A tale of two parliaments and an assembly: how the present devolution settlement holds the UK back | Sam Hall
The modern inhabitants of Britain come from a proud tradition of slow, steady, and comparatively bloodless change. A trait ingrained in the British character, we do not do revolutions.
Throughout the 19th Century, the number of Britons eligible to vote increased considerably through a series of Great Reform Acts with comparatively little bloodshed. Modern devolution sits comfortably within those parameters. There has not been one single event that bore the modern devolved institutions but rather a series of Acts of Parliament that evolved into what we see today. Yet unlike the United States of America there has never been a constitution of sorts for this Union; no commonly agreed structure, no goal, and no parameters. This has had disastrous consequences. We have cringingly gifted ourselves a poor man’s version of a federal state without the consequential increase in formal state-structure. As a result, devolution is misleading, confusing and downright dangerous for the future of the United Kingdom which consequently means the UK is a union under strain.
It is important to remember what devolution is. Devolution in the UK is a long and continual ‘process, not an event’ that has gained many admirers and critics. It is characterized by a loss of power from the British Parliament and a gain of power by the three governments in Cardiff Bay, Holyrood, and Stormont. All three have differing levels of power as well as different parties in government compared to Westminster - Welsh Labour in Cardiff, the SNP in Holyrood, and a DUP/Sinn Fein alliance in Stormont.
And there is no devolved English Parliament. Despite the weight that its proponents give it, in all three cases, the British Parliament is sovereign and can (and indeed does) rule alone in devolved areas without asking their permission first. For example, in the 2016 Referendum, Wales voted to leave by the largest margin of any UK territory - 52.5 per cent. The Welsh Government did not respect that vote and despite it, still voted against the withdrawal legislation. In turn, the British Parliament respected the vote of Wales and ignored the Assembly. This issue struck to the heart of the Union that devolution promotes the idea that there are four separate countries rather than one United Kingdom. Yet one, has a lessened ability to rule itself. The late Sir Roger Scruton, a supporter of an English Parliament, questioned why the Scotsman had two votes; one to rule himself in Holyrood, and one to rule England. He also made the case that even footing would permit greater frienship between the nations of the United Kingdom, so less of the antagonism of today.
To my first charge, that devolution is misleading the people of the United Kingdom. It is unclear exactly where the boundaries of Westminster end and devolution begins. A classic example of this is that during the 2017 General Election campaign, Carwyn Jones fronted the Labour campaign in Wales, choosing to focus on the NHS. Health and Social Care is a devolved matter in Wales. Therefore, voting Labour in a General Election has absolutely zero impact on the state of the NHS in Wales in and of itself. Carwyn Jones was also not a candidate. I should also reiterate at this stage that although the devolved institutions can legislate in any matters not explicitly reserved for Westminster, Westminster can in turn legislate on any matter, reserved or not, because it remains sovereign. The devolved legislatures are not equal or superior to it. Furthermore, if the then First Minister was trying to argue that Labour could be trusted to run the NHS in England (which is the only part of the UK in which Westminster is directly responsible for Health and Social Care), he could not have picked a worse example.
Between 2013 and 2017, the number of people in Wales waiting over one year for an operation rose a staggering 400 per cent. It seems that both politicians and voters are confused about where the responsibilities of devolution stop and those of Westminster begin. If politicians do not know where their responsibilities stop and end, why would the average voter? Devolution is also confusing. As the ongoing COVID-19 outbreak aptly demonstrates, there is a clear lack of communication between the devolved governments. Just 151 miles separate Cardiff and Westminster and yet the differing approaches of the two governments have made the situation confusing at the very time when coordination is needed the most. For example, a supermarket database is available for 1.5 million vulnerable shoppers - but only in England. Testing is of course crucial. The Welsh Government had hoped to run 5,000 tests a day on people displaying symptoms, but a deal with a supplier collapsed so only 800 daily tests can currently be done. Wales and England, being part of the United Kingdom, are using two different suppliers. These are just some examples that demonstrate that there is a lack of clarity about the implications of devolution and they show that the level of communication and coordination needed is lacking in some areas.
Devolution is also systematically dysfunctional. The Welsh Parliament is too small, the Scottish Parliament is dominated by a single party, and in Northern Ireland the First Minister does not even get to pick his or her top team. Sixty MSs are elected to the Welsh Parliament (Senedd) which some have claimed is insufficient to adequately scrutinize the work of the Welsh government because some MSs need to be on multiple committees and therefore cannot build up enough expertise. This is due to simple arithmetic. With 14 MSs sitting in government (who therefore will not independently scrutinize themselves) only 46 MSs remain to sit on 14 different committees to make up the numbers to adequately scrutinize every area of policy. Hence, these MSs cannot dedicate themselves sufficiently to becoming knowledgeable in their areas, leading to poor scrutiny of the Welsh Government. The Scottish Parliament, like the Welsh Parliament, uses the additional member system.
To critics of the ‘first-past-the-post’ system that is used for general elections, this is beneficial because it is more proportional and therefore gives less popular parties like UKIP a chance of representation (though ironically this is also a weakness to those who favour keeping more fringe movements out). However, the election mechanism is not as proportional as direct proportional representation, being a mix of first past the post and party lists. Moreover, the Additional Member system has created an SNP majority in Scotland which, although technically possible, is not its intended purpose. It was in fact supposed to encourage smaller parties with fringe views to win some seats to prevent dominance by a single party. So the Additional Member system is not necessarily proportional nor does it give constituents a single representative to hold accountable, potentially allowing politicians to deflect the blame from themselves.
Northern Ireland uses yet another system. As a legacy of the Troubles when Irish Nationalist and predominantly Catholic communities were excluded from democratic politics by Unionist and predominantly Protestant politicians, the Northern Irish Assembly functions in such a way that it is legitimate in the eyes of both Unionist and Nationalist Communities. One hundred and eight ‘Members of the Legislative Assembly’ (MLAs) are elected via the ‘single transferable vote’. According to the Electoral Reform Society, ‘Once the counting has finished, any candidate who has more number ones than the quota is elected. But, rather than ignore extra votes a candidate received after the amount they need to win, these votes move to each voter’s second favourite candidate.’
MLAs must register as either Unionist, Nationalist, or Non-Aligned which is important because certain measures require cross-community support like the budget or the election of a speaker. The entire point is to legitimise peaceful political rule for both communities. However, ministerial posts are allocated in a manner of a forced coalition via the d’Hondt system. Even minor parties can have the chance to hold a ministerial post because they are allocated not via the First Minister’s preference but on the basis on mathematics; party strength in the Assembly is what matters, not how well the First Minister believes his or her team will work together. Nobody would seriously suggest that abolishing devolution in Northern Ireland would end well. But it highlights a common theme of devolution. There is no centralised planning, no common goal, and problems are ignored for stability’s sake.
Problems like those we have seen recently. Boris Johnson is supposed to be Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland but due to the health-focused nature of this crisis, it has become painfully obvious to all that devolution means that in some respects he is simply Prime Minister of England. As I write, England is taking its first baby steps out of lockdown which once upon a time would have meant so would Scotland and Wales (Northern Ireland has had its own Assembly since 1921). But now devolution is quite literally holding Westminster ransom to the rest of the UK. The very man who is supposed to provide political leadership by representing the UK’s interests has been rendered incapable of doing so because devolved institutions are more interested in playing party politics than delivering real change. This is crucial because the formalised communication that is needed between Westminster and the devolved institutions is lacking. Therefore, it is crucial to make the best use of internal party mechanisms. Impossible without the same party is power!
Where does this leave us? When asked, 24 per cent of people polled said they would vote to get rid of the Welsh Assembly. Clearly if anti-devolution forces united, the ‘Abolish the Welsh Assembly’ Party could win seats in the 2021 Assembly Elections. I am a current student at Aberystwyth University, and I hope to live in this quite frankly stunning area after I graduate. I hope and I pray that the people of Wales do not take Welsh Labour’s systemic failings as evidence that devolution needs to be scrapped. Indeed, more focus should be given to the Assembly’s successes. Most notably, in 2007 the Assembly became the first UK nation to ban smoking in enclosed areas. In the same year, prescription charges were also abolished. Going into the 2021 Assembly Elections, our message must be crystal clear: devolution is working. Welsh Labour is not.
Equally I sympathise with anti-devolution forces to a degree. Who needs another parliament just 151 miles away from the main one? In the context of the 2016 EU Referendum, Eurosceptic forces are trying to stay relevant and looking to where else they can turn. Indeed the ‘Abolish the Welsh Assembly’ Party was founded partially by a former UKIP Treasurer. But if it is in that tradition we must sit, then we must respect the referendums that took us out of the EU just as much as that that established the Assembly, no matter how small the margins. Both were once in a generation decisions. For the sake of our democracy and its legitimacy, both must be respected. I am not against a referendum on devolution in Wales. But now? After the hurt caused by the 2016 referendum. And after 20 years of Welsh Labour? No thanks! It is time to give a different party a chance before we can pass judgement.
As for the devolution in the rest of the UK, it similarly needs reform, clarity of vision and a reminder of its successes. If we abolish, that will drive two starkly contrasting camps into existence; outright Independence and outright Unionism. Far from creating strength, as Northern Irish history shows, such starkly contrasting camps will create weakness. Devolution needs reform, not abolition.
