Broadly speaking
If a terror suspect could be detained for a maximum of 58 days and an LCO for a maximum of 60, does that mean a potential new block of power for the Assembly is deemed even more dangerous than a potential terrorist?
The question came up over coffee yesterday, in London as it happens where it became pretty clear that while I cared rather a lot about the fate of LCOs - lucky girl that I am - there are MPs who find them 'turgid', couldn't give two hoots whether they make it back to Cardiff unscathed and that with Gordon Brown on the ropes, the fate of the affordable housing LCO isn't, after all, keeping Tory MPs awake at night. Let that be a lesson to me.
Lesson learnt, off I went to the Welsh Affairs Select Committee,. Jane Hutt's grilling went something like this:
David Jones, Stephen Crabb and Mark Williams: Why do you want these powers over special educational needs transferred to Cardiff at all?
Jane Hutt: Because it's appropriate and we want to get on with the job.
DJ/SC/MW: But what will you use them for?
JH: There's genuine cross party support for this LCO, there was no UK bill coming up that we could use as a vehicle to transfer the powers so we're doing it this way instead.
DJ/SC/MW: But what will you USE them for?
JH: Well I could outline a few plans we have in mind but I'm not going to spell out for you what exactly we intend to do because ... well as long as it's appropriate, there's rather a lot we could do.
DJ (exasperated)/SC (puzzled)/ MW (aghast): But this is all so ... vague!
JH: Ah but all for the good of Welsh children.
DJ/SC/MW: Give over! It's just ... opaque.
Huw Davies (Senior Welsh Legislative Counsel enters the fray): No, not opaque. Broad. Really broad. As broad as we can make it, at the outer edges of the Assembly's power. That sort of broad.
DJ: Can't you at least define which children this LCO could affect? Isn't clarity more important than being ... broad?
JH: Not really, no. If clarity means less competence in this instance, forget it.
Hywel Francis (Chair): Now Minister, the plan was that we'd scrutinise these LCOs jointly but you've gone ahead and done your bit before coming to us. How come?
JH: Ah yes, sorry about that but we just wanted to get on with it. This parallell scrutiny is all right though isn't it? No? We'll try to stick to joint in future then, shall we?
HF: Yes. Please. That's what I told everyone would happen because that's what I was told would happen so let's stick to plan A, shall we?
JH: Broadly ... yes.
Now, when I say it went 'something like this' I'm using the term in the broadest possible sense ... of course. But you get the picture. And what's more, there's little doubt any more that politicans at both ends of the M4 are getting the picture too.
I'm Betsan Powys, Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú Wales' political editor. I'll be blogging the inside track on .
°ä´Ç³¾³¾±ð²Ô³Ù²õÌýÌý Post your comment
It's all nonsense ain't it. Roll on the referendum and forget these LCO things.
It's all nonsense ain't it. Roll on the referendum and forget these LCO things.
Have to agree Dewi, the current system is a mess, complex and frustrating for all involved. As the House of Commons can't amend Assembly Measures the easiest way to control them is to restrict as tightly as possible the LCO, and tie the Assembly down that way, its a recipe for conflict.
The whole objective of LCOs is to allow Cardiff to prepare laws. Why does Westminister need to know all of the details?
And how can Cardiff give them all the details until they know the final version of the LCO that gets past Westminister?!
The sooner the Assembly can do without them the better.
Nice fact at the start of the blog as well.
Dewi - please god tell me you are joking? Based on this performance, do you really believe we are ready for any more powers? Our current political output, with one or two exceptions, is actually failing on the most basic level of scrutiny. Rhodders, JH in charge of tax?
Hiya Betsan,
LCO is an acronym for Government by Delay.
Wales is in a hurry, so let's get moving.
;-) Alan
The problem, I think, is that the Assembly Measures system is intended to enable AMs to get on with the work of arguing the details of legislation (rather than hosting historical interpretation debates over Thatcherism, which seems to be the main activity of the NAW 1999-2007) and Westminster is to provide 'broadly speaking' scrutiny. MPs, however, are much more accustomed to this work and telling them to 'wait and see' is never going to fly. If the Welsh group in London is there to rubber stamp the work of the NAW, then what is the point? Consversely, if MPs are there to review the relevance/validity of NAW legislation, then what's the point of Assembly Measures? The bigger problem (perhaps): AMs won't learn these ropes without having to move legislation from Cardiff to London but Assembly Measures are useless if the NAW is toothless under this system. Giving the NAW full legislative powers will create obvious problems (enforcement, legality, fiscal realism, etc etc etc) and denying the NAW these powers seems to undercut devolution...at least as the politicians in Cardiff are aspiring to use the NAW. Maybe the Assembly is not 'ready' for full powers (whatever that means), but the current mess is more fundamentally a reflection of Labour's weak-handed (spin: "incremental") approach to devolution. Whethere fearing a loss of MP seats or living up to its control freak stereotype, the post-Richard Commission NAW has been over-managed to the point that its impact on Wales is under-managed.