The proceedings are
reported in the language in which they were spoken in the
committee. In addition, a transcription of the simultaneous
interpretation is included. This is a draft version of the record.
The final version will be published within five working days.
Dechreuodd y cyfarfod am 14:00.
The meeting began at 14:00.
|
Cyflwyniad,
Ymddiheuriadau, Dirprwyon a Datganiadau o Fuddiant
Introduction, Apologies, Substitutions and Declarations of
Interest
|
[1]
Huw Irranca-Davies: We’ll begin this session of the
Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee, on Monday 13
March. We’ll shortly be welcoming formally Baroness
Randerson, who has joined us for today’s session, and
you’re very welcome indeed. But before I do, just a couple of
housekeeping remarks: as we know, as normal, we’re not
expecting a fire alarm, but if there is one, our great staff will
indicate the ways out through the fire exits; if you can make sure
that all mobile devices are switched to silent mode or off; we do
have simultaneous translation here, which is also on a sound loop
to amplify sound, so please feel free to use those; and you
don’t need to touch the microphones, they just come on
automatically. We have one set of apologies today and that’s
from our colleague Nathan Gill. Otherwise, we’re all present
and correct.
|
14:01
|
Ymchwiliad Llais
Cryfach i Gymru: Sesiwn Dystiolaeth 3 A Stronger Voice
for Wales Inquiry: Evidence Session 3
|
[2]
Huw Irranca-Davies: To move to the formal part of
today’s session—the first part of today’s
session—item 2, under our stronger voice for Wales inquiry,
we have our third evidence session now, with Baroness Randerson,
who, of course, has great knowledge of intragovernmental working
from the time you’ve spent there as part of the coalition
Government as well, but also through your current role and longer
experience, as well. I think, in terms of ministerial duties or
shadow ministerial duties, we’re around this a lot; we get a
good understanding that builds up.
|
[3]
If I could, as well as formally welcome you, perhaps kick off a
little bit with you, Baroness Randerson, to ask, from that
experience you have as a Minister in the Welsh Government and as a
Wales Office Minister, for your thoughts on what has worked well in
your experience and maybe what has worked not quite so well,
too.
|
[4]
Baroness Randerson: Thank you. Prynhawn da. Thank you very
much indeed for asking me to attend today. I’m feeling
slightly intimidated given the calibre and experience of members of
the committee.
|
[5]
Lord Elis-Thomas: That’s only the Chair.
|
[6]
Baroness Randerson: I fear I won’t be able to add that
much to the sum of their knowledge. Anyway, to answer your
question, Chair, I think the structures were there, to a large
part, from the very start, in 1999, although there’s
obviously been evolution and there’s been some tweaking with
experience. But I would say that, as with virtually every
organisation, it works well when the personal relationships are
good and it stutters badly when the relationships are not as good.
In fact, you’ve got all your structures like the Joint
Ministerial Committee and so on, but the real work—the chunky
stuff—is done in bilaterals, and is very often done on the
telephone and is done informally.
|
[7]
When I was in the Wales Office, my role was specifically to liaise
with Welsh Government and with the Assembly, because of my
background. And officials did say to me that they felt the
difference once there was someone in the Wales Office who
understood how the Assembly worked and who already had established
relationships with Assembly Members. I think that, since that time,
both Stephen Crabb and Alun Cairns have invested a lot of effort in
improving relationships with the Welsh Government. Of course, Alun
Cairns has the advantage of understanding the Assembly in exactly
the way I do as well.
|
[8]
Going back right to the beginning, I would say that, in the early
days, obviously, everyone was learning, and it was also different
because, although I was in a coalition Government, there was Labour
domination at both ends of the M4, and it worked much more on
informal, internal Labour party relationships.
|
[9]
Huw Irranca-Davies: It’s fascinating what the
political make-up might do to this. You were stressing there the
importance of the interpersonal relationships—the informal
bilaterals as well as the formal mechanisms. Do you think the
political make-up either end of the M4 makes a difference to that,
or can those strong interpersonal relationships work beyond party
differences? Does it make a real difference? Certainly, I’m
aware of the situation that it’s never completely
straightforward when you have the same Government at either end.
There are difficulties there.
|
[10]
Baroness Randerson: Personal relationships can definitely
fail within individual parties, and I think Northern Ireland has
proved that personal relationships can trump political allegiances
and work well despite different political allegiances. I think that
what happens when you’ve got different politics is that you
have to make that extra effort, and you have to make it that bit
more formal, but you also inevitably do not start out with quite
the level of trust about the motives of the person you are relating
to in the other organisation.
|
[11]
I think it’s fair to say that, when I was in the Wales
Office, I was used to make that bridge because it was felt that I
understood how the Welsh Government was thinking. I was obviously
not in the same party, but I was almost a bridge between the
Conservative Secretary of State and the Conservative-dominated
Government—but it was a coalition, obviously—but
Conservatives in the Wales Office and the Labour Party here.
|
[12]
Huw Irranca-Davies: I’m sure we’ll come back to
that in a moment, perhaps, the detail of that, and how that works,
when we talk about those informal bilaterals as well as the formal
ones—how often, how regularly? Is it just in times of crisis
or should it be more mundane, more picking up the phone and so on?
But I’m sure we’ll come back to that.
|
[13]
I wonder if I can just ask one final thing before we go on to other
colleagues. The Joint Ministerial Committee itself, which has been
there, it seems, ever since the time of the dinosaurs—the
place where we can go and do agenda-ed business, where discussions
can happen. Do you see that that role has evolved at all, or is it
pretty much the same JMC that was there nearly 20 years ago?
|
[14]
Baroness Randerson: It has changed, although I don’t
think structurally it has changed that much. But the way it works
has changed. Starting in the early years, certainly JMC was treated
very informally, and I well remember a meeting that I was
representing the Wales Government at, where John Prescott felt he
could be quite dismissive of me because I was not a Labour
politician. Now, that is not the way in which Government relations
usually work, but he just forgot himself because he was treating it
as a Labour Party meeting.
|
[15]
Huw Irranca-Davies: So it wasn’t a reflection on where
devolution was per se. That was more to do with party politics
within that meeting.
|
[16]
Baroness Randerson: I think it was. No, I do think it was a
reflection on where devolution was. I think it was because JMC had
not established itself as a formal organ, a formal part of the
structure. It is now very much a formal part of the structure. I
felt that JMC was a pretty negative part of the structure for some
years when I was in the Wales Office. I found it seemed to follow a
certain pattern. There would be a certain abrasiveness from the
Welsh Government prior to the meetings, interviews with the press,
and so on, that talked about the problems that were going to come
up, and then a certain dismissiveness by the Wales Office about
what had happened there. I felt that it didn’t work terribly
well.
|
[17]
I used to be at the JMC Europe where we had the same discussion on
a regular basis about representation in Brussels, and that seemed
to be the same discussion we actually had very informally back when
I was a Minister the first time. So, we clearly had not moved on a
lot. I think it’s better now. Certainly, the public stuff
associated with it, the press releases, and so on, have been much
less sterile. The interviews have been much more conciliatory, and
I think it moved on around about 2013-14. Things improved a lot,
and I would say that, from a Wales perspective, what moved it on
was the issue that we began to get—. Well, we had the Wales
Act 2014, and I think the moves to that helped to move it on. And
also what helped to move it on was the first—I say
‘first’—Scottish independence referendum, because
it’s fairly obvious today we might well have a second
one.
|
[18]
Huw Irranca-Davies: Indeed. I’m going to move on to
Dai Lloyd, but just one final follow-up question on that. It seems
interesting to me that, from time to time, outside of the JMC,
outside of the bilaterals and outside of the normal mechanisms,
things will flare up. There will be megaphone diplomacy and we have
to accept that as politicians, but that’s okay as long as the
wheels behind the scenes are steadily turning. I put it to you
that, as long as there’s an understanding and as long as
those discussions are being had, where somebody says, ‘Look,
I’m going to have to go public on our discontent on this, but
I want you to know next week I’ll be sitting down with you
and working through this’, you can sort of manage it.
It’s when it isn’t working behind the scenes that
there’s a problem—when the megaphone diplomacy is all
that there is. Sorry for the slight preamble on that, but I’d
be interested in your view on that basis on what the role of the
JMC should be. When is it at its most effective? What are the
characteristics of a good JMC?
|
[19]
Baroness Randerson: I think it should be one where you are
not just following a predetermined formula, when it’s not
just being used to push a point of view, but it’s being used
to achieve an agreement. Also, of course, remember that the whole
point of JMC is that you’ve got the four leaders meeting
together, or representatives of the four Governments meeting
together, and it’s an opportunity to do a great deal more
than just have a confrontation with the UK Government. One of the
things that I learnt in the three years when I was in the
coalition, as I was also dealing with Northern Ireland in the House
of Lords, was that the pace of devolution was very different in
Northern Ireland. The characteristics of devolution are very
different in Northern Ireland, and it goes without saying that
Scotland is different again. And I think a good JMC is an important
opportunity to present to the UK Government the fact that there are
three differing views in the rest of the UK about these things.
There may not always be differing views, but they are coming at it
from a different perspective.
|
[20]
Huw Irranca-Davies: Thank you, Baroness Randerson. Dai, over
to you.
|
[21]
Dai Lloyd: Diolch yn fawr,
Gadeirydd, a phrynhawn da i Jenny Randerson. Croeso i’r
pwyllgor. Rydych chi’n rhannol wedi ateb y cwestiwn yma
eisoes, ond y cwestiynau ydy—
|
Dai Lloyd: Thank you very much, Chair,
and a very good afternoon to you, Jenny
Randerson. Welcome to the committee. You’ve answered this
question partially already, but I did want to ask this first
question—
|
[22]
Baroness Randerson: I’m sorry; I’m not—. I
should be able to do this. Ah, there we are—got it.
|
[23]
Dai Lloyd: Rydw i jest am sôn am rôl y
gwasanaeth sifil yn Llywodraeth Cymru ac yn Whitehall. Rydw
i’n gwybod eich bod chi’n rhannol wedi ateb y cwestiwn
yma, ond hefyd mae’r pwyllgor yma wedi derbyn tystiolaeth mai
prin ydy’r ddealltwriaeth gan weision sifil yn
Whitehall i ddatganoli. Beth yw eich barn chi?
|
Dai Lloyd: I just wanted to mention the
role of the civil service in the Welsh Government and in Whitehall.
I know that you’ve partially answered this question, but this
committee has received evidence that the understanding of
devolution among civil servants in Whitehall is poor. What’s
your view on that?
|
14:15
|
[24]
Baroness Randerson: Yes, I agree that, in many parts of
Whitehall, it isn’t good. It’s very patchy. Some of the
departments are much better than others. I think I need to preface
this by pointing out the enormous size of the Whitehall civil
service, and the fact that they’re all in separate
departments. And unlike the civil service here, where they walk
down the corridor and use the same canteen and all the rest of it
and therefore know each other and there is informal contact, these
people are living in—I’ll try and avoid the word
‘silos’, but they’re living in separate
departments, and there is little opportunity for informal
cross-fertilisation of ideas. I think it’s also important to
bear in mind that what struck me as a Minister was the speed of
Government. Let’s say you have an idea that comes up. It has
to be circulated around the whole of Government, it has to be
agreed by the whole of Government, and, therefore, when you also
have to factor in devolution as well, that means that, sometimes,
you just don’t meet those timescales.
|
[25]
There is a devolution link in every department, and the Wales
Office spends a lot of time and effort building up relationships
with those links, but we all know how the civil service
works—they move on. You build up a good relationship at
official level with the formal devolution link and suddenly
they’re gone. I think one of the key and almost invisible
roles of the Wales Office is building up that understanding within
the civil service, and, when that understanding is not there and a
proposal comes out that makes you say, ‘Hey, this is no
good’, the Wales Office moves very fast to deal with it.
There are obvious examples where issues have arisen—things
like S4C, issues associated with the Welsh language, issues
associated with water supply, and so on, where people are—.
It’s not to do with ill will; it’s to do with lack of
understanding or lack of knowledge. And people need to be moving in
very fast in the Wales Office and building up that
understanding.
|
[26]
The other thing, of course, to bear in mind is that devolution is
so complex. So, someone sitting in the Department for Transport,
let’s say, or the Department for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs, thinks they’ve got the hang of it, but
actually they’ve got the hang of how it works in Scotland and
it’s completely different in Wales. So, it is very
difficult.
|
[27]
Dai Lloyd: Diolch am yr ateb yna. Ac, ar gefn hynny, a
allech chi ehangu ar sut mae rôl Swyddfa Ysgrifennydd Gwladol
Cymru, a Swyddfa Cymru, wedi datblygu ers 1999?
|
Dai Lloyd: Thank you for that response.
In addition to that, could you expand on how the role of the
Secretary of State for Wales, and the Wales Office, has developed
since 1999?
|
[28]
Baroness Randerson: I think it’s developed according
to the personality that inhabits that role at the time, and the
strength of that individual. It’s no secret that it’s
not a very powerful voice around the Cabinet table as a regular
thing, but I would say, looking back, both, for example, Peter Hain
and Stephen Crabb had an influence within Cabinet that was stronger
than would necessarily be the case. I would also say that, at the
moment, Theresa May is very aware that, if possible, she has to
keep the devolved administrations onside. And, therefore, I think
that, probably, our current Secretary of State is being listened to
from that perspective. But there are—. When I look back on
the Secretaries of State during the coalition years, it was obvious
that, for example, Stephen Crabb did a lot of work on economic
development, and David Jones did a lot of work on international
stuff, which was very good for Wales—it took the voice of
Wales abroad—but, of course, we tend only to listen to the
Wales Office when there’s something constitutional going on,
and that’s when it hits the headlines, isn’t it?
|
[29]
Dai Lloyd: Grêt. Diolch am hynny. A’r cwestiwn
olaf wrthyf i ydy: yn dilyn hynny i gyd, pa gamau y byddech
chi’n eu hargymell i wella cysylltiadau rhynglywodraethol
rhwng fan hyn a San Steffan?
|
[30]
Dai Lloyd: Great. Thank you for that. And the final question
from me is: following on from all of that, what steps would you
recommend to improve intergovernmental relations between this place
and Westminster?
|
[31]
Baroness Randerson: I think it’s essential that
relationships are worked on at this particular moment. With Brexit,
it is going to be so important that the voice of the Welsh
Government is listened to, but, ultimately, it’s always down
to personalities. How far ahead do you want me to look? I’d
love it to be a federal system and there to be equal power,
equality of arms across the piece, but I don’t think
we’re going to be there any minute now. But I do think
it’s important that we use the opportunity of Brexit to look
properly at whether those powers that are being repatriated from
the EU come back to Wales rather than automatically assuming they
go to the UK Government. But every First Minister and Secretary of
State, if they’ve got any common sense—and
they’ve all clearly got a lot of that—should aim to
establish positive relationships, and I think that one of the signs
of maturity of the Welsh Assembly and the Welsh Government is that,
nowadays, the Secretary of State is used as a friend and champion
more often than abused as someone who is failing to deliver.
|
[32]
But I think that we are in a time when those institutions, the
formal ones, have got to be strengthened, and I know that the UK
Government is looking at more frequent meetings. There is already a
Joint Ministerial Committee on exiting the EU, and there should be
more meetings of a subject-specific nature, in my view. I think
there should be a formal place for meetings on, for example,
agriculture. When I was a Minister here, we had four-way meetings
on sport, for example. Now, I don’t know whether Ministers
regularly meet on that basis at the moment, but, certainly,
agriculture Ministers should be doing that in the future.
|
[33]
David Melding: Could I ask a supplementary on this?
|
[34]
Huw Irranca-Davies: Indeed, David.
|
[35]
David Melding: I think you’ve been very thoughtful on
the JMC, saying that it works best when it’s not just
constrained by the sort of arid, formalistic approach that,
inevitably, is an aspect of these structures. But I could say to
you that the British state has been in crisis for—at least
since the run-up to the Scottish referendum. There was then a
panicky declaration that there would be some sort of federalism or
whatever on the very eve of that vote. That was kind of followed
through in not a brilliant way, and seemed, at best, bilateral.
We’ve had Brexit, with all the consequences for the union
there, and we will now have a second referendum in Scotland. Now,
as a passionate unionist, this does not seem to me a scorecard of
magnificent alacrity. And the JMC has been inert, as far as I can
see, and has not really done any creative thinking. Am I being
brutally pessimistic, or is that a fair description?
|
[36]
Baroness Randerson: I think it’s certainly not set the
pace in any way at all, and, of course, you haven’t mentioned
Northern Ireland, which, to me, is on the verge of another
potential election, and goodness knows where that goes in the long
term with Brexit. So, we are at a point where I think you’re
quite right, the JMC has not—. You see, it’s being used
as a forum to sort out the differences between four leaders, rather
than being used as a leadership forum across the piece.
|
[37]
David Melding: That’s well stated, I think.
|
[38]
Huw Irranca-Davies: Dafydd, would you like to take this into
the next area of questioning, please?
|
[39]
Lord Elis-Thomas: First of all, I’d like to thank you
for being here. It’s lovely to have you. I will ask my formal
questions yn Gymraeg, because you’re used to the way I
carry on, but I do appreciate the fact that you are in a unique
position as a Minister in a Welsh Government and a Minister of the
UK Government. I doubt if any of us around this table will ever
reach that high status, unless—.
|
[40]
David Melding: Don’t look at me.
[Laughter.]
|
[41]
Yr Arglwydd
Elis-Thomas: A gawn ni
fynd yn ôl ychydig i
ystyried datblygiad datganoli ac, yn arbennig, swyddogaeth comisiwn
Silk? Fel Gweinidog yn y Llywodraeth a wnaeth gomisiynu’r
comisiwn, beth oedd ei sefyllfa hi fel Gweinidog yn ymateb
i’r comisiwn?
|
Lord
Elis-Thomas: If we could just look back a little and consider
the development of devolution, and, particularly, the function of
the Silk commission, as a Minister of the Government who
commissioned that work, what was your position as Minister in
responding to the commission?
|
[42]
Baroness Randerson: Well, of course, the commission produced
two reports. The first one was in 2012, and that led to the 2014
Wales Act. The second report was delayed, not by a phenomenal
period of time, but that delay did mean that the work on it
was—we were fairly pushed in getting the work done in time
for the general election, and that’s why the St David’s
Day agreement took the form it did. Now, I would say that, to start
with, the usefulness of the Silk commission was very definitely
that it managed to produce a report that, on a cross-party basis,
was fairly radical. There are some of us who would have liked it to
be more radical in some ways, but it was a cross-party document,
and that was its strength.
|
[43]
The first report took a long while to produce a Government
response. To critics of that, I would say: you have no idea of the
blood, sweat and tears that went into producing an agreement that
went across the piece—not because anyone was being
particularly difficult in any way; it’s just that government
is so complicated. Go around from one department to another, trying
to get agreement, and it’s a very time-consuming thing,
because human nature is such that no-one ever wants to give up
powers and so, therefore—
|
[44]
Lord Elis-Thomas: Yes, but that’s a sin of government,
isn’t it? An original sin of government, probably.
|
[45]
Baroness Randerson: Quite probably. But it’s very
difficult to persuade people to give up powers. So, that report
came out and led to the 2014 Act, which I recall you telling me,
across the Chamber, was not as good as it might have been and it
was a modest little piece of work, but it was nevertheless—I
say this as a pragmatist—a step forward. Then there was the
St David’s Day agreement, and the process there—people
accused the current Government of rushing to do the Wales Act 2017,
and it being half thought through.
|
14:30
|
[46]
But that, of course, was built on the shoulders of the second Silk
report, and I would say two things: first of all, you’d never
have got anything as ambitious in its small way as we have had this
year if you hadn’t had the second Silk report. I know that
there were things that you and I would’ve liked to see in it,
like devolution of policing and so on, which didn’t appear.
But, nevertheless, we’ve had the reserved-powers model, and
that’s very much down to the second Silk report, and down to
the work that was done on the St David’s Day agreement.
I’ll go back to the fact that people said it was rushed: at
the time when it was being pushed through, we were being criticised
for being too slow. A lot of people in Wales were saying,
‘This is going to slow.’ In the end people said,
‘Oh, it’s going too fast.’ So, perhaps it was
about the right speed.
|
[47]
Lord Elis-Thomas: The thing about the reserved-powers model
for me is that it puts us in the same constitutional form as the
rest of the UK, but the exceptions do not, and I don’t know
what we do about that. In a sense, the St David’s agreement
produced a form of constitution that was much improved, but the
actual content, the levels of exceptions, meant that it
couldn’t—. It was, and still is in some ways, less than
we had with the conferred-powers model. Is it the St David’s
agreement, because it was a ‘Turn it down if you wish’
from all sides. It wasn’t looking for a common
agreement—it was looking for what people would agree to in
different parties. Is that the issue here?
|
[48]
Baroness Randerson: I wasn’t at those meetings, but
I’ve got reports, obviously, whenever they were held, and I
talked to people who were at those meetings. The principle behind
it I thought was very good because it meant that you were
continuing with the cross-party impetus behind Silk, so it’s
always stronger in your arguments if you can do it on a cross-party
basis. So, we tried to keep that cross-party agreement, and that
meant, of course, you lost a certain amount of the radical edge to
it. I would say, in addition to that, that the intention, at least
in part, was to get agreement prior to the election in order, in a
way, to park the constitutional arguments during the election
process. And that meant that, in the end—pragmatically,
again—the Conservative Government came in with a commitment
to further legislation and a reserved-powers model, and that, I
think, is actually a very good thing.
|
[49]
I agree with you wholeheartedly that it’s a flawed model. I
mean, the reserved-powers principle is excellent; the way in which
it’s actually applied in Wales is flawed. It’s complex
because the original devolution settlement that we had in 1999 was
very complex and flawed, and we’ve kind of inched forward
from that in various directions, but we haven’t ever sat down
and rewritten it, and that’s—. And I think that, you
know, what I said in the House of Lords in debate, on what is now
the 2017 Act, was, ‘You know, it’s going to end up in
the courts with legal judgments as a result of debate on the limits
of powers, I would imagine.’ It would have been much better
if it had been simpler, but we have it. And although you can argue
that maybe there are one or two parts where there’s been a
slight retreat, there have also been some important steps forward,
and I tend to think that as long as we generally move forward,
it’s a good thing.
|
[50]
Lord Elis-Thomas: Your answer tempts me to ask a cheeky
question. My great friend and mentor, Lord Richard, chaired a
committee at one time that did produce very much a different
model—almost a federal model—of Wales’s
relationship with the UK, and the Government at that time failed to
implement it. Is that why we are where we are? You don’t have
to answer that, but—.
|
[51]
Baroness Randerson: Well, there is an excellent book by a
man called David Melding—
|
[52]
Lord Elis-Thomas: Oh, yes. Of course.
|
[53]
Baroness Randerson:—called Will Britain Survive
Beyond 2020?
|
[54]
David Melding: I was being optimistic.
|
[55]
Dai Lloyd: It’s not going to make it.
|
[56]
Baroness Randerson: I quoted it recently when I went to do a
seminar at University College London, and my view is, and has been
for many years, that a federal UK would be a much happier place, a
much more confident place, and it would be a much more stable place
than what we have now. And what we have in Wales is not going to be
the end of the story—we all know that. There will be ongoing
demands. Now, what we did hope, in 2015, was that the St
David’s Day agreement was going to provide stability, but it
was not sufficiently radical to do that.
|
[57]
Lord Elis-Thomas: Let me ask you a final cheeky question:
the relationship with the European Union of the various nations of
the United Kingdom seems to me to be looking like
this—Scotland may vote to remain in the European Union, and
therefore will no longer be part of the United Kingdom as it is
presently constituted; then, Northern Ireland will continue to wish
to be part of the European Union, and therefore will strengthen its
relationship with the republic. And that leaves where? Tudor
England and Wales. What do we do then, Jenny?
|
[58]
Baroness Randerson: Well, I—
|
[59]
Lord Elis-Thomas: I thought it was a cheeky question.
|
[60]
Baroness Randerson: Well, I just think that, going back to
my previous comment, at the moment things are very unstable.
Nothing surprises me any longer, and the latest twist and turn is
there. My view is that we need to look to the immediate fights, and
my immediate fight is to maintain Britain—Wales—in the
EU, and in the single market if not the EU. And I realise, 100 per
cent, that that has to be agreed by the people of Britain again, in
some form or other.
|
[61]
Lord Elis-Thomas: I did vote for your amendment.
[Laughter.] Diolch.
|
[62]
Huw Irranca-Davies: Baroness Randerson, before I bring the
esteemed author of that tome in, in a moment, I wonder if I could
ask you, looking back on the experience with the Wales Bill but
also on your wider experience as well—. A moment ago, we were
talking about the JMC and the fact that, as you were saying, it
hasn’t performed a leadership role in any way. It’s
been a discussion shop to resolve differences, or to put on the
agenda things that were tricky and that needed resolution. If, as
you say, short of 101 other things blowing this discussion out of
the water, making it irrelevant—as you mentioned, Northern
Ireland, a second referendum in Scotland and so on. Short of that,
if there is another stage of devolution needed—another
Government of Wales Act—which way do you think it should be
led? Where do you think the genesis should come from? How should it
be constructed? What have we learnt that actually works well when
Government of Wales Acts and when Acts of devolution work well, and
when they don’t?
|
[63]
Baroness Randerson: My experience, going back a long way,
and forgive me for this, to what I always call the Peter Hain
Act—there was a commission, which was subscribed to by the
coalition here, the partnership Government. That was then sort of
bashed around by the UK Government, watered down, and then there
was the 2006 Act, which was, as ever, a bit of a disappointment,
then there was a continuing debate here about all the things that
the 2006 Act didn’t give us, which then led to the next one,
and the next one led to the one we’ve just had. So, what I
look at when making the judgment you’re asking is: what
stimulates the most positive way forward? And although I would say
that the 2014 and 2017 Acts were not the be all and end all, and
they were certainly disappointing, taken together, they very
definitely move us to a different place. And in addition to that,
we also had the referendum to give the Assembly full law-making
powers.
|
[64]
So, the Assembly now has the basic tools. It doesn’t have the
field of powers that it should have, but it has the basic tools to
do the job—and the powers over running your own affairs and
so on, which always struck me as being a total insult, that the UK
Government could tell the Assembly how to run its affairs. But look
at how that came about—that came about from a commission that
was then taken forward by, at the time, a relatively willing
Government. Now, the thing that marks it all out is the extent of
cross-party agreement. The first commission managed cross-party
agreement, but it then became very much a Labour Party issue. What
the Silk commission did, feeding into the legislation that
followed, was to retain the cross-party involvement. That’s
partly because you’ve got people of different parties at
different ends of the M4, but the fact is you’ve now got two
parties—it was previously three parties there—wanting
to make progress, because bear in mind that the Secretary of State
for Wales always wants to make progress of some sort or another. It
may not always sound as if they want the Assembly to have loads of
powers, but they do actually want to make their mark, don’t
they?
|
[65]
Huw Irranca-Davies: Yes, indeed. David.
|
[66]
David Melding: Jenny, we’d like to talk about
inter-parliamentary relations as well as this discussion
we’ve had about the Governments working together. I
don’t know if you’ve ever had experience of the
British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly—certainly one of your
colleagues would have when you were in the Liberal Democrat group
here. I just wonder if you have reflections on how that association
works and is it a kind of a model of what we perhaps could see
within the UK as well.
|
[67]
Baroness Randerson: I was a member, for a couple of years at
least, of the British–Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body, as we
called it then.
|
[68]
David Melding: Yes, it was called a body then, that’s
right.
|
[69]
Baroness Randerson: But, I also went to the British-Irish
Council of Ministers a couple of times. What I found most useful
was that it raised my awareness of the complexities of the
situation in Ireland, with Northern Ireland and the Republic.
|
14:45
|
[70]
I’m not entirely sure that it contributed a great deal to my
understanding of Scotland, for example. I think, in many ways, the
smaller territories find that body the most useful one, but I do
think that things have changed a great deal from those days and
maybe we need to be looking at something that would perhaps raise
awareness of the situation in Scotland beyond Scotland, so that
those of us who don’t have close direct links with Scotland
maybe understand that more. The important thing, though, is to look
at it from the point of view of England as well, because
you’ve got to look and see how the people who attend that
body from the UK Parliament actually feed back. I’m not aware
of whether they feed back in any meaningful way to the UK
Government. I’m not sure about that.
|
[71]
David Melding: I suppose it would be possible to have some
sort of formalised network of the four parliaments of the United
Kingdom working, and you could do it a bit like the JMC. You could
do it subject by subject; so, the environmental committees would
meet perhaps once or twice a year, and then economic development
and all the rest of it. Do you think that that sort of formal
structure would—is there any appetite for it? Because there
may be some appetite here in Wales, less appetite in Scotland, and
no appetite in England maybe. Or do you think that any
strengthening of inter-parliamentary relations would be better
as—? When you opened your remarks, you said that you thought
that governments worked strongly on a bilateral basis, but then it
got a bit weaker—but not necessarily without merit—as
you went multilateral in the JMC. What would be the ideal way of
increasing inter-parliamentary working in the UK? Would it be some
form of association including all the four institutions, or would
you say, ‘Look, you’re better off just working with the
other parliament that’s particularly interested in a similar
area or done a relevant bit of work a year or two before that you
are now wanting to pick up’? How would you proceed?
|
[72]
Baroness Randerson: I think it’s important that there
is work between parliaments and not just work between governments.
It’s very easy to rely on the work between governments. Work
between parliaments is a very different thing. I also belong to the
CPA—the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association—and the
sort of local groups of that taught me a great deal about the other
parliaments and how they work. It has shown me how they contrast,
and so on, in development. I think that the idea of joint committee
meetings—maybe if it’s just once a year or
whatever—would undoubtedly raise awareness. You see, one of
the issues that the Chair will be very well aware of—and so
will Dafydd—one of the issues with Parliament is that you
stand up and start talking about Wales and everyone who isn’t
Welsh leaves the room. You might get the occasional interested
Scot, but the point is that you are therefore talking to people who
already understand the situation. What you have to try and do, if
you’re going to improve understanding of devolution, is try
to widen the circle of people who get to hear about how devolution
works in Wales.
|
[73]
David Melding: I think that’s very helpful and
insightful. I think we’ve all been in those meetings when
only those who know stay, and then your colleagues that would
benefit from the session leave. Slightly more positively, have you
observed any good practice between how the Assembly has worked with
perhaps the House of Commons and the House of Lords and whether,
perhaps, it’s been slightly better, perhaps, in the House of
Lords than in the House of Commons?
|
[74]
Lord Elis-Thomas: There’s always a case for flying the
flag.
|
[75]
Baroness Randerson: I’m very conscious of the fact
that the Welsh Affairs Committee comes here, takes evidence and so
on, but then, of course, they are people who know and understand
Wales. But I do think that a great deal more should be done to
encourage committees to come to Wales or to encourage people from
the Welsh Assembly to go and give evidence or to do joint meetings
with the House of Lords. I say the House of Lords because the House
of Lords has probably got the time and attention to detail to do
some of the work that, at this moment, needs doing.
|
[76]
My key thing at the moment is ensuring that Wales and the impact of
Brexit on Wales are more widely understood. I’m a member of
the EU Internal Market Sub-Committee in the Lords and we look at
these issues in huge detail, but we very rarely consider anything
connected with Wales directly. A lot of what we consider applies to
Wales, but I am conscious that, occasionally, things might be
different in Wales, and to have people from the Assembly coming to
give evidence, as a regular thing—. You have an EU committee,
so the two could meet.
|
[77]
David Melding: My final question is a cultural one about how
this is working currently and how you would develop it. I suppose
there is something of a challenge in that in inter-parliamentary
working, especially between all four institutions, Westminster is
by default, or naturally, a first amongst equals, just because of
the range of its work and its capacity, and probably the other
institutions—that doesn’t scare them too much. But
sometimes, it goes beyond that so that it is rather overwhelming. I
just wonder, do you sense that this mutual respect and awareness is
developing? You’ve talked, several times, about the fact that
the problem is that an awful lot of people, unless they’re
Welsh or have, at best, a holiday home or a passing interest or
there’s a grandmother or something from Wales—.
We’ve all been in those conversations, haven’t we? Is
the curiosity about the non-core parts of the United Kingdom
increasing?
|
[78]
Baroness Randerson: I think people are being made aware of
it really quite rapidly. I would say that ever since 23 June,
people who thought that one vote and one total would solve the
issue were rapidly disabused, I think, of that viewpoint when the
complexities of the situation became obvious: a
‘remain’ vote in Northern Ireland with a First Minister
who wanted to leave; ‘leave’ here and a First Minister
who wants to remain; and in Scotland a different situation again.
It is a very complicated situation and I do think that new people
are listening to the reverberations that that is having.
|
[79]
I do think that, actually, it isn’t a lack of respect;
it’s a lack of knowledge and understanding. It’s not
that people are, in any way, deliberately dismissive or
disrespectful; they just don’t understand. They have no
in-depth understanding, for example, of the situation of the Welsh
language. As far as they’re concerned, it’s yet another
language that is spoken in Britain. We know that its legal and
cultural situation is very different. So, people can make crashing
errors out of sheer ignorance and lack of understanding. So, I do
think it’s a mission for everyone to make it more obvious to
those people at this particularly difficult time.
|
[80]
David Melding: Thank you.
|
[81]
Huw Irranca-Davies: Thank you. I’m very conscious that
you have important work to do in the other place up at the other
end, so we want to let you get away well on time. But I wonder if I
could just throw a couple of really quick things at you.
We’ve discussed in some detail the JMC, and how it could work
well, when it works well. What are your thoughts on taking it
beyond the JMC to something like—and we’ve heard from
other witnesses—a council of Ministers, where there are
decisions taken and where there is a greater deal of parity as well
in setting the agenda and the outcomes of that meeting? Do you
think that would help in restoring some of this fabric of the
constitution that we’re talking about?
|
[82]
Baroness Randerson: Well, you’d get that if you had a
federal system.
|
[83]
Huw Irranca-Davies: Can you do it short of a federal
system?
|
[84]
Baroness Randerson: Well, you’ve got to be careful. I
am well aware that, in Canada, in the 1980s, they had real anguish
with their First Ministers’ meetings, and it was not a happy
experience. You can only have meetings on a more formalised,
joint-decision-making basis if you really have the powers to match
it. And I think if you’re not careful, you could have a
halfway house that doesn’t really work. Having said all that,
I think that one of the key things we face now is making sure that
Wales has a proper say in the leaving the EU process. And
you’ve got, therefore, to fight in order to get some element
of decision-making power in that process, while respecting the
Supreme Court judgment.
|
[85]
Huw Irranca-Davies: Which takes me to my final point.
It’s on the note of optimism that you had about the current
cognisance that is made of the devolved nations and the regions as
an entity, because of the situation we’re currently in. On
that basis, what do you think works more effectively? Does
traditional diplomacy between governments—that behind the
scenes, the informal, the bilaterals—does that work better
than megaphone diplomacy? One of the interesting things that we
often worry over in this place is should we shout louder and much
more publicly in the hope that we’re taken more seriously
right across Whitehall. Or is it better to pursue those soft
grinding, slow ways of the internal mechanisms of Whitehall, and
here as well? What do you think works?
|
[86]
Baroness Randerson: I’m afraid you’ve got to do
both at once. You have to make sure that your behind-the-scenes
diplomacy continues and remains positive—is not abrasive and
aggressive, but positive and persuasive. But if you don’t
keep up the rhetoric, then you are not going to be setting the
tone, and to be honest, the Government’s got quite a lot on
its plate at the moment. If the points are not being made fairly
forcibly, they are not going to be choosing to hear them, I
believe, simply because they are torn in every direction in order
to achieve what they need to achieve in the next couple of years.
But if I could just make one final point, which is that, throughout
all this, bear in mind that the personal relationships are always
the most effective—the good things. And going back to when I
was in the coalition Government—the UK coalition—the
relationship, for example, between Danny Alexander and Jane Hutt,
which led very directly to getting a financial fiscal
framework—that sort of thing is what really pays off
well.
|
15:00
|
[87]
Huw Irranca-Davies: Thank you very much. Is there anything
you think we haven’t covered that you’d like to cover
with us?
|
[88]
Baroness Randerson: No, I think not.
|
[89]
Huw Irranca-Davies: Well, thank you. I think I can speak for
all of us in saying that it’s been a very, very useful
session indeed. Thank you for your insight and for sharing your
experience with us. We’ll send a transcript to you so that
you can check it over, but if there is anything else you’d
like to add subsequently, please get in touch with us. But thank
you so much and we wish you a good journey back up to the big city
up there.
|
[90]
Baroness Randerson: Diolch yn fawr.
|
[91]
Huw Irranca-Davies: Diolch yn fawr iawn. Good. Now,
we’ll come back to that a little bit later.
|
15:01
|
Offerynnau nad
ydynt yn Cynnwys Unrhyw Faterion i’w Codi o dan Reol Sefydlog
21.2 neu 21.3 Instruments that Raise No Reporting
Issues under Standing Order 21.2 or 21.3
|
[92]
Huw Irranca-Davies: So, if we can move ahead, with your
consent, to the next item on the agenda, item No. 3. We have
instruments that raise no reporting issues under Standing Orders
21.2 or 21.3. We have, under paper 1, statutory instruments with
clear reports. We have SL(5)070, the Size and Composition of Local
Planning Authority Committees (Wales) Regulations 2017, and we also
have a negative resolution instrument, SL(5)072, the Care and
Support (Choice of Accommodation, Charging and Financial
Assessment) (Miscellaneous Amendments) (Wales) Regulations 2017.
They are with clear reports, but I’m wondering do committee
members have any comments on them, or are we happy to note?
|
[93]
David Melding: Content.
|
[94]
Dai Lloyd: Bodlon.
|
Dai Lloyd: Content.
|
[95]
Huw Irranca-Davies: Content. Thank you. Diolch yn fawr.
|
15:01
|
Offerynnau
sy’n Cynnwys Materion i Gyflwyno Adroddiad Arnynt i’r
Cynulliad o dan Reol Sefydlog 21.2 neu 21.3
Instruments that Raise Issues to be Reported to the Assembly under
Standing Order 21.2 or 21.3
|
[96]
Huw Irranca-Davies: In which case, we go on to item No. 4,
instruments that do raise issues to be reported to the Assembly
under Standing Orders 21.2 or 21.3. We have a negative resolution
instrument there—SL(5)065, the Education Workforce Council
(Accreditation of Initial Teacher Training) (Wales) Regulations
2017. Within our pack, we have the report, the regulations, the
explanatory memorandum and the draft criteria, but, with your
consent, I will just hand over to—. Is it Sam that is going
to discuss? Yes. Sam, if you’d like to just make some
comments on this.
|
[97]
Mr Mason: Yes, it’s just to say that these regulations
follow on from the Education Workforce Council (Accreditation of
Initial Teacher Training) (Additional Functions) (Wales) Order
2017, which I addressed the committee on a few weeks ago, which
made reference to the accreditation criteria but didn’t
actually convey the substance of that criteria. The Chair raised
this with the Cabinet Secretary in Plenary, all to do with issues
of timing, and it was reaffirmed that the regulations would follow,
which would then define the criteria, which have now been laid and
came into force on 10 March. The criteria themselves weren’t
put on the face of the regulations, which, instead, via regulation
4, specified that Welsh Ministers could specify the criteria, which
have then been published as a draft document and a separate
document, which is available in your papers. One final point that I
would like to note is that the Children, Young People and Education
Committee is aware of this criteria and will be looking into the
policy element of this.
|
[98]
Huw Irranca-Davies: Very good. Thank you, Sam. It seems that
we’ve pursued, with due diligence, our role within that, and
that’s a good response. So, if there are no comments, we can
note that now and continue. There we are. Thank you very much, Sam.
Thank you.
|
[99]
Mr Mason: Thank you, Chair.
|
15:03
|
Offerynnau nad ydynt
yn Cynnwys Unrhyw Faterion i’w Codi o dan Reol Sefydlog
21.7(i) a 21.7(v) Instruments that Raise No Reporting
Issues under Standing Order 21.7(i) and 21.7(v)
|
[100] Huw
Irranca-Davies: That takes us on to item No. 5. We have
instruments that raise no reporting issues under Standing Orders
21.7(i) and 21.7(v). We have a draft negative resolution
instrument—SL(5)071, Code of practice on the exercise of
social services functions in relation to Part 4 (direct payments
and choice of accommodation) and Part 5 (charging and financial
assessment) of the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014.
Now, this is not a statutory instrument but it is a piece of
subordinate legislation, and we therefore consider it under
Standing Order 21.7, but there are no reporting issues on this. So,
are you content to note? There we are. We will note that.
|
15:04
|
Cynnig o dan Reol
Sefydlog 17.42 i Benderfynu Gwahardd y Cyhoedd o’r
Cyfarfod Motion under Standing Order 17.42 to Resolve
to Exclude the Public from the Meeting
|
Ailymgynullodd y pwyllgor yn gyhoeddus am
15:30. The committee reconvened in public at
15:30.
|
Ymchwiliad Llais
Cryfach i Gymru: Sesiwn Dystiolaeth 4
A Stronger Voice for Wales Inquiry: Evidence Session 4
|
[102]
Huw Irranca-Davies:
Wel, prynhawn da eto.
|
Huw Irranca-Davies: Good afternoon
again.
|
[103] Good afternoon
again, and welcome to this continuing part of the session of the
Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee on 13 March.
We’re delighted to be joined by an old colleague of mine,
Elfyn Llwyd. You’re very welcome here today, indeed, and
we’re going to draw upon your experience this afternoon in
this inquiry where we’re looking at inter-institutional
relations. Please feel free to divert from the questions if you
want to bring in something additional during the course of it. You
are very welcome, indeed.
|
[104] Now, I’m
not going to lead off in this session; we’re going to pass to
my colleague here, Dai, who is going to lead the start. Take us
away, Dai.
|
[105]
Dai Lloyd: Diolch yn fawr, Gadeirydd, a chroeso i’r
pwyllgor, Elfyn; mae’n hyfryd dy weld. Yn dy dystiolaeth,
rwyt ti’n dweud taw prin ydy dealltwriaeth gweision sifil yn
Whitehall o ddatganoli. Efallai y buaset ti eisiau ymhelaethu ar yr
honiadau yna.
|
Dai Lloyd: Thank you very much, Chair,
and welcome to the committee Elfyn; it’s lovely to see you.
In your evidence, you say that civil servants in Whitehall have a
poor understanding of devolution. Could you perhaps expand on those
assertions?
|
[106]
Mr Llwyd: Oes.
Ac rydw i’n meddwl mai un o’r enghreifftiau sydd yn
dangos hynny yn y goleuni gorau ydy—rydw i’n sôn
amdano wrth basio yn y nodyn yma—pan ddaru’r Adran
Gyfiawnder ddanfon holiadur—ymgynghoriad oedd o—rownd
cyfreithwyr Cymru a Lloegr yn ymwneud â newid y dull yr oedd
cymorth cyfreithiol yn cael ei ddosrannu, fe ddaeth y ddogfen
ymgynghorol honno allan yn uniaith Saesneg, a dim ond ar ôl
cryn gwyno yn San Steffan ac yma wrth gwrs ddaru’r adran
gyfiawnder sylweddoli nad oedden nhw wedi danfon y peth yn
ddwyieithog. Wrth gwrs, yr esgus oedd,
|
Mr
Llwyd: Yes. I think one of the examples that
demonstrate that best—I do mention this in passing in my note
to you—was when the Department for Justice sent a
survey—it was a consultation—to lawyers in England and
in Wales and it related to the change in the way that legal aid was
distributed, that consultation document was issued in English only,
and it was only after a number of complaints both in Westminster
and here did the Department of Justice realise that they
hadn’t sent that survey out bilingually. The excuse given
was,
|
[107] ‘Well, the Welsh language is a matter
for the National Assembly for Wales, and it’s not
ours.’
|
[108]
Wel, ydy, mae hynny’n gywir cyn
belled ag y mae o’n mynd, ond fel rydw i’n trio nodi yn
y papur, tra eu bod nhw yn tra-arglwyddiaethu ym materion
cyfiawnder, mae’n fater iddyn nhw hefyd. Beth sydd yn drist
ydy—ac rydw i’n cofio hyn—10 i 12 mlynedd yn
ôl, yn rheolaidd, mi oedd y Swyddfa Gartref—ac roedd
hyn cyn i’r Swyddfa Gyfiawnder gael ei chreu—a’r
Arglwydd Ganghellor yn sicrhau bod dogfennau yn cael eu cyfieithu
yn brydlon bob amser. Bob amser—nid oedd dim gwahaniaeth pa
hyd oedden nhw. Yn wir, roedd yna un neu ddwy ffyrm cyfieithu yng
Nghaerdydd yn gwneud yn dda iawn o hynny, a chwarae teg iddyn nhw.
Erbyn rŵan, mae yna ormod o enghreifftiau lle nad ydyn nhw
ddim, a dweud y gwir, yn cymryd unrhyw ddiddordeb mewn paratoi
pethau yn ddwyieithog, sydd, yn fy marn i, yn dangos gwendid mawr
yn y ffordd y maen nhw’n camddeall yr hyn sy’n digwydd
o ran datganoli i Gymru a’r rôl sydd ganddyn nhw yn y
broses honno.
|
Well, yes that is true insofar as it goes,
but, as I note in my paper to you, whilst they dominate issues of
justice, it’s also an issue for them. What is sad—and I
remember this myself—some 10 to 12 years ago, regularly the
Home Office—and this was before the Department for Justice
was created—and the Lord Chancellor regularly would ensure
that documents were always translated in a timely manner.
Always—it didn’t matter what length they were. Indeed,
there some translation firms in Cardiff doing very well from that,
and fair play to them. But now there are far too many examples
where they don’t take any interest in preparing bilingual
materials, which, in my view, demonstrates a major weakness in the
way they misinterpret what is happening in terms of devolution to
Wales and the role that they have in that process.
|
[109]
Dai Lloyd: Dyna ti; wel awn ni fewn i
ddyfnder—. A allaf i
ofyn, Gadeirydd, i’r clustffonau gael eu symud? Achos
mae’n cyfieithu yn amharu ar y ffordd rydw i’n meddwl
a, Duw a ŵyr, sut mae Elfyn yn meddwl.
|
Dai Lloyd: Well, we’ll go into
further depth—. Can I ask the Chair if the headsets could be
moved a little? Because the interpretation does affect the way that
I think, and it’s probably having a similar effect of Elfyn,
as well.
|
[110]
Felly, ar y diffyg dealltwriaeth yma,
Elfyn, a wyt ti’n credu ei fod e’n waeth yn nhermau
Cymru i gymharu efo’r Alban a gwasanaeth sifil Gogledd
Iwerddon, neu a ydy’r cymaint o ddiffyg dealltwriaeth hefyd
yn berthnasol i’r Alban a Gogledd Iwerddon ag ydyw i
Gymru?
|
So, on this lack of understanding, Elfyn, do
you believe that it’s worse in Wales’s case as compared
to Scotland and the civil service in Northern Ireland, or is there
the same lack of understanding in relation to Scotland and Northern
Ireland as there is in relation to Wales?
|
[111]
Mr Llwyd: Cyn ateb y cwestiwn hynny, wrth gwrs,
mae’n rhaid i ni edrych ar sefyllfa ddatganoledig y ddwy wlad
arall. Yn yr Alban, wrth gwrs, mae yna system gyfreithiol wedi bod
yna ers canrifoedd. Mae yna system addysg ers canrifoedd, a llawer
i wasanaeth arall wedi ei ddatganoli ers blynyddoedd lawer, yn
ôl i 1707 ac yn y blaen. Yn yr un modd, wrth gwrs,
mae’r Stormont wedi bod ar ei draed—a ddim ar ei draed,
ac ar ei draed, a ddim ar ei draed—ers degawdau a
chenedlaethau hefyd. Felly, yn erbyn y cefndir hwnnw, rydych
chi’n gorfod edrych ar ble rydym ni rŵan, y
ddemocratiaeth newydd yma yng Nghymru. Oedd, mi oedd yna swyddfa
Gymreig, ond nid yw’n ddim byd tebyg i’r ddemocratiaeth
newydd sydd yn yr adeilad yma.
|
Mr
Llwyd: Before I answer that question, of course,
we have to look at the situation of the other two devolved nations.
In Scotland, there’s been a separate legal system for many
centuries. They’ve had their own education system also for
centuries, and a number of other services have been devolved, going
back to 1707. Likewise, Stormont has been up and running—and
not up and running, and so on and so forth—for many decades
and generations. So, against that backdrop, you have to look at
where we are now as a new democracy here in Wales. Yes, there was a
Welsh Office, but it’s nothing like the new democracy in this
building.
|
[112]
Felly, i ateb eich cwestiwn chi, rydw
i’n meddwl bod y gwledydd eraill wedi cael gwell cyfle i
gyd-drafod ac i geisio sicrhau bod y ddwy ochr, os caf i
ddefnyddio’r term yna, yn deall ei gilydd, ac ein bod ni
rŵan megis dechrau fel gwirionedd. Ond yn erbyn hynny,
mae’n rhaid i mi ddweud hefyd, fod gwledydd—. Wel, pan
roeddwn i ar y Pwyllgor Dethol Cyfiawnder, rhan o’n gwaith
ni oedd sicrhau llywodraethu
da yn y tiriogaethau tramor megis Ynysoedd y Sianel, Ynys Manaw, ac
yn y blaen. Mi es i yno sawl tro. Roedd un o uwch-gyfreithwyr
Jersey, neu’r prif gyfreithiwr, yn cwyno yn ofnadwy rhyw dro
eu bod nhw’n danfon Mesurau drafft i Lundain a’u bod
nhw’n diflannu lawr rhyw dwll diwaelod. Wrth gwrs, beth oedd
yn gwneud pethau’n waeth iddyn nhw, oedd bod economïau
Ynysoedd y Sianel, i raddau helaeth a dweud y gwir, yn dibynnu ar y
farchnad arian, buddsoddiadau, ac yn y blaen. Fel yr ydym ni i gyd
yn gwybod, pan fyddwch chi’n gwneud newid yn y maes hwnnw,
mae’n rhaid i chi ei wneud o yn gyflym, neu rydych
chi’n mynd i golli unrhyw fantais ar y farchnad fyd-eang, ac
yn y blaen.
|
So, to answer your question, I do think that
the other nations have had a better opportunity to discuss and to
ensure that both sides, if I can use that term, do understand each
other, and that we are just at the starting point now. But, I
should also say that—. Well, when I was a member of the
Justice Select Committee, part of our remit was to ensure good
governance in the foreign territories, such as the Channel Islands,
the Isle of Man, and so forth. I visited them on a number of
occasions. One of the chief lawyers in Jersey complained bitterly
on one occasion that they would send draft Bills to London and they
would disappear down some black hole. Of course, what made things
worse for them was that the economies of the Channel Islands to a
great extent were reliant on the financial markets, investments,
and so on. We all know that, when you make changes in that area,
you have to do it swiftly or you’re going to lose any
benefits in terms of the global market, and so on.
|
[113]
Felly, mae yna sawl enghraifft lle
maen nhw, yn y blynyddoedd diwethaf yma, wedi gorfod cyfreitha
hefyd, lle nad ydyn nhw’n cael cyd-ddealltwriaeth briodol efo
San Steffan.
|
So, there are a number of examples where they,
over the past few years, have had to go to law, where they
don’t actually see that appropriate joint understanding with
Westminster.
|
[114]
Dai Lloyd: Sut wyt ti’n credu, felly, y gallem ni
newid y sefyllfa yma?
|
Dai Lloyd: So, how do you believe we
could change this situation?
|
[115]
Mr Llwyd: Wel, rydw i’n meddwl bod angen rhagor-.
Buaswn i’n tybio y byddai’n beth da iawn i gael
seminarau cyd-rhwng gweision sifil Llywodraeth Cymru a’r
Cynulliad yma a Llundain, a bod yna drafodaethau selog, aml rhwng
unigolion fel eu bod nhw’n deall ei gilydd, a bod yna amser
priodol yn cael ei roi i mewn i bethau fel hyn, ac yn dwyn i mewn
pobl ddysgedig yn y maes, megis pobl sydd yn UCL, a hefyd bobl fel
yr Athro Richard Wyn Jones, ac yn y blaen, er mwyn symud ymlaen ac
er mwyn sicrhau bod pobl yn deall beth ydy rôl yr
unigolion—eto, os caf i ei ddefnyddio fo—ar y ddwy
ochr.
|
Mr Llwyd: Well, I would have thought
that it would be very positive to have joint seminars between civil
servants in the Welsh Government and the Assembly and civil
servants in London, and that there were regular discussions between
individuals so that they understand each other, and that
appropriate time is given to these kinds of initiatives, bringing
in people who are learned in this area, such as those at UCL and,
of course, people like Professor Richard Wyn Jones, and so on, so
that we can move forward and ensure that people understand the role
of the individuals on both sides, if I can use that term again.
|
[116]
Ychydig iawn o hynny sydd wedi
digwydd. Rydym ni’n gwybod, er enghraifft, fod yna system o
ddirprwyo a bod pobl yn mynd o Gaerdydd i San Steffan am gyfnod ac
yn y blaen, ac nid ydw i’n siŵr ei fod yn gweithio yn y
ffordd arall. Ond y perig efo hynny ydy, wrth gwrs, mai arferion
San Steffan sy’n cael eu dysgu, os mai dyna’r ffordd
briodol o’i roi o. Rydw i’n sicr bod yna lawer i
arferiad da yn San Steffan, ond cwestiynu ydw i a ydy nhw’n
addas ar gyfer y ddeddfwrfa arbennig yma. Yn anffodus, nid ydw
i’n meddwl eu bod nhw.
|
There’s been very little of that
happening. We do know that there is a system of secondments and
that people do go from Cardiff to Westminster. I’m not sure
if it happens vice versa, but the danger there is that the
practices taught are those of Westminster, if that’s the
appropriate way to put it. I am certain that there is much good
practice in Westminster, but I would question whether it is
appropriate for this particular legislature. Unfortunately, I
don’t think it is.
|
[117]
Felly, mae angen trawsnewid y ffordd
y mae’r cysylltiad yn digwydd. Mae angen, yn fy marn i, cael
pobl i ddod i nabod ei gilydd a nabod eu ffyrdd, a nabod y ffordd y
maen nhw’n gweithio, er mwyn symud ymlaen i sicrhau ein bod
ni’n gallu gwneud y gorau dros Gymru trwy’r
ddemocratiaeth newydd sydd yn y fan hon.
|
So, we do need to transform the way in which
the link is made. In my view, we need to get people to know each
other and to know their ways, and to know how they work, in order
to move forward and ensure that we do our best for Wales through
this new democracy that we have in this place.
|
[118]
Dai Lloyd: Diolch. Wel, yn dilyn hynny, hefyd yn dy bapur
rwyt ti’n dweud bod angen amynedd er mwyn newid diwylliant.
Pa mor sicr wyt ti bod modd newid y diwylliant o gofio mai prin
fu’r newid dros yr 20 mlynedd diwethaf?
|
Dai Lloyd: Thank you. Following on from
that, also in your paper you say that patience is required to
change culture. How certain are you that that culture change can
happen when there seems to have been such little change in 20
years?
|
[119]
Mr Llwyd: Wel, nid ydw i ddim yn berson amyneddgar,
mae’n rhaid i mi gyfaddef. Er fy mod i’n licio pysgota,
mae fy ngwraig i’n methu deall sut ydw i’n gallu
pysgota a minnau efo cyn lleied o amynedd. Ond i ateb y cwestiwn
yna, wrth gwrs mae’n mynd i gymryd amser, ond drwy gymryd
mesurau, am wn i, tebyg i’r hyn yr oeddwn i’n ei
grybwyll rŵan, fel bod yna well gysylltiad rhwng Llundain a
Chaerdydd a bod yna fwy o ddelio yn bersonol, os liciwch chi,
buasai hynny’n help. Nid ydy 20 mlynedd i newid diwylliant yn
ddim, nac ydy? Nid ydy o’n ddim. Nid ydy o’n syndod i
mi nad oes lot wedi digwydd. Ond mae’n bryd i rywbeth
ddigwydd mewn gwirionedd, ond amser y ddengys. Ond rydw i’n
eithaf sicr, i newid diwylliant, nad yw 20 mlynedd yn llawer o
amser.
|
Mr Llwyd: Well, I’m not a patient
person, I have to admit. I do enjoy fishing, but my wife simply
can’t understand how I can enjoy fishing when I have so
little patience. But to answer that question, of course it’s
going to take time, but by taking steps such as the ones I’ve
just mentioned, in relation to better engagement between London and
Cardiff and more personal interaction, that would be of assistance.
Because 20 years in terms of culture change is nothing at all, is
it? It’s no surprise to me that little has happened, but it
is time for something to happen now. Time will tell, of course, how
things will develop, but I am quite sure that, in terms of culture
change, 20 years is no time at all.
|
[120]
Dai Lloyd: Wel, y cwestiwn olaf oddi wrthyf i: hefyd yn dy
bapur rwyt ti’n dweud—fel yr wyt ti wedi crybwyll
eisoes—y dylid darparu hyfforddiant gwell i weision sifil. A
wyt ti eisiau ymhelaethu ar ryw weledigaeth yn y fan
yna?
|
Dai Lloyd: Well, the final question
from me: also in your paper—and you’ve already
mentioned this—you say that better training should be
provided for civil servants. Could you expand on your vision in
that regard?
|
[121]
Mr Llwyd: A gaf i bwysleisio rŵan hyn nad ydw i ddim
yn golygu sarhad na bwrw sen ar unrhyw was sifil yng Nghaerdydd?
Nid dyna’r bwriad o’r hyn yr ydw i wedi’i ddweud.
Beth rydw i’n trio dweud ydy hyn: er mwyn sicrhau bod gennym
ni dimoedd o weision sifil cymwys—ac mae yna amryw ohonyn nhw
yma’n barod, rydw i’n gwybod—ond er mwyn sicrhau
at y dyfodol fod gennym ni broffesiwn o’r fath, sef, gweision
sifil Cymreig a Chymraeg yma yng Nghymru, rydw i’n meddwl ei
bod hi’n hanfodol ein bod ni’n cael—. Er
enghraifft, petasai yna gwpl o brifysgolion yng Nghymru yma’n
dod at ei gilydd a gwneud bid am arian a chreu cwrs gweision sifil
Cymreig, a thrwy hynny yn creu dyfodol i bobl fel eu bod
nhw’n gyfforddus, yn aros yno o’r dechrau i’r
diwedd, ac nid efallai yn cael eu secondio yma ac acw. Mae eu
dulliau gweithredu nhw yn y fan hyn yn wahanol, am wn i, i bob
deddfwrfa arall yn ynysoedd Prydain. Felly, mae’n briodol i
gael rhywun felly.
|
Mr Llwyd: May I emphasise at this point
that I don’t mean to insult any civil servant in Cardiff?
That was certainly not my intention. What I am saying is this: if
we are to ensure that we have teams of qualified civil
servants—and I know that there are many of them here
already—but in order to ensure that, for the future, we do
have such a profession in place, namely a Welsh civil service here
in Wales, then I think it’s crucial that we have—. For
example, if a few universities in Wales were to come together and
make a bid for money and create a course for Welsh civil servants,
thereby they could create a future for individuals so that they can
see a career path from start to end, rather than being seconded
here, there and everywhere. The modus operandi here is different, I
would suppose, to every other legislature in the British Isles.
Therefore, it’s appropriate to have someone like that.
|
[122]
Un arall o’r pethau roeddwn i
wastad yn rhygnu ymlaen amdano fo oedd bod angen i rywun mewn rhyw
brifysgol yng Nghymru gadw rhyw fath o gatalog o’r Deddfau
newydd. Rwy’n practisio
fel bargyfreithiwr mewn cyfraith teulu. Os nad ydych chi’n
ymwybodol o’r cyfreithiau Cymreig, nid ydych yn mynd i allu
gweithredu. Os caf i ddweud hefyd, mae’r Ddeddf, y
well-being Act, yn llawer mwy defnyddiol ac, i mi, yn llawer
gwell o ran rheoleiddio nac ydy hi i’n cyfeillion dros y
ffin. Mae hwnnw’n cael ei gydnabod fel darn o waith da iawn,
os caf i ddweud, tra rwyf yma.
|
Another thing that I constantly went on about
was that there was a need for someone in some university in Wales
to keep some sort of catalogue of the new legislation. I am a
practising barrister in family. If you are not aware of the Welsh
laws, then you are not going to be able to operate effectively. If
I may also say, the well-being Act is far more useful and, for me,
is a far better regulator than exists across the border. It is
recognised as a very good piece of work, if I may say that, while I
am here.
|
[123]
Felly, rwy’n meddwl ei bod
hi’n bwysig iawn i gael y cwrs yna wedi’i deilwra yn
arbennig ar gyfer creu proffesiwn gwasanaeth sifil Cymreig a
Chymraeg. Os caf i ddweud hefyd, mae gennyf sawl cyfaill yn y ddau
Dŷ yn Llundain sy’n cytuno, er eu bod mewn pleidiau
eraill. Ac mi fedraf ddweud wrthych ar goedd bod yr Arglwydd John
Morris yn gryf o blaid hyn hefyd. Rwy’n meddwl bod yr amser
wedi dod rŵan i geisio perswadio rhywun i greu’r cwrs
hwn.
|
So, I think it is very important to have that
kind of course in place that would be tailored in order to create a
Welsh civil service. If I may also say, I have a number of friends
and colleagues in both Houses in London who would agree with me,
although they are members of other parties. And I can tell you on
the record that Lord John Morris is strongly in favour of this as
well. I think that the time has come now to try to persuade someone
to create this course.
|
[124]
Roedd yna sôn am greu catalog o
Ddeddfau—mae hynny yn digwydd yng Nghaerdydd, a diolch amdano
fo. Mae’n bwysig eu bod nhw’n gwneud. Ond, wrth gwrs,
mae hynny’n mynd â fi ymlaen at ryw bwnc arall rwyf
wedi bod yn dadlau amdano fo. Rwyf wedi bod o flaen y pwyllgor yma
o’r blaen yn sôn am—mae’r cyn-Gadeirydd yn
fanna yn edrych arnaf i—gael system gyfreithiol i Gymru.
Mater o amser ydy hwnnw. Mae’n siŵr o ddod. Mae’n
rhaid iddo fo ddod. Y cwestiwn ydy pryd?
|
There was talk about creating a catalogue of
Acts—that does take place in Cardiff, thank goodness. It is
important that they do. But, of course, that takes me on to another
issue that I’ve been arguing about. I have appeared before
this committee in the past discussing—and the former Chair
there is looking at me—getting a separate legal jurisdiction
for Wales. That’s a matter of time. It has to come. The
question is when?
|
[125]
Ond, i ateb eich cwestiwn ar beth
ddylai ddigwydd—ac nid wy’n bwrw sen ar unrhyw was
sifil: creu proffesiwn gwasanaeth sifil Cymreig y bydd pobl yn
falch o fynd iddo fo a bod ynddo fo ar hyd eu hoes, os liciwch chi,
a dringo i fyny’r ysgol, fel mae amser yn rhoi cyfle iddyn
nhw.
|
But, to answer your question on what should
happen—and I don’t mean to insult any civil servant in
saying this: we need to create a Welsh civil service that people
would be proud to enter and to see a career path developing for
them and climbing up the ladder as time progresses.
|
[126]
Dai Lloyd: Diolch yn fawr. Diolch, Gadeirydd.
|
Dai Lloyd: Thank you. Thank You,
Chair.
|
[127] Huw
Irranca-Davies: Just on that, Elfyn, the issue of a training
vehicle with the universities or elsewhere for a Welsh civil
service, does a similar entity exist, to your knowledge, at the
moment, in Scotland or elsewhere?
|
[128] Mr Llwyd:
Not to my knowledge in Scotland. I don’t know about Northern
Ireland, I must be honest. But I think it is overdue because the
way things happen here—my perception is it’s slightly
different from other countries within the UK. Therefore, you need
to have it tailored to your end. I’m sure, given the number
of good universities that we have in Wales, that if two of them
have the—how can I put it—vision to do it, I’m
sure it would be a very, very positive step forward. I’m sure
it would attract funding as well, and I’m sure it would
attract good students in no time at all.
|
[129] Huw
Irranca-Davies: That’s very interesting. Could I ask,
Elfyn, in your submission to us, which we’re very grateful
for, you touched on this issue of the ‘we know
best’—as I think you phrased it in your
paper—attitude in the corridors of Westminster. One of the
things that we’ve had raised in our citizens
panel—we’ve pulled together half a dozen people of
different backgrounds to discuss this—they’ve raised
the issue of mutual respect, which they would like to see, which
they would assume existed. What is your take on the levels of
respect between institutions, as it is today?
|
[130] Mr Llwyd:
It’s nothing like equality of respect, and that’s what
it should be. After all’s said and done, it’s a form of
partnership. Devolution is a form of partnership, isn’t it?
But it’s not peculiar to Wales, I have to say. I referred in
passing to the Channel Islands and I’m sure there are
considerable misgivings in the Isle of Man as well. So, the
conclusion that I come to is that you may get some individuals in
Westminster who might buy into the idea of being helpful, but
you’ll get many more who will not. I regret saying that, but
I think it’s true. From my experience, I have seen it. I
wouldn’t say that people were intentionally putting the brake
on matters, but they certainly weren’t trying to move matters
forward in good time, as it were.
|
15:45
|
[131] Huw
Irranca-Davies: So, with your long experience, if one of the
models that you would suggest in terms of the civil service might
well indeed be a Welsh school of civil service, what sort of
mechanisms would you put in place, beyond the relying on the luck
of the individual—the right individuals coming
forward—to ensure that that greater understanding between
Ministers, between Government Ministers, actually happened on a
more regular basis?
|
[132] Mr Llwyd:
Yes, well, I’m of the opinion that—. I would be
delighted, first of all, if that were to happen—that we have
that school for civil servants—but that then—. You
raised the question of liaison between Government Ministers. I
think it’s vital that there should be liaison between
Government Ministers as well, because we all know—and putting
it in the vernacular, if you like—if you know the face on the
other side of the phone, it’s very often easier to get things
done. There is no reason at all why there should not be regular
meetings between Ministers who carry similar briefs in London, in
Cardiff and, indeed, elsewhere. I think, again, that that is a
problem because it doesn’t seem—. People are almost in
silos, and they’re not actually disseminating their
information, but nor are they accepting information from other
places. So, there needs to be a better flow—a better
dialogue, it seems to me, anyway—between this side of the M4
and the other side.
|
[133] Huw
Irranca-Davies: I wouldn’t want to pre-empt some dialogue
we might get into in a moment, but there are some mechanisms to do
that already. If you look on a sheet of paper, and I said to my
colleagues here, ‘Give me one page of A4 on the mechanisms
that currently exist to make sure that that inter-governmental,
inter-ministerial engagement happens’, then we could cite off
the ways in which it could happen and should happen. We have the
JMCs, and we have—at least on paper—the bilaterals, and
this and that—
|
[134] Mr Llwyd:
Yes, and we also have the British-Irish parliamentary body, and I
served on it for five or seven years, or whatever it was.
|
[135] Huw
Irranca-Davies: Indeed.
|
[136] Mr Llwyd:
In a way, yes, that’s fine, but I think you need a more
structured approach, to be honest. Because it’s all very well
meeting friends from Ireland, Isle of Man and all of the other
constituent parts of the UK every now and then. That’s good,
but I think you need a more structured, regular dialogue so that
things don’t actually disappear under the radar
unintentionally.
|
[137] Huw
Irranca-Davies: Just one more follow-up there before I bring in
Dafydd here. Whatever that mechanism is of meeting—or
mechanisms of regular meeting—whether it’s on themes or
major constitutional issues, how much of it, do you think, should
be to do with just running the thing, the maintenance of our
constitutional arrangements, as opposed to—? We had an
interesting session here earlier, where we were talking about the
role of these mechanisms to actually show leadership as well, to be
slightly ahead of the game, to anticipate where there might be
problems and to put in place things that would resolve those
problems before they happen, including on constitutional things?
Would you see this inter-governmental, inter-ministerial dialogue
as simply being maintenance of or leadership of?
|
[138] Mr Llwyd:
I would see both, in a way, but more importantly leadership of, and
hopefully, building towards the future by getting a good dialogue
by coming to better understandings. For example, there are many
subjects, aren’t there, that are cross-border and would
affect a person, whichever side of Offa’s Dyke he or she
resides? It’s important that we do have that close dialogue
on those things. I think, in terms of leadership, merely oiling the
wheels I don’t think is good enough, because that’s
really like the status quo I described. The British-Irish
Inter-parliamentary Body was a fine body to be a part of, but it
hasn’t left a great deal for us to build on, to be honest.
There are some important debates, obviously, in every sitting, but
it doesn’t leave a lasting, huge amount of—how can I
put it? It doesn’t actually assist in terms of any sort of
leadership or anything else, I don’t think.
|
[139] Huw
Irranca-Davies: Okay. Dafydd, over to you.
|
[140]
Yr Arglwydd
Elis-Thomas: Diolch yn
fawr, Gadeirydd. A diolch yn fawr i ti am ymddangos gerbron y
pwyllgor yma unwaith eto. A gaf i ddweud bod gennym ni ddiddordeb
arbennig yn y berthynas rhwng adroddiadau sydd yn cael eu
cynhyrchu, rhai ohonyn nhw’n cael eu comisiynu gan Lywodraeth
y Deyrnas Unedig, a rhai ohonyn nhw yn deillio o’r fan hyn, a
sut mae hynny’n dylanwadu ar y broses? Rwy’n sôn
am gomisiwn Silk i ddechrau. Beth ydy dy olwg di ar y modd y
gwnaeth Llywodraeth a Senedd y Deyrnas Unedig ymdrin
â’r adroddiad yma a’r canlyniadau a
gafwyd?
|
Lord Elis-Thomas: Thank you very much,
Chair. And thank you for appearing before this committee once
again. May I say that we have a particular interest in the
relationship between reports that are produced, some of them
commissioned by the United Kingdom Government, and some of them
emanating from this place, and how that influences the process?
I’m talking about the Silk commission initially here. What is
your view of the way in which the UK Government and Parliament
dealt with this report and the results that stemmed from it?
|
[141]
Mr Llwyd: Wel, mae’n rhaid imi ddatgan siom, a dweud
y gwir, achos mi oedd adroddiad Silk yn waith da iawn, wedi cymryd
blynyddoedd o gymryd tystiolaeth, o feddwl—lot fawr o feddwl
y tu ôl iddo fo—ac mae jest derbyn rhai agweddau, rhai
darnau ohono fo’n sy’n gyfleus—nid wyf yn meddwl
bod hynny’n gwneud cyfiawnder â’r cyfanwaith mewn
gwirionedd. Mi oedd yna bethau yn Silk y dylid bod wedi eu
datganoli, yn fy marn i. Roedd yna dipyn bach o——nid
oedd hi’n gwbl glir, cyn belled ag y mae’r system
gyfreithiol—awgrym y dylai hi ddod o fewn hyn a hyn o amser.
Ond yr heddlu, er enghraifft—mae’n hen bryd i’r
heddlu, ac amryw bethau eraill—. Ac wedyn, jest i dynnu rhai
pethau allan a’u rhoid nhw mewn Deddf a symud ymlaen a gadael
y gweddill, nid wyf yn meddwl bod hynny wedi gwneud cyfiawnder
â’r pwyllgor yna, y comisiwn yna, o ystyried yr holl
waith a wnaethpwyd yn ystod y misoedd os nad blynyddoedd pan oedden
nhw’n cymryd tystiolaeth ac yn penderfynu arni hi.
|
Mr Llwyd: Well, I must express some
disappointment, if truth be told, because the Silk commission
report was a very good piece of work, having taken a number of
years in terms of evidence-gathering, and thought—there was a
great deal of thought underpinning it—and just accepting
certain aspects, certain sections that may be convenient—I
don’t think that that does justice to the work as a whole, if
truth be told. There were things in Silk that should have been
devolved, in my view. There was a little bit of a—it
wasn’t entirely clear in terms of the legal
jurisdiction—but there was a suggestion that it should come
after a period of time. But the police, for
example—it’s about time the police and a number of
other things were devolved. So, just to cherry-pick certain parts
and place them in legislation and move on and leave the rest, I
don’t think that that did justice to the work of that
committee, that commission, given all the work put into it over the
months and years that they gathered evidence and to decide on
it.
|
[142]
Yr Arglwydd
Elis-Thomas: A beth am y
broses ryfedd, ddamweiniol yma, i’m golwg i, sef proses Dydd
Gŵyl Dewi?
|
Lord Elis-Thomas: And what about that
strange, accidental process, in my view, the St David’s Day
process?
|
[143]
Mr Llwyd: O, ie.
|
Mr Llwyd: Oh, yes.
|
[144]
Yr Arglwydd
Elis-Thomas: Beth oedd yr
ymwneud ag arweinydd seneddol Plaid Cymru yn y sefyllfa
yna?
|
Lord Elis-Thomas: What was your role as
parliamentary leader of Plaid Cymru in that situation?
|
[145]
Mr Llwyd: Wel, roeddem ni’n cyfarfod bob wythnos i
10 diwrnod. Roedd yna gynrychiolydd o bob un plaid yn San Steffan,
ac roeddem ni’n mynd trwy—ymlaen llaw, byddem
ni’n cael dogfennau yn sôn am y meysydd y byddem ni am
eu trafod ar y diwrnod hwnnw. Ac wedyn, roeddem ni’n cyfarfod
a mynd trwyddyn nhw, a phawb yn rhoid ei
farn—’Rwy’n meddwl y dylid datganoli
hwn’—ac roedd y ddadl yn mynd ymlaen. Lle yr oedd
hi’n ddiddorol, wrth gwrs, oedd bod o leiaf un blaid yn
dweud, ‘Wel, yn ystod y trafodaethau hynny, nid ydym ni, er
enghraifft, am weld datganoli’r heddlu’, ac wedyn, dyna
arweinydd Cymreig y blaid honno yn gafael yn ei ben pan glywodd o
fod ei gynrychiolydd o wedi dweud ‘na’. Ond mater bach
ydy hwnnw, mae’n debyg, i ryw fath o gofnod hanesyddol ryw
dro.
|
Mr Llwyd: Well, we met every week to 10
days. There was a representative from every party at Westminster,
and we went through—beforehand, we would receive documents
telling us which areas we were to discuss on any particular day,
and then we’d meet and go through them, and everyone would
express their views and say, ‘Well, I think this should be
devolved’, and the debate would move on. Where it became
interesting, of course, was that at least one party was saying,
‘Well, during the negotiations, we’re not content to
see the devolution of policing’, and then the Welsh leader of
that particular party had his head in his hands when he heard that
his representative had said ‘no’. But that’s a
minor issue, I suppose, for some kind of historical record at some
point in the future.
|
[146]
Proses ryfedd, mewn ffordd, ond mynd
trwy bob un maes efo potensial i gael ei ddatganoli, pawb yn
lleisio ei farn, ac wedyn, nid oedd hi ddim cweit yn mynd i
bleidlais fel yna, felly, ond nid oedd hi ddim yn bell ohoni. Os
oedd yna unfrydedd, wel, wrth gwrs, roedd o’n mynd yn ei
flaen.
|
It was a strange process, in a way, in that we
would go through every area where there was potential for
devolution, everyone would express their view, and then it
didn’t quite go to a vote by show of hands, but it
wasn’t far off. If there was unanimity, then, of course, it
would move ahead.
|
[147]
Yr Arglwydd
Elis-Thomas: Ac os oedd hi
fel yna? [Chwerthin.]
|
Lord Elis-Thomas: And if it was a
thumbs down? [Laughter.]
|
[148]
Mr Llwyd: Wel, ie, roedd hi’n wirioneddol Rufeinig,
os dywedwn ni hi fel yna, ac mi oedd adegau pan oedd yna rannu barn
yn llwyr, ac wedyn dod yn ôl a cheisio unfrydedd fel y buasai
unrhyw bwyllgor dethol, os liciwch chi, gan geisio unfrydedd yr
wythnos wedyn. Mi oedd yn broses go rhyfedd, a dweud y gwir,
mae’n rhaid cyfaddef, ond beth oedd yn bwysig, wrth gwrs,
oedd bod pawb yn—. Ac nid oeddem ni, yn od iawn, ddim i fod i
adrodd yn ôl i’n pleidiau nes ein bod ni wedi
cwblhau’r broses. A dyna i chi beth od oedd hynny, a dweud y
gwir, achos digon hawdd oedd hi i ryw greadur fel fi gael y sac pe
buaswn i’n dweud y peth anghywir.
|
Mr Llwyd: Well, yes, it was truly Roman
in that sense, if we can put it like that, and there were times
when there was complete disagreement, and then we would come back
and try to seek agreement the following week, as any select
committee may do. It was a strange process, if truth be told, I
have to admit, but what was important, of course, was that
everybody—. And, strangely, we were asked not to report back
to our parties until the process had been completed. And that was
very strange indeed, because it would be very easy for someone like
me to be sacked if I said the wrong thing.
|
[149]
Yr Arglwydd
Elis-Thomas: O, mae wedi
digwydd i ambell un ohonom ni. [Chwerthin.]
|
Lord Elis-Thomas: Well, it’s
happened to some of us. [Laughter.]
|
[150]
Mr Llwyd: Mae’n ddrwg gen i. Nid oeddwn i’n
trio mynd i lawr y ffordd yna. [Chwerthin.]
|
Mr Llwyd: I’m sorry. I
wasn’t going down that particular route by making those
comments. [Laughter.]
|
[151]
Yr Arglwydd
Elis-Thomas: Na, na.
[Chwerthin.]
|
Lord Elis-Thomas: No, no.
[Laughter.]
|
[152]
Mr Llwyd: Ond mi oedd yn beth od, achos, os ydych
chi’n meddwl, roedd hi’n bwysig iawn bod y ffynonellau
cydrhwng y pleidiau Cymreig, os caf i eu galw nhw felly, a’r
pleidiau Llundeinig yn gwbl agored trwy’r amser, ond dim ond
tua diwedd y broses yr oedd yna gymell ar bobl i drafod yr hyn yr
oeddem ni wedi dod i gael, ŷch chi’n gwybod, cydsyniad
arno fo, felly, sy’n broses ddigon rhyfedd, a dweud y
gwir.
|
Mr Llwyd: But it was very strange, if
you think about it, because it was important for the sources
between the Welsh parties, if I can call them that, and those in
the London parties to be completely open at all times, but it was
only towards the end of the process that people were encouraged to
discuss those issues on which we had agreed, which is a very
strange process, if truth be told.
|
[153]
Yr Arglwydd
Elis-Thomas: Rwyf i yn
gwerthfawrogi’r dadansoddiad cliriaf rwyf erioed wedi’i
gael o’r broses yma, sydd yn awgrymu i mi na allwn ni ddim
trystio neb byth o San Steffan i wneud dim byd efo datganoli yn y
dyfodol. Efallai bod hynny’n rhy eithafol.
|
Lord Elis-Thomas: I appreciate what is
the clearest analysis I’ve ever had of this process, which
suggests to me that we can’t ever trust anyone from
Westminster to do anything with regard to devolution in the future.
Perhaps that is too extreme.
|
[154]
Mr Llwyd: Nid wyf yn siŵr os ydy o, achos os gwnewch
chi edrych ar y Ddeddf Cymru diwethaf yma, nid ydy o yn beth
rŷm ni ei eisiau, mewn gwirionedd, os caf i fod yn hy.
Mae yna lawer o ddiffygion ynddi, ac rwy’n siŵr y bydd
rhaid deddfu maes o law eto, i glirio.
|
Mr Llwyd: I am not sure that it is,
because if you look at the most recent Wales Act, it’s
certainly not what we wanted, if I can be bold. There are a great
many weaknesses and I do think that we will need to legislate again
in due course again in order to clear things up.
|
[155]
Yr Arglwydd
Elis-Thomas: Roeddwn yn
mynd i ofyn am hynny nesaf, oherwydd mae’n fy nharo i
ynglŷn â’r Deddfau rŷm ni wedi’u cael
yn 2014 a 2017 bod eu ffurfiau wedi gwella, yn enwedig bod gennym
ni symud oddi wrth bwerau wedi’u gosod i bwerau wedi’u
cadw yn y canol—felly, bod y lleill, mewn egwyddor a
phosibilrwydd, yn ddatganoledig. Ond gan bod yr eithriadau
yna—a bûm i wrthi’n ddu-las yn trio
dadlau’r dadleuon yma a dweud y gwir—mae syniad yma bod
model datganoli i Gymru yn fodel rŵan sydd yn debyg i’r
Alban a Gogledd Iwerddon, ond mae cynnwys y model yn filltiroedd
gwahanol.
|
Lord Elis-Thomas: I was going to ask
about that next, because it strikes me that, with regard to the
legislation that we’ve had in 2014 and 2017, their formats
have improved, especially in that we’ve seen a move away from
conferred to reserved powers—therefore, that the others in
principle and possibly are devolved. But because these reservations
exist—and I’ve been trying to put these arguments
forward until I’m blue in the face with regard to these
issues—there is this idea that the model of devolution for
Wales is a model now that is similar to Scotland and Northern
Ireland, but the content of the model is miles apart.
|
[156]
Mr Llwyd: Ydy. Ac i’r rheini—nid wyf yn
cynnwys neb yn y fan hyn—sy’n meddwl bod problemau
megis gorfod mynd i’r Goruchaf Lys wedi gorffen oherwydd y
Ddeddf yma, wel, nid ydy o’n wir. Yn fy marn i, mae’n
mynd i ddigwydd eto. Mae yna bethau o fewn y Mesur yna sydd yn rhy
gymhleth ac rydych yn dal mewn sefyllfa—hyd yn oed pobl fel
ni, sydd wedi arfer â darllen Deddfau—lle bydd pobl yn
meddwl, ‘Ydy hwnnw wedi’i ddatganoli’n
llwyr?’. Yn fy marn i, gellid fod wedi gwneud rhywbeth llawer
symlach i gwrdd â’r anghenion ac rwyf yn meddwl yn sicr
y bydd rhaid, yn anffodus, deddfu eto yn ystod y blynyddoedd nesaf,
beth bynnag ddaw o Brexit.
|
Mr Llwyd: Yes. And for those—and
I don’t include anyone here—who think that problems
such as having to go to the Supreme Court will be a thing of
the past because of this legislation, well, that’s certainly
not the case. In my view, it’s bound to happen again. There
are things within that Act that are far too complex and you are
still in a situation—even people like us, who are used to
reading Acts—where you’re asking, ‘Is that a
completely devolved matter?’. In my view, it could have been
done in a far simpler way in order to meet the needs and I
certainly feel that, unfortunately, we will have to legislate again
over the next few years, whatever emerges as a result of
Brexit.
|
[157]
Yr Arglwydd
Elis-Thomas: A dyna oedd
fy nghwestiwn olaf—
|
Lord Elis-Thomas: And that was my final
question—
|
[158] Huw
Irranca-Davies: I was just going to say, before you continue, I
wonder if I can ask, on the process of it—. Because our
committee produced its report on our views on the Wales Bill, but
the fascinating thing for us in terms of this inquiry is that, if
you were to go back to this—and we’re asking people who
were involved with it or who observed it at very close quarters and
in close combat with it—what would you do differently?
|
[159] It strikes me
that your description actually is very succinct and very vivid and
it’s probably the reality, as we go forward as well, because
we’ll have an ideal, and the Silk commission in a sense came
out with an ideal of where we should be going. And yet, then there
are many, many layers of political sieves that that have to be
dripped through and each level catches something. It could be even
different levels within the same party, as you alluded to. Is there
a way in which, when we do constitutional reform—if there is
another opportunity to do constitutional reform in the set up that
we currently understand the UK to be—is there a way that it
could be done differently, which would capture some of the original
nuggets of what was put forward by something that tried to stand
above politics for all, but then got caught through those different
sieves until all that was left was the rare nuggets? Is there a
different way in the process?
|
[160] Elfyn
Llwyd: I think there must be, because otherwise we’ll be
back in a semi-fudge situation every five or six years. I would
argue that part of the way to unlock that is what I’ve said
about the Welsh civil service. But, more importantly, perhaps, is
the fact that the draft Wales Bill—the current one—came
out at rather a late stage, full, as Dafydd has said, of an
incredible number of exceptions and things that just, once more,
make it over-complicated, if I may put it that way. So, if you ask
me, ‘Is it possible?’, I am certain that civil servants
of the highest calibre in Westminster and in Cardiff are quite able
to produce legislation of a far more straightforward kind to
hopefully bring forth the nuggets, as you say, of the Silk
commission. The Silk commission itself, in one or two instances,
was saying that we were not quite ready for this or that, but the
time will come now when we will be ready for it, and surely
it’s not beyond the ken of anyone to be able to do
that—to produce and to bring forward something that does
reflect those nuggets, if you like.
|
[161] Huw
Irranca-Davies: Although what I’m suggesting to you is
that it might not be a different process. It might be the same
process, but done differently, in the sense that if you look at a
very practical illustration, something like policing, those closed
discussions that were happening, could have, in a different world,
in a parallel world, been resolved within that before the
announcement was made. It could have in a different world, but it
wasn’t. Something went wrong there.
|
[162] Mr Llwyd:
Yes, I take your point. I’m coming to your point
now—sorry, I might have gone off on a tangent. It
wasn’t a very good process, and Dafydd has speculated, with a
smile on his face, that perhaps it wasn’t, to use these
words, the cleverest of processes. Well, it wasn’t; it
clearly was not. And more to the point, it happened every week or
10 days, and this had to be done, that had to be done, because
there was the political—with a small ‘p’, or
maybe a large ‘p’—imperative of making an
announcement on St David’s Day. My view is that it should
have been St David’s Day of the year after to get it right.
That would have done. But what I would hope is that the next time
around—and there’s nothing wrong with legislation by
committee—two or three wise men from all the political
parties come together, and they transact these things over a period
of months, and not to be sworn to secrecy, but that that
matter—. We could even have those discussions out in the
open—not in a smoke-filled room, or a
whatever-it-was-filled-with room in Westminster down in the
dungeons there.
|
[163] Huw
Irranca-Davies: Even Westminster doesn’t have the smoking
room anymore, I understand.
|
[164] Mr Llwyd:
Not anymore.
|
[165] Huw
Irranca-Davies: Dafydd, my apologies, I interrupted.
|
[166] Lord
Elis-Thomas: It’s all right. It strikes me that the new
Bishop of St David’s, Bishop Joanna, a wonderful woman,
should preside over all of this at all times in the future.
|
[167]
Reit, un cwestiwn olaf. Lle ydyn
ni’n mynd rŵan, yn dy farn di, ynglŷn
â’r berthynas efo’r Undeb Ewropeaidd? Maen amlwg
bod hyn yn rhywbeth y mae’n rhaid i ni ei ystyried fel
pwyllgor. Maen ymddangos i mi, i roi’r peth yn gryno, bod
Llywodraeth yr Alban yn mynd i gynnal refferendwm i alluogi yr
Alban i wireddu eu penderfyniad yn y refferendwm ar yr Undeb
Ewropeaidd, a’r refferendwm blaenorol i raddau hefyd, sef eu
bod nhw yn gallu creu sefyllfa lle mae’r Alban yn parhau yn
rhan o’r Undeb Ewropeaidd drwy adael y Deyrnas Unedig. Mae
Gogledd Iwerddon wedi pleidleisio, yn annisgwyl i rai, ond nid mor
annisgwyl â hynny, dros barhau yn yr Undeb Ewropeaidd. Mae
hynny’n golygu y bydd y berthynas rhwng de a gogledd Iwerddon
o reidrwydd yn cryfhau y berthynas gyda’r Undeb Ewropeaidd,
ac mi fydd Cymru a Lloegr, yr hen uned frenhinol Duduraidd
draddodiadol yn rhedeg gweddill y Deyrnas Unedig. Felly, beth ydym
ni i fod i’w wneud rŵan, Llwyd?
|
One final question. Where are we going now, in
your opinion, with regard to this relationship with the European
Union? It is clear that this is something that we do have to
consider as a committee. It appears to me, to put it succinctly,
that the Scottish Government is going to hold a referendum to
enable Scotland to fulfil its decision on the referendum on the
European Union, and the previous referendum to some extent as well,
and that they can create a situation where Scotland continues to be
a part of the European Union by leaving the United Kingdom.
Northern Ireland has voted, unexpectedly for some, but not that
unexpectedly, I would think, to continue to be members of the
European Union. And that means that the relationship between the
north and south of Ireland will strengthen the relationship with
the European Union, and Wales and England, that old traditional
Tudor unit, will be running the remainder of the United Kingdom.
So, what are meant to do now, Llwyd?
|
[168]
Mr Llwyd: Esgob annwyl. Faint o oriau sydd gennym ni y
prynhawn yma? Yn syml iawn, y peth cyntaf ar y gorwel—.
Yn gyntaf oll, nid wyf yn cuddio’r ffaith fy mod yn
bryderus iawn am Brexit ac os ydy o yn mynd i ddigwydd neu beidio.
Byddwn yn gobeithio y gwnaiff o ddim, ond dyna fo, gobaith yw hynny
bellach, yn enwedig heddiw, gyda’r bleidlais yn mynd yn ei
blaen heno. Ond mae yna hefyd, buaswn i’n tybio, Dafydd,
gyfle i Gymru elwa. Ac wrth hynny, beth rwy’n meddwl yw y
bydd yna gyfrifoldebau—bydd rhan o gyd-gyfrifoldebau
Ewropeaidd yn dod yn ôl i San Steffan. Mae’n bryd
felly, yn fy marn i, beth bynnag, i ni fod yn effro i’r alwad
yna rŵan, ac i ofyn am y pethau yna i ddod yn eu holau i
Gymru, neu i ddod i Gymru. Mae amaeth yn un enghraifft amlwg, ond
mae yna lot o enghreifftiau eraill. A byddwn i yn
gobeithio—ac rwy’n amau dim—y byddai’r
Cynulliad Cenedlaethol a’r Llywodraeth fel ei gilydd yn gweld
hynny fel sialens er mwyn sicrhau ein bod ni’n cryfhau yr hyn
sy’n digwydd yn fan hyn drwy ddod â’r gwahanol
feysydd yna yn uniongyrchol yn ôl i Gymru, yn hytrach
na thrwy San Steffan unwaith eto.
Dyna’r ffordd rydw i’n ei gweld hi. Ac os ydy
hynny’n digwydd, yna mae o’n mynd i gryfhau’r hyn
sy’n digwydd yn y fan hyn, buaswn i’n
meddwl—dyfnhau democratiaeth Cymru. Felly, mae o’n
gyfle, ac rydw i’n siŵr bod yna ddigon o bobl o fewn y
sefyllfa yma yng Nghaerdydd yn effro i’r peth rŵan ac yn
gweithio arno fo. Ond, yn sicr, mae yna gyfle i’w wneud o,
rydw i’n meddwl. Liciwn i ddweud ei fod yn bosib i ni aros i
mewn, wrth gwrs, ond ni fedraf i weld hynny yn digwydd. Ni fedraf i
weld unrhyw broses gyfreithiol i hynny ddigwydd, gwaetha’r
modd, ond mae hi, serch hynny, rydw i’n meddwl, yn sialens y
dylem ni i gyd godi iddi hi. A mwya’n y byd y gwnawn ni
drafod hynny rŵan, yn y misoedd nesaf yma, gorau’n y
byd, rydw i’n meddwl.
|
Mr Llwyd: Well, how many hours do we
have to cover that question? Very simply, the first thing—.
First, I don’t hide my concern about Brexit, and whether it
happens of not. I would hope that it doesn’t, but that
perhaps is a forlorn hope, particularly today, with the vote
that’s taking place later this evening. But I would assume,
Dafydd, that there is also an opportunity for Wales to benefit. And
what I mean by that is that there will be joint European
responsibilities that will be repatriated to Westminster. Well,
it’s time for us, therefore, to be aware of that, and to
ensure that those things are repatriated to Wales, or come to
Wales. Agriculture is a prominent example, but there are a number
of other examples too. And I would hope—and I don’t
doubt that this is the case—that the National Assembly and
the Government would see that as a challenge to ensure that we do
strengthen this place by bringing those various areas of
responsibility directly back to Wales, rather than being swallowed
up by Westminster again. Well, that’s how I see it. And if
that does happen, then it will strengthen this place and it will
enhance Welsh democracy. Therefore it is an opportunity in that
regard, and I’m sure that there are plenty of people in
Cardiff who are aware of this and working on it. But, certainly, I
think there is a real opportunity to deliver it. I would like to
say that we may be able to remain in the European Union, but I
can’t see that happening. I can’t see that
there’s a legal process to allow that, unfortunately, but I
do think it’s a challenge that we should all respond to. And
the more we discuss that over the next few months, then the better
it’ll be, I think.
|
[169] Huw
Irranca-Davies: Very good, thank you. David.
|
[170] David
Melding: Thanks, Chair. Elfyn, I’d like to talk about
inter-parliamentary relations and, specifically, parliamentarians.
You’ve made some interesting remarks about how officials
could co-operate, but if you’re looking at
parliamentarians—. You referred to your former membership of
the British-Irish Parliamentary Body, as it was when you were a
member—’Association’ as it’s now
called—and I think it’s a fair summary of your views
that you found that interesting and that it would be a very
productive meeting, but it lacked a certain systematic, political
visionary element. I think that would fair.
|
[171] Mr Llwyd:
Yes.
|
[172] David
Melding: Do we need a body that has that heft? I mean, is that
what we should be aiming at, or is that too formal?
|
[173] Mr Llwyd:
I think we do need a body where Ministers can liaise and can gain
understanding and can appreciate each other’s different
standpoints. I think it’s imperative, really, that we
have—. And there is the council of
Ministers—what’s it called, the committee of Ministers,
or—? The Joint Ministerial Committee. But I think more work
needs to be done to enhance that because, for the future, it
becomes even more important, in my view. I’ll just say one
thing. I was on the British-Irish Parliamentary Body, and I
don’t know how it happened, but I was the main member and my
deputy was one Alex Salmond, and when I walked into the first
meeting, some of the Irish were beginning to think that I was
something special. Within five minutes they soon realised I
wasn’t, but anyway, Alex was rather busy, as he would say,
‘up the road’. To answer your question, I do think
that, yes, I see no reason why we shouldn’t have that body,
because it’s a good way of getting to know people, getting to
appreciate the problems, and so on and so forth. But I think there
is a need for more regular ministerial meetings, and that’s
not in any way to try and row back on any kind of
devolution—quite the reverse. It’s to row forward.
|
[174] David
Melding: So, if the JMC was revitalised and did have this sort
of focus on the future and on how to, you know, lead the UK on, I
suppose, and make it a more coherent entity, should there be a
similar body on the scrutiny, parliamentary side of non-Government
parliamentarians meeting? Do you think that would be helpful to
share experience of work in the institutions, drafting law work in
committees—?
|
[175] Mr Llwyd:
Yes, yes I do. But I would just caution one thing. I remember some
years ago—and I believe the Chairman was one of those who
came here as well—we had a few joint meetings with the
National Assembly, and there was a little bit of unease, as I
recall, about what the heck we were doing there—were we there
to try and stymie anybody’s efforts—or whatever it was.
It wasn’t; it was the Welsh select committee, and we went
there with an open mind. To answer your question: well, of course,
I think you’re right, because there are various forms of
scrutiny in various legislatures within the UK, some of which are
very good and some not so good. And you can learn from experience,
and I see no reason why we can’t pool our knowledge about how
best to do things. And I agree with you, yes, it would be all to
the good. In some ways—I’m not saying it of this
institution, but, in some institutions, the problem is that the
scrutiny is not deep enough and not detailed enough. I’m sure
it’s not the case here, but one can learn from other
legislatures always. That’s got to be right.
|
[176] David
Melding: In many ways—Brexit is a very good
example—thorough scrutiny needs working between institutions.
I just wonder if you’ve seen many practical barriers to that
kind of joint working, which is not—. Each institution is set
up to be sufficient of itself generally and then, when
there’s a need to work together, it depends a lot on
personalities, sometimes. But have you seen particular barriers
there that we might look at and perhaps come up with
ideas—
|
[177] Mr Llwyd:
On the issue of Brexit, I think it’s going to be very
complicated because there’ll be so many opinions in so many
corners about so many things that it’s going to be very, very
difficult to come to any kind of perceived wisdom about the way
forward with many subjects. But, again, it doesn’t prevent
people from having an unofficial liaison about these things. That,
obviously, would be good. I stress that I do think that there is
here a challenge that the National Assembly and the Welsh
Government can readily rise to, I believe, to repatriate certain
obligations from Brussels straight back to Cardiff Bay, and I think
that would be to the good. I think it will be very difficult,
because there will be so many competing factions, if that’s
the right word, when Brexit comes along. If it—well,
it’s likely to now, isn’t it? But there will be some
hidden agendas as well, I dare say.
|
[178] David
Melding: We’ve talked quite a bit about the Wales
Bill—the Wales Act now—and what you consider to be its
shortcomings. I suppose in the process, when it was a Bill, one
thing that did work quite well is that this committee, in the
previous Assembly, had a joint scrutiny session with the Welsh
Affairs Committee. I just wonder if you thought that was a
particularly useful way of working.
|
[179] Mr Llwyd:
I think it most definitely was and I spoke with some colleagues
across the political spectrum about that and they were
all—the Westminster people were all—of the same
opinion, that it was a very, very useful way of doing things. I
would certainly say that it could happen again, provided that
it’s always gone into on the basis of equality and equal
respect from, as it were, both sides. I think that exercise did,
according to the feedback I had, prove a good exercise and it could
happen again, I’m sure. But it must not be seen as
Westminster trying to in any way row back or clip the wings of this
institution.
|
[180] David
Melding: Perhaps building on that cultural point about mutual
respect, we heard earlier from Baroness Randerson that this
sometimes was quite a problem in Westminster, not through any sort
of malign intent not to respect us, but there is this lack of
knowledge or understanding. You’ve said a lot about civil
servants needing to work together and I think, implicitly, those in
London need to understand Wales a bit more—and vice versa, of
course. Is there a task to do with Westminster politicians? For
instance, MPs from Essex shouldn’t just say, ‘Well,
Wales is Wales, we can be completely disengaged.’ How do we
get that type of shift? Because it would be a big shift for
some.
|
[181] Mr Llwyd:
I would say most certainly there is and there’s also, by the
way, a need for Westminster Ministers to be brought up to speed as
well. But there is a huge ignorance about what devolution actually
amounts to. I say that not in an insulting way, but in the pure
sense. There is a huge ignorance, because, for example, why should
an Essex MP necessarily know about devolution? But it would be a
very good thing if they were assisted by way of seminars or
whatever it might be and brought up to speed because it is
important that they should. It’s no longer acceptable that
they just say, ‘Well, that’s Wales, and so—you
know, leave it alone’. It’s not right, because
currently, of course, devolution, as I said earlier, is a
partnership, so they are a cog in that particular wheel,
aren’t they? So, ‘yes’, to answer your question.
But Ministers also; there are lots of Ministers who are—well,
I wouldn’t say they’re clueless, but the next best
thing to clueless.
|
16:15
|
[182] Lord
Elis-Thomas: These are in Westminster.
|
[183] Mr Llwyd:
Of course they are, yes.
|
[184] David
Melding: I think we’ve covered the final question in
earlier discussions about the need for universities to be involved
in all of this education and training.
|
[185] Huw
Irranca-Davies: Well, Elfyn, it strikes me, both from the
evidence you’ve given us today and previous sessions as well,
that this is something of a never-ending task. No matter what
mechanisms are in place and focus on the importance of individuals,
as well, and their cognisance of devolution at both
ends—cognisance of what’s happening in Whitehall from
this end and so on—ultimately, you have to keep on working on
this. Now, one thing that strikes me: we had, from separate
evidence, some thoughts around—. We, down here, in
Westminster, in Scotland, in Northern Ireland, have scrutiny of
thematic areas—we have scrutiny of the Wales Bill coming
through this place; there was scrutiny up there of the Wales Bill.
What we don’t have is a collective scrutiny of how well we
are doing constitutional stuff across the board. It just strikes
me, as we enter into this leaving the European Union period, as we
look at the uncertainty in Scotland and Northern Ireland at the
moment, it’s an interesting area to say, ‘Well, who
scrutinises? How do we scrutinise the across-UK working of
constitutional matters? How well is it going year by year? What
have we done well? What have we done badly?’—not simply
in constitutional reform, but the day-to-day running of
constitutional matters. Do you have any thoughts on that?
|
[186] Mr Llwyd:
Well, I do. There is no written constitution—we’re all
aware of that—and the constitution in the UK, such as it is,
has always been ad hoc. It’s been bolted on and taken off and
bolted on again. So, in my view, there probably is a need for a
pan-UK constitutional committee that could be drawn from this
institution, from the north of Ireland, from Scotland and from
England, to see how these things fit in. Because one of the
unfortunate things about devolution is that the model in Wales is
different from the model in Northern Ireland, which, in its turn,
is different from Scotland, which again differs from Wales. There
needs to be some kind of idea that—I’m not saying you
could necessarily have equality across the board, because some
places have been set up differently, but I think a strong,
powerful, constitutional committee drawn from the various
legislatures would be a very positive step forward, and such a
recommendation, I’m sure, would be very helpful for the
immediate future—Brexit et al. It really is, I think,
important.
|
[187] Huw
Irranca-Davies: Interesting, as well, is we haven’t even
touched on the London authority or the midlands and so on and
interesting—you know, fragmentation and different types of
devolution. And yet nobody looks at it in its entirety and says,
‘Well, how well are those relationships going?’
It’s quite fascinating.
|
[188] Mr Llwyd:
Yes. But there could be an interesting piece of work to see how you
could—. I don’t think you’ll ever get all four
legislatures—well, not in my lifetime anyway—to come to
an equal position, almost, but I think we should aim towards that.
There must be some low-hanging fruit every now and then that you
could actually do it, and if you’ve got a standing committee
looking at these things then that could be an avenue for doing
it.
|
[189] Huw
Irranca-Davies: Very interesting. Can I just ask colleagues
whether they have any other questions for Elfyn in the last few
minutes?
|
[190] Lord
Elis-Thomas: No, I agree with him. Especially the last bit.
|
[191] Huw
Irranca-Davies: Oh, right. Stop writing the recommendations
now—hold on, hold on. [Laughter.] Elfyn, is there
anything else that you’d like to add that you think we
haven’t touched on?
|
[192] Mr Llwyd:
Just that I’m very grateful for the invitation. I’ve
become something of a non-political person, in a way, earning an
honest crust in the courts now, but it’s been a great
pleasure to come here, and I’m grateful to you for the very
respectful audience that I’ve had. If I can ever send
anything of any conceivable use to the committee in the future, let
me know.
|
[193] Huw
Irranca-Davies: It’s been very useful, Elfyn. Thank you
very much. We will send you a transcript, as well, just in case
we’ve notated anything wrongly. If you do have any further
thoughts you want to send to us, please do. We thank you for your
time. Keep an eye on the rest of the inquiry that we doing—we
hope that it will be of some use. Certainly, one of the things that
we’ve been told as well is to practice what you preach, to
actually do that engagement and do that interrelationship between
institutional work ourselves, and we are hoping to do that as well.
So, thank you very much indeed, Elfyn.
|
[194]
Mr Llwyd: Diolch yn fawr iawn.
|
Mr Llwyd: Thank you very much.
|
16:20
|
Cynnig o dan Reol
Sefydlog 17.42 i Benderfynu Gwahardd y Cyhoedd o’r
Cyfarfod
Motion under Standing Order 17.42 to Resolve to Exclude the Public
from the Meeting
|
Cynnig:
|
Motion:
|
bod y pwyllgor yn penderfynu gwahardd y cyhoedd o
weddill y cyfarfod yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog
17.42(vi).
|
that the committee
resolves to exclude the public from the remainder of the meeting in
accordance with Standing Order 17.42(vi).
|
Cynigiwyd y cynnig.
Motion moved.
|
[195] Huw
Irranca-Davies: Good, we’re now slightly ahead of
schedule, but, with your consent, under Standing Order 17.42, we
can meet in private. We have consent for that, so we’ll move
into private session, please.
|
Derbyniwyd y cynnig.
Motion agreed.
|
Daeth rhan gyhoeddus y cyfarfod i ben am
16:20. The public part of the meeting ended at
16:20.
|