A Lot To Lose

Abby O’Reilly writes:

A Welsh referendum on 3 March will determine if the law-making powers of the National Assembly for Wales (NAfW) should be extended, but the effect of a "yes" vote has not been widely understood. NAfW is currently empowered to make laws on issues within 20 subject areas including economic development, education, health and local government, but before politicians can enact legislation in Wales it must first be approved by UK parliament and given royal assent.

The referendum will seek to establish if Westminster should be severed from the ratification process, investing NAfW with the ability to make laws directly. The referendum is not about giving Wales more power as such (laws relating to defence, tax or welfare benefits will remain within the remit of the UK parliament) but rather about enhancing existing jurisdiction and curtailing bureaucratic procedures.

My friends either have no interest in voting, or plan to vote "yes" on the mistaken nationalistic premise that this will denote separation from England and preserve our unique cultural identity. A vast number of the electorate currently range from confused to indifferent, with 29% unsure how to vote or planning to abstain. This is justified given the dearth of information available: there is a distinct lack of substantive coverage in the Western Mail, the national daily newspaper in Wales, and given its declining circulation (below 30,000 in 2010) politicians would do well to explore more direct ways of engaging with voters. Marginalisation of Welsh politics in the English press is also a problem, especially as a recorded 90% of Welsh people read newspapers devoid of Welsh news.

The greatest barrier to informed voting, however, is the absence of official lead campaigns. Certified organisations benefit from free mailshots, radio and television broadcasts and £70,000 to promote essential politicisation. True Wales, the most recognised "say no" campaign, controversially did not apply for primary organisation status because according to its director Rachel Banner, "enough ... has been spent on giving more power to politicians". Banner's tactic was short-sighted, dismissing resources imperative to increasing awareness of her campaign. After all, True Wales is not only contending with confusion over what the referendum means, but is also competing with Yes for Wales, a meticulously organised and persuasive group chaired by the high-profile figure Welsh rugby union chief executive Roger Lewis (Yes for Wales was nonetheless denied public funding because legally campaigns must be funded on both sides, or not at all).

The cumulative effect is that unless you take a particular interest in Welsh current affairs, True Wales is invisible, and this failure to mobilise a credible operation is disappointing. As a Welsh voter and former NAfW employee, I am against the extension of powers but cannot align myself with the "no" camp: as a collective and cogent movement, it is non-existent. On the other hand, the current law-making system may be laborious but claims by Yes for Wales that "crucial decisions" will be made "quickly and efficiently" assume that speed is synonymous with effectiveness. Supporters on the campaign website largely consider this a question of national pride; they believe only Welsh politicians can make Wales a better place. These arguments fundamentally misunderstand the role of NAfW since 2006: no possible outcome will give the assembly authority over subjects in which it is not already involved.

Lewis, speaking at the official Yes for Wales launch, said "it is time for the assembly to be given the tools necessary to get on with the job", which is misleading. It is not the need for UK parliamentary approval that has been an encumbrance on Welsh law-making, but rather a lack of dynamism. Preoccupation with protocol does nothing but obfuscate the main issue, which is the inability of assembly members to develop effective socio-economic policies to stop the poorest in Wales remaining the poorest in the UK. In December 2010, Wales was placed at the bottom of the economic table, a position consistently held since 1998. Wales tops the UK child poverty chart, with one in three seven-year-olds living in families receiving less than 60% of the UK's average household income. The unemployment rate currently stands at 8.4% compared with the UK average of 7.9%. These figures are not encouraging and show NAfW for what it is: a small child that would struggle to follow the right path without the legislative hand-holding of the UK parliament.

The greatest fallacy is that a positive vote would be empowering. Welsh citizens will remain isolated from law-making, irrespective of a technical change. There is no promise of developing a more co-operative relationship with local government. Power will be concentrated exclusively in NAfW and among a relatively small number of individuals – with no external system in place to evaluate the efficacy of its decision-making, or offer protection against corruption. Welsh MPs will be excluded from scrutinising proposals affecting their constituents, which not only contradicts the role of elected representatives, but will also lead to inconsistencies. To be truly democratic, the process should be collaborative.

Given that politicians and the national media appear apathetic, it is unfair to expect the electorate to be hugely responsive or even aware of those issues. The referendum was scheduled as part of the 2007 One Wales coalition agreement, but it would be foolish to dismiss it as a mere constitutional obligation since a positive result could potentially encourage nationalists to push for separation from the UK. There is nothing to gain by voting "yes", but potentially a lot to lose.