Unhappy slapping
I wish there were some good Wenglish words for an almighty fight but nothing quite compares to 'stooshie' - a word my colleague Brian Taylor gets to use regularly.
A quick Google search comes up with definitions ranging from 'a mild altercation' to 'an almighty fight', so you can decide for yourselves on a 'stooshie' scale of 1 to 10 where to place this latest difference of opinion over the Welsh Assembly Government's right to ban slapping.
To help you make up your mind: a copy of a letter Deputy Minister Gwenda Thomas has written to the Chair of the Vulnerable Children and Child Poverty Legislative Competence Order Committee lands in our laps. (Big title, small committee, huge task). In her letter she comes out fighting on the issue of WAG's right to ban slapping.
"You will be aware of recent press reports about the UK government's view that the law regarding physical punishment of children could not be within the Assembly's legislative competence because it relates to criminal law, which is not devolved, and therefore would not primarily relate to any of the fields currently in Schedule 5 of the Government of Wales Act 2006.
The Welsh Assembly Government does not accept this argument. In our view, a power for the Assembly to legislate so as to protect children from harm caused by parents or people with parental responsibilty physically punishing them could relate to an appropriately worded matter in the social welfare field - a field which is in Schedule 5. There is an important distinction between criminal justice in general - which is not devolved - and criminal sanctions, which may or may not be devolved. It is not necessary that the Assembly should have legislative competence in respect of the criminal law generally in order to make provision changing an aspect of the criminal law."
So far so ante upped.
Then comes this:
"It is clear that if the current draft is not amended the whole of our Vulnerable Children LCO would be endangered ... The Welsh Assembly Government has agreed that the proposed Order be amended to meet the UK Government's insistence that it should not confer legislative competence on the Assembly to enable the removal of the defence of reasonable punishment in relation to the physical punishment of children".
In other words, we're right, you're wrong .. but ... nah, we're not up for an all-out war.
So who is right? Unless the Counsel General for Wales, Carwyn Jones is ready to take on the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Phillips in a proper, official 'stooshie' you'll just have to come to your own conclusion. Even those who agree that Westminster's interpretation is probably right seem to think this is the first of many arguments to come thanks to - as one of them put it - "a fundamental weakness" in the Government of Wales Act.
Perhaps by then one of you will have come up with our very own alternative word for 'fight' or 'battle'.
In the meantime, my advice to the children of Wales: you'd better behave yourselves.
I'm Betsan Powys, ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ Wales' political editor. I'll be blogging the inside track on .
°ä´Ç³¾³¾±ð²Ô³Ù²õÌýÌý Post your comment
I think Gwenda Thomas is playing on words here, I cannot see the difference between "criminal justice in general & criminal sanctions." How can the Assembly government 'sanction' someone when the power to do so is not legislated. Slapping children if excessive is an offence under Section 38 or 47 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 and the Assembly has no power to vary that legislation...and quite right too.
As for the word 'stooshie' no doubt that Richard Harris will find an appropriate Welsh word for it.
Betsan,
This post is to do with the date rather than 'happy slapping'. There is an article on ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ News about changing social attitudes in the UK at
In an inserted box they give the results about "Britishness". The problem is, is the box only looks at whether English or Scottish people feel British or not. The link to the survey homepage doesn't offer any answer either. There is no press release about this data. What are the results of Welsh people. At the beginning of the article, it says that it took a representative sample from across the UK. Now either the surveyors have a different definition of the UK or this article ignores the Welsh results.
I know there is a commission or some such about the coverage the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ gives to Welsh politics with Prof Anthony King at Southampton but I am not sure how we can contact the commission about such examples. Do you have any contact details about this research? I've looked on the University website but can't find any information on it. Hopefully the researchers will have a look at your blog to get some information... Please post any information you do have on this. Cheers.
The problem is that many Welsh measures are likely to provide for sanctions for people who break them, for example regulations on buses compelling the provision of seat belts coupled with sanctions for companies/organisations providing public transport that fail to fit seat belts. Would that be deemed an intrusion into the criminal law?
If this is a sticking point then the criminal law should be devolved.
The idea that England and Wales form one unified legal jurisdiction and this should for ever and unchanging is unrealistic. The USA contains 50 states, many of which are smaller than Wales in population and each one has control over its criminal law, this seems to cause no problems. Forming Wales into a separate legal jurisdiction is a logical consequence of devolution.
When you say the Lord Chief Justice, surely you mean the Attorney General?
Peter
No, I really did mean the Lord Chief Justice, though I understand why you ask the question. It depends which 'stooshie' you're talking about ... The current stooshie is between the Assembly Government and the UK Government about whether it could bring in a smacking ban under the "harm and neglect" clause in the LCO. But you talk to close observers of the Government of Wales Act and they'll tell you this ISN'T where the battle should be taking place - it's phoney war. The UK Government's role is to pass or reject the LCO depending on whether it's within the Assembly's prescribed fields. The "harm and neglect" clause clearly IS, because it comes under the field of social welfare, which is devolved. Now, a smacking ban isn't in the LCO. Nowhere in the Act does it say that the UK Government can pass an opinion on what the Assembly might do in the future under the powers devolved by the LCO. That's why this is a phoney war. The two sides are swapping legal advice from their respective Attorney Generals about a hypothetical future measure NOT about the LCO itself. Which brings me on to the Lord Chief Justice. The Assembly Government could choose to introduce a Measure banning smacking in Wales once the LCO is passed. So whose decision would it be whether that Measure was legal under the Assembly's powers? Firstly, it would be the Presiding Officer, who holds the ultimate responsibility for everything passed by the Assembly to conform to the law. If he said it was legal, and it was passed, any challenge to this would come from the judiciary NOT the UK Government. Once the LCO's passed, Westminster's role ends. Then the legality of the Measure is stooshie between the Assembly and the Supreme Court. Phew.
As a Welshman who emigrated to Scotland 43 years ago I commend the word "stooshie". It's always qualified - "a wee stooshie", "a real stooshie", " a terrible stooshie" - which explains the multiple definitions on Google. It implies a fuss, a struggle and a mess, usually involving several people or organisations. It seems to describe admirably the situation Betsan is discussing. It's a very useful term - don't bother inventing a Welsh version - just spell it "stwshy" - to confuse the English, who won't know how to pronounce it.
So essentially what you are saying is that the National Assembly is fully within its rights to propose the LCO in its present form but the UK government is trying to get the Welsh Government to promise that it will not pass any measure that would ban smacking?
If so why do they have to worry, there are vetos on Assembly Measures available to them, ie whipping their members to reject the measure when it goes to the Commons for approval, or even just refusing to pass it on to the Commons for a vote. Sounds like Whitehall trying to flex its muscles and close down the devolution process. You can only pass laws if we fully agree with them, and we will only give you that competence if you agree to bind yourself to restrictions.