UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC 246-iiHouse of COMMONSMINUTES OF EVIDENCETAKEN BEFOREWELSH AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
|
|
1. |
This is an uncorrected transcript of evidence taken in public and reported to the House. The transcript has been placed on the internet on the authority of the Committee, and copies have been made available by the Vote Office for the use of Members and others.
|
|
2. |
Any public use of, or reference to, the contents should make clear that neither witnesses nor Members have had the opportunity to correct the record. The transcript is not yet an approved formal record of these proceedings.
|
|
3. |
Members who receive this for the purpose of correcting questions addressed by them to witnesses are asked to send corrections to the Committee Assistant.
|
|
4. |
Prospective witnesses may receive this in preparation for any written or oral evidence they may in due course give to the Committee.
|
|
5. |
Transcribed by the Official Shorthand Writers to the Houses of Parliament: W B Gurney & Sons LLP, Hope House, Telephone Number: 020 7233 1935
|
Oral Evidence
Taken before the Welsh Affairs Committee
on
Members present
Dr Hywel Francis, in the Chair
Mr David Jones
Alun Michael
Albert Owen
Mark Williams
________________
Witness: Dr Jim Gallagher, Director General of Devolution, Ministry of Justice, gave evidence.
Q112 Chairman: Good morning and welcome to the Welsh Affairs
Committee and this inquiry on
Dr Gallagher: My name is Jim Gallagher. I am the Director General of Devolution working for the UK Government principally in the Ministry of Justice.
Q113 Chairman: By way of background, I want to begin by posing you this very first question: putting it in the context of our earlier inquiry into the Legal Services Commission, a sense of uncertainty really that Whitehall was not quite sure of what it was doing in terms of devolution - putting it at its politest level; also the Justice Committee's recent very good report; and identifying we also shared a concern, namely that responsibility, as the Justice Committee said, for the devolution settlement sitting with the Ministry of Justice and, at the same time, an apparent coordinating role of the Cabinet Office; can you explain to us the practical difference between those two responsibilities?
Dr Gallagher: I think, Chairman, probably the best way to
address that question is to think of the tasks and responsibilities that the UK
Government has for Wales post-devolution.
There are a number of things that any central government would have to
do in respect of
Q114 Chairman: It sounds very grand, the way you describe it. Could I give you two examples where, even at the simplest level, the Ministry of Justice has failed in terms of the Legal Services Commission and the inadequacy of its raising of the profile and understanding of devolution; and, secondly, the fact that you still do not have a Welsh language scheme. How would you explain that, given that you have this very grand responsibility and yet at the most basic level you are not discharging those responsibilities particularly well?
Dr Gallagher: The Ministry of Justice in this context has
two sets of functions, if you like.
Firstly, it is a Justice Ministry for
Q115 Chairman: If I could pursue that. You say that some departments do better than others, but surely you should be amongst the best?
Dr Gallagher: I would accept that, yes.
Q116 Chairman: To come back to the original question about the difference between the role of the Cabinet Office and the Ministry of Justice, I am still unclear as to why after ten years there seems to be some confusion of the roles?
Dr Gallagher: The allocation of responsibilities has changed over that ten years and certainly has not been the same throughout it. As it were, policy responsibility for devolution originally rested in the Cabinet Office in 1997-99, when the devolution settlements were created; it remained there for a while. I then moved to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, and I think that would be about 2001-02 - although I stand to be corrected on that. When that Office was abolished, responsibility moved to the then Department for Constitutional Affairs and the policy responsibility then became part of the Ministry of Justice when that ministry was created. For most of that period, however, the Cabinet Office retained responsibility for the joint ministerial committees, which for a good part of the period were not particularly active.
Q117 Albert Owen: You said quite honestly that you had not got integration right, and you explained early on that the Cabinet Office had that lead role. What do you say today to the argument, and pursuing what you have just said, that the Cabinet Office because of its close links with the Prime Minister is a better place for devolution to sit, particularly with the revival of the joint ministerial committees with all its services?
Dr Gallagher: My answer to that would have to be, first of
all, that the allocation of ministerial responsibilities is not for me - it is
for the Prime Minister - and you will understand that. There would certainly be alternative ways of
organising devolution across government which would be potentially at least as
good, or even potentially perhaps better, than what we have got. Nevertheless, the same functions have to be
discharged; the same things have to be done.
In particular, the official structure has to support the ministerial
responsibilities that there are. The
present government has pursued since
Q118 Albert Owen: Could I put this to you then: what you are saying is there is a cumbersome department called the Ministry of Justice, which was called the Department of Constitutional Affairs, which has a huge workload but you have a Cabinet Office with a minister without portfolio who can perhaps spot these things quicker, deal with it quicker in the machinery in Whitehall?
Dr Gallagher: Of course I would never call the Ministry of
Justice "cumbersome" - certainly not - but it is a big department, there is no
doubt about that, and its main business is running the justice system in
England and Wales; but it does also have the constitutional responsibility,
which is important in its own respect.
As far as ministerial responsibility is concerned, the prime ministerial
responsibility for issues in relation to
Q119 Albert
Owen: I think we have pursued that
long enough. What are the main current
issues for the Ministry of Justice in relation to devolution in
Dr Gallagher: I would regard the two main strategic issues
for Welsh devolution as, first of all, the question of whether there should or
should not be and when there might be a referendum in relation to the transfer
of legislative competence. That is
obviously a major issue. The initiative
with that, as you well understand, lies in
Q120 Albert Owen: So it is those three big issues. The big issue is obviously the Wales Office. So they would be dealing predominantly with, and liaising with, yourselves?
Dr Gallagher: Yes.
Q121 Albert Owen: I ask specifically if the Ministry of Justice is concentrating on those three big issues?
Dr Gallagher: It slightly depends what you mean by the Ministry of Justice. If you mean the Ministry of Justice in its constitutional role - what I do for a living - then those are the issues that worry me.
Q122 Alun Michael: As a background, I do not think we should be too surprised that the Department of Justice was pretty dysfunctional after a major change in departmental organisation and responsibilities; and that perhaps we see signs of recovery after that period, as often happens.
Dr Gallagher: I am glad to hear that you do!
Q123 Alun
Michael: I am an optimist by nature! In the evidence we heard from
Sir Jon Shortridge he was extremely dismissive of the role of the
Department of Justice; in fact what he told us was that when he was Permanent
Secretary he only engaged with the Ministry of Justice very rarely on Welsh
matters, and essentially said it really just provided pay and rations for the
Wales Office staff. Do you think that is
a fair assessment; and what value do you think the Department of Justice adds
in respect of
Dr Gallagher: At the mechanical level, first of all, it does indeed provide pay and rations, which is not a trivial thing. A very small department like the Wales Office or its counterpart the Scotland Office needs a big brother to do that kind of stuff. Secondly, for the last two and a half years or so the Ministry of Justice - which it did not before - has contained my own post, which is essentially a Civil Service line management post for the territorial offices, including the Wales Office. There are, as I was saying to Mr Owen, some quite deep and complicated policy connections inside the constitutional arm of the Ministry of Justice; but in terms of pursuing the development of the Welsh settlement or the coordination of Welsh policy - policy as it affects Wales in Whitehall - I would not regard the Ministry of Justice as the main actor in that. You are looking slightly puzzled, Mr Michael. Have I not quite answered your question correctly?
Q124 Alun
Michael: I suppose one would hope the
Department of Justice would be joined up in itself. What disturbs me - and I know a number of
other MPs and members of the House of Lords - is that, for instance in dealing
with the Department of Justice's own legislation, there have been times where
officials do not seem to understand the settlement. The example I would give would be the
legislation to protect NHS staff.
Granted it is another bit of the department rather than yours, but it
was deeply disturbing that they did not seem to have a clue and effectively cut
out
Dr Gallagher: Was that the Ministry of Justice?
Q125 Alun Michael: Yes, too right it was! It took a bit of digging to discover that. What happened in that was, there was a clause in the bill which was creating a new offence in order to protect NHS staff and the eventual outcome was quite right, which was that the use of the clause could be trigged in England by a request from the Department of Health from the NHS in England, and triggered in Wales by a request from the NHS in Wales and devolved ministers. So the outcome was fine but it was just not in the bill and was actually picked up in the House of Lords; it had not been spotted because of the rather curious drafting. That leads one to ask: if the Ministry of Justice, which has responsibility for devolution, cannot get its act together in terms of understanding its own legislation, how can it properly lead understanding in other parts of Whitehall?
Dr Gallagher: I regard that as an entirely fair criticism,
although when one looks at this again in an "historical perspective" (and I
have been on both sides of the devolved and reserved boundary here) devolution
is only one of many issues that someone promoting a particular policy
initiative - and let us take the example of protection health workers - has to
bear in mind now. Of course, they should
bear it in mind, and they should bear it in mind at the right time. Nevertheless, one can understand - perhaps
under political pressure or perhaps under pressure of time - why devolution
gets left until quite near the end, and sometimes it falls off the end; but
that is wrong and undesirable, I have no doubt about that. I do not think the Ministry of Justice is any
worse than other departments in that respect.
I would hope that by continuing, as I say, to paint the
Q126 Alun Michael: I think we would probably say all power to your elbow in sorting out the other silos in the department, and good luck with it
Dr Gallagher: I am grateful for that.
Q127 Alun Michael: Do you actually meet your opposite numbers in the Cabinet Office and the Wales Office to discuss how you take issues forward? Do you do that with both of them at the same time?
Dr Gallagher: Yes.
Q128 Alun Michael: How do you avoid duplication or issues falling between perhaps three stools on the assumption that the Wales Office will do it all? Or is the assumption that the Cabinet Office will do it all?
Dr Gallagher: I think that is an entirely sensible question to ask because we have this distribution responsibility. At a very simple level, every week I meet with the territorial offices, the Cabinet Office, colleagues from the Treasury and a number of others to make sure that we have spotted as many of the issues as we can. I do not guarantee we spot them all every week.
Q129 Alun Michael: That happens as a matter of regular course?
Dr Gallagher: It happens every week - this afternoon, as it happens.
Q130 Alun Michael: Just for the record, I wonder if you could tell us how many of the staff who work in your team deal specifically with Welsh issues, and what sot of proportion that is of your team?
Dr Gallagher: In the Ministry of Justice?
Q131 Alun Michael: Yes.
Dr Gallagher: There are two full-time staff in the Ministry
of Justice dealing with devolution policy; neither of them are wholly allocated
to
Q132 Alun Michael: Are both of them engaged to some extent?
Dr Gallagher: To some extent, yes.
Q133 Mr
Jones: Dr Gallagher, the Wales
Office in its memo to this inquiry has acknowledged that some
Dr Gallagher: I think it would probably be fairer to say
that some bits of some departments are better than others. The most obvious risk is where a department
or a part of a department does not frequently interact with the devolved
system, and there the risk is highest; and that is particularly true, I think
it is fair to say, of arm's length bodies of departments. You gave the example earlier on of the Legal
Services Commission. What we are currently
doing - this does not quite answer your question, I realise - is we have
invited (and by "we" I mean the Ministry of Justice and the Cabinet Office,
with the authority of the Head of the Civil Service) all
Q134 Mr Jones: This has relatively recently been instituted?
Dr Gallagher: That is right, yes.
Q135 Mr Jones: Is my inference correct then that there was no mechanism set up beforehand to monitor the quality of departments' handling of devolution issues?
Dr Gallagher: I would not describe the way in which we
previously sought to catch the balls that might otherwise be dropped as a
monitoring of quality, but it was certainly a monitoring of what went on. I would not claim that we had given
Q136 Mr Jones: You mentioned that of course this process has now been established to examine various departments' handling of devolution. Are you able to say what sort of findings are emerging from that study at the moment?
Dr Gallagher: Superficially, because this is based on work not yet completed, I think the issues that we have seen arising are, first, as I said earlier, it is those part of departments which have infrequent cause to address themselves to devolution questions, whether in respect of Scotland or Wales, which are at the greatest risk of tripping over something. Second, I think we have found that an obvious indicator of better performance is a senior champion inside the department for the operation of devolution, which makes sense. All departments have some institutional way of dealing with devolution: a senior champion seems to work best of all.
Q137 Mr Jones: That in fact is something that Sir Jon Shortridge last week suggested to this Committee, that there should be a senior official in each department dedicated to considering the implications of devolution so far as it affects that department?
Dr Gallagher: Yes.
Q138 Mr Jones: Do we know yet how the results or the findings of this examination will be acted upon? Has that been decided yet, or are you awaiting the findings first?
Dr Gallagher: First of all, we need to see the findings. This is, as it were, an official exercise rather than a political one; although I am in no doubt that it has the blessing of ministers. I am entirely clear that when this work is done each department will act upon the recommendations it has made to itself, as it were. They will be discussed before long at the regular meeting of permanent secretaries, where the work was commissioned in the first place.
Q139 Mark
Williams: Could I move you more
generally to the issue of raising awareness.
In the written submission we had from the Wales Office it clearly said
the Ministry of Justice leading on awareness-raising with the Cabinet Office;
and it detailed some of the devices used; the
Dr Gallagher: I would not describe the objectives as "measurable" because I am not quite sure how one would measure awareness, but it is worth reflecting on whether that is something we ought to do actually.
Q140 Mark Williams: It strikes me you have got the strategy in place; you have got the devices in place; but at the end of the day how are we to judge their success?
Dr Gallagher: I suppose what you are suggesting to me is: should we do some kind of dipstick every so often and find out if people do in fact have a clue.
Q141 Mark Williams: Absolutely.
Dr Gallagher: It is not a bad idea at all!
Q142 Mark Williams: Following on from that, the awareness-raising work is shared between the territorial offices, between the Cabinet Office and the Ministry of Justice. Who is going to be accountable for that work, which permanent secretary?
Dr Gallagher: That is a good question. It reflects the distributed responsibility, and ultimately I think I am responsible for that one.
Q143 Mark Williams: The Civil Service is facing severe and growing financial challenges. If you are the man responsible, how can you be sure that in that environment the awareness- raising we have spoken about will be carried forward vigorously?
Dr Gallagher: Ultimately this is a question of the priority
afforded to the task. You are absolutely
right to say that, along with the rest of the public sector, the Civil Service
will face really quite stringent financial constraints. Within those constraints, those tasks to
which priority is given are the ones that will get done. In the end that is a matter of political
choice. If ministers think that this
matter deserves priority then it will be given priority. Is it possible, you are implicitly asking, to
ensure that we do more here with less? Yes,
it is possible to do that. That might
involve slightly different ways of working.
It might involve organisational change to use our resources more
efficiently. It is easy, as I said
earlier on, to think of this as purely a bureaucratic task; and of course there
is bureaucratic machinery that has to be created to run it; but ultimately the
relationships between elected bodies are political relationships, and they are
relationships which have evolved over time and almost certainly will evolve
further as politics moves on and the complexion of the administration
changes. We have just seen, for example,
a change of First Minister in
Q144 Mark Williams: I think that is the key to it, is it not? I think it is not just as you alluded to in your answer to Mr Jones' questions - if you like, the event-driven awareness - it is embedding that much more deeply. It is hard to quantify; it is hard to measure; but it is nonetheless fundamental to the debate we are having, is it not?
Dr Gallagher: Yes, I agree with you.
Q145 Albert
Owen: You considered yourself
earlier on as a sort of line manager across the nations with regard to
devolution. Can you tell us: what are the main problems of
Dr Gallagher: Let me start with the second half of your
question because that takes us into the first half. How do the issues that emerge in relation to
Q146 Albert
Owen: And
Dr Gallagher: And indeed
Q147 Albert
Owen: That was a very interesting
answer and what you said about the wider scope regarding
Dr Gallagher: I do not think they were overlooked
particularly, because if you are going to have devolution to
Q148 Albert Owen: But it is important to those regions on the border?
Dr Gallagher: Of course it is, yes.
Q149 Albert Owen: What you are giving to me I think is a London-centric view of things. That is what I am asking. As devolution has progressed, perhaps that was the missing link for those borders and those regions close to the border?
Dr Gallagher: It is a long time since I have been called London-centric, but that is fair enough.
Q150 Albert Owen: Your accent does not say it!
Dr Gallagher: You have got the hint there! This is quite a difficult one, because when we look at the border regions we are looking typically not at the functions of central government (which I admit to being obsessed by) but at the functions of local government. There may well be some work to do there on helping those local authorities who abut the border on both sides to think of how they manage across the border. Given the salience of this issue for the Welsh Assembly and the Welsh Assembly Government, I would not be surprised if the initiative for that arose there rather than here.
Q151 Albert
Owen: We actually did the inquiry
into instigating it and it was very helpful - the Welsh Assembly Government's
attitude to it. The other thing you
touched on was the Government of Wales Act and the Legislative Competence
Orders that come from that. Since those
have been place, and I know it is developing, do you think
Dr Gallagher: A better place?
Q152 Albert Owen: My words.
Dr Gallagher: Indeed.
Of course, every day, in every way we are getting better. I think what is happening is that the LCO
system is unique, and it is certainly unique inside the
Q153 Albert Owen: I used the word "better" and you used the word "slicker". Can we suggest that it has "improved"?
Dr Gallagher: Yes, I think it has improved.
Q154 Alun
Michael: Just on the point of the LCO,
I must say it is quite exciting, and would be to most ministers, to think of
the concept of
Dr Gallagher: I think that is not an unfair description of
how public business is in general discharged.
Of course, where you stand depends on where you sit on this. If you are a civil servant of course you tend
to think you do nothing but what ministers want; and when you are a minister -
as you will remember, Mr Michael - essentially you wonder what the devil these
people do all day! Nevertheless, you are
right to say that if the eye of political attention moves off an issue it is
only a human reaction that it gets less priority; and it is the nature of
prioritisation that something has to move down the list. I think it might be a fair criticism of the
overall Whitehall system that after the first flush of enthusiasm for
devolution in 1999 that everybody across Whitehall was very well aware of what
happened, perhaps slightly bemused by it - because it was done at a great pace
between 1997 and 1999. Nothing very much
seemed to go wrong. There was political
congruence in
Q155 Alun
Michael: Would you say then - in the
way you have described the LCO process has turned out to be a success story - it
is one of the factors that actually has kept up awareness of the development
settlement in
Dr Gallagher: It is undoubtedly the case that we have
managed to make LCOs work. When I
arrived in my present position just two years ago we had not actually done a
successful LCO; so the fact that we have now done a good number - as well as,
you understand, legislating in primary legislation to transfer legislative
competence - is something of an achievement.
It has undoubtedly caused a ripple here and there in
Q156 Chairman: I was trying to pick up on the verb you used about the LCOs. You said you "did" them or you had "done" them? Did you say that?
Dr Gallagher: I cannot remember exactly what verb I used; but what I meant was they had been done - let us go into the passive.
Q157 Chairman: We also had a role in that as well.
Dr Gallagher: Indeed. I am very well aware of that.
Q158 Mr Jones: Just pursuing the discussion, of course the transfer of competence by the LCO procedure and indeed by the framework power procedure is not the end of the road; the next step clearly will be for the Assembly to legislate through Assembly measures?
Dr Gallagher: Yes.
Q159 Mr Jones: Relatively few of those have actually been passed to date?
Dr Gallagher: Yes.
Q160 Mr Jones: Clearly as time goes by there will be more. To what extent does your Department interface with the Welsh Assembly Government over the process of Assembly measures? Clearly, as we discussed a few moments ago, there will undoubtedly be impact not only within Wales but across the border, because of the fact, as you said, that the populations of Wales and England are so much closer together than they are between England and Scotland. Clearly your Department will be concerned, I imagine. I wonder to what extent you liaise with the Assembly Government over the progress of Assembly measures?
Dr Gallagher: The answer to your question is: not a great deal for two reasons. One, there have not been very many measures
yet and the system is still only at its beginning. Secondly, this is, however, an example of
what you might call asymmetry in the situation.
Most of the problems which have concerned you in the relationship
between
Q161 Mr Jones: Do you anticipate that you will have to do so?
Dr Gallagher: I think we will have to devote a little more. Obviously it depends on the rate of transfer of power, the breadth of the powers that are transferred and the measures that are chosen.
Q162 Mr
Jones: The concern is that
Dr Gallagher: Indeed.
What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander in this. If it is appropriate for
Q163 Mr Jones: There is no machinery at all being set up?
Dr Gallagher: Not as yet because it has not been a major
issue so far. I may say, just to complete
that question, it is a more major issue in respect of
Q164 Alun Michael: The Chairman earlier referred to the issues regarding the Legal Services Commission and the Cardiff Office. As a result of that, there was agreement that there should be a review of the Devolution Guidance Note No. 4, indeed in response to our recommendation in this Committee's report. Can you tell us what progress has been made on that review?
Dr Gallagher: It is still going on, Chairman. I am just looking to my notes to see exactly how much work has been done. It is not yet complete, but it is still in hand. I would hope that we would have it completed in the first quarter of this year. I would hope that.
Q165 Alun Michael: I think we were hoping that it would be completed a little more briskly than that so that this Committee would be able to see what the outcome of the recommendation was?
Dr Gallagher: We shall do our best to meet your needs.
Q166 Alun Michael: That is helpful. Again, the Chairman, referred to the proposal to close the Legal Services Commission Cardiff Office. You referred earlier to the fact that very often an understanding of the settlement is perhaps a little more vague in the arm's length bodies of government departments, and this was a case in point. Indeed, I think it is fair to say that in the evidence that we took the Minister who was in attendance, Lord Bach, effectively had to rescue the officials of the Legal Services Commission from continuing to dig a whole even deeper. You have made a number of efforts to put things right. What progress has been made, and what remains to be done?
Dr Gallagher: This goes back I think to Mr Jones' or Mr
Williams' question: just how do we know
how successful we have been? An obvious
measure is: do we foul up again? At some point, whether it is in an arm's
length body of the Ministry of Justice or somewhere else in
Q167 Alun Michael: I think one of the concerns as well in that particular case was that the consultation and communication with Welsh Members of Parliament was particularly poor. Indeed, we sometimes have occasions when a department or an agency seem to feel there is a need to have some dialogue with the Assembly and that is welcome, but then to overlook the need to be well connected with Parliament. Do you think you are making progress in overcoming that tendency to ignore Members of Parliament?
Dr Gallagher: I would hope so. I think it is a symptom of a slightly wider
difficulty which in some ways epitomises what we are talking about here. A number of people have made the valid
criticism of how
Q168 Alun
Michael: Would it be true to say that
actually there is a problem in helping
Dr Gallagher: Yes, that might well be so. For most officials, most of the time, Parliament is something they hear about rather than interact with; and that is a problem. For many, many officials, the vast majority of civil servants involved in the delivery of public services, Parliament is something which sets the framework for their business but something at which they might well spend their entire career and only ever read about in the newspapers.
Q169 Alun Michael: So they miss out on the fun of a direct relationship with Parliament and with MPs?
Dr Gallagher: That opportunity is certainly denied them.
Q170 Chairman: For those of us who are enthusiastic supporters
of democratic devolution, would you take away this thought in relation to the
review of the Devolution Guidance Note No. 4, and it is this: now Wales has the experience of ten years of democratic
development, surely it is very capable of actually administering a part of
England, and that is not a facetious remark.
It follows up on a point Mr Owen made about London-centric and so
on. In the nature of the dynamic of
devolution we are more than capable of actually running from
Dr Gallagher: I guess it is not beyond the bounds of
possibility. It rather depends whom you
mean by "we". I think you mean it in a
very general sense, that is to say that it would be conceivable that the
administration of legal services would be run from
Q171 Chairman: Could I end with a question in relation to the
evidence given to us last week by Sir Jon Shortridge. Were you surprised by his observations about
Dr Gallagher: I know Jon of course and have worked with him, and he is a man who would not say in public what he has not already said in private, so in that sense I was not surprised at the tone of some of the things he had to say. I think there are some things he said with which I would agree. As I said a moment ago, helping everyone to understand that the Welsh Assembly is not a government department, it is not the Welsh Office as was, it is a different institution, remains a bit of a challenge. I think we are over the hump and most people do understand that, but occasionally one defaults into behaving as if it were. Some things he said, however, I do not agree with.
Q172 Chairman: Could you elaborate?
Dr Gallagher: At one point Jon said that he had always been
of the view that the Wales Office would "wither on the vine". That does not seem to me to be self-evidently
true at all, because just as the Welsh Assembly Government is not a government
department, there nevertheless remain governmental functions that require to be
discharged in relation to
Q173 Chairman: Could I thank you for your evidence this morning. It has raised a number of new questions, no doubt. We shall be writing to Sir Jon Shortridge as a consequence of your evidence and also his evidence last week to clarify some of the points he made. It is also our intention to call Sir Gus O'Donnell the Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Home Civil Service to give his observations on what you have to say and also pose some other questions to him as well. Thank you very much.
Dr Gallagher: I look forward to that.
Witness:
Mr Andrew Davies AM, National
Assembly for
Q174 Chairman: Welcome to the Welsh Affairs Committee and
this inquiry into
Mr Davies: Thank you, Chairman. Andrew Davies. I am the Assembly Member for Swansea West but I was a Minister in the Assembly Government for ten years; for two years from 1999 to 2002 I was the Business Manager (Trefynydd) for what is now the Leader of the House; from 2002-2007 I was Minister for Economic Development, and Transport latterly; and from 2007 to just before Christmas I was the Finance and Public Service Delivery Minister.
Q175 Chairman: We are very grateful to you for coming to give
evidence, and we are particularly pleased given your experience. I suppose, next to the former First Minister,
you are arguably the most experienced
Minister of the Welsh Assembly Government in relation to
Mr Davies: I think we had a series of formal and informal networks. At a formal level, obviously the first point of call as a minister would be to the First Minister, and through that through the Secretary of State for Wales; or there would also be directly to the Whitehall government department and the relevant minister; and of course there were the special advisers as well, which I think play a very important role in government; as well as of course at official level an issue would normally get a briefing from officials about their understanding of a particular issue.
Q176 Chairman: Last week you will have heard the evidence of
Sir Jon Shortridge in which he was critical of the lack of what appeared to be
trust - I think he used that word, trust - that existed between
Mr Davies: Maybe Sir Jon is a sort of half glass empty
person; I do not know. Certainly my
experience overall was very positive.
When you consider that devolution was the biggest change in governance
in the
Q177 Chairman: Sir Jon had a role in managing that - surely a central role?
Mr Davies: Indeed.
Obviously he can only answer for himself, but as a minister and as a politician,
yes, there were going to be disagreements between
Q178 Alun Michael: I just want to follow up because there is an emphasis on the question of whether there was trust between ministers, but actually I thought there was a big emphasis in what Sir Jon said about sometimes a lack of trust between officials in different departments. Could you comment on that aspect? That was a two-way process, obviously; and there needs to be confidence that is a mutual element?
Mr Davies: Again, it is very difficult for me to comment,
but relationships varied from department to department. Of course, at a political level, on big issues,
you have a much greater ministerial turnover in
Q179 Chairman: I take it from the response to Mr Michael's question you are implicitly saying - and perhaps you could make it more explicit - that really the relationship is managed politically and it would be very strange if the lead role is not taken by politicians rather than by the permanent secretary; and in this context perhaps Sir Jon is actually exaggerating the role he plays and really he should acknowledge that it is the ministers that are actually managing the relationship politically?
Mr Davies: I do not want to appear critical, but
obviously the Welsh Office, as was, was a relatively small body in terms of the
number of civil servants. I think when
the Assembly was established there were 2,500 civil servants in the Welsh
Office, now in the Assembly Government; the latest figure is over 6,000. Of course it has gone through several
phases. The old Welsh Office had very
little policing-making capacity, and that was acknowledged, I think, at the
time. I remember in my previous job, as
head of a public affairs organised company, I did various seminars raising
awareness about the Assembly and I said this very thing: that I thought devolution was going to be a
bigger challenge for civil servants than for the politicians; and unbeknown to
me at this seminar there was a civil servant whom I got to know very well later
who was actually in the audience; he came up to me and said, "You're absolutely
right - it's going to be a huge challenge for us; and of course the other thing
is we're going to have to realise there is a Wales outside Cardiff". I think those challenges still exist. It is about the management of
relationships. Very little policymaking
went on in the old Welsh Office.
Clearly, the big challenge for the Assembly in its first term and a bit
was making policy; so it is almost inevitable I think, as the institution grew,
new people came in who had not been civil servants and the emphasis was making
policy in Wales; maybe those links with Whitehall were attenuated. I think there is another aspect. I remember Sir Jon saying to me very early on
in the Assembly's life that he found it extremely difficult getting civil
servants to go on secondment to
Q180 Chairman: Perhaps I should declare an interest because,
as you know, I was Special Adviser to the Secretary of State for
Mr Davies: Absolutely. Soren Kierkegaard the Danish philosopher said, "Life can only be lived forwards, but only can be understood backwards". Of course, the first two or three years of the Assembly's life it was a matter of survival. Certainly as a minister, ministers were ducking and diving because it was a very new institution. It was trying to develop its legitimacy and authority. I think that was the major thing. It is only ten years into the Assembly's life and I think we can look back on having established that legitimacy and authority, and also a record in terms of service delivery and policymaking.
Q181 Chairman: On your watch you have been a minister with a portfolio which did not always overlap; the portfolios were not exactly the same. Did that pose a difficulty for ministers in the Welsh Assembly Government?
Mr Davies: Overlapping with
Q182 Chairman: Yes, with
Mr Davies: No.
What struck me, my very first contact with
Q183 Mr
Jones: With the benefit of
hindsight, what do you think could have been done differently to establish the
relationship between the Assembly Government and the Assembly and
Mr Davies: I think with hindsight certainly at official
level to take a very much more strategic view.
The Civil Service I think generally both at
Q184 Mr Jones: We have the benefit in this
country of course of a unified Civil Service and you have touched on it in one
of your previous answers, but do you think that it would be beneficial to
encourage civil servants from both ends of the M4 to be located at the other
end, at least for a period? Do you think
that a period of location in other parts of the Civil Service would be
beneficial for the Civil Service in
Mr
Davies: Undoubtedly. Although civil servants from the Welsh
Assembly Government who have gone on secondment either to
Q185 Mr Jones: Perhaps that might be beneficial too?
Mr Davies: Yes, absolutely.
Q186 Mr Jones: Could we turn to the
Memorandum of Understanding which of course is what governs - "governs" is
possibly not the word - but is meant to regulate relations between
Mr Davies: There was some discussion about the MoUs initially in the Assembly's life but after the first year or two I do not recall them being mentioned very often. I think, as I said, it was more about on-going relationships at political and official level rather than being bound by a particular agreement.
Q187 Mr Jones: Might this become more of a
difficulty if for example we have a government of a different political hue in
Mr Davies: It might possibly be but I think now we have had ten years of devolution and I think that the devolved administrations, the institutions and legislatures, are mature and have authority and legitimacy, as Dr Gallagher said.
Q188 Mr Jones: Is it your feeling that the Memorandum of Understanding is sufficiently robust or at least sufficiently acceptable to survive the changes of government at either end of the M4?
Mr Davies: I am sure it will be one element of the way in which the relationship is managed. But it may well be that that will have to be looked at or negotiated if the outcome of the general election is as you say.
Q189 Mr Jones: What could be done, in your opinion, to introduce more transparency to relations between the British Government and the devolved administration, or do you think that transparency is necessarily a good thing?
Mr Davies: I think, in general, greater accountability and transparency leads
to better decisions. If I could just
touch on the Holtham Commission report of course one of the recommendations
that Gerry Holtham and his Commission makes is that a Treasury Minister should
appear before the Finance Committee of the Assembly to have that element of
greater scrutiny and that in terms of greater transparency the administration
of the Barnett Formula should be carried out by an arm's length body. Gerry Holtham and his colleagues suggest the
Office of National Statistics. In that
area of policy I think greater transparency would be very considerable. Dr Gallagher just mentioned the fact that
Q190 Mr Jones: Again we are coming back to the cultural point.
Mr Davies: Absolutely.
Q191 Mr Jones: We need to develop the culture which, frankly, does not appear to have got there yet?
Mr Davies: No, but no doubt in Wales many local authorities would make the same criticisms of the Assembly Government that we and other devolved administrations make of the UK Government, which is that it is too inwardly focused and it is too focused on its own business rather than developing and managing those external relationships.
Q192 Mr Jones: Presumably parish councils would make the same criticisms of the local authorities.
Mr Davies: Sure; it comes back to my point about the Ford Motor Company. It is in human nature that you will get these tensions. For me it is how you manage those relationships.
Q193 Mr Jones: Do you think that there would be any benefit to reviewing the Memorandum of Understanding, which has not been reviewed since 1999?
Mr Davies: Yes, obviously, I am sure
that will be so. I am not a member of
Government now, I am not a Minister, but I am sure that is being
considered. Coming back to the Holtham
Commission report, devolved administrations do not sign the statement of
funding policy which governs the administration of the Barnett Formula and
funding relationships with the devolved administrations. It is signed by the Secretary of State, in
our case, for
Q194 Alun Michael: I was just reflecting on
your comparison with Ford and the relationship between Ford Bridgend, Ford
Mr Davies: I am sure it would be a very interesting story. Whether it would be more interesting than the
history of devolution I suspect it will not be, but I think there are certain
lessons to be learned. I think there is
a danger that we tend to think that the tensions between
Q195 Mark Williams: You touched on your experiences of the Treasury and their cultural awareness. Did you find that there were some departments - you have dealt with a range of departments over ten years - that were better at dealing with the implications of devolution than others and could you say a bit more about that? If that is the case, what do you put that down to?
Mr Davies: I think the evidence that was given by several of the papers in the written evidence was saying that where (and that was certainly my experience as a Minister and a member of the Cabinet) policies were devolved, education and health particularly, that the relationships between officials and ministers tended to be on a sounder footing than where the policies were either non-devolved or there was a grey area. Certainly my own experience in taking the implications of the Railways Act, whereby the Wales and the Border Rail Franchise was effectively devolved to us, and the Transport (Wales) Act, which gave us powers that we clearly needed, I thought that worked very well, although DfT officials were not as sympathetic as Ministers. On one occasion DfT officials were telling my officials that on the Railways Act they were unwilling to concede or grant extra powers and they quoted ministers. On that basis I phoned up the relevant minister, who happened to be the MP for Pontypridd, and said, "Have you got a problem with this?" and he say, "No, I have not got a problem" so I told my officials that ministers did not have a problem, and my officials told DfT that ministers did not have a problem, so it was sorted. On the whole, relationships were okay on policy. On some cross-border issues, for example on rail, particularly the First Great Western Franchise, the relationship was less constructive.
Q196 Mark Williams: Do you relate in any way to what Sir John Shortridge told the Committee about how there was a diminished relationship over the ten years? He talked about a burst of activity in the early stages and then the level of understanding diminished. It may be, as you said, that was about staff moving on. Can you relate to that?
Mr Davies: Yes, but there is a danger that somehow
Q197 Mark Williams: I suppose that partially answers my next question. You have talked about the need for the
culture change, and those were Rhodri Morgan's words as well, both at
ministerial and Civil Service level in order to improve awareness of
relationships between the two. You
talked about the reluctance of civil servants in
Mr Davies: Both Sir John and his successor Dame Gillian
Morgan, as Permanent Secretaries, meet with their opposite numbers in the
devolved administrations and also in Whitehall government departments on a
weekly basis as well as having away-days at Sunningdale on a very regular
basis, so clearly at that level there is a very strong connection as well as at
the lower official level in terms of on-going links. I think the Wales Office submission itemises
the links that are going on at a very extensive level. I am not aware that at any time the senior
Civil Service sit back and think about those long-term relationships over a
longer period. Again maybe that will be
a question for Sir John or Dame Gillian Morgan, but I was not aware as a
Minister that that sort of strategic thought or action was ever taken. I remember a consultant doing some work in
the Assembly Government coming to see us as Ministers, without officials there,
and saying to us, "Don't forget senior officials spend most of their time
managing you and not their departments."
I think that is the problem to a large extent. The preoccupation of politicians and civil
servants is largely policy-making and they think that policy-making and
legislation is the hardest part.
Actually it is not. It is
leading, managing and delivering services.
I think it is interesting, as somebody said to me once, the passing of
legislation is the "end of the beginning"; the hard work starts
thereafter. Because of the narrow
preoccupation on policy the wider management of relationships is not seen as a
priority. The departmental Capability
Reviews undertaken of
Q198 Chairman: Could you elaborate on what you mean by the "dog that does not bark"?
Mr Davies: I think Civil Service reform was identified by the then Head of the Civil Service back in 1997 as a major challenge and changing the culture of the Civil Service to one which was based on delivering on strategic outcomes whereby senior civil servants were measured or assessed on their leadership and management of their department. My experience of the Civil Service is that people tend to get promoted on their intellectual ability not on their leadership and management capability. I think the departmental Capability Reviews have identified that. It is fascinating reading to see those reviews. I think that comes through very clearly. Also the departmental Capability Reviews identified an obsession with compliance and process and not outcomes. Certainly my experience as a Minister is that there is a lot more preoccupation with monitoring expenditure than actually measuring outcomes for that expenditure.
Q199 Chairman: That is a critique really of the Civil Service that you are familiar with and of the Welsh Assembly Government?
Mr Davies: Clearly the departmental Capability Reviews of the
Q200 Chairman: It is a general problem rather than specific to
Mr Davies: And clearly with what are going to be very significant financial constraints in public expenditure over the next five to ten years these issues are going to be increasingly important.
Q201 Albert Owen: If I could turn to the Wales Office, you mentioned earlier on in your immediate response to Mr Williams measuring the value of government departments. In measuring the value of the Wales Office do you see it as playing a continuing and important role in the devolution settlement or do you see it as a hindrance or a barrier to direct relationships with departments?
Mr Davies: On the whole I found it very beneficial, most
recently on the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill, which gave the
National Assembly powers in terms of scrutiny of the Auditor General and the
Wales Audit Office. When I was aware
that the
Q202 Albert Owen: So you would say those important bilateral meetings between individual government ministers in Cardiff Bay and Wales Office ministers, the Secretary of State and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, are very valuable links for Welsh legislation as it goes through both Houses here?
Mr Davies: Absolutely. In my own view it is a very crucial role given our current powers and the legislative settlement.
Q203 Albert Owen: So from your answers, Sir John is wrong to think that the Wales Office is going to wither on the vine?
Mr Davies: Certainly my perspective is different from his. Maybe it is because, as the Chairman said, the relationship was at a political level. I certainly found it very, very beneficial.
Q204 Albert Owen: Again you touched on your experience as a Minister with regards to the Railways Act and the Transport Act in which you were involved. What role did the Wales Office play in, first of all, helping you to establish that, and how early on is the Wales Office involved in bidding in the legislative programme for Welsh interests?
Mr Davies: If I remember correctly, reading the former First Minister's evidence, he was saying there would be an internal bidding round in the Assembly Government. Then through the Wales Office and the Secretary of State that would be part of the bidding process. My understanding is that that role is still extant and still very important.
Q205 Albert Owen: So if that Wales Office
role was not there, you would say that
Mr Davies: Clearly we would have to think through very clearly and carefully
about the relationship with the UK Government and how that was to be managed
both at political and official level. I
am not saying if it did not exist you would have to reinvent it, but we would
clearly need some assurance that for
Albert Owen: Thank you.
Q206 Mr Jones: Could I return to a point
that I put to Dr Gallagher and that was in relation to the development of Welsh
legislation in the form of Assembly Measures.
Presumably the Welsh Assembly Government would wish to liaise with the
British Government on this particular issue.
Is that another role, I wonder, for the Wales Office to keep
Mr Davies: Certainly my experience is that overall the
role of the Wales Office was very important.
The written evidence that they have submitted clearly identified the
various ways in which both the ministers and officials within the Wales Office
sought to raise awareness of issues related to
Q207 Alun Michael: You made some interesting comments about the way that relationships
have developed over time and you also referred to the very slim nature of
officials (not personally but the numbers of officials!) at a policy level as
the old Welsh Office disappeared and the Assembly came into being. How do you think the Civil Service in
Mr Davies: It has grown. It has gone
from 2,500 to over 6,000 people. That is
partly of course as a result of the merger or abolition of several of the large
quangos such as the WDA but not exclusively; that is only part of the
explanation. Clearly we did need a lot
more lawyers and officials involved in policy-making, so that has also been a
major reason for the growth. The other
point is that not only has it grown but I think you have people coming in who
maybe would not have the understanding of government that the old Welsh Office
civil servants would have, whereby it was very clearly that they were working
to the Secretary of State and the junior ministers. Now you have many officials who see
themselves working for the people of
Q208 Alun Michael: I want to put three aspects of the work of officials. One is the one that you referred to yourself and that is of policy development. Do you think that the Assembly, both the Government and the Assembly as an institution of scrutiny if you like, now has the relevant resources and competence in terms of policy development and scrutiny?
Mr Davies: Yes, I do. For me that is a different issue from whether they are well-used. Some of the challenges in policy-making are the same that Whitehall has identified in terms of the departmental Capability Reviews, that policy does tend to be an in-house job and maybe we need as an institution to look more clearly at how we engage more proactively with civil society in Wales in terms of making legislation. That is not to say that the Assembly as a small institution is not more accessible, we consult extensively, but that consultation is not necessarily the answer in terms of effective policy-making. I think there are questions to be asked about the effectiveness of that.
Q209 Alun Michael: The second is a different set of relationships. I remember coming out of the first Committee of the Assembly to which I had given evidence and walking out with an old colleague from my days in journalism, and he made the comment that in the first few weeks he had been struck that officials who had come into the Assembly from the old Welsh Office had less experience of having to have a relationship with the general public and a relationship with the politicians than you would expect in relatively junior members of staff in even the smallest district council. Do you think that those relationships are now strong and healthy?
Mr Davies: Certainly at the Civil Service level my
understanding is that in many departments in the old Welsh Office it would only
be grade fives and above who would brief the Secretary of State and the
ministers. Clearly as a Minister I would
have the relevant policy official, and he or she may be an SEO or grade seven
or even an HEO, depending on who led on that, so I think that culture has
changed. It may well be true for the old
Welsh Office, and comparisons with outward-facing, but of course it was a newer
institution and politically it was a
very different time as well, from 1979 to 1997 as opposed to post-1999 which
was very different. For me the jury is
still out in terms of the wider engagement of civil servants with wider civil
society in
Q210 Alun Michael: The third aspect is that of legislation with which of course we have
engaged in the development of the LCO system.
I think we have seen an improvement in the standard of drafting as some
experience has come in. However, it is
quite a challenging process. Unless they
have been involved in it, people very often do not understand the complexity of
moving from policy to legal requirements to actual drafting that does what is
intended. Do you feel that that capacity
- and it is not capacity just in terms of numbers but in terms of drafting
ability - is now fully appreciated and developed within the machinery at
Mr Davies: It is difficult for me to comment directly about the LCO process as I never was responsible for sponsoring a particular piece of legislation.
Q211 Alun Michael: I was thinking actually that it then goes on in terms of that capacity being needed for the drafting and the processes in relation to Measures as well?
Mr Davies: Sure.
But I was a member of the Cabinet Committee on Legislation and I realise
there was a very steep learning curve for everybody. As former Finance Minister I was most
concerned at the stage to make sure that there was financial provision for any
legislation that was being brought forward, so whether it was on that or the
drafting, I thought it was a very steep learning curve for officials right
across government, but it was a new process.
Just as it was a new process for
Q212 Alun Michael: Can I ask on one aspect. There is a tendency now I think to draft de novo when the framework powers are given within legislation and the responsibilities lie with the Assembly. One in particular that I noticed was the secondary legislation under the Clean Neighbourhoods Act where Wales lagged more than a year behind the SIs coming in for England, which is a bit ironic because actually the legislation had been designed on the basis of experience in South Wales rather than in parts of England. Do you think there are ways in which we can make the most of the capacity that is available in the new situation and not always starting from scratch?
Mr Davies: Absolutely. I always take a very pragmatic view. It is about outcomes and it is outcomes for the people who elect me and my colleagues, whichever is going to be the most effective route for doing that. Just because we have the powers in this case does not necessarily mean we have to do it. I am all for flexibility. Just because we have the power, it does not mean to say we have to have a completely "made in Wales" solution if in terms of outcomes we can piggy-back on what is being done elsewhere. Again it comes back to my point about the Civil Service is not always very good at retaining learning or indeed learning from other institutions.
Q213 Chairman: Were you surprised when Sir Emyr Jones Parry's All Wales Convention report did not recommend an increase in the numbers of Assembly Members if primary legislative powers were transferred to the Assembly?
Mr Davies: Again, he may have taken a very practical and pragmatic view that calling for more politicians would not be either a popular or easy-to-defend position. I do not know. I have not spoken to Sir Emyr about why they did not.
Q214 Mr Jones: Could we turn now please to the issue of funding. In your experience, how amicable or otherwise were the negotiations with the Treasury over the allocation of the Welsh block grant?
Mr Davies: Always extremely amicable. That did not mean we always got what we wanted! As I said, the relationships I had with the Chief Secretary of the Treasury were always extremely amicable both at an official and informal level. I have no reason for doubting that my predecessors had the same relationship with their colleagues as well.
Q215 Mr Jones: You have mentioned the Holtham Commission. What was the background to the establishment of the Holtham Commission?
Mr Davies: There have been concerns about the operation of the Barnett Formula for many years but the direct commissioning of Gerry Holtham and his Commission were a result of the One Wales agreement. It was one of the commitments within the partnership agreement between my party and Plaid Cymru in terms of establishing a coalition government that we would set up an independent review, in this case chaired by Gerry Holtham, to look at Barnett.
Q216 Mr Jones: There have been a number of reviews of the Barnett Formula. There has been the Scottish one, the House of Lords one and the Holtham Commission. Why do we need so many reviews, in your opinion, or do we? Is this an example perhaps of government not being joined up?
Mr Davies: Of course the Calman Commission was a creature of the Scottish Parliament not the Scottish Government. The House of Lords Committee, chaired by Ivor Richard, obviously was a House of Lords Committee, but then of course the Justice Select Committee also looked at the operation of devolution and in so doing looked at the operation of Barnett. Clearly it just reflects different interests in different jurisdictions, but what the outcome has been is that all four of those reviews have said everything from Barnett is wanting through to Barnett is bust, so I think there is a broad consensus that the Barnett Formula and its operation has to be looked at.
Mr Jones: Thank you.
Q217 Albert Owen: Just to follow on from that. It is the case that these four reviews that you talked about came to similar conclusions, but has been there been an attempt to pull together all these findings for ministers and governments to have a dialogue on or have they been left in isolation?
Mr Davies: No, certainly my discussions with Treasury Ministers and the then first Minister and his discussions with both the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister and discussions with the Wales Office have all been about the fact that Calman, Holtham, the House of Lords and indeed the Justice Select Committee have all said broadly the same thing, about the need for reviewing Barnett and the fact that it no longer reflects in the way it operates the devolution settlement let alone the viability of the actual Formula itself.
Q218 Albert Owen: The Welsh Assembly Government was very critical of the Treasury being judge and jury in its reviews of the Barnett Formula. Do you agree with that? Secondly, if an independent advisory body were set up, how would it work, which is a recommendation, as you are well aware?
Mr Davies: It comes back to the point about transparency. The greater the transparency I think in general the better the outcome in terms of accountability of decision-making. Clearly Barnett was set up as a temporary measure by Joel Barnett when he was Chief Secretary of the Treasury back in 1977 or 1976. It was pre-devolution and clearly it was designed as a temporary measure with the expectation that you would have devolution post-1979 and that would therefore be renegotiated. Clearly it has worked for the last 30 years but certainly in the Welsh context increasingly we would say, particularly the way in which it is administered, the fact that we are not signatories to the statement of funding policy and the fact that decisions are made by Treasury with which we have to live without any recourse to any appeals mechanism, other than to the JMC, that it needs to be put on to a different footing. That is indeed what the Holtham Commission recommended, and rather than invent a new independent body they suggest for example the ONS be the institutional body that administers and calculates the Barnett Formula, so it is taken out of the political process if you like.
Q219 Albert Owen: Just to finish on
that. Would you not think it could get
messy, though, because if the Treasury is not in charge down here there are
going to be regional elements within
Mr Davies: In my view, no, it would be put on to a much more independent footing and therefore there would still be the same amount of money available but its allocation would be done on a basis which would be more open and transparent than maybe currently people see that it is, and that that may take away a lot of the need for a conflict resolution procedure. At the moment the only way we can appeal is against the JMC, but of course in appealing to the JMC you have almost conceded that you have lost.
Q220 Albert Owen: Do you not accept the
point that there are some regions within
Mr Davies: Certainly the advice of the Holtham Commission and Professor Bernd Spahn, who was a member of the three-man Commission, who is an expert on the funding of regional and provincial government, was that in most of those there is some form of arbitration or conflict resolution mechanism, which there is not in the way in which Barnett is currently administered.
Q221 Alun Michael: I just wanted to express a concern and see what you think about it. I have seen the way that formulae have worked which are intended to bring greater objectivity into the way that money goes for instance to local government but also to the police and also to the Health Service. The problem very often from statistics is they do not always go quite as predicted and you can end up with year-on-year variations. Would you agree with me that you need some sort of system, if there is to be a use of statistics in that way, that makes sure that it is evened out so that, if you like, there is a predictability of finances over the years going forward? Sometimes, as I found in dealing with local government finance, if you have a fairly small change year-on-year it can be very bad for planning whereas if you know what the figure is, it is possible to manage even difficult situations?
Mr Davies: Of course I think that is the benefit of the Haltom Commission, that
for the first time we have had a fairly objective assessment of
Q222 Alun Michael: It is a two-way working. Floors in relation to the police grant for instance have not quite worked as intended and it is the unintended consequences rather than the predictability, so the answer to it, it seems to me, is, yes, to go to the statistics but then to put in place something which is predictable for a period ahead and only changed with warning for a subsequent period, much greater than the three-year periods that we currently work with.
Mr Davies: I fully understand your concerns having dealt with the local
government settlement in
Q223 Alun Michael: Robust and predictable are both important?
Mr Davies: Absolutely.
Chairman: Thank you for your evidence today. It has been extremely helpful to us and will certainly inform how the inquiry develops over the next few weeks: