Wednesday, May 11, 2022
Stitch-up or reform?
The publication of the joint Labour/Plaid proposals for Senedd reform fall down on a number of grounds in my view, but the two main ones are democratic accountability and practicality.
I am a reluctant supporter of expanding the Senedd. It has been clear for some time that there are insufficient members to properly scrutinise the government and all the primary and secondary legislation that Ministers propose. But any increase in numbers must be proportionate to the workload, affordable and enhance the democratic process.
Today's Telegraph column by Philip Johnston, in response to the Queen's speech, suggests that 'Politics has become a dismal race to pass as many pointless laws as possible.' Wales is not exempt from that charge, with Ministers occasionally proposing laws to solve problems that could be resolved through better governance. One of the reasons we need more members in the Senedd is to counter that tendency.
On the democratic accountability point, the proposed adoption of closed lists, electing 96 members in 16 constituencies through the d'hondt system, seems to me to have achieved peak control freakery. It is not going to be the members who are accountable to the public, but the parties. And it will largely be party bosses who decide who will serve in the Senedd, not voters.
Although the system will be more proportional than at present, a full STV system would produce a more representative outcome, as well as allow voters to decide which of the candidates are going to represent them. The attempt to achieve gender parity is welcomed, but it is crude, possibly tokenistic and does not take account of a recent trend for non-binary candidates and councillors.
Given the centralising, statist nature of both Labour and Plaid Cymru, I suppose this is the best we could get, but it is voters who will lose out and the new Senedd will be the poorer for it.
It is my view that the public can be convinced of the case for increasing Senedd members, if the proposal looks modest and realistic enough, and does not come across as self-serving. I believe that a 96 member Senedd fails on all of these counts.
Ninety-six is at the upper range of any expansion. It is more than in Northern Ireland, and only 34 fewer than Scotland, whose electorate is twice ours. The boundary changes being instituted for Westminster will be reducing the number of Welsh MPs from 40 to 32, while the 1995 local government reorganisation effectively halved the number of councillors in Wales. There is therefore room to replace these politicians to make devolution work better.
However, the case for 96 MSs has not been made. It feels like a further centralisation of power, when we should be enabling local councils to take responsibility for and deliver more for their communities.
Practically too, it is difficult. The present Senedd chamber is designed to be expanded to accommodate 80 members. To add another 16 will require a major remodelling, which will be disruptive and expensive.
I am a reluctant supporter of expanding the Senedd. It has been clear for some time that there are insufficient members to properly scrutinise the government and all the primary and secondary legislation that Ministers propose. But any increase in numbers must be proportionate to the workload, affordable and enhance the democratic process.
Today's Telegraph column by Philip Johnston, in response to the Queen's speech, suggests that 'Politics has become a dismal race to pass as many pointless laws as possible.' Wales is not exempt from that charge, with Ministers occasionally proposing laws to solve problems that could be resolved through better governance. One of the reasons we need more members in the Senedd is to counter that tendency.
On the democratic accountability point, the proposed adoption of closed lists, electing 96 members in 16 constituencies through the d'hondt system, seems to me to have achieved peak control freakery. It is not going to be the members who are accountable to the public, but the parties. And it will largely be party bosses who decide who will serve in the Senedd, not voters.
Although the system will be more proportional than at present, a full STV system would produce a more representative outcome, as well as allow voters to decide which of the candidates are going to represent them. The attempt to achieve gender parity is welcomed, but it is crude, possibly tokenistic and does not take account of a recent trend for non-binary candidates and councillors.
Given the centralising, statist nature of both Labour and Plaid Cymru, I suppose this is the best we could get, but it is voters who will lose out and the new Senedd will be the poorer for it.
It is my view that the public can be convinced of the case for increasing Senedd members, if the proposal looks modest and realistic enough, and does not come across as self-serving. I believe that a 96 member Senedd fails on all of these counts.
Ninety-six is at the upper range of any expansion. It is more than in Northern Ireland, and only 34 fewer than Scotland, whose electorate is twice ours. The boundary changes being instituted for Westminster will be reducing the number of Welsh MPs from 40 to 32, while the 1995 local government reorganisation effectively halved the number of councillors in Wales. There is therefore room to replace these politicians to make devolution work better.
However, the case for 96 MSs has not been made. It feels like a further centralisation of power, when we should be enabling local councils to take responsibility for and deliver more for their communities.
Practically too, it is difficult. The present Senedd chamber is designed to be expanded to accommodate 80 members. To add another 16 will require a major remodelling, which will be disruptive and expensive.
The alternative is to change the way the Senedd operates altogether, which is possible, but would constitute a major shift in political culture. I am not sure the present leadership are ready for that, or even that they have thought it through.
Further expense will of course come from finding offices for the additional MSs, most probably in another building, as well as support staff and equipment. I am not sure that the quoted £12 million cost will be anywhere near enough.
In conclusion, a reformed Senedd of eighty members, elected through STV, seems to be realistic, supportable, properly accountable and affordable. The present proposals do not meet any of that criteria.
Further expense will of course come from finding offices for the additional MSs, most probably in another building, as well as support staff and equipment. I am not sure that the quoted £12 million cost will be anywhere near enough.
In conclusion, a reformed Senedd of eighty members, elected through STV, seems to be realistic, supportable, properly accountable and affordable. The present proposals do not meet any of that criteria.
Comments:
<< Home
The Richard Commission proposed an expansion to 80 members, to cope with an extension of powers less than was actually granted since it sat. Apart from sordid political motives, how can Labour and Plaid justify the extra 16? If the salary levels stay the same, who is going to pay for the extra members?
Post a Comment
<< Home
