Mick Antoniw asks what future there is for the United Kingdom and says the decentralisation debate must be had
THE Labour Party is a British party. It is a democratic socialist organisation which aims to empower ordinary citizens within the United Kingdom and provide a social system that allows individuals to develop their full potential and receive the necessary requisites to live a decent and happy life.
Empowerment means different things to different people. It can be the empowerment that takes place in a community that works collectively for its own good. It can be the empowerment of the individual in having the opportunity to realise ambitions in his or her life.
In our democratic system, empowerment is about giving voice to individuals and communities and giving them the power to take decisions that affect their lives.
At governmental level, one particular measure taken by Parliament to empower people has been to devolve power to Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland.
Whereas there were clear and historic reasons why Wales and Scotland would be the starting points, with greater levels of devolution than the rest of Britain, it was to be a process of decentralisation of power that went beyond national blocks and would lead to regional assemblies in the regions of England, based on regional development councils.
However, since the establishment of the Welsh Assembly, Scottish Parliament and the Greater London Authority, and the failed referendum in the north-east of England, the constitutional debate has been left in a vacuum. There appears to have been little further thought, leaving our constitutional structure in a dangerous conundrum.
But despite the lack of any real discussion, the dialectical impact of the devolution process continues in diverse and dangerous ways.
There is a desperate need for Labour to resurrect the debate and develop a strategy for the completion of the devolution process. Unless this happens the debate will be taken over by reactionaries in the Tory Party or separatists in the various nationalist movements.
Nationalists argue that devolution is a step towards independence and separation. The Tories argue that England has lost out by subsidising Wales and Scotland while becoming increasingly a second rate player within the UK. Their solutions are either to reduce the number of Welsh and Scottish MPs or to create an English parliament. They have this in common with the nationalists. Even some leading Labour MPs and ministers have suggested this as a credible constitutional solution.
The devolutionists within the Liberal Democrats offer a bit of everything to everyone: independent countries within a federal structure. Socialists, by and large, do not have a coherent and consistent position.
What no one has done to any great extent is analyse the nature of the constitutional changes there have already been and place them in an ideological context.
Devolution is a delegation of power from Westminster. The core, residual power remains with the UK Parliament. Particularly in Scotland and to a degree in Wales, the ability to legislate in certain areas is devolved. There is nothing unique in this. For many years, particularly before Margaret Thatcher launched her assault on local government, local authorities had similar – albeit much lesser – powers. They could raise taxes through the rates and pass by-laws. Devolution is a radical extension of this process.
Within this framework, what would the establishment of an English parliament achieve? Almost certainly it would result in the division and separation of Britain into separate national blocks. That is why the nationalists support the proposal.
But why does David Cameron’s Conservative Party appear to be heading in this direction? It is partly out of a lack of understanding of our unwritten constitution and the process of decentralisation, which they do not support, and partly out of opportunism.
Suggesting the need for an English Parliament plays to English nationalist sentiment – the view that the Scots and Welsh have got it all and the English are paying for it.
The Barnett formula is a subsidy, the Tories say, of Wales and Scotland by the English. They dislike the Barnett formula as a progressive socialist measure for the redistribution of wealth throughout Britain. To an extent, they play on anti-Welsh and anti-Scottish sentiments to present themselves as champions of the English.
An alternative proposition is that Welsh and Scottish MPs should not be able to vote on devolved matters affecting England.
Both these proposals ignore the constitutional nature of devolution. MPs can vote on any matter in the UK unless they have chosen to devolve it to another body.
The fact that there has not been devolution in England (with the exception of the GLA) does not constitutionally justify the limitation of what Welsh and Scottish MPs can do. Nor does it justify a reduction in their numbers. To suggest otherwise is effectively to advocate the break-up of the UK and its replacement with a federal structure.
The real reason for the Tory support for these proposals is that any reduction in the number or power of Welsh and Scottish MPs (who are predominantly Labour) would give the Tories a better chance of achieving and ultimately retaining power. Their motivation is predominantly one of party political interest.
There is now a desperate need to re-invigorate the devolution debate, not so much in Wales and Scotland, but in England. We need to develop a new strategy for the decentralisation of power to the regions of England. This needs to be a comprehensive policy applied to the whole of Britain to complete the processes started in 1997.
It needs to be seen as a completion of the process of decentralisation – that is, bringing power closer to people and allowing them to take more decisions on matters that affect them locally.
Doubters argue that we tried this in the north-east of England and people didn’t want it. But we shouldn’t forget that, in 1979, Wales also rejected devolution on arguments very similar to those made against the proposals in the north-east.
To some, the powers being offered to a regional assembly were so limited that people didn’t think it was worth having. To other, it seemed the Labour Government didn’t really have its heart in the process.
We now need to rethink our proposals on the decentralisation of power and the constitutional structure necessary to enable decentralisation to succeed while still retaining the United Kingdom and an effective British Parliament. This will have implications for the structure of the House of Commons and the House of Lords, as well as local government.
The labour movement in England needs to be engaged. There is little understanding of the devolution process outside Wales and Scotland. It is vital that the debate in England takes place within an environment where there is a proper understanding of the constitutional basis for devolution to enable the development of a strategy for decentralising power in Britain within an effective central democratic structure.
Failure to do this will lead to measures that could lead to break-up of the UK as we know it or an attack on the powers devolved to Wales and Scotland. Both these scenarios are dangerously reactionary with the potential to undermine the stability, prosperity and well-being of all the inhabitants of Britain.
Mick Antoniw is a partner with Thompsons, the trade union solicitors, and a member of Newport West CLP
