Showing posts with label GoWA 2006. Show all posts
Showing posts with label GoWA 2006. Show all posts

Now we know that they know

By a happy coincidence, in view of my previous post, someone has leaked a copy of a letter from Tory Minister of State for Skills, Nick Boles, to Socialist Worker. The online version is here.

I don't think that Socialist Worker realized just how explosive the contents of the leaked letter are. They are obviously, and from their point of view rightly, concerned to prevent as much of the proposed new Trade Union Bill from getting through the UK parliament as they can ... but there is much more to it than that. The BBC version of the story gets closer to the point:

It [the letter] indicated that legal advice suggested that while the measures would apply to Scotland as a matter reserved to Westminster, there was a "very weak case" where Wales was concerned.

The letter added that some concessions could be made to "take some of the heat out of the DAs' [devolved administrations] opposition to the Bill".

BBC, 8 February 2016

To understand what is actually happening, it's best to look at that part of the leaked letter in full:

     

The obvious question is why the Westminster Government think they could probably get the Trade Union Bill through in Scotland, but not in Wales. The answer is first that Scotland has a reserved powers model of devolution, while Wales has a conferred powers model. But second, and more critically, because of the Supreme Court ruling in July 2014 on the Agricultural Wages (Wales) Bill, as reported here.

I set out the points at issue in that case in some detail in this post, before the Supreme Court delivered its verdict. I won't repeat everything from that post, but essentially the Supreme Court ruling means that because an area (in this particular case agriculture) is devolved to Wales, the Welsh Assembly is also able to legislate on matters that are incidental to and consequential on that devolved area, including employment. This is why the current devolution settlement for Wales gives our National Assembly more powers to legislate than Scotland ... at least in some areas.

The established convention (Sewell Convention) is that Westminster cannot legislate on matters that are already devolved without consent in the form of a Legislative Consent Motion. In respect of the UK Government's desire to place new restrictions on strikes in public services, it would apply to the health, education, fire and rescue and transport sectors in Wales because these are devolved to Wales. Or, conversely, if the Westminster Government ignores this and were to go ahead anyway, the Supreme Court ruling means that the Welsh Assembly could then pass its own legislation to modify or nullify that Westminster Act in so far as it applies to Wales.

-

What will be particularly embarrassing to the Tories is that they have tried to make out in public that the Welsh Assembly does not have this power. For example, William Graham said:

"I think that's a spurious argument because everybody knows that employment legislation is not devolved – end of story."

BBC, 23 January 2016

And of course this also explains why Stephen Crabb is so anxious to replace the current conferred powers model of devolution for Wales with a new reserved powers model that is much more restrictive than the reserved powers models that apply to Scotland and the Six Counties, and tried to bully those who can see through this attempt to claw back devolution in Wales by calling their views "ill-informed or just plain wrong".

Stephen Crabb and William Graham were bluffing. The leaked letter from Nick Boles shows that the Tories know full well that the Welsh Government, by virtue of the precedent set with the Agricultural Wages Bill, has more extensive powers to legislate than are set out in Schedule 7 of the Government of Wales Act.

Now that we know that they know this, I hope it will mean that the Tories go back to the drawing board and start over again on both the Trade Union Bill (as it applies to Wales) and the Wales Bill. If they don't then we must play hard ball and refuse to give consent to what they propose. We mustn't let ourselves be fobbed off by a few concessions.

Bookmark and Share

Say Goodbye to Schedule 5

Anyone who can work Schedule 5 of the Goverment of Wales Act 2006 into a song deserves to have a wider audience:

     

Well done, Geraint. But moving to Schedule 7 still won't allow us to make any laws that affect building societies ;-)

Bookmark and Share

Scrutiny ... or a Veto?

Alongside the many spurious issues that have been raised in the referendum campaign so far, there is one issue that is actually very relevant to the subject at hand: that of scrutiny. We hear the frequently repeated claim that the UK Parliament at Westminster has a role in scrutinizing legislation proposed by the Assembly, and the further claim that this is a good thing.

So in this post I'd like to look in a little more detail at how the current system works, and I think the best way of doing this is to take one example: the Mental Health LCO and the subsequent Mental Health Measure which finally became law in December last year. I've chosen this for two reasons:

•  first, it's short and easy to understand
•  second, it is not politically contentious because it was not introduced by the Welsh Government, but by a Tory AM, although it did have cross-party support.

-

An LCO is a Legislative Competence Order, a means by which the Assembly is allowed to pass laws in a particular area. The process was laid out in the Government of Wales Act 2006 and came into effect following the Assembly elections of May 2007. This progress of this particular LCO is set out in detail on this page of the Assembly's website:

Provision of mental health services

The National Assembly for Wales (Legislative Competence) (Health and Health Services and Social Welfare) Order 2010 (formerly known as the National Assembly for Wales (Legislative Competence) (No.6) Order 2008 (Relating to Provision of Mental Health Services)

Proposed by Jonathan Morgan AM. The Order confers further legislative competence on the National Assembly for Wales, in the field of Health and Health services (field 9, Part 1, Schedule 5 to the 2006 Act). The Order enables the National Assembly for Wales to pass Assembly Measures providing mentally disordered persons with a right to assessment by the health service in Wales, duties on the health service to provide treatment, and a right to independent mental health advocacy.

The Order became the first to be introduced by an individual backbench Assembly Member to receive Royal approval.

Assembly:

Westminster:

As we can see, the process is long and very complicated. And I'm sure people will be relieved that I'm not going to go through every stage in detail (anyone who wants to do that can simply click the links) but I do want us to look at the LCO as it was first proposed. In a nutshell, it allowed the National Assembly for Wales to pass Measures to give mentally disordered persons a right to assessment by the health service in Wales, to lay duties on the health service to provide treatment, and to give individuals the right to independent mental health advocacy.

In fact the actual LCO request itself was not very much more complicated than that. The legal wording (i.e. what was to be added to Field 9 of Schedule 5 of the GoWA 2006) would allow the Assembly to legislate on:

Provision for and in connection with –
     (a)  the assessment by the health service in Wales of persons who are
     or may be mentally disordered persons;
     (b)  duties on the health service in Wales to provide treatment for
     mentally disordered persons;
     (c)  independent mental health advocacy for persons who are or may be
     mentally disordered persons.

This matter does not include assessment of, treatment or advocacy for persons detained, liable to be detained or liable to recall under the Mental Health Act 1983 (or any statutory modification or re-enactment thereof).

The principle should be, and indeed was, simple and straightforward. Health is a devolved matter, but in order for any government to provide an effective health service it is sometimes necessary to pass laws to give people rights within that service. As things stand, the Welsh Government has responsibility for running the health service, but does not have the corresponding power to make laws about the way it works. They have to ask permission each and every time they want to make laws in a new area.

     

Now how long do we think it would take for the Assembly to get permission from Westminster to make laws in this area? In fact it took a whole two years. The proposed LCO was laid before Parliament in February 2008, and the final LCO came into effect in February 2010. The final version is here, and the matters to be added to Schedule 5 were:

Assessment of mental health and treatment of mental disorder.

This matter does not include any of the following—

     (a)  subjecting patients to—
          (i)  compulsory attendance at any place for the purposes of assessment
          or treatment,
          (ii)  compulsory supervision, or
          (iii)  guardianship;
     (b)  consent to assessment or treatment;
     (c)  restraint;
     (d)  detention.

For the purposes of this matter, “treatment of mental disorder” means treatment to alleviate, or prevent a worsening of, a mental disorder or one or more of its symptoms or manifestations; and it includes (but is not limited to) nursing, psychological intervention, habilitation, rehabilitation and care.”.

and

Social care services connected to mental health.

This matter does not include the independent mental capacity advocacy services established by Part 1 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.”.

Although the words are arranged in a different way, and although the final LCO includes matters under separate headings relating to the fields of health and social welfare, they say almost exactly the same thing as the original did. So why on earth did it take all of two years for the LCO to pass through Westminster?

     

But—and this is the important point—the LCO that was granted after those two years was not a new law, but only permission to make new laws about the assessment and treatment of those with mental health problems. The process of making the new law was much more complicated, because it had to do with the details and practicalities of how the services were to be provided, and the matter of rights and safeguards for people who are in an obviously vulnerable position because of mental health problems.

We can follow the progress of this legislation on this page. The proposed Measure was introduced in March 2010 and, like all Assembly legislation, has to go through detailed scrutiny procedures in four separate stages.

To get an idea of how much work was involved, we need only look at the final version of the Measure as passed by the Assembly in November 2010, which is here. As we can see, it has 6 Parts, 56 Sections, and 2 Schedules, and to read the detail rather than just the headings, we can click "Opening Options" on the left, then "Open Whole Measure".

-

True Wales want to inflate the importance of Westminster's scrutiny of an LCO that was only a few short paragraphs of generalities, not realizing (or at least not being prepared to acknowledge) that scrutiny means dealing with and understanding the details and ramifications of any proposed legislation. Westminster had absolutely nothing to do with the scrutiny of the actual legislation itself, that is something that Assembly members from all parties had to do ... in just the same way as it is done in the Scottish Parliament and Northern Ireland Assembly. We in Wales are no less capable of doing this than the people of Scotland and Northern Ireland are.

     

In closing, I would like to make a more general point about what scrutiny is. It is a process by which representatives from all points on the political spectrum examine a proposed piece of legislation in detail. They do this to make the proposed legislation better than it might otherwise be: by closing loopholes, avoiding conflicts with other legislation, and clarifying any potential confusion about how that legislation might work in practice.

But if we look at how things work at Westminster, it is open to the government of the day (as most legislation is proposed by government) to use the majority it has to ignore the recommendations of any scrutiny committee, and even to ignore the will of the House of Lords. If necessary, it can use the Parliament Act to force the Lords to vote in favour of the legislation it wants to put through. This is entirely right, because representative democracy should mean that the final say rests with those who have been elected by the people who will be affected by that legislation.

-

But the LCO process is something entirely different. Even though our National Assembly might have the necessary majority of AMs to pass a law that affects only Wales, the LCO process gives one person—the Secretary of State for Wales—an absolute power to refuse to lay it before Parliament. Then, even if they do lay it before Parliament, Parliament in turn has the power to refuse to grant it. This is not scrutiny, it is a veto.

We ourselves, through the AMs we elect to the Assembly, should have the right to make laws in areas that are already devolved to Wales, without requiring permission from the government of the day at Westminster. For that government might, as it does now, have an entirely different political complexion from the Welsh Government, and therefore be inclined to veto our request not on the grounds of constitutional principle, but simply because they don't agree with the policies we wish to pursue, even in areas which are meant to be devolved to Wales.

But we have it in our own hands to remove this veto ... by voting Yes on 3 March.

Bookmark and Share

A strange sort of animal

I've just started reading through the proposed modifications to Schedule 7 of the Government of Wales Act 2006, which lists the subject areas in which the National Assembly will be able to pass primary legislation following a Yes vote in the referendum.

This one brought a smile to my face:

In this Part of this Schedule “animal” means—

     (a)  all mammals apart from humans, and

     (b)  all animals other than mammals;

and related expressions are to be construed accordingly.”.

Amendment of Schedule 7 to the GoWA 2006

I wonder what's so wrong with simply defining “animal” as “all animals other than humans”. But why should we expect the Wales Office say something in one line when they can say it in two?

Does this count as yet another example of the wasteful, unnecessary duplication that moving away from the LCO system will finally put an end to?

Bookmark and Share

Stonemason

I really enjoy reading Stonemason and his "friends" ranting on Betsan Powys' blog. In the last week or so on his own blog he has been trying to get to grips with Schedule 7 of the Government of Wales Act 2006. He's just reached Subject 11, Housing.

This is what he had to say:

GoWA 2006, Schedule 7 Subject 11

Housing and housing finance. Encouragement of home energy efficiency and conservation, otherwise than by prohibition or regulation. Regulation of rent. Homelessness. Residential caravans and mobile homes.

There are no exceptions, the Lords and Ladies of misrule at Cardiff Bay have no excuses, every needed house for the Social Housing market to fill the housing need in Wales could have been built or ordered by now ...

Source

Silly man. Schedule 7 lists what the Assembly will be able to legislate on after we vote Yes in the referendum (... and yes, he didn't quote the latest version, which is even more restrictive.) Schedule 5 lists what the Assembly is currently able to legislate on.

Let's take a look at it, here. The field is blank, which means that the Assembly isn't able to pass any laws about housing. But the Assembly is trying to get an LCO to enable it to pass some laws in this field.

-

Now this is what's strange. Stonemason has already spent many happy hours over the past year telling his readers what he thinks about housing, and especially what he thinks of the Housing LCO. So what do we conclude? That all this time he hasn't had the first clue what he was talking about? Perhaps.

The other explanation is that did know about the LCO process, but is now engaged in a process of deliberately trying to mislead his readership into thinking that Schedule 7—even with all its exceptions—is what the Assembly can already do ... thus spreading the impression that after a referendum the Assembly will be able to legislate on even more.

Idiot or liar?

What do you expect from True Wales and their activists?

Bookmark and Share