Wales votes in favour of greater law-making powers

Welsh Assembly will no longer need ratification from Westminster -- but what will this mean in pract

The Welsh Assembly will gain greater legislative control, after the country overwhelmingly voted "yes" in a referendum on direct law-making powers.

21 out of 22 Welsh counties voted in favour of the Assembly having power to pass laws without needing the green light from Westminster.
Welsh First Minister Carwyn Jones said that this would make the process more efficient and effective. He said:

To demand respect, you must first display self respect. Today we have done just that, and the rest of the world can now sit up and take notice of the fact that our small nation, here on the western edge of the continent of Europe, has demonstrated pride in who we are, and what we all stand for.

Some have raised concerns about the low turnout - just 35.4 per cent. However, 63.5 per cent of those votes were in favour, making this a more resounding victory than the 50.3 per cent on which the Assembly was established in 1997.

The "yes" result is being hailed as a positive across the board, with Labour MP Paul Murphy describing it as a "ringing endorsement of devolution". However, over at Left Foot Forward, Ed Jacobs flags up an ICM/BBC poll which showed that 48 per cent of voters in Wales felt they didn't have sufficient information to make a proper choice in the referendum. He warns:

Whilst the Assembly will now get the full law making powers enjoyed by Holyrood and Stormont, the low turnout and lack of understanding over the issue should spur those at Cardiff Bay to prove why it was worth giving them the powers to legislate without needing Westminster's permission.

Taking away the need for ratification from Westminster should streamline the system -- it currently costs in the region of £2m each year for laws to be okayed. As Jones said, it will also make it easier for politicians to speak in terms of what they will do, rather than what they will do once they have permission. What remains to be seen whether it is used to make a practical difference to the lives of Welsh citizens, or as Shadow Welsh Secretary Peter Hain suggested it might, to "stand up to the Tory-led Government in Westminster".

Samira Shackle is a freelance journalist, who tweets @samirashackle. She was formerly a staff writer for the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Theresa May's U-Turn may have just traded one problem for another

The problems of the policy have been moved, not eradicated. 

That didn’t take long. Theresa May has U-Turned on her plan to make people personally liable for the costs of social care until they have just £100,000 worth of assets, including property, left.

As the average home is valued at £317,000, in practice, that meant that most property owners would have to remortgage their house in order to pay for the cost of their social care. That upwards of 75 per cent of baby boomers – the largest group in the UK, both in terms of raw numbers and their higher tendency to vote – own their homes made the proposal politically toxic.

(The political pain is more acute when you remember that, on the whole, the properties owned by the elderly are worth more than those owned by the young. Why? Because most first-time buyers purchase small flats and most retirees are in large family homes.)

The proposal would have meant that while people who in old age fall foul of long-term degenerative illnesses like Alzheimers would in practice face an inheritance tax threshold of £100,000, people who die suddenly would face one of £1m, ten times higher than that paid by those requiring longer-term care. Small wonder the proposal was swiftly dubbed a “dementia tax”.

The Conservatives are now proposing “an absolute limit on the amount people have to pay for their care costs”. The actual amount is TBD, and will be the subject of a consultation should the Tories win the election. May went further, laying out the following guarantees:

“We are proposing the right funding model for social care.  We will make sure nobody has to sell their family home to pay for care.  We will make sure there’s an absolute limit on what people need to pay. And you will never have to go below £100,000 of your savings, so you will always have something to pass on to your family.”

There are a couple of problems here. The proposed policy already had a cap of sorts –on the amount you were allowed to have left over from meeting your own care costs, ie, under £100,000. Although the system – effectively an inheritance tax by lottery – displeased practically everyone and spooked elderly voters, it was at least progressive, in that the lottery was paid by people with assets above £100,000.

Under the new proposal, the lottery remains in place – if you die quickly or don’t require expensive social care, you get to keep all your assets, large or small – but the losers are the poorest pensioners. (Put simply, if there is a cap on costs at £25,000, then people with assets below that in value will see them swallowed up, but people with assets above that value will have them protected.)  That is compounded still further if home-owners are allowed to retain their homes.

So it’s still a dementia tax – it’s just a regressive dementia tax.

It also means that the Conservatives have traded going into the election’s final weeks facing accusations that they will force people to sell their own homes for going into the election facing questions over what a “reasonable” cap on care costs is, and you don’t have to be very imaginative to see how that could cause them trouble.

They’ve U-Turned alright, but they may simply have swerved away from one collision into another.  

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.

0800 7318496