FUW Evidence to the Richard Commission on the Assembly’s
Powers and Electoral Arrangements
|
Introduction
|
| The Farmers’ Union of Wales (FUW)
welcomes the opportunity to submit views to the Richard
Commission. In preparing this submission, the Commission’s
Terms of Reference have steered the content. |
| The FUW was established as an independent
farming union to represent and promote the best interests
of traditional family farms in Wales. Its policies are
determined by its grass-roots membership and are never
compromised to satisfy the differing aspirations of farmers
outside Wales, though it has developed links with organisations
in other parts of the UK and the EU with similar priorities. |
| The Union was the only farming organisation
to pledge its support for the National Assembly for Wales
(NAW) in advance of the referendum, believing that the
interests of farmers and the rural economy of Wales would
be best served by policies determined and fashioned, where
possible, by the elected representatives of the NAW who,
the Union was confident, would be more attuned to the
particular concerns and needs of Wales’ rural areas. |
| The first Assembly elections on 6th
May 1999 represented a major landmark in the history of
Wales and, irrespective of our views on the success or
otherwise of the NAW during its first term, we must remember
that we now have a national body dedicated to looking
after the affairs of Wales and its people. The past four
years have been extremely difficult for agriculture, and
have also been turbulent ones for the Assembly. The foot
and mouth disease crisis destroyed the livelihoods of
farmers, tourist operators, and rural businesses, and
dominated the agricultural agenda during 2001 and for
much of 2002. There has been a great deal of debate over
the lessons to be learned from this tragic episode, and
one lesson which we sincerely hope the Richard Commission
will address is that of granting the Assembly legislative
parity with Scotland and Northern Ireland. During the
course of the FMD outbreak, a number of decisions crucial
to Wales were either delayed or implemented ineffectively
by DEFRA due to a lack of understanding of the nature
of Welsh agriculture - decisions which could have been
taken by the Assembly had they had the same legislative
authority as the Scottish Parliament. |
|
The Union believes that there is a fundamental
weakness in the Government of Wales Act, in that in
Wales, despite the devolution of executive and secondary
powers together with power of investigation and debate,
not one single area of responsibility has been transferred
from Westminster.
|
| Instead, the Assembly has inherited the
powers that previously belonged to the Secretary of State.
Over the years, the Secretary of State was given these
powers which, at first, were very limited, but over a
period of time, responsibilities were added to this remit,
but on an ad-hoc basis. |
|
In Scotland, the Scottish Parliament
is responsible for areas including agriculture, police,
transport, education and health.
|
| There is confusion as a result of this
incomplete transfer of powers - confusion which exists
at many levels, the most apparent being that of the general
public. Rather than exercising powers by specific subject
areas as in Scotland, the NAW exercises powers by reference
to specific Acts of Parliament. |
|
There is also a need to distinguish between
the Welsh Assembly Government (WAG) and the National
Assembly for Wales (NAW). The FUW has led the way in
so doing at every opportunity.
|
| Trying to establish the precise powers
and detailed responsibilities of the NAW is very difficult
and time consuming. The Welsh Assembly Government’s
lawyers in particular face difficulties in trying to establish
exactly what are the powers of the Assembly to administer
and to pass subordinate legislation are. |
| Whilst Scotland does have a separate legal
system, the Northern Ireland legal system is not substantially
different from the law of England. |
| The FUW is therefore firmly of the view
that there should be no need for the WAG to seek Parliamentary
time via the Secretary of State for Wales to pass legislation
essential to Wales. |
|
Committee
structure
|
| The FUW is not persuaded that there are
enough members to carry out the work of the committees.
Scrutiny of subordinate legislation by Committees is determined
largely by civil servants and is often time constrained.
|
| The Scottish Parliament has 128 members.
The population of Scotland is five million. |
| The NAW has 60 members. Wales has a population
of three million. |
|
The Northern Ireland Assembly has 108
members. The population of Northern Ireland is one million.
|
| Many Assembly Members (AMs) sit on more
than one subject committee, which means that time is a
limiting factor in terms of Committee’s ability to
scrutinize subordinate legislation. The Chairs of the
14 Assembly Committees are therefore unable to fully participate
in the scrutiny of legislation, and are largely limited
to addressing procedural matters. Many of the 60 Assembly
members are unable to fully involve themselves in policy
making and scrutiny of legislation, given the pressures
which exist on their time. |
| Unless Committees are able to influence
primary legislation through Assembly Ministers prior to
legislation being drafted in Westminster, then the opportunity
to shape the content of such legislation is, in the Union’s
opinion, compromised. |
|
The
transfer of Animal Health powers to the National Assembly
|
| The State Veterinary Service (SVS) is not
legally accountable to WAG ministers. Responsibility for
the eradication of Foot and Mouth disease rested with
DEFRA. SVS staff were answering directly to DEFRA whereas
WAG staff were acting as agents for DEFRA under Section
41 of the Government of Wales Act 1998. Powers to enact
primary legislation for Wales in the animal health area
remain with Parliament in Westminster. |
|
During the Foot and Mouth disease epidemic,
the FUW did not believe that MAFF/DEFRA understood the
needs of Welsh farmers and were preoccupied with the
disease situation in areas of England such as Cumbria.
At the height of the crisis, MAFF/DEFRA was encountering
70 new cases per day whilst the total number of cases
in Wales, at the time, amounted to 70.
|
| The approach to eradicating FMD in Wales
was complicated by the number of Government agencies involved.
Whilst MAFF/DEFRA had overall responsibility for eradicating
FMD in the UK, the National Assembly for Wales (NAW) only
had responsibility for certain aspects of disease control,
acting as agents for MAFF/DEFRA. Responsibility for the
State Veterinary Service (SVS) also lies in London with
MAFF/DEFRA. The Assistant Chief Veterinary Officer (ACVO)
is based in Cardiff but answers to the CVO in DEFRA, London.
|
|
Liaison meetings between the FUW and
the Minister for Rural Affairs were crucially important
in terms of information dissemination and constructive
criticism. These meetings provided an opportunity to
assess developments on a regular basis and proved to
be a highly effective link between the industry and
the Welsh Assembly Government.
|
| One of the main features of the whole FMD
experience related to the close working relationships
established between FUW and WAG staff. Such co-operation
developed in an endeavour to influence DEFRA decision-makers
in London, who obviously knew very little about the needs
of Welsh agriculture. |
|
Ultimately, the roles of the NAW &
the WAG were often confused and unclear. Centralisation
of decision-making in London, firstly at MAFF and latterly
at DEFRA, led to serious delays. Farmers (and others)
became increasingly frustrated by a situation where
channels of communication were poor between MAFF/DEFRA,
the WAG and Local Authorities.
|
| DEFRA’s lack of understanding of Welsh
agriculture is perhaps reflected most vividly with regard
to common land, which covers approximately 10% of Wales.
Many FUW members experienced problems when exercising
their common rights, and the legislation governing the
movement of sheep on and off commons was subject to major
delay, thereby exacerbating an already difficult animal
welfare situation. Often, farmers with fully enclosed
commons grazed by a single flock were refused licences
in the same way as farmers wanting to move sheep onto
open commons where flock grazing rights were held by thirty
or more farmers. |
| A telephone call to the MAFF/DEFRA helpline
throughout the crisis would very often result in greater
confusion than clarity for the caller as the advice was
often vague, and contrary to the situation ‘on the
ground’, and sometimes contradicted the advice coming
from the State Veterinary Service (SVS) Divisional Animal
Health Offices. For example, Ynys Môn was initially described
by MAFF/DEFRA as Gwynedd. |
| Breakdowns in communication between MAFF/DEFRA
and the WAG resulted in cases where MAFF/DEFRA culled
out border farms and subsequently failed to inform Welsh
officials, resulting in carcases being left on farm unnecessarily. |
| The FUW believes that WAG departments and
Local Authorities, with their much better understanding
of local circumstances, retained the confidence of the
farming community during this extremely difficult period.
By contrast, MAFF/DEFRA proved to be much less effective
in dealing with the problems which were of greatest relevance
to Welsh farmers, with the result that they are perceived
as being unable to provide informed and consistent advice
during any future disease outbreak. |
|
Whilst animal health is not a devolved
function, the NAW has responsibilities covering bovine
TB, Brucellosis & warble fly.
|
| The transfer of animal health powers to
Wales is dependant upon the UK Government allocating Parliamentary
time and has been the subject of detailed discussions
between the WAG and UK Government since the three independent
inquiries reported in Summer 2002. |
|
The
National Assembly for Wales & Europe
|
| The Union welcomes the important
step taken by the Welsh Assembly Government in joining
with nine other Regional Governments to promote a Declaration
in response to the Commission White Paper on European
Governance. The Declaration called for greater involvement
by the European Regions in European policy formulation,
with the European Commission consulting directly with
regional governments rather than via member states’
governments. |
| Whilst EU policy is mostly
influenced via the UK Government on a member state level,
the FUW believes that a positive response from the Commission
to the above declaration would be to the benefit of the
people of Wales. Despite having no legal basis, the Concordat
on Co-ordination of EU Policy Issues, signed by the UK
Government and the devolved administrations, has ensured
that Wales has a certain amount of influence vis-à-vis
the European Union policy of the UK Government. However,
there is concern that, due to the greater legislative
power of Scotland and other regions which came together
to sign the ‘Political Declaration by the Constitutional
Regions’ in May 2001, Wales may be in danger of being
left behind by those regions demanding a formal distinction
between the competences of the EU and those of its member
states and constituent regions. |
|
CONCLUSION
|
| The Farmers’ Union of
Wales is firmly of the opinion that the interests of the
farmers and the rural economy of Wales are best served
by policies determined and fashioned, where possible,
by the elected representatives of the National Assembly
for Wales. Comparison with the constitutional settlements
achieved in both Scotland and Northern Ireland expose
the weaknesses in the current arrangements, and the Union
believes that the incomplete transfer of powers has led
to confusion at all levels over the powers and functions
of the Assembly. This contrasts with the Scottish situation
and, to a lesser degree, the settlement in Northern Ireland,
where there is much greater clarity, and the opportunity
to act on the particular concerns of rural areas. There
are numerous examples, including foot and mouth disease,
the Hunting with Dogs Bill, and the Countryside and Rights
of Way Act, where legislative parity with Scotland would
have ensured an approach more attuned to the distinctive
needs of Wales. |
| APRIL 2003 |
|
|
