The relationship between the UK and Welsh governments is based on subservience, not cooperation

Martin Shipton

Reading a press release this week about the 60th anniversary of the founding of the Welsh Office, I was reminded of a quotation from Through the Looking Glass by my favourite children’s writer, Lewis Carroll.

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.”

As an Oxford don and cleric writing more than 90 years before the Welsh Office was established - and nearly 120 years before the National Assembly came into being - it would be foolish to imagine that Carroll gave any thought to the future governance of Wales.

But Humpty Dumpty’s words certainly resonated with me when I read what Jo Stevens, the current Secretary of State for Wales, had to say about the current relationship between the UK and Welsh governments.

[mid-content-banner]

Champion

She said: “The Wales Office exists as a dedicated champion for our nation and I believe it is critical that Wales has its voice at the Cabinet table, steadfastly advocating on behalf of our country. This is a legacy I will continue to champion and strengthen.

“But I want to go further and faster in strengthening the voice and the impact of the Wales Office across government and in the experiences of people across Wales.

“When I came into office in July, I set out my plans to reinvigorate the Wales Office and set a clear vision for its future.

“The last decade has been characterised by a fractious relationship between Welsh and UK Governments and as a first act, we have fundamentally reset the relationship between the Welsh and UK governments.

“The First Minister and I are forging a new partnership, based on trust, respect for devolution, cooperation and delivery. That is the bedrock on which everything else is built.”

[lower-mid-content-banner]

Maximalist

Ms Stevens certainly paints a positive and maximalist view of the relationship being forged between the two governments. But does it stack up?

I’d argue that what we’ve seen so far by no means matches up to the warm words in her press release.

When the Tory government was still in office at Westminster, it was clear that the two administrations were often in discord. The “respect” agenda promoted by David Cameron when he was Prime Minister ceded to the muscular unionism associated with Brexit that came into its own after the victory of Leave in the 2016 referendum.

The relationship deteriorated further when Boris Johnson succeeded Theresa May, with undisguised attempts to roll back devolution over important matters like post-Brexit regional aid and trading arrangements.

Welsh Labour figures like Mark Drakeford and Mick Antoniw would make speeches inside and outside the Senedd, fulminating against the anti-Welsh conduct of the UK Tory government. In most cases they were,to coin a phrase, urinating in the wind, but the fact that they were making a public stand for Wales was cause for applause.

Equality

In the run-up to July’s general election, we heard a lot from Labour about how having a Labour government in Westminster would vastly improve matters for Wales, leaving the distinct impression that the two administrations would work in harmony together on the basis of equality.

There were, it’s true, a few hints dropped that the wish-list of extra powers put forward by the Welsh Government wouldn’t be met, but the negative vibes tended to be drowned out by the positive rhetoric. In any case, for many people the priority was to send the Conservatives packing and start afresh.

But those pre-election hints have turned out to be an entirely accurate indication of how events would turn out when Labour became the governing party in Westminster..

Unless one subscribes to the Humpty Dumpty school of linguistics, it should now be perfectly clear that the relationship between the two governments is not one based on “trust, respect for devolution, cooperation and delivery”. Instead it is based on one administration (the Welsh Government) being subservient to the other (the UK Government).

That, I’m afraid, is the bedrock alluded to by Ms Stevens in her press release.

Waiting times

There have been examples of how this works in practice in recent days. A few weeks ago the two governments announced a supposedly groundbreaking deal between NHS England and NHS Wales to collaborate on delivering patient improvements. The impact of the announcement was, however, somewhat diminished by the fact that no details were released about how the cooperation would work in practice, given that both countries’ NHS waiting times were causes for concern.

There was an embarrassing moment on a BBC politics programme the other day when Jo Stevens and Eluned Morgan appeared to disagree over whether the purpose of the cooperation was to “share best practice” or bring down waiting times.

There’s no getting away from the fact that the initiative is being driven not by the Welsh Government, but by Wes Streeting, the UK Health Secretary (for UK, see England).

Few were watching from Wales, but those who tuned in to a House of Lords debate about the Crown Estate will have seen pro-Wales peers like Lord Dafydd Wigley, Baroness Carmen Smith, Lord Peter Hain and Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd making the case for its revenues to be devolved to Wales.

This is an issue that, like the injustice of no HS2 consequential funding for Wales, angers many thousands who take an interest in Welsh politics, but deserves to have more cut through with the general public.

Official Welsh Labour policy 

Devolution of the Crown Estate revenues is an official Welsh Labour policy position, but you wouldn’t know that if you listened to Lord Livermore, the little-known UK Labour apparatchik who is Economic Secretary to the Treasury, deliver a lengthy put-down speech in which he made it absolutely clear that the idea was a non-starter.

There have been other snubs as well, with Welsh Labour’s attempts to get policing and criminal justice devolved also rejected, despite powerful inquiry reports that set out cogent reasons for why reform would deliver better outcomes.

But it seems that the merits of change are irrelevant. Reform may mean something else in Wales, but for the likes of Wes Streeting it means the expansion of private involvement in the public sector.

It has another meaning as well, of course: it’s the name of the political party that could take numerous Senedd seats at the next election in 2026 if Labour fails to get its act together and steps up on policy delivery.

The language of Humpty Dumpty may be good enough for a press release (although it’s easy enough to pull apart). What it won’t do is convince the voters of its authenticity.