Memorandum submitted by Tom Jones
I submit the following as evidence/opinion for
the Select Committee review of Devolution. I do so in a personal
capacity but with knowledge gained from taking a lead role on
the links between Whitehall Depts and Wales when serving as a
member of the Richard Commission.
I am aware of the role of the Secretary of State
for Wales in promoting understanding and goodwill where the so-called
jagged edges and innocent amnesia exist and of the good intentions
of Ministers and senior Civil Servants to ensure that best practice
occurs. However, the system is flawed and depends too much on
goodwill and interventions, belatedly, from within Wales.
A transparent, accountable operational structure
appears to be missing. There is a lack of clarity within Departments
on who are the key stakeholders in Wales. Stakeholders in London/England
are involved much earlier than those from Wales. Sometimes, there
is confusion within civil society organisations in Wales as to
whether they should respond directly to Whitehall or via the Assembly
or both!
ISSUES
1. Scrutiny
Who scrutinises policy and actions of Departments
delivering in Wales when there are no Welsh MPs on the relevant
Select Committee? Questions to ask would be about—who from
Wales was consulted, was the Welsh Language taken into consideration,
was the new policy duplicating or in harmony with Assembly policy
in overlapping fields, was the timing sensitive to other policy
developments in Wales, were Wales-based case studies considered,
were other possible funders [European etc] involved? What financial
resources were made available to develop the policy in Wales?
For the above questions to be properly answered, there has to
be a form of Wales proofing similar to the Rural proofing that
new Governmental policies are expected to undertake. Ministers
should be able to demonstrate that such account has been undertaken.
2. Transparency
Is the mediating and informing role of the Secretary
of State for Wales's Office published as a plan of activity and
reported on an outcome basis? Are Civil Society organisations
aware that they can go there for help?
How do non departmental public bodies work in
Wales? Do they receive clear instructions in their remit letters
or corporate plan approval from Ministers as to how they should
work in Wales, are they allowed to vary policy in Wales to coincide
better with patterns of working and delivering which may be diverging?
Should they report separately on their activities in Wales—a
separate summary? To what extent should they engage with the Assembly
directly and how should conflict of policy be accommodated or
resolved? Some NDPB's have Wales Committees, some are informal,
some are advisory and a few are statutory. Again this can be confusing
for the public from a scrutiny position. Ideally—they should
be on a statutory basis given the process of Devolution, with
clear accountability, policy capacity and financial resources
to deliver effectively in the Welsh environment. There is also
some confusion around the various so called Welsh member. It can
be seen as token representation, sometimes referred to as the
member for Wales or the member from Wales or a member with some
knowledge of Wales but with no direct mandate to report or consult
or lobby. Even the appointments process is confusing as it sometimes
involves the Assembly and sometimes doesn't. Recruitment agencies
rarely rate an application from Wales as being suitable for Chairmanship
but rather as being reserved for a member from Wales slot!
Finally, most Departments and public bodies
have offices in Wales. Some are seen as National, some described
as Country and some treated as simply another and smaller regional
office. This is confusing and embarrassing to staff and confusing
to external stakeholders who are uncertain at what level to raise
an issue.
I hope that these opinions may be of some value
in raising questions and pointing to some answers. There is some
confusion and lack of clarity in the absence of a promoted code
and framework. I welcome this review by the Select Committee and
look forward to its conclusions.
April 2007
| 
