ESRC Seminar Series

Reforming Intergovernmental

Relations in a context of party political incongruence

Party Incongruence and the Institutionalization of

UKIntergovernmental Relations

This ESRC seminar series investigated the effect of party incongruence (i.e differences between the composition of the Westminster and devolved governments) on the character and dynamics of intergovernmental relations (IGR) in the UK, drawing on comparative evidence from other multi-level states. We held a series of five workshops, investigating the distinctive themes of institutionalisation, the role of the courts and civil service, the adaptations at the central level, the Europeanization of intergovernmental relations, and intergovernmental dynamics in climate change policy. Our findings on the first theme are outlined below.

TOWARDS THE INSTITUTIONALISATION OF IGR?

The emergence of party political differences in the composition of the central and devolved governments in the UK after the elections in 2007 provided an opportunity to examine whether – with different parties in office on the national and regional levels – the nature and organization of UKintergovernmental relations (IGR) between these governments have changed as a consequence. More precisely, after 2007, the political landscape changed with the arrival of a Scottish National Party (SNP) minority government in Scotland and a Labour-Plaid Cymru grand coalition in Wales. Party-political differences were reinforced by the restoration of the Northern Ireland Assembly, where a distinctive party system and consociational arrangements produce permanent partypolitical differences vis-à-vis the rest of the UK. But after 2007, did these differences in the party politicalmake-up of government at the central and devolved level triggera stronger institutionalization of IGR to assure communication and coordination across the governments despite the political differences between them?

Institutionalization is understood here as the additional creation of and/or the increased use of formal coordination mechanisms (e.g. JMCs, Memoranda of Understanding, Concordats). The seminars revealedconsiderable continuity in the ways the centre and the devolved governments interact, but party incongruence has given way to some changes in the nature of intergovernmental exchanges and processes after 2007.

Key Findings and Issues

The structure of IGR

  • The devolution settlement created overlapping competences and the perception of shared challengesthat need to be addressed. This contrasts with the competitive attitudes commonly found in federal states, such as Canada of Belgium, where each level of government seeks to protect its spheres of influence.
  • The distinctiveness of the three devolution settlements, and of the powers and interests of the three devolved administrations, makes multilateral negotiations and the creation of multilateral, institutionalized IGR (that can effectively address shared problems) more difficult. Informal, bilateral negotiations (i.e. between devolved governments and the relevant territorial secretary of state) remain dominant.
  • The lack of shared interests and multi-lateral engagement may explain the absence of a tendency – typically seen in some other multi-level states – for the devolved administrations to unite in opposition to central government initiatives. Multi-lateral bodies such as the British-Irish Council tend to deal with soft, low-key issues, which reduces conflict ex ante.
  • Since 1999, UK IGR have been characterized by a heavy reliance on informal channels, withformal collaborative structures (e.g. JMCs) between the UK government and the devolved administrations playing a lesser role. This remains the case in spite of party political differences between the levels of government.

The nature of intergovernmental processes under party incongruence

  • The different composition of governments triggered a shift from the reliance on party networks as major communication/coordination channel before 2007 to a stronger usage of formal bodies. The number of party meetings went down accordingly.
  • However, there has been no major reform to the existing structures. Instead, the Joint Ministerial Committee – an empty vessel back in 2001 – is used more frequently as a forumto address shared problems.
  • Overall, the SNP government tries to demonstrate its capacity to govern and, leaving a few policy areas aside, shows the willingness to coordinate rather than using IGR as a platform to shift blame or to engage in high-level conflict as some might have expected
  • UK IGR embodies a hierarchical structure, with central bias. Whitehall is not obliged to convene formal multilateral IGR even where the devolved territories request it.
  • The relative weakness of the devolved administrations vis-à-vis the centre may partly explain their efforts to avoid outright confrontation in spite of political differences between the parties of power.

Institutional Resources

  • In 2007, the UK territorial offices of state for Scotland and Wales were strengthened, but there remains comparatively few staff with sufficient expertise to play an effective coordinating role, especially when complex issues arise
  • While in 1999/2000, devolution matters received high attention, today there is little knowledge and understanding of devolution within other Whitehalldepartments. The need to make IGR work better is generally recognized, especially after the SNP were elected to govern, IGR are complicated by uncertainty over the extent of the devolution settlements, and when the devolved administrations should be consulted.
  • There is increasingly less understanding of the civil service of the ‘other administration’, both in Whitehall and Edinburgh, given the tendency that secondments of senior civil servants to Whitehall have become less frequent

Key Recommendations/Action Points

  • Better senior official coordination to prepare political exchanges is needed. This is particularly necessary with regard to bilateral inter-departmental coordination across governments, to allow for conflict resolution on the lowest possible level.
  • Policy-focused departments in each level of government would benefit from having a dedicated team with knowledge, awareness and interpersonal network ties within the relevant department at the other level of government.
  • Staff in departments both in the centre and the devolved administrations need more explicit training with regard to the handling of devolved matters to improve coordination across departments and levels of government.