Labour will devolve policing ... and more

Labour's manifesto was published yesterday, and I will probably write something more about it later. But in this post I would like to concentrate on what it says about Wales specifically, rather than policies which might benefit Wales as part of the UK.

At first glance, the answer would appear to be "not very much". This is page 105.

     

But the brevity of this page actually hides some quite significant developments in Labour's policy position on devolution. The "Alternative Wales Bill" is more correctly known as the Government and Laws in Wales Draft Bill, which was published by the Welsh Government in March last year. Two documents are available from this page: the first is a draft of the sort of Wales Bill the Welsh Labour Government would have wanted to see enacted—as opposed to the one the Tories actually gave us—and the second is some explanatory notes. The notes are more helpful than the draft Bill.

-

I don't think anyone who reads Syniadau will be surprised at me saying that there has always been a certain degree of "tension" between Labour AMs and Labour MPs in Wales. In broad terms, Labour's AMs have wanted to extend more devolution to Wales, but their MPs have tended to be far more reluctant about it, if not blatantly obstructive.

On the subject of policing and the administration of justice, Labour's manifesto for the 2015 Westminster election was, to put it at its most positive, half-hearted. I wrote about it in this post, saying that it was better interpreted as a commitment to devolve some powers over policing, than a commitment to devolve policing.

This time round, even a few weeks ago, Labour had not made up their mind about what their manifesto for this Westminster election would contain on the subject. Glyn Morris wrote about it here, quoting Diane Abbott as saying:

"We don't think it's right at this time to devolve policing, but this is something there's constant discussion about inside the Labour Party". She later said: "We will make our position clear on this in the coming weeks."

Fair play to them, they now have; and, to put it bluntly, Carwyn Jones has won a major internal victory over the more sceptical Labour MPs. Labour at UK level have now committed themselves to implement exactly what Carwyn wanted, with no caveats or exceptions.

To be clear, this does not just involve the matter of devolving policing to Wales, but also the justice system in the form of a distinct, although not separate, legal jurisdiction for Wales. Carwyn's "ploy" was to make these what he called "deferred matters", i.e. they would not be devolved immediately, but would be devolved from March 2026, unless the Welsh Parliament (note the change of name) and UK Parliament agreed to a different timetable.

Now of course I'd prefer to see things happen sooner. But, equally, it is a simple fact that the laws of Wales are becoming more and more different from the laws of England, not just because of a dozen or so pieces of different primary legislation passed each year in Cardiff Bay and Westminster, but also by thousands of pieces of secondary legislation. The present "England and Wales" legal jurisdiction is unsustainable in the long term, and some change would have to come at some time in the future. Yes, 2026 is an arbitrary date, but it is as good an arbitrary date as any other and gives everyone plenty of time to adjust.

-

It would be interesting to speculate on how Carwyn achieved this victory. We all know that the majority of Labour's MPs were and probably still are opposed to Jeremy Corbyn's leadership of the Labour Party. In Wales, where Labour are facing serious opposition from the Tories for the first time in living memory, Labour's Welsh MPs have decided that they stand more chance of holding their seats if they portray themselves as being led by Carwyn Jones rather than by Jeremy Corbyn. In doing that, they could hardly stand in the way of giving Carwyn what he wanted in terms of devolution. I can't help but think that these MPs have been hoist by their own petard.

Labour and the devolution of policing to Wales

As there seems to be some doubt over whether the devolution of policing to Wales is, or is not, Labour Party policy, I thought I would look more carefully at the subject.

Labour is a party that puts great store on its manifesto commitments. Being cynical, this is because there are often very different policy proposals within Labour, and because there are sometimes conflicts between what conference decides and what Labour leaders want. So the current definitive guide to what Labour's policy is on any issue relating to Wales is Labour's Welsh manifesto 2015, which is here.

These are the relevant quotes from it:

Foreword
We will strengthen devolution once again, guaranteeing fair funding for Wales, as well as powers over policing, energy, transport and elections.

Page 13
We will help make communities safer, by protecting and strengthening neighbourhood policing and will devolve to the Welsh Government the powers to shape the priorities and the governance structures for policing in Wales.

Page 52
We will devolve powers over policing so that Welsh Ministers can devise an all-Wales policing plan to ensure it reflects Welsh priorities.

Page 62
The Welsh Government has long demonstrated that locally made and locally accountable decision making is both more legitimate and effective. So we will give more powers to the Welsh Government, legislating early in the next Parliament to devolve to Wales powers outlined in the cross party Silk Commission, including on policing and elections, energy and transport.

This is not an absolutely unequivocal commitment to "devolve policing", but better interpreted as a commitment to devolve some powers over policing ... specifically so that Welsh ministers "can devise an all-Wales policing plan" and set up appropriate "governance structures for policing in Wales".

-

Some of us might well be concerned that this does not go far enough, and would like to see policing devolved in its entirety. That is a simple thing to say, but things are more complicated than that. The quote from page 62 of the manifesto commits Labour "to devolve to Wales powers outlined in the cross-party Silk Commission, including on policing ..." so it is worth looking to see what the Second Silk Report says. These are its precise recommendations on the subject:

Recommendation
R.24 On policing, we recommend:

a. policing and related areas of community safety and crime prevention should be devolved;

b. existing levels of cross-border police cooperation should be maintained;

c. powers in respect of arrest, interrogation and charging of suspects, and the general powers of constables, should not be devolved unless and until criminal law is devolved;

d. the National Crime Agency should not be devolved;

e. police pay should be devolved, but police pensions should not be devolved; and

f. the two Governments should agree charging systems and terms of service provision for the Police College, Independent Police Complaints Commission, HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and common services such as the Police National Computer system.

Second Silk Commission Report, Page 111

So it seems clear to me that Carwyn Jones is perfectly correct to say, as he did today in response to Andy Burnham, that Labour's policy is to devolve policing ... to the extent recommended by the Silk Commission.

-

To understand where the boundaries of what is and what is not devolved lie, this quote from David Hanson, Labour's shadow police minister in 2013, is useful:

"... but there are some really complex issues around this in relation to serious organised crime, counter terrorism, the legal system, justice, probation, which need to be examined in very great detail before such a major step would even be considered to be taken. It isn't just a simple matter of devolving policing to Wales because counter terrorism, serious organised crime, cross-border issues, much of the crime in my part of Wales derives from people who live in England."

Mr Hanson stressed that he was not arguing against the idea: "I'm just saying there are many challenges to this."

BBC, 19 February 2013

Remember that his contribution was made before Labour's policy was settled in the 2015 manifesto. Nonetheless, his points are valid, but easily answered. With regard to policing, things like serious organised crime, counter terrorism and border control would be handled on a UK-wide basis though the National Crime Agency, a body that was set up later that same year. This is how things already work in the Six Counties and (to a large extent) Scotland, and therefore explains why Silk II specifically recommended the NCA should not be devolved.

The final word on policing in Wales

One of the areas recommend for devolution to the Assembly by the Silk Commission was policing. However not all of the four parties in the Assembly agreed with this, and therefore it was not included in the St David's Day package announced by Stephen Crabb earlier this year.

Plaid Cymru and the LibDems want to see policing devolved to Wales. And so of course do the Greens, who want Wales to have the same devolved powers as Scotland. But the Tories are opposed, and Labour sit awkwardly (to my mind at least) between the two. Labour's manifesto says:

Policing

Labour is committed to bringing policing closer to people and the communities where they live.

That is why the next UK Labour Government will devolve to the Welsh Government the powers to shape the priorities for policing in Wales. This would give the Welsh people a greater say over how they are policed and improve integration with the other emergency services, which are already devolved to Wales, such as the ambulance and fire service.

Under Labour, Welsh Ministers would have the power to draw up an All Wales Policing Plan, setting the priorities for Welsh policing, including governance structures, in consultation with the Home Secretary. This will ensure alignment between all of the emergency services in Wales, while maintaining vital crossborder collaboration and co-ordination.

Through investing to deliver 500 extra Community Support Officers, Welsh Labour Government has shown a commitment to community safety, these new powers would allow a future Welsh government greater opportunity to build on that commitment.

2015 Welsh Labour Manifesto

So what exactly does this mean? There was a Home Affairs debate this afternoon on BBC2. The full programme is here, but in this extract from it Labour's Shadow Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, shed some light on Labour's intentions.

     

The first thing to note is that what Labour is proposing is ambiguous. Andrew Neil was under the impression that Labour wanted to devolve policing to Wales, and I'm sure that Labour would be quite happy if voters in Wales were left with that impression too. But it isn't quite what Labour are saying.

The idea is that the Welsh Government is able to draw up a policing plan for Wales, but would need to discuss that plan with the Home Secretary in Westminster.

I don't think there is any real problem with placing the Welsh Government under an obligation to consult with the Home Secretary in Westminster about policing. There are many cross-border issues which properly need to be addressed. But the real, and unanswered, question is who gets to finalize and implement the plan.

Although it isn't spelt out, Labour's intention might well be that ultimate power over policing in Wales will remain with the Home Secretary in Westminster who would, at his or her discretion, decide whether to implement any Policing Plan either in full, in part, or not at all. As such, it would be uncannily like Labour's previous idea for Legislative Competence Orders under the GoWA 2006, which proved to be so unworkable that the whole idea had to be dropped even though Labour thought that the system would last for a generation.

-

I wonder if Labour really have thought this through properly. Just like with LCOs, the proposal might just be made to work if there were Labour governments in both Cardiff and Westminster; but if the two Governments were led by different parties, then it would be highly unlikely that any plan would or could be agreed or implemented. However there's always the possibility that this is exactly what Labour intend. Perhaps this proposal is designed to ensure that only Labour's ideas on policing can be implemented in Wales because, barring a political earthquake, Labour are the only party that could realistically lead governments in both Cardiff and Westminster. But, if so, it is very short-sighted.

As always, there are two competing factions within the Labour Party in Wales: those, mainly the MPs, who are very reticent about devolution; and those, mainly the AMs, who want to see more devolution. The wording of the manifesto pledge might therefore be deliberately ambiguous about the crucial issue of whether the Welsh Ministers or the UK Government gets the final say in the event of any disagreement.

I would urge Labour to think about the consequences of getting this wrong. Even if Labour get to lead the next Westminster government after these elections, they will in five or ten years' time be replaced by a Tory-led government at Westminster as surely as night follows day. So if the final say on policing rests with the Home Secretary in Westminster, then all Labour's plans for policing in Wales could be undone in an instant by a future Tory Home Secretary. Yes, it is not unreasonable to require statutory consultation between the Welsh Ministers and the Home Secretary in drawing up any formal policing plan for Wales; but in the event of disagreement, it must be the Welsh Ministers who make the final decisions about policing in Wales. A clear statement about this from Labour would be very welcome.

People in Wales want policing to be devolved

In response to the Welsh Government saying that it wanted policing to be devolved to Wales, the new Tory Police and Crime Commissioner for Dyfed-Powys, Christopher Salmon, told the BBC that:

There was "no real appetite out there" to devolve policing.

"It's much more to do with a power grab by political anoraks in Cardiff Bay than it is about what people really need," he said.

BBC, 19 February 2009

I think it would be timely to remind him, and any others who oppose the devolution of policing to Wales, of the results of a survey by YouGov for Prifysgol Aberystwyth in 2009.

For each of the following issues, please indicate which level of government you think should have responsibility for making decisions relating to it in Wales:

Police

The Welsh Government ... 50%
The UK Government ... 33%
Local Councils in Wales ... 10%
The European Union ... 1%
Don't know ... 7%

YouGov/Prifysgol Aberystwyth Survey, 23 October 2009

It's also worth pointing out that there is a margin in favour of devolving policing to Wales from supporters of all four parties at Assembly elections, including those who vote Tory. This is the breakdown:

The Welsh Government ... Plaid 72%, Lab 58%, Tory 42%, LibDem 57%
The UK Government ... Plaid 16%, Lab 33%, Tory 41%, LibDem 36%
Local Councils in Wales ... Plaid 9%, Lab 4%, Tory 15%, LibDem 9%
The European Union ... Plaid 0%, Lab 0%, Tory 0%, LibDem 0%
Don't know ... Plaid 3%, Lab 4%, Tory 2%, LibDem 3%

So wouldn't it be nice if politicians from all four parties could unite behind the views of their supporters and back the devolution of policing to Wales?

-

A slightly different question, ths time about devolution of policing and criminal justice, was asked by RMG-Clarity in March 2011. The result was an even more emphatic yes:

Would you like to see the Assembly gain responsibility for police and the criminal justice system?

Yes ... 56.7%
No ... 26.0%
Don't know/unsure ... 17.3%

RMG-Clarity, March 2011

Inextricably intertwined

In this post yesterday I set out some of my initial thoughts on the Welsh Government's submission of evidence to Part II of the Silk Commission. I now want to look at some crucial aspects of it in more detail, but I think it's only right to say at the outset that there is much in it that I welcome. Indeed I was rather pleasantly surprised by some of what it said. I didn't think Carwyn Jones, or Labour in Wales generally, had it in them to come out so definitely in favour of wanting devolution of policing and the justice system, or of moving from the "defined powers" model (or a "conferred powers" model, as the submission called it) we currently have to a "reserved powers" model similar to that which operates in Scotland.

Yet I must also admit to having some doubts about it; particularly to what extent it represents the view of, say, Labour MPs in Wales or of the Labour leadership in Westminster. Has Carwyn done the hard work of consulting with the wider Labour Party in Wales and with the leadership of the party in Westminster, or is he just flying a kite? Are Labour's MPs in Wales willing to accept this as Labour Party policy?

About this time last year I had a chat with Owen Smith, and one of the things we talked about was who actually led the Labour Party in Wales; particularly because of Labour saying that its manifesto for the Westminster election in 2010 over-ruled its subsequent manifesto for the Assembly election in 2011 on nuclear power. He said that Carwyn was undisputedly recognized as the leader of the party in Wales, rather than the then Shadow Secretary of State, Peter Hain, who to me seemed to be acting as if he was in charge. Now that Owen himself is doing that job, will he be equally unequivocal in support of Carwyn's leadership on the matter of further devolution for Wales? I hope so.

-

In this post I want to concentrate on just three aspects of the Welsh Government's position because they are inextricably intertwined: moving to a reserved powers model of devolution, policing and establishing Wales as a separate legal jurisdiction.

The WG wants to move to a reserved powers model, wants policing to be devolved, but does not want to see Wales become a separate legal jurisdiction at this time. I have grave doubts about whether that position is tenable.

-

Many of the political conversations I have had over the last few years have been over why Wales has such a different model of devolution to that of Scotland, and in particular why Wales has a defined powers model rather than the reserved powers model which Scotland enjoys. Most of the people I've talked to and things I've read suggest that it was not possible for Wales to have a reserved powers model because Wales was not a separate legal jurisdiction. But I must balance this by saying that even though this was the reason given at the time, some people believe it was not a valid reason, but instead was just a pretext put up by politicians who did not want Wales to have a similar devolution settlement to Scotland.

I can't give a definitive answer about which is right, but I can point to what Alan Trench—whose opinion on anything to do with devolution is not to be dismissed lightly—has said about it. These are bullet points from a presentation he gave in Cardiff last year, though the emphasis is mine:

•  As far as legislation is concerned, the key advantage of a Welsh jurisdiction would be to move to a ‘reserved powers’ model of conferring law-making powers on the Assembly – like Scotland and N Ireland

•  There are material advantages to having the ‘reserved powers’ model for making Welsh legislation work, by helping ensure legislation is within devolved legislative competence

•  And you need to have a separate jurisdiction for that, regardless of what substantive new functions might be devolved as part of creating a Welsh legal system

Alan Trench, 8 June 2012

So if the Welsh Government really does want to move from the current defined powers model to a reserved powers model—which is something I fully agree we should have, for all the reasons given by both Alan and the WG, as well as a few more—there must be a very serious question mark over whether it can happen unless Wales also becomes a separate legal jurisdiction.

-

I must admit to finding the WG's position on establishing Wales as a separate legal jurisdiction rather odd. It was definitely seen as a priority last year when they launched a consultation on it, but they have back-tracked on that and are now of the opinion that this is not something they think appropriate at this stage.

The reason they give for this change of position is in sections 17 and 18 of their evidence:

17.  The case for establishing a separate legal jurisdiction ... needs also to be addressed in the context of the Welsh Government's responsibilities for Policing and Justice. In his lecture to the Society of Legal Scholars in November 2012 previously referred to, the Counsel General said:

"If ... the Welsh Government cannot at present move forward with proposals for taking on Policing and Justice responsibilities, the case for a separate legal jurisdiction may be considerably weakened. It would be of limited or even dubious worth pursuing a Single Legal Jurisdiction "in principle" if Welsh Ministers and the Assembly did not also obtain a reasonably full set of powers in relation to Justice; crucial aspects of the supposedly separate jurisdiction would still be the responsibility of the Ministry of Justice. Thus, arguably, establishing a separate jurisdiction without transferring the relevant responsibilities to Welsh Ministers and the Assembly would simply amount to asking the Ministry of Justice to run two parallel systems, one for England and one (albeit to perhaps lesser extent) for Wales. They would not be likely to agree to this, and even if they did, it is not obvious why the inherent confusion would be of benefit to people in Wales".

18.  As noted above, the Welsh Government has concluded that it cannot now seek powers for the devolved institutions in relation to Criminal Justice and the administration of justice in Wales, although this remains our longer-term ambition. It follows that, for the reasons given by the Counsel General, a move to a separate jurisdiction now would not be likely to be of benefit to the people of Wales.

The reasons for the WG not wanting Criminal Justice to be devolved (although wanting policing to be devolved) seem to be primarily to do with cost rather than principle:

We believe that Policing and Justice (including criminal justice) should in principle be matters of devolved competence. But the potential costs and risks are such that we do not feel able to argue for transfer of criminal justice and administration of justice responsibilities at the present time ...

However the WG does want to "cherry pick" a number of specific responsibilities to do with various aspects of the justice system which are too numerous to describe here.

-

To me, it all seems rather confused and badly thought through. The conundrum is this:

•  The WG wants a reserved powers model, but (probably) can't have one without Wales being a separate legal jurisdiction

•  Wales (probably) can't be a separate legal jurisdiction unless it takes on policing and justice

•  But the WG is unwilling to take on policing and justice as a whole, because it believes it will (probably) not be accompanied by an adequate transfer of funds to pay for it

•  Therefore Wales (probably) can't become a separate legal jurisdiction

•  Therefore Wales (probably) can't move to a reserved powers model

Maybe there is a way to break this conundrum, but it would surely result in the same sort of dog's breakfast as Peter Hain's 2006 Act proved to be.

The better answer is blindingly obvious: establishing Wales as a separate legal jurisdiction, devolving policing and justice, and moving to a reserved powers model of devolution should all happen at the same time. This would be at the "core" of the new Government of Wales Act, and would be accompanied by an adequate transfer of expenditure from Westminster to Cardiff Bay to cover it ... though of course the Act would include many other things as well.

As I have said before, a substantial increase in responsibility of this sort would justify increasing the number of AMs in the Senedd to 80; but the cost would be more than offset by reducing the over-representation of Wales in the House of Commons from 40 to the same level as the remainder of the UK. This would be about 33 for the current size of the House of Commons; 30 was the figure if the number of MPs in the UK as a whole had been reduced.

No real appetite?

In the Western Mail today, Damian Green, the Minister of State for Police and Criminal Justice in Englandandwales, said there was "no real appetite" for devolving powers over police and criminal justice to Wales.

He couldn't be more wrong about that.

Two recent opinion polls on the subject show that a significant majority of people in Wales want policing to be devolved. In 2009 the figures were:

For each of the following issues, please indicate which level of government you think should have responsibility for making decisions relating to it in Wales:

Policing

The Welsh Assembly Government ... 50%
The UK Government at Westminster ... 33%
Local Councils in Wales ... 10%
The European Union ... 1%
Don't know ... 7%

YouGov / Prifysgol Aberystwyth, October 2009

And in 2011 the figures were:

Would you like to see the Assembly gain responsibility for police and the criminal justice system?

Yes ... 56.7%
No ... 26.0%
Don't know/unsure ... 17.3%

RMG-Clarity, March 2011

     

Politicians who are opposed to the devolution of policing and criminal justice to Wales are simply following their own political agenda, for public opinion in Wales is in favour of it by a very large margin.

Devolving the Police

I think it's true to say that all four Chief Constables in Wales support the devolution of policing from Westminster to Cardiff Bay, but it's always nice to hear it from one of them directly.

For anyone who missed it, this is what Peter Vaughan of the South Wales force said about it on the Politics Show yesterday:

     

I couldn't agree more. This is something that's devolved to both Scotland and Northern Ireland, and it's high time for both policing and the justice system to be devolved to Wales as well.

Welsh lessons for the Met

I came across this rather heart-warming piece by Rosamund Urwin in today's London Evening Standard.

Welsh lessons for the Met

On Friday evening I went to see the Peckham peace wall. Patrolling the streets around Rye Lane were the Welsh police, the "Heddlu". Theirs appeared to be a "hearts and minds" mission: every officer had a permanent grin, they already knew the names of the local shopkeepers and I witnessed one be remarkably charming to a woman who was ranting at him. Perhaps the Met could learn a little something from the approach of their provincial colleagues.

London Evening Standard, 18 August 2011

That makes me feel rather proud of our police. Well done bois.

To devolve policing ... or not?

Thanks to Ffranc Sais, who I have to say is one LibDem blogger who generally has something interesting to say, I looked at this story in the Daily Post:

Former Deputy Chief Constable slams plans for Police Commissioners

     

A former deputy chief constable of North Wales yesterday warned plans to appoint Police Commissioners could take policing back two centuries “to political partiality.”

And Bill Brereton added he was concerned at proposals to devolve policing to the Assembly and would argue the case against it ...

“I am also concerned at proposals to devolve policing to the Assembly – I do not think that is right and will argue the case against it strongly.”

Daily Post, 18 April 2011

The first part is fair enough. I don't like the idea of elected Police Commissioners either, and I hope we are able to avoid having them imposed on Wales. Devolving responsibility for policing to Wales would be the best way to ensure that it doesn't happen ... though Labour haven't quite managed to work out that blindingly obvious fact for themselves yet.

This Bill Brereton is in fact the LibDem candidate for Wrecsam in the forthcoming Welsh general election. Yet the LibDems say they are unequivocally in favour of devolving responsibility for the police to Wales. This is again from the Daily Post, only ten days ago:

Plaid Cymru and Lib Dems want control of police in Wales

The Welsh Liberal Democrats said that the party had consistently called for the strengthening of devolution and argued the case for the devolution of policing and criminal justice in its last Assembly election manifesto.

“We shall remain committed to that proposal when our manifesto is published shortly. It remains ludicrous that an issue so crucial to local communities is still governed from Westminster.”

Daily Post, 11 April 2011

And indeed that commitment is in their manifesto:

We will make Welsh communities safer for everyone by ... continuing to press for the devolution of policing and justice by producing evidence to support the case. Devolution of policing could allow for better, Welsh solutions to Welsh problems.

Welsh LibDem Manifesto, 2011

That's a very welcome commitment, of course. Therefore we have to ask why the LibDems have chosen a candidate who intends to do the exact opposite of what it says in the manifesto he's standing on. How on earth did he get selected? But more importantly, how on earth can the LibDems expect anyone to take what they promise to do in their manifesto seriously?

At least there's a silver lining ... he has absolutely no hope of being elected. Let's make that true of every other LibDem who's standing on 5 May.

178 Pages

I have to say thanks to both the Western Mail and RMG:Clarity for respectively commissioning and producing such a detailed breakdown of the result of their latest opinion poll. Click the image to open it:

 

For someone like me, the information is invaluable; though it comes with the obvious health warning that with a sample of just over 1,000 the margin of error on some of the more detailed cross-breaks is quite large, so we have to be careful about the conclusions we draw from it.

The headline figures on voting intention will obviously draw most attention, and here the factor that I think is going to prove most significant is the extremely poor level of support for the LibDems. This and other polls are showing it at less than half that of either Plaid Cymru or the Tories, and this is crucial in determining how many regional seats they will win. It means that both Plaid and the Tories will win two seats before the LibDems can win one ... after, of course, taking into account any seats won at constituency level.

-

It is particularly satisfying to see the large level of support for devolving the police and criminal justice system and tax setting powers to Wales.

Would you like to see the Assembly gain responsibility for police and the criminal justice system?

Yes ... 56.2%
No ... 30.9%
Don't know ... 12.9%

Would you like to see the Assembly have the power to raise and lower taxes?

Yes ... 55.8%
No ... 36.2%
Don't know ... 8.0%

The percentages are very similar to those in the poll held just before the referendum, as I mentioned here, except that there are far fewer don't knows. This is only to be expected now that any uncertainty about the result of the referendum has been put to rest, and by the sheer scale of the victory. It shows that a clear consensus has developed in favour of further devolution.

The One Wales Agreement did actually make a commitment to:

Consider the evidence for the devolution of the criminal justice system within the contexts of (a) devolution of funding and (b) moves towards the establishment of a single administration of justice in Wales.

And this was indeed "considered" ... but not taken any further than that. Labour were lukewarm about it and effectively kicked it into the long grass. This poll serves as a reminder that the public desire for progress in this area is much greater than Labour's appetite for it. The One Wales agreement was made in 2007, and we have since seen this area successfully devolved to Northern Ireland in the face what might at one time have seemed to be insurmountable difficulties. It is now very hard to justify this being devolved to both Scotland and Northern Ireland, but not to Wales.

On taxation, we know that Labour are very happy to simply decide how to spend the money Wales gets in the form of the block grant, but terrified of having to take responsibility for deciding how any of that money is raised. On this issue, they are very clearly out of step with what people in Wales want.

More Devolution

There has been quite a bit of discussion about whether Labour—if they fail to get a majority, or at least a workable majority, in the Assembly election—should try to form a coalition government with either Plaid Cymru or the LibDems. Although I do think it's unlikely that Labour will get such a majority, I also think that these decisions can only be made after the results are known.

Much more important now is what the manifestos of the parties will contain, because an effective programme for government can only be based on specific policies rather than just wanting to be in power for the sake of it.

As always, the big question in an Assembly election will be the spending priorities of the parties. After all, the main job of the Welsh Government is to make decisions about how to spend the block grant it gets from the Treasury. For as much as Labour would like us believe that this election is about "fighting the cuts" imposed by the ConDem coalition in Westminster, we can do absolutely nothing about the level of the block grant ... and we need to be clear that if Labour were still in power at Westminster we would be facing almost identical cuts. The choice we face is to decide which of the parties can spend the reduced amount of money we will get from the Westminster most effectively, so as to minimize the harm the cuts will cause.

-

But the second question is to ask how we can better protect ourselves from decisions made in Westminster which we in Wales would not make for ourselves. The only answer to that question is for us to push forward with an agenda for devolving more areas of responsibility to Wales. At the top of that list, or at least close to the top, is the devolution of police and the justice system.

I've just taken another look at the manifestos for the last Assembly elections in 2007, so as to remind myself of what the parties wanted then and to be able to compare it with what the new manifestos will say when they come out in a few weeks' time. This stood out:

We will seek to devolve powers and funding on policing and prisons, with appropriate transfer of funds, to Wales. In line with our wish for a Welsh Parliament with comparable powers to the Scottish Parliament we would also like to see many more criminal justice issues devolved to Wales, so that we can develop a sentencing and justice system that is responsive to the Welsh context.

Support the development of community justice panels to give local people a say in the punishment offenders carry out in their community, putting right the harm caused to victims, property and community, as an alternative to jail for non-violent offenders like shoplifters or petty vandals. Where appropriate we will promote youth conference where families and victims are involved in deciding on what can be done as reparation in the community, alongside an apology and repayment to the victim.

We will assess the need to increase specific prison capacity in Wales, such as addressing the lack of a women’s unit and the possible need for a North Wales prison.

It might come as a surprise to some that these are not extracts from Plaid's manifesto, but from that of the LibDems, here. I don't know whether they will still be in the 2011 manifesto, but I'll be disappointed if they aren't.

So when it comes to forming a government in May, those in Labour who are against any further devolution should not assume they will be able to kick it into the long grass by forming a soft coalition with the LibDems, rather than the more demanding coalition they would have to make with Plaid.

The St David's Day Poll

The BBC never did explain their decision not to publish the results of the annual poll it commissions from ICM until after the referendum had taken place, and although it was mentioned in this article, the answers to the non-referendum questions did tend to get lost in the excitement of the referendum itself ... which is quite understandable. So I thought now would be an appropriate time to look at them. The results can be downloaded from here:

     ICM Poll for BBC Cymru Wales, March 2011

These are the responses to the three usual questions, compared with the responses in 2008, 2009 and 2010.

	Which one of these levels of government do you think presently has MOST influence over Wales?
		2008	2009	2010	2011
	The European Union	8%	8%	6%	11%
	The UK Government	35%	29%	40%	47%
	The Welsh Government	40%	40%	36%	24%
	Local Authorities	10%	15%	7%	6%
	Which level of government do you think SHOULD have most influence over Wales?
		2008	2009	2010	2011
	The European Union	2%	2%	1%	1%
	The UK Government	22%	21%	24%	27%
	The Welsh Government	61%	61%	62%	58%
	Local Authorities	11%	14%	7%	7%
	Which one of these statements comes closest to your view?
	Wales should be / have ...
		2008	2009	2010	2011
	Independent, outside EU	5%	5%	4%	4%
	Independent, inside EU	8%	8%	7%	7%
	Assembly with full law and (some) tax powers	37%	34%	40%	35%
	Assembly with full law and no tax powers	n/a	10%	13%	18%
	Assembly with limited law powers only	26%	21%	18%	17%
	No Assembly	20%	19%	13%	15%

The trend of answers to the first question is very interesting. It shows that people now think the Welsh government has less influence than they thought it had before, with Westminster having correspondingly more influence.

To my mind the explanation for this is that Labour were until recently in power in both Cardiff Bay and Westminster, and it was therefore very difficult for people to distinguish between what Labour's MPs and AMs were doing. This was not helped by Labour's claims about the economic benefits that devolution would bring, particularly in increasing Wales' GVA per head relative to the UK as a whole. It led people to think that the Welsh government was more responsible for the economic performance of Wales than was in fact the case. But in fact nearly all the levers that effect our economy were and still are very firmly in the hands of the UK government at Westminster.

At a time when very large sums of public money were being spent, it is understandable that people thought the money that was allocated to things like new schools and hospitals was because of the Welsh government at Cardiff Bay. But Wales was only responsible for allocating how the money it was given by Westminster was spent, not how much it was being given. Now that the effects of the financial crisis are beginning to be felt, is it hardly surprising that people in Wales are beginning to realize that the decisions made by Westminster have a lot more importance than they previously thought. And of course the fact that the UK government making those decisions is now a coalition of the two parties that are not in government in Wales makes the distinction much more apparent than it was before.

-

But even so, it is remarkable and encouraging that the people of Wales still think that our own government in Cardiff Bay should have most influence over Wales, as opposed to Westminster (with the other two options attracting negligible support). Yes, the margin has gone down a little, but is comfortably more than two-to-one. This shows that there is still plenty of appetite in Wales for more areas of responsibility to be devolved from Westminster to the Senedd. Two very obvious things are police and the justice system, which is supported by 57% with 29% against according to the rmg:Clarity poll produced last week for the Western Mail. Additionally, the poll I mentioned in this post found that 59% thought that decisions about welfare and benefits should be devolved to the Assembly, with only 23% thinking these decisions should continue to be made at Westminster.

We would be very unwise to ignore this, particularly because of the news today that massive cuts are going to be made in policing which will make the case for amalgamating smaller forces all the more urgent. Now would seem to be the perfect time to look at either an all-Wales police force, or some way of combining the administrative and technical functions of the four Welsh forces to make better use of money and resources. On top of this, the ConDem coalition is seeking to replace police authorities with elected commissioners against the wishes of the majority in Wales ... and are having great difficulty in finding a way of holding these commissioners accountable in Wales. One obvious solution is to devolve policing to Wales and let us decide how to make the police democratically accountable.

However it would be wrong to ignore that fact that the percentage in favour of the Welsh government having most influence over Wales has gone down, even if only slightly. I think the reason for this is an increased sense of dissatisfaction with the way Welsh governments have dealt with some crucial areas which are devolved to Wales. As we all know, some aspects of our education system are deteriorating ( ... although not all, because the Foundation Phase and Welsh Baccalaureate are likely to be great improvements). So are some aspects of our National Health Service. Wales has only ever known devolved government in which all or part of the policy agenda has been set by the Labour party, so it is inevitable that people should be asking whether the way some things are done in England is better than the way we have chosen to do them here. But the answer to that is for us not to blindly elect yet another Assembly in which Labour are the biggest party in May.

-

Finally, we turn to the question about which governance model is right for Wales. In some ways this question is now out of date, since we have just given our approval to the Assembly getting primary lawmaking powers in the areas devolved to it. But the trend shown over the past few years is still very informative, with fewer of us wanting to abolish the Assembly and fewer of us wanting an Assembly with only limited lawmaking powers. Now that we are going to have primary lawmaking powers, I'd expect there to be a shift in expectations in next year's poll. Most people who want Wales to move forward will prefer to take one step at a time, rather than two.

So the next big question for us is whether the Assembly should have tax setting powers, especially because this always has been and still remains by far the most popular model. Yet in just the same way as Labour did all they could to avoid moving to an Assembly with lawmaking powers, by setting the requirement for what most people now see as an unnecessary referendum; they seem just as reluctant to stop us moving to an Assembly with tax setting powers. It seems clear from what people like Rhodri Morgan and Carwyn Jones have said recently that Labour want to shy away from the responsibility of the Welsh Government being responsible for raising even a modest part of the £15bn it spends each year; and in my opinion, this is why they are so keen to insist on placing yet another obstacle in the way in the form of yet another referendum.

Now I agree with Carwyn Jones that our first priority should be to get a fair funding formula for Wales as a replacement for the Barnett formula. If he had shown any degree of foresight, he would have made sure that the Labour Government in Westminster replaced it when they were in power. Instead, Labour ridiculed us for making the missing £300m a central plank of Plaid Cymru's manifesto in 2010 ... only to have undergone a dramatic conversion now that Labour aren't in power. Leadership requires greater foresight than he or Rhodri Morgan before him have shown.

The Tories, now they are in charge at the Treasury, are doing exactly what Labour did when they were in charge. They are telling us that they think Wales is fairly funded, and that we have nothing to complain about. So we would be fools to expect any major change to the way the block grant is calculated. Instead, we would be wise to look at what is happening in Scotland, where the basic recommendation of the Calman Commission was to reduce the block grant, but make Scotland responsible for raising whatever it thinks it needs to make up for it by setting its own rate of income tax, together with responsibility for a few minor taxes.

With a few modifications (improvements, in my opinion) the Holtham Commission has recommended that the Welsh block grant should be similarly reduced and that the Welsh government should set a level of income tax to make up for it. It may not be perfect, but it is a practical and workable step in the right direction, because it is irresponsible for any government to simply spend money without accepting any responsibility for how that money is raised. It is clear to me that Westminster (whether the Tories or Labour are in power) is not going to reform the Barnett Formula without at the same time addressing how each of the devolved administrations in the UK can become responsible for raising at least some of the money they spend. And should Labour in Wales try to backtrack on this issue, it is worth reminding people that they were one of the parties that set up the Calman and Holtham Commissions. Why spend all that money on them only in order to ignore what they recommend?

There is no great issue of principle at stake that would require a referendum on tax setting powers. Every local council can set the rate of taxes or levy a precept. The Assembly already has responsibility for setting the multiplier that determines non-domestic rates for businesses. So tax setting powers for the National Assembly is an already overdue step, and something the people of Wales have the right to expect to see implemented.

Speed Cameras in Wales

When I read an article yesterday which mentioned the number of fixed speed cameras in Wales, I asked a friend how many he thought there were. He said several thousand, and I too thought there would be at least a thousand or so.

     

But apparently the figure is 198 ... and only 68 of them are working.

I think this is scandalous. Any motorists who drives too fast is breaking the law, and speed is a contributory factor in accidents. Speed cameras are probably the most effective way of both reducing speed and freeing up the police to do other things. They are an exemplary way of using simple technology to good effect.

So it is a disappointment to read that we only have 68 of them in Wales. I for one would definitely like to see a good few hundred more.

Anonymous policing

It's good to see a story that would once only have been found in the Guardian has reached the pages of Wales Online.

     Women complain over power station arrests

A complaint against the police has been made by two women. Emily Apple and Val Swain—the latter from Cardiff—because of the way they were treated by police. They maintain that four of the uniformed police officers were either not wearing or had obscured their identification numbers, and when they photographed the one of those officers they were assaulted, manhandled and eventually held in custody for four days without any charges being brought.

The evidence is on video, which you can see for yourselves here:

     

In general I would give my full support to the police, they do a difficult job on behalf of us all. But in order for public confidence in the police to be maintained, the police need to show that they can control their own officers, and need to discipline them when they fall below the standards we have every right to expect of them.

If this video had not been made available, it would have been all too easy to dismiss this complaint as an exaggerated account of what actually happened. Now we can all see that it isn't. But we should not treat this as an isolated incident. This sort of complaint is all too common, and if the practice of anonymous uniformed policing (plain clothed and undercover work is of course very different from uniformed policing) is to be stamped out, it requires serious disciplinary action to be taken against all officers who abuse their position.

But it is naïve to think that the police would be allowed to behave in this way unless their tactics were—at the very least tacitly, if not specifically—approved by senior officers.

And although politicians in power at the Home Office would fiercely claim that operational decisions are not a political matter, I think that if our politicians were to speak out more strongly to condemn such tactics, such pressure would be the most effective way to help put an end to this sort of abuse.