it, and this goes a long way to explain why the final poll showed a margin of 47% to 37% in favour, but that when YouGov asked the question in terms of "increased" rather than "full" powers this week for ITV Wales the margin was 51% to 31% in favour.

-

What is now different is that it's no longer up to the AWC, or any similar neutral body, to present the options. The AWC have taken things as far as they can. It is now up to us, as non-neutrals, to present our respective cases either to vote Yes or to keep things the way they are. As these polls show, the way we present our arguments when we set up the Yes Campaign will make all the difference. The ball is in our court.

There is no room for politicians to play some sort of role as an "honest broker" as another Huw, Huw Lewis, said yesterday. An honest broker is by definition on neither side of the argument ... and anyway, who would trust any politician who set himself up as being "neutral" on this issue? Not least someone who hopes to become the leader of his party.

To make a case, you have to take sides. Any politician in Wales who claims that he hasn't got an opinion one way or the other simply cannot be taken seriously. Like Peter Hain, to pretend to be in favour of the Assembly getting primary lawmaking powers in those areas for which it already has devolved responsibility, yet to qualify it by always saying " ... but only in a few more years" is not going to fool anyone.

Time for Labour to come round

When it comes to the referendum, we know that if the decision were simply up to AMs we would easily get the two thirds majority required to trigger a referendum. In fact, if Nick Bourne is able to hold his party together, there is a fair chance of the Senedd passing it unanimously.

That's not where the debate lies. What matters—and it is the only thing that matters—is how the wider Labour Party in Wales party react to Sir Emyr's report and its recommendations. They have to take the next few days or weeks to work out their response. They need to think clearly.

Although Labour's AMs are in favour, their MPs are divided. Some are absolutely against having a referendum, unless it is in several years' time. It's pointless naming names, I'm sure most of us know who they are anyway. Some are and always have been unequivocally in favour of a referendum ... but most are somewhere in the middle.

 
     

I have always said that the main purpose of the All Wales Convention has been to give Labour time to make up their minds about whether and when to hold the referendum. After the One Wales government was formed, the AWC was a very expedient way of giving everyone a good reason not to speak out on the issue. Expediency is vitally important in politics, because once a politician has been put on the spot and forced to declare their views on a particular matter, it becomes very difficult for them to later change their minds when circumstances change.

If anyone needs an illustration of this, just think of the promises given about the EU Constitution that was and the Lisbon Treaty that is. Both Labour and the Tories made firm promises, but then had to back away from them. Both parties could with some justification use the line that "circumstances had changed" ... but did that stop other parties making political capital out of it? Of course not. Politics is for grown ups.

Yes, there will always be outspoken politicians who can't help but make their own opinions public on every occasion. Every party has its sprinkling of those. But the majority of politicians learn when it is best to be vocal, and when it is best to keep quiet ... to wait and see how things pan out. If you can do that, you won't look a prize fool when circumstances change.

That is why the AWC was such a good idea. It gave the more sensible politicians a perfect opportunity to say that they would wait to see what the report recommended before taking a position. And in practical terms, it left them to get on with the day to day business of politics rather than be sidetracked onto constitutional issues by reporters anxious to create a battle for the sake of "newsworthiness".

 
     

That was back in 2007. It is now late 2009 ... and guess what? Circumstances have changed. When the AWC was set up, there was every chance that Labour would win the next Westminster election (few doubt that Gordon Brown would have won a general election if he had called it back in 2007). Even fewer of us were thinking about any sort of banking crisis and such massive public borrowing. And no MP thought their expense claims would be made so public.

The political landscape has been turned upside down in the past two years.

And that, for Labour, means that they now look unlikely (to put it at its mildest) to win the General Election in May 2010. Of course that won't, and shouldn't, stop them fighting as hard as they can against the Tories. And perhaps some miracle will happen. But even the most optimistic Labour MP must know that the prognosis is not good.

What the AWC's report has demonstrated is that—even if the LCO system is working better than it used to—the rate of progress is almost entirely determined by the Secretary of State for Wales, who has an effective veto. It can only work if the party in power in Westminster is favourably disposed to the legislation being proposed. At another level, Westminster currently makes extensive use of Framework legislation (because it's so much easier and simpler than the LCO system) ... but most of that has been used to confer powers on Welsh ministers directly rather than legislative power to the Assembly. Think, what Tory in their right mind would simply hand over more power to a Labour minister in Wales?

-

Now that the report has been published, there is no need for any division between Labour's AMs and MPs in Wales. Surely you all want what is best for Wales? True, your idea of "best" may not be the same as ours in Plaid, but they're close enough for us to be able to work together in a common programme for government in Wales. Of course it would be better to have a Labour than a Tory government in Westminster ... but with only 40 MPs out of more than 600, Wales doesn't get to have much of a say in the outcome of the Westminster election, does it?

For the past two years you've been able to work with "Plan A" ... but now it's time to dust off "Plan B". Plan B is to make sure that even if you lose power at Westminster, you can still carry though a radical programme of government in Wales. It really is a no-brainer.

 
     

Sadly some of your more outspoken MPs have made their opposition to lawmaking powers so obvious that they can't change their minds now. But most of you—all but a small handful of you—have been wise enough to keep your head down on the issue, to see how things would work out.

The AWC has now given you overwhelmingly positive evidence that we should move to a referendum of primary lawmaking powers. The public is in favour of the move by a margin of 10 percentage points. You can properly say that circumstances have changed to the point where the move is desirable, practical, and above all achievable. It's the only way of protecting Wales from the Tories. The public, whose opinion of you is what matters, will wear it.

So join your AMs and make sure it happens. If you can come together and present a united position, the referendum will be won easily. And if that means sidelining a handful of refuseniks, so be it. They will come round simply because it is more important for the party to remain united. Don't allow a small tail to wag the dog.

-

The name of the game is simple. You must set the terms of the referendum while you still can. The exact date, the exact form of the question, are important. You cannot safely leave any of that to the Tories. You don't trust them on anything else, so why take the risk of trusting them on this? You do not have the luxury of leaving it until June, you need to get it through Westminster before you leave office in May.

The referendum itself can be any time from Autumn 2010 to Spring 2011. You don't have to think about fighting the public campaign until the general election is over.

Neither do you have to make a decision right now. Don't panic. Wait until you have your new leader. Wait until he or she has reshuffled the cabinet over the Christmas break. Talk it through with other party leaders. Persuade Rhodri to lead the Yes Campaign as a well-deserved final chapter in his service to Wales.

Then come to the Assembly united and ready to put things into gear in January. Aim to get it through Westminster by the end of March, so that you still have a bit of leeway on the date of the General Election.

Essential reading

The All Wales Convention will present its long-awaited report and recommendations on Wednesday, and every blog and media outlet in Wales will of course have something to say about it.

I'm quite sure none of us would want to have an uniformed view of the constitutional situation of either Wales or of the UK as a whole, so to put things into some sort of overall context I'd like to recommend a little light reading for the weekend. Just click on this picture:

   

And if my recommendation isn't enough, this is what some others have said about it:

Democratic Audit’s spoof constitution is very funny on the way we are governed until you realise with a shiver just how real it all is. Those of us who wish to improve and deepen our democracy must find ways of doing so in the face of the major obstacles that this satirical document all too clearly identifies.

Hilary Wainwright, editor of Red Pepper

This is a brilliant document — and a searing lampoon of the ridiculous state of our political arrangements. It exposes all the glaring faults and the silent assumptions that deform our system, preventing it from ever functioning in a way that we, the people, deserve.

Helena Kennedy QC, member of the unreformed House of Lords

It is difficult not to read this brilliant exposé of the traditions of cant, deception and arrogance that serve as Britain’s constitution without feeling admiration for the authors and a profound anger for the self-perpetuating political classes that continue to rule.

Henry Porter, political columnist and novelist

For centuries, the UK state simultaneously ran a despotic empire overseas and a liberal constitutional polity at home. Democratic Audit’s spoof constitution brilliantly captures how the constitutional schizophrenia this induced in our governing elite continues to shape the fabric of modern British politics and to undermine the lives and liberty of every citizen.

Professor Patrick Dunleavy, London School of Economics

To echo the first quote, let's not fail to take the opportunity this referendum will give us to, if only in a small way, "improve and deepen our democracy" in Wales.

Paul Murphy is in favour of a referendum

Yes, it's really true. This is what he said:

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy):

... I agree that the [All Wales] Convention should be open to everybody in Wales to put their points of view. It is, in effect, testing the water. If the Convention believes that a referendum is necessary, the people of Wales will decide.

Hansard, 29 April 2009 : Column 850

No ifs, buts or maybes. Just a simple commitment that if the AWC recommends it, the people of Wales will get to vote on it.

Paul Murphy might well regret having said it, but say it he did. So will he now stick to his word, or go back on it?

More importantly, he said it in his capacity as Secretary of State for Wales, thus commiting the Labour government in Westminster to hold a referendum if that is what the AWC recommends.

Two sides to the Tories, two reasons to make a decision now

Well, it's finally happened. The Tories have got off the fence and said what they think about the referendum:

     

     

There are two sides to this story: what's been going on within the Tory party itself, and what the right response to it should be.

John Osmond has provided us with one of the best insights into what has been going on behind the scenes in the Tory party in this post on the IWA blog. It is worth reading. Seriously, please click the link and read it before you read the rest of this post.

    The battle for Cameron's nose

Essentially Lord Roberts' report on the position that the Tories should adopt on devolution provoked very mixed reaction in the Tory ranks. So much so that the Tories refused to publish it at all. On one side there are the Tories that have come round to embrace devolution and who want it not so much to go further, but want to tidy up the mess that we currently have under the GoWA 2006 so that our Assembly has the ability to pass laws on those matters for which it already has administrative responsibility. That's all the referendum is going to do. The most unequivocal of these—in the blogosphere, at least—has been Glyn Davies, though his view is probably shared by the majority of Tory AMs, including Nick Bourne as leader. On the other side are the Tory MPs. The most ferocious anti-devolutionist is of course David TC Davies, but David Jones probably runs him close.

Each side has been trying to bend Cameron, who couldn't really be bothered either way, to their point of view. The antis' position was to put things off. They wanted a commitment that a referendum wouldn't be held in the first term of a new Tory government. This in itself speaks volumes: it can only mean that the antis feel sure they will lose. Public opinion has been moving in only one direction over the past two years or so. If there was the slightest chance of the vote being lost they'd have wanted the referendum as soon as possible, while things were still in the balance. As that point has now been passed, the only thing left is to hold the inevitable off for as long as possible ... which, strangely enough, is exactly what Peter Hain wants too.

The pros wanted Cameron to adopt a compromise position: instead of five years' delay they wanted to get it down to two. That actually wouldn't have done much good, since the Tories would be in mid-term and therefore at their most unpopular.

     

That's how things look from the Tory side, but what are the rest of us to make of it? I'm bound to say that one thing Peter Hain said in the ITV interview was quite right. In fact, he seems to have been quoting directly from what I've written in this blog! What on earth is any promise from Cameron actually worth? Circumstances are bound to change, and it won't be too difficult for him to use any change in circumstance as a pretext for changing his mind. "Events, dear boy, events" ... as old Etonians have been known to say.

As the interviews show, Cameron couldn't give a fig one way or the other. But one thing is going to change: the Tories currently only have three MPs in Wales, after May 2010 they may well have ten ... and what's the betting that the majority of those ten will be as against a shift of legislative power from the Westminster to which they've just been elected as some of the current crop of Labour MPs are? Three MPs can be ignored as cranks, it's rather harder to ignore ten, especially if they're only sitting a few yards from you in the Commons. So Cameron's position could easily shift ... especially if he sees an electoral advantage in it.

     

Another factor is simple pride. Most Labour politicians in Wales will very loudly claim that they were the party that gave us devolution ... although Peter Hain does seem very much more fond of using the word "I". So Hain is as grumpy as hell about what Cameron has said. This is how he put it to the Western Mail:

If Cameron’s true intentions were indeed for the best interests of devolution in Wales, he should have waited to consider the widely-anticipated recommendations of Emyr Jones Parry [Chair of the All Wales Convention] due to be published in less than two weeks.

This is no more than a Cameron headline-grabbing stunt.

Western Mail, 6 November 2009

Odd, isn't it? He thinks that Cameron should have waited until after the AWC had reported. But has that stopped him taking every opportunity he could get his hands on to pump out his own opinion, so as to try and undermine what Sir Emyr's report will say? Once again, Hain's own hypocrisy on this issue has become so "up close and personal" that he can't see the wood for the trees.

But let's use this. The very last thing in the world that Hain wants is for the Tories to able to say that they delivered legislative devolution to Wales ... that they were the ones that took the dog's breakfast of the current LCO system and let us move on to something more simple, more straightforward and more easy to understand. And not only that, but something that is less wasteful and therefore less expensive because it will mean that two different sets of politicians will not be able to spend years covering exactly the same ground on every single area of new legislation.

So, since people like Hain are impervious to even the most basis concepts of democracy—namely that it is not for any party to "give us" the right to make laws about things that concern Wales alone—let's pander to his ego. If he so wants to be remembered as the person who "gave us" devolution, then he still has the chance to do so in the few months he has left as Secretary of State for Wales.

-

Of course, if any Labour MPs prefer not to think about it in terms of Labour's largesse towards the people of Wales, they just have to think about it in terms of whether the Tories can be trusted. Either way, the answer is the same. Do it now, while you still can.

Accept it with good grace, Peter

In Emyr Jones Parry's interview on Sunday (the video is this post) he put in a sentence which I thought was very gracious at the time, but that I now realize had a far greater significance. He said it had been:

a very considerable political achievement to get that Act

He was talking about the Government of Wales Act 2006 and of its architect, Peter Hain.

Now I have made no secret of the fact that I question Peter Hain's sincerity about his commitment to devolution. I think he got the Act through by telling MPs it meant one thing and by telling AMs that it meant something else. The result was an LCO process that was inadequately defined, so that its practicalities had to be worked out "on the fly".

Nonetheless, given that Labour's Welsh MPs and AMs were so divided at the time, the fact that any Act was passed at all is somewhat of an achievement. Whatever else Peter Hain is, he is a consummate political operator ... and guile sometimes has a part to play in getting results.

-

This morning, Betsan Powys blogged about Peter Hain giving a lecture next Thursday in which he, as his press release says:

... as a passionate devolutionist ... presents the case for the incremental devolution of powers to the Assembly and argues the current devolution settlement is working well. The process enabling the Assembly to take on more and more law making powers delivers much more than under the old system, and is being continually reviewed and improved. He warns against a holding a referendum on full law making powers prematurely.

Perhaps it would be cruel for me to say that the reason why the LCO process has had to be "continually reviewed and improved" is because it was a dog's breakfast from the beginning ... and that if it's capable of being moved in one direction, it is equally possible for the Tories to "review and improve" the process so that it suits them instead. So I said something a little gentler in my comment.

But, thanks to this post from A Change of Personnel, a clearer picture is beginning to emerge. Slugger O'Toole interviewed Peter Hain yesterday, and I've taken the liberty of embedding the part of the interview where he talks about Wales:

     

It is inconceivable that Peter Hain doesn't have a very good idea of what Sir Emyr's report will recommend. Nor does it take much to realize that Peter Hain doesn't like what it will recommend, and that it will recommend it so decisively ... which is obviously why he wants to pre-empt the issue by speaking out now.

He claims that there is no consensus about primary lawmaking powers in Wales. But this is not about "consensus". There is consensus about very few things in politics. On most issues there is considerable divergence of opinion, and that is healthy and right in a democracy. Many people in Wales are still against devolution and always will be. Many people do not want the status quo to change. But many, many more people do. To me, it is quite clear which way we will vote when we get the opportunity to do so ... the only question was when Labour politicians would let us have that vote.

Nobody is claiming that the Yes vote in the referendum is going to be 95%. We know from the last poll on the issue that 52% were in favour to 39% against with don't knows at 9%. And should 52% not seem like a lot, it might be worth reminding him that he last held his seat in Neath with, as it so happens, 52% of the vote. However Sir Emyr said on Sunday that the latest poll conducted over the summer shows "a clear trend" in public opinion, which can only mean that the margin is continuing to increase.

-

So it is rather touching that Peter Hain should express such concern that the referendum might just, conceivably, be lost. And perhaps he really does want to keep putting off the referendum for that reason. In a democracy it's possible to loose any vote, just as it's possible for Labour to win the Westminster election in May. Possible, yes ... but not at all likely.

Peter, it's not your job to do our worrying for us. We know that you wanted your Act to last for a generation, but very few things in politics are that long-lasting. Stop trying to block the way. Have the good grace to accept the praise you deserve for the GoWA 2006 ... but also accept that most people in Wales are now ready for things to move on.

Clear and decisive

This is what Emyr Jones Parry had to say on the Politics Show today:

     

I was very pleasantly surprised, not least because of what he said at the end, when he made it clear that the referendum would not give the Assembly "full" lawmaking powers.

This had been one of the things that particularly concerned me about the the way the All Wales Convention chose to present the options. As I wrote in this post back in April:

... another point that I would take issue with is the AWC's reference to "full" law making powers. Even their most basic statement of the choice involved says:

Options for devolution

The options are either to retain the current powers or to move towards full law making powers, which would require a referendum.

AWC Website

To use the term "full" implies that voting "Yes" in the referendum would give the Assembly the ability to legislate on any matter it chooses, but that is very far from being the case. In the first instance it would only give the Assembly the power to legislate in the twenty areas for which it already has devolved administrative responsibility, but (and more importantly) even within those twenty areas there is a huge raft of exceptions and exclusions set out in Schedule 7 of the GoWA 2006.

In my opinion it would be better to use the more accurate term "primary" law making powers (within limits already agreed with Westminster) rather than "full" law making powers.

So although Cymru Yfory has rightly pointed to the AWC using language to imply that the status quo is delivering more than it actually does, it also seems to be using language to imply that what we will get if we vote "Yes" in the referendum is more far reaching than it actually is.

I'm delighted that the AWC has now taken this on board (although I've just checked their website, and the reference to "full" lawmaking powers is still there). However I did think it was a bit rich for Sir Emyr to pick Felicity Evans up for using the term, since most journalists and other commentators would naturally use the same terminology the AWC had itself used up until now.

-

As to the substance of the report, I'm now very optimistic about it. Sir Emyr said we would be surprised by the extent of the recommendations and decisiveness of what it has to say. I don't think I will be. To me it was always obvious that any group of people who took time to research the issues in detail was only ever likely to come to one conclusion. After all, they are largely going over the same ground that was covered by the Richard Commission before them. In terms of good governance, it is beyond any reasonable argument that the National Assembly should be able to legislate in those areas for which it already has executive responsibility.

The only questions were whether the people of Wales understood the issues clearly enough to make a decision on it, and whether the politicians were willing to let us vote on it.

     • On the first, Sir Emyr has confirmed that the research into public
     opinion shows a "very clear trend", which can only mean that the
     margin in favour is continuing to increase.

     • On the second, the only way its recommendations can be "decisive"
     is by saying that we need to set up the referendum now, rather than
     leave it until later.

So I have no doubt what the report's recommendations will be ... but it will be up to the politicians (and particularly Labour politicians) to decide whether they accept them or not. They will have six months to get the referendum through the Assembly and both Houses of Parliament. They can't afford to take any risks by leaving it until after the general election. At present things are entirely in Labour's own hands, they would be prize fools to leave any part of the process for the Tories to vote through.

Once a date has been set—any time in Autumn 2010 or Spring 2011 will be perfect—it would be almost impossible for an incoming Tory government to stop the referendum taking place.

The Referendum ... the ball is in Labour's court

There's been quite a lot of talk in the blogs and media in the past week about the Tories' position on devolution. I want to sound a note of caution ... indeed, I'd put it more strongly and call it a warning.

We know full well that there are some Tories in Wales who on principle support primary lawmaking powers for the Senedd. Glyn Davies and Dylan Jones-Evans are two of the most prominent. They have each mentioned it again in the last few days, and David Melding's new book is along the same lines. That's not to forget others who might well want the same thing but are probably not always so forthright about it.

Outside Wales, David Cameron said in a TV programme over the weekend that the Tories had been wrong to oppose devolution in Scotland. So, taken together, it's hardly surprising that there should be a note of optimism about the Tories' attitude to the Senedd getting primary lawmaking powers.

In my opinion this is very dangerous indeed.

Take a step back and imagine first how Labour MPs and AMs will look at it. Of all the things they want most, right at the top of the list is a commitment from David Cameron that the Tories will not refuse to let us have the referendum if, as seems likely, they win the next Westminster election.

Why do Labour in particular want this so much? Because it saves them having to make this tricky decision for themselves before the election. If the Tories were to make this commitment, it would give Labour the luxury of knowing that they could sit back and ask for a referendum whenever they chose (they know that Plaid and the LibDems will vote yes). They would probably like to wait until the deep, dark days in the middle of the Tories' first term, when cuts in the block grant have begun to bite hard. They will then fight the referendum on the grounds of "saving Wales from the Tories" ... which will suit them down to the ground, because being "against the Tories' cuts in public services" is what Labour are most comfortable with. If you doubt that, listen to what Peter Hain is now saying over and over again in every speech and interview he gives.

If nothing else, it simply shows that Labour know their own supporters and what will bring them out. It's the old tribalism. It's always "Labour vs the Tories". They then don't need to present any case on its merits ... they can just rely on instinct and gut reaction. Familiar, easy ground. No effort involved.

     

Now that would be fine ... if the Tories were to make a commitment to allow the referendum. But, despite these few positive notes, they haven't ... and I'm quite sure that they won't!

My reasons for saying this are simple. The Tories have had ample opportunity to make such a commitment, but they have refused to do so. They commissioned a report by Lord Roberts last year, but they have point-blank refused to publish it, or make any sort of statement one way or the other about what their position will be.

I'd urge people to watch Cameron's much reported contribution to Holyrood and the Search for Scotland's Soul on BBC iPlayer, much of which was repeated for non-Scottish consumption on Panorama on Monday. It is nothing more than a one line soundbite. It is not any sort of commitment or change of heart. It's kiddology. They're quite happy to have people—especially those in other parties—think that they are on the brink of a new vision for Britain. But they're not.

They know that for every Glyn, Dylan and David there are probably half a dozen Tories who want the constitutional situation in Wales to remain exactly as it is. And, whatever their leaders in might think, it's definitely true that the majority of their supporters are firmly against the Senedd getting any primary lawmaking powers.

There was a line in Glyn Davies' blog that was very telling. He said:

What the comments that David Cameron is reported to have said certainly do is tell me is that he's willing to be open minded about this issue. I'd like ten minutes on my own with him to make the case.

And then in one of his replies to the comments he said:

I have not discussed the issue with Cheryl Gillan or David Jones, so I do not know what is their opinion - but we all know that we can establish a party policy position only after discussion.

A view from Rural Wales

Glyn Davies is quite likely to be the next MP for Montgomeryshire (which is better than things are at present, though nowhere near as good as they could be if Heledd were to win). He is easily the most prominent Tory to be unequivocally in favour of primary lawmaking powers, yet he has never had ten minutes with his party leader?

Also he claims not even to know the position of two of the current Tory MPs, one of whom happens to be the shadow Secretary of State for Wales!

To members of other parties, this will seem very odd. The first reaction is that this cannot possibly be true. But I don't think Glyn Davies is a liar. We need to remember that the Tories aren't like other parties. They are the top-down party par excellence. Their policy will be what their leader in Westminster says it is ... not what anyone in Wales might want it to be.

In other words, it shows that David Cameron hasn't even thought about it. Sure, you can spin that as being "open minded" ... but I'd prefer a leader that had actually formed an opinion on the subject rather than one who might get round to thinking about it. What is clear is that the Tories have not reached a position ... or at least not one that they are prepared to talk to Glyn Davies about!

     

Which brings me to my Machiavellian conclusion:

• If the Tories do make a commitment to allow a referendum, Labour will breathe one huge sigh of relief. They know that there will be no urgency to make a decision, and that will guarantee that there will be no referendum before 2011.

• And, by no strange coincidence, that's what the Tories want. They want others to think that they are about to have a change of heart in order to remove any sense of urgency. If they can get others to think that they might allow a referendum, they achieve their main objective, which is to delay the referendum ad infinitum.

• When the Tories get in at Westminster, they will not allow a referendum. They will do this for exactly the same reason that Labour have not committed themselves to it: namely that the Secretary of State has a powerful veto over the Assembly that no party in power in Westminster will willingly give up.

• So my warning—to all parties, but to Labour in particular—is to keep things in your own hands, rather than allow the Tories to have control of the details and the timetable. We do not need to rely on the Tories for this ... and we would be prize fools to let them take control of the process.

Don't be lulled into a false sense of optimism about what the Tories will allow us to do. Yes, Glyn Davies, Dylan Jones-Evans and David Melding are decent Tories who I believe are perfectly sincere about what they say. But they share their party with fossilized anti-devolutionists like David TC Davies and David Jones. In fact, the old dinosaurs are far more representative of the way the Tory party thinks.

     

But enough of the Tory party. I want to move on to talk about how we make sure we do get the referendum.

I don't think it is any coincidence that this flurry of Tory activity comes at the end of the evidence gathering part of the All Wales Convention. Emyr Jones Parry in his recent interviews has told us what we all already know: that the current Government of Wales Act is so much of a dog's breakfast that most people are unable to understand it.

That's not new news! Did they seriously expect to be able to explain its Byzantine complexity in anything but the most broad-brush terms? But yet there seemed to be a sense of anti-climax in EJP's body language, almost a sense of failure. He must be wondering what on earth he can say. I don't envy him that task.

Let me offer this advice. The AWC was never primarily meant to be what it "said on the tin". It was only ever meant to be a means of delaying the decision until such time as we knew in which way the political wind was blowing. Labour politicians were able to say nothing (indeed they were more or less instructed to keep quiet) while the AWC was gathering its evidence. The reason is obvious. Once a politician commits him or herself to a particular view, it becomes very much harder to say something different later. If Labour were going to remain in power (Gordon Brown could have called an election in Autumn 2007—which he would probably have won—but he bottled it) Labour would have resisted a referendum before 2011. They would not have wanted to relinquish the Welsh Secretary's powers over the Assembly.

But that's history. We now know that the election won't be until May 2010. And we also know that Labour are set to lose it.

In other words, everything has worked out perfectly ... for those of us who want the referendum on or before 2011, that is.

     

There is no real question about which way the people of Wales will vote in the referendum when we get it. Polls and surveys consistently show an ever-growing margin who will vote "Yes" ... which at the turn of the year stood at 13%. We know that the AWC will commission another survey over the summer, which I fully expect will show a margin of 15% to 20% in favour. That's plenty good enough.

The question has always been whether the political parties would let the referendum happen for, despite all the rhetoric and window-dressing, politicians will only let it happen when it is in their own party interests to do so.

For Labour, it is all about party unity. There are two groups, who have up until now held two differing sets of views about further devolution. Labour are not prepared to go into a referendum campaign until these two groups can agree a common position. You can't blame them for that. It's simple political reality.

But it is equally true that the two opposing Labour camps will find a common position when the circumstances are right. The time will be right when Labour are no longer in power in Westminster. To put it bluntly, Labour will not want a Tory Secretary of State for Wales that can exercise the same powers of veto over a Labour-led Assembly government that their own SoSW is currently able to exercise. You can call that hypocrisy if you like, but I'd call it simple political reality.

From Labour's point of view, a "Yes" vote in the referendum allows them to get on with the job they were elected to do without political interference at every turn. They just need the foresight to get the Referendum Bill through while they are still in power.

-

Once that penny drops, it all becomes a matter of timing. My guess is that most Welsh Labour MPs have grasped this and (whether reluctantly or not) now realize that the only pragmatic way that Labour has any hope of delivering a comprehensive programme of government in Wales is to give the Assembly primary lawmaking powers.

     

As I see it, the only danger is lethargy. Action is required now. Labour can't simply sit back and wait for the All Wales Convention to report. It will not deliver a report that will make the decision for them, and no one should expect it to. Emyr JP is a diplomat, not a politician. The Convention can explain the situation and make recommendations, but it cannot and will not make the decision about whether or when to hold the referendum.

That is a political decision. We know what Plaid want, we know what the LibDems want. It does not matter what the Tories want. So the decision is going to be made by Labour. Without Labour we can't get the two-thirds majority in the Assembly. Without Labour's current majority in the Commons, we cannot get it through Westminster. All the balls are in Labour's court.

But if Labour leave it until the AWC has reported, it might be too late. You surely don't want the AWC to have to report that there seems to be no appetite among politicians for a referendum. That would be shooting yourselves in the foot. So now is the time for Labour politicians to start saying that they want the Assembly to have primary lawmaking powers.

Up until now you have been urged—if not instructed—not to make public statements on the issue. I would urge you not to hold back any longer. If Peter Hain can make public pontifications on the subject, ask yourselves why you are being told to keep quiet. If even some Tories are prepared to speak out in favour, why shouldn't you?

Is the AWC describing the Referendum options clearly?

Cymru Yfory yesterday issued a press release to make public a letter they had sent to the All Wales Convention, taking issue with the way it was presenting the options in the Referendum on primary lawmaking powers to the public:

     Cymru Yfory Letter
     Cymru Yfory Press Release

Please read both in full, but the central point at issue is this:

Sir Emyr told the audience that if a referendum was held, the people of Wales had two choices. The first, he said, was to do nothing and wait for extra law-making powers to gradually devolve from Westminster. Alternatively, voters could decide to transfer extra powers in one go.

BBC, 21 April 2009

He is indeed technically right to portray the choice in this way, but in practical terms what he describes as "gradual" devolution of lawmaking powers will take decades, if indeed it ever does, to deliver the range of lawmaking powers that we would get if we vote "Yes" in the referendum.

-

To add to Cymru Yfory's criticism, another point that I would take issue with is the AWC's reference to "full" law making powers. Even their most basic statement of the choice involved says:

Options for devolution

The options are either to retain the current powers or to move towards full law making powers, which would require a referendum.

AWC Website

To use the term "full" implies that voting "Yes" in the referendum would give the Assembly the ability to legislate on any matter it chooses, but that is very far from being the case. In the first instance it would only give the Assembly the power to legislate in the twenty areas for which it already has devolved administrative responsibility, but (and more importantly) even within those twenty areas there is a huge raft of exceptions and exclusions set out in Schedule 7 of the GoWA 2006.

In my opinion it would be better to use the more accurate term "primary" law making powers (within limits already agreed with Westminster) rather than "full" law making powers.

So although Cymru Yfory has rightly pointed to the AWC using language to imply that the status quo is delivering more than it actually does, it also seems to be using language to imply that what we will get if we vote "Yes" in the referendum is more far reaching than it actually is.