In my previous entries, I discussed key constitutional issues in the United Kingdom and the nature of the UK state. In this third and final installment, I will discuss in brief some impacts of decentralization on the UK state and the constituent regions.
Decentralization was an initiative of “New Labour” under the leadership of Tony Blair, Prime Minister from 1997-2007. The Blair administration entered office with an ambitious constitutional reform agenda, including, inter alia,
- the abolition of the Law Lords and creation of a Supreme Court;
- removal of hereditary peers from the House of Lords;
- the incorporation into domestic law of the European Convention on Human Rights;
- a new Freedom of Information Act; and
- a set of decentralizing reforms.
Key among the decentralization concerns were: (1) local government reforms, including, importantly, the institution of elected mayors for London and other large cities; and (2) devolution, or the transfer of limited self-governing powers to the regions, i.e. to Scotland and Wales, and continuing developments in Northern Ireland. The stated goals were to bring decision-making closer to those affected (subsidiarity), and to create open and transparent government (accountability). Blair believed that central government was too big, too distant, and too secret to effectively govern, or to be actually democratic. Devolution was his answer to the crisis of political representation and the apathy that he diagnosed among the electorate in the mid to late 1990s. The thinking held that legislative bodies in the regions would enable law-makers to determine local priorities and implement more appropriate and efficient results than government from London.
The devolution settlement thus transferred decision-making powers to the regional governments in Cardiff, Edinburgh, and Belfast for the “bread and butter issues,” such as health care, social services, housing and homelessness, and so on. Within these fields, the regional administrations can vary the ways that services are designed for and delivered to their populations. For instance, the National Health Service is historically a very important set of institutions in the UK which has operated from London. Under devolution, each of the regional administrations can alter the way the NHS operates within the regional territory. In England, the internal market is the primary mechanism of health care delivery; Wales has opted to dissolve the internal market and focus on a more centralized system of delivery. Each of the devolved powers can be derogated in this way, presumably as local needs and desires indicate.
Not all powers have been devolved, however: Parliament retains the “common issues,” including security, immigration and asylum, macroeconomic policy, and the benefits regime. In addition to the increasing complexity and multi-level nature of governance, there are significant tensions that now characterize governance. Where benefits and housing intersect, for example, or where the regional administrations have responsibility for the management of immigrants, but no power of decision-making. Devolution is thus a unique and ongoing set of processes of constitutional innovation, which requires ongoing negotiation to achieve and maintain.
The devolution settlements produced an asymmetrical multi-level system of governance. In Scotland, an elected Parliament was empowered; in Wales an elected Assembly; in Northern Ireland, also an elected Assembly. The situation in Northern Ireland has been unique, given the volatile history of the region and the peace process that resulted in the Belfast Agreement of 1998. Devolution in Northern Ireland was suspended, demonstrating both Parliament’s retained prerogative and the non-federal nature of the transfer of powers in the UK. The democratization and self-determination goals have been staccato in Northern Ireland. An additional consideration is the status of the English regions (i.e. England outside of the London and the southeast). This issues is referred to as the “West-Lothian Question,” which generally asks whether it is appropriate to establish an “English Parliament,” to complement the institutions in the devolved regions. Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and England all send MPs to Parliament in London, and so in effect, Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish representatives are making decisions for England, while England does not have the same prerogative vis-à-vis the devolved territories. The West Lothian Question has received some considered deliberation, but seems to have been mooted for the time being.
Of all the reforms achieved under Blair’s leadership, devolution arguably has had the most significant impact on the UK constitution. Concerns about the impacts that devolution would bring, prompted specific language in the devolution Acts stating that Parliament retains sovereignty and that the delegated powers could be reclaimed by Parliament. (See here for the relevant text of the Scotland Act 1998, as an example). There has been persistent worry in Wales that a Tory administration would retrench and pull back devolved powers, but there is presently no clear indication that the current Conservative-Liberal coalition government in London will attempt to reverse devolution or reclaim delegated powers (but see here for related information). On the other hand, on March 3, 2011 a referendum was held in Wales as to whether full law-making powers should be devolved to the National Assembly. It passed (35% turnout, and 63% in favor), and following on the Assembly elections in May of this year, the Assembly Government will proceed with the next steps for securing these powers.
-asc..
Comments