Roy Norris, Chair of Welsh Ambulance Service NHS Trust

Carys Evans
Richard Commission
Caradog House
St Andrew’s Place
CARDIFF

Dear Ms Evans

SUBMISSION TO RICHARD COMMISSION

Introduction

This submission is made as an individual with experience of working as a Director for Wales in a UK Non-Departmental Public Body (NDPB) and currently as Chairman of the Welsh Ambulance Services NHS Trust, the only all Wales NHS Trust.

My comments therefore focus more upon the structures, powers and limitations of the current arrangements. Comments about the Welsh Ambulance Services Trust have been reviewed by the Chief Executive, Mr Don Page. Otherwise the comments are solely my responsibility and should not be seen as representing the views of the Trust Board or members of that Board.

General Comment

My work as Wales Director for the National Lottery Charities Board, now called the Community Fund, demonstrated for me some of the problems caused when a UK Department found absorbing and understanding the changes flowing from devolution difficult. I would claim that these included lip service to consultation with Assembly Officials, a failure to grasp dual language issues, and a belief that what was proposed for England had to be accepted in Wales. This led to particular difficulties when the Assembly "Communities First" programme was found to have the same title as proposed for enhanced lottery distribution to deprived areas. The lottery scheme is now called "Fair Share" and arrangements in Wales are not quite the same as those operating in England.

This contrasts very much with the experience of the Ambulance Trust. This Trust was formed 5 years ago, was grossly underfunded and had little support. Since that time the Assembly has taken responsibility for health in Wales. The result has been a much keener interest and concern for trust activities. There has been criticism, but also there has been support and this has resulted in an additional £3.5 million being directed to the Trust in the past two years. There has been a consequent improvement in our performance despite a very significant increase in numbers of emergency calls. Trust Executives and the previous Chair have appeared before the Health and Social Services Committee; something that would have been very unlikely when the NHS was managed by the Department of Health. The expression of this increased interest, attention to detail and challenge is demanding but, in my view is leading to a better service, with increased resources for the benefit of the people of Wales and our employees.

Turning to the questions for consultation: Does the Government of Wales Act provide the Assembly with the powers it needs to operate effectively and meet the expectations of the people of Wales. My comment is that at present the people of Wales seem to have relatively low expectations of the Assembly despite the Assembly’s responsibility for health and education in particular. I believe that this state of affairs exists because the Assembly is perceived to have insufficient powers. Although time is needed for a new institution to establish itself, and the experience of Spanish devolution is that two or three decades may be needed. The limited powers are lowering expectations and in consequence devaluing the impact of the Assembly. The Commission goes on to ask whether and if so how, the powers should be extended, strengthened or changed and whether they should include tax varying powers. At present the powers are circumscribed by the need to obtain parliamentary time. This time is always in short supply and I believe that this is limiting the Assembly’s capacity and preparedness to press for new legislation or different legislation in Wales. The model worth considering may be that of the European concept of "subsidiary" which would apply to the extent that where there was no good reason for legislation not to be made within Wales it should be permitted.

It is a curious reversal of history that where as the normal cry is, "no taxation without representation" here we are in a situation of representation without taxation. The possession of tax raising powers would, I believe, concentrate minds and create a climate in which it was recognised that the Assembly can have impact on people in Wales across the spectrum of raising money and spending money. The Commission seeks views on if the Assembly were to acquire greater law making powers, is it inevitable that it would need to be constituted on the parliamentary model. And if so, what organisational changes would be needed to support this model and what would be the gains and losses from making this change.

There may be a case for Parliament to have review powers in a fashion similar to those possessed by the current House of Lords if the Assembly were to acquire greater law making powers. It seems to me that there is a case for ensuring that there is the capacity for review and reflection particularly on controversial or contentious legislation. In terms of necessary organisational changes, deficiencies represent some of the weaknesses of the current model. I do not think there are sufficient AM’s to discharge the range of responsibilities that one would wish to see devolved to Wales. In many ways this is not about the size of the country or of it’s population but rather more the need to ensure that there are sufficient numbers of people to discharge the functions of the broad range of activities of the modern state. It may therefore be that consideration should be given to increasing the number of AM’s and their support staff. At present it is common for Assembly Officials to shadow a great many sections of a UK department. On occasions this is of great advantage internecine debate can be transcended. On the other hand, the sheer volume of resources that a UK department may bring to bear can have the effect of overwhelming Assembly Officials who then tend to take the line of least resistance, and recommend following the UK line. The current size of the Assembly means that there are good internal and external networks which are often wider than those operating in Whitehall. This is a benefit that should not be lightly relinquished, on the other hand the sheer volume of work and the need to create time to think through the implications of a separate Wales policy needs to be resourced.

A number of questions are asked about the relationship between the Assembly in Cardiff and the Parliament in Westminster. My experience of the UK NDPB tend to highlight the weaknesses of the process where Whitehall departments do not feel the need to grasp the changes that have occurred in Wales. Sometimes there is an advantage in being part of a UK organisation. Where the NDPB is relatively small there can be economies of scale in, for example, the Finance and Human Resource areas which can be better managed when there is a critical mass. There may be political advantages and disadvantages of having a law making process shared between AM’s, MP’s and Peers dependent on party position. It does not seem to be necessarily to be an advantage when all parliaments are controlled by the same party nor necessarily would it be a disadvantage if the three chambers were politically opposed. I suspect that Westminster would find itself forced to concentrate on broad strategic issues if fundamental policy for Wales was determined in Wales. It may well be that 635 MP’s would be too many for a reduced role and this will be something that needs to be considered, perhaps by another Commission. It is interesting to note that the role of MP’s in Wales has already been reduced by the institution of the National Assembly. I noticed in my work with the Community Fund that we were dealing as much, if not more, with Assembly Members even though the formal responsibility for activities lay with MP’s. This highlighted the inappropriateness of an activity that was Wales based but had an even more local impact being the responsibility of a UK department. I am not sure whether Welsh interests would be more or less adversely affected if the role of MP’s as a whole were reduced as a consequence of devolution throughout the UK. It would clearly be important to ensure that any reduced representation fairly reflected the constituent component of a "new" UK Parliament.

Similar comments apply to the question about the reduction in the Secretary of State’s role. I believe this reduction has already occurred within the popular conception of the Secretary of State and indeed there can be occasions when the office and role appear "colonial", although I recognise and appreciate that this is not the intention. Changes in the relations between the Assembly and Whitehall already demand work so that we can be assured that officials in Whitehall do indeed understand the effects of devolution and how the things they propose might impact upon Wales. It is possible to argue that economies of scale and opportunities for career development would be lost if there was a sharper separation between England and Wales in policy development and its implementation. It seems to me that part of the resolution or minimisation of this issue is to recognise that Civil Servants are servants of the Crown and that devolution is a development of the power of the Crown across the United Kingdom. The first loyalty of Assembly Civil Servants would be to their employing department, as indeed is the case within the rest of the UK, and the sharing of values, of common understanding and recognition of issues, should be fostered by considering the career structure of the Civil Service as a whole and working to counter trend towards compartmentalisation. Indeed experiences of multi functional departments such as the Welsh Office, Scottish Office and the Northern Ireland Office, was that officials were able to bring to bear a very broad view and were so able to exploit opportunities that might not have been recognised in a monolithic department. It seems to me important that this quality and ability is retained. Opportunities to work in devolved administrations should be promoted as very much a career enhancing move. In terms of gain Wales would need to recognise that it will have to understand and accept the responsibility for taking different decision. It will no longer be sufficient to compare the situation in England with that in Wales. This may present party political difficulties or indeed opportunities, but the people will need to take responsibility for doing things differently where that is the right thing to do.

The cost benefit analysis for democracy seems to be often framed within individual and personal values. It is easy to claim that a devolved administration is more costly to operate than a centralised one. That may be true, but by that argument no doubt a dictatorship would be cheaper still! I think it is possible to argue that where it is possible to take account of the needs of more people at the outset, albeit that this may incur additional initial expenditure, this will save the costs of challenges, reviews and changes that otherwise take place after the event. Unfortunately it is easy to quantify the initial cost but much harder to quantify subsequent costs that have not been incurred.

Conclusion

I recognise that this response is outside the time limit but I hope that it will be possible to take some account of some, if not all, of the points offered. I apologise for the lateness of this submission.

Roy A. Norris.

16 April 2003.