Committee finds policy has developed in an 'ad hoc fashion'
Governments of all colours have been found guilty of failing to provide ‘strategic thinking’ about the development of devolution.
That’s the conclusion of a report published today by the cross-party House of Lords Constitution Committee on devolution and the Union.
Declaring that there has been
‘no guiding strategy or framework of principles to ensure that devolution develops in a coherent or consistent manner and in ways which do not harm the Union’,
it warns that devolution has, as a result,
‘developed in an ad hoc fashion, with different constitutional conversations taking place separately in different parts of the country’.
The report singles out especially cabinet office minister Oliver Letwin for criticism, expressing ‘regret’ that he
‘does not recognise the concerns expressed… at the pressures being placed on the UK constitution by the manner in which the devolution of powers has taken place, and continues to take place, with little consideration of the status and needs of the Union’.
Members of the committee call for the government to commission a ‘thorough evaluation of the impact on the Union and its constituent nations of the cumulative effect of the devolution settlements and its plans for decentralisation within England’ following the passage of the Wales Bill announced in the Queen’s Speech.
The report calls also for the ‘inadequate’ Barnett Formula, used to determine allocations to the devolved notions, to be replaced with a ‘needs-based’ system for the allocation of funds to the nations and regions.
It also expresses strong opposition to any proposal for full fiscal autonomy to be given to any constituent nations of the UK, arguing that it would ‘break the Union apart’.
Publishing the report, committee chair, the former Conservative cabinet minister Lord Lang of Monkton, declared that it was time to ‘stop taking the Union for granted’ and argued that the government ‘does not seem to recognise the pressures being placed on the United Kingdom by the ad hoc, reactive manner in which devolution has taken place, and continues to take place’.
He continued:
‘UK Governments have failed to adapt to devolution. We urgently need ‘a new mindset’ within Government.
Devolved competencies now cover so many areas of public responsibility that the delivery of government policies often requires collaboration between the UK and devolved governments. This is not yet being done effectively.
Instead of the ‘devolve and forget’ attitude of the past, the UK Government should be engaging with the devolved administrations across the whole breadth of government policy.
Not interfering, but co-operating and actively managing the cross-border and UK-wide implications of differing policy and service delivery choices.
Shared and overlapping policy areas need to be handled sensibly, with each administration conscious of the interests of the others.’
Ed Jacobs is a contributing editor at Left Foot Forward
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
2 Responses to “Report slams lack of ‘strategic thinking’ on devolution”
John Woods
If they, the government, could achieve the simple remedy recommended above “the UK Government should be engaging with the devolved administrations across the whole breadth of government policy” they could also, perhaps do the same for the Regions of England, which are even more neglected than the devolved regions. It is a mystery to me that with a country of such potential, we allow whole regions to spend decades in decline and the government does nothing constructive about it. I do not consider George Osborne’s speech on the “Northern Powerhouse” as doing something about it.
Alasdair Macdonald
The first point to note about this constitutional recommendation is that it comes from the unelected House of Lords and that the Chair of the committee was rejected by the electorate, as were so many of the placement and women in the Lords.
There has to be constitutional change and it would be better if it were done in a thorough-going way with good will on all sides. The recent Scotland Act was an example of how not to proceed. A party who have a single MP in Scotland (as has been the case since 1992) overturned every amendment for party gain to produce the risible claim of the “most powerful devolved parliament in the world.” So much of it was designed to transfer responsibility, but not power. It was an exercise in scapegoating.
The Lords’ proposal is simply a ruse to transfer responsibility to the nations and the regions of England, while real power is retained at Westminster to further the aims of the financial interests of the City. This was clear from everything Mr Laing said in his interview on Radio Scotland. We have seen n in the waffle about ‘The Northern Powerhouse’. Manchester, indeed, has the potential to be a powerhouse as it was when it was the cradle of the industrial revolution, but there is not a chance that Westminster, the current government and its Blairite cronies will let that potential be fulfilled.