Northern Ireland Forum

for

Political Dialogue

~~~~~~~~~

RELATIONSHIPS WITHIN THE BRITISH ISLES

AND THE IMPLICATIONS OF

DECENTRALISATION THROUGHOUT THE

REGIONS OF THE UK

by

STANDING COMMITTEE A

(POLITICAL AFFAIRS)

~~~~~~~~~

Presented to the Northern Ireland Forum for Political Dialogue

on 24 April 1998

Adopted CR30

Note

DRAFT REPORTS

This report has been prepared by Standing Committee A for

the consideration of the Northern Ireland Forum for Political

Dialogue. Until adopted by the Forum in accordance with its

Rules, this report may not be reproduced in whole or in part

or used for broadcast purposes.

CONTENTS

Section Page

1. INTRODUCTION 1

2. BACKGROUND 5

3. CURRENT ARRANGEMENTS FOR

THE GOVERNMENT OF SCOTLAND,

WALES AND NORTHERN IRELAND 13

4. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE 15

- General 15

- Key Features of Proposed Devolution

Arrangements for Scotland and Wales 17

- Constitutional Status 19

- Quangos 21

- Local Government 25

- Relationship with Europe 27

- Relationship between Regional Governments

within the UK 30

- Further Implications of Devolution 33

5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 37

ANNEXES

ANNEX A Membership of Committee

ANNEX B Individuals/Organisations with whom the

Committee met

ANNEX C Written submissions from political parties

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 At the plenary meeting held on Friday 14 February 1997 the Forum

agreed that a Committee should be charged with a remit of Political

Affairs and terms of reference as follows:

‘To examine and report on issues which contribute to

division, distrust and misunderstanding within Northern

Ireland and between Northern Ireland and the Irish

Republic.’

1.2 The Business Committee was charged with deciding under which

Standing Committee designation this Committee would operate and

at its meeting on 25 September 1997 it decided to allocate this remit

to Standing Committee A.

1.3 The members appointed to Standing Committee A (Political

Affairs) were ratified at the plenary meeting of the Forum held on

10 October 1997. The first meeting of the Committee was held on

16 October 1997 when Mr Robert Stoker was elected Chairman.

The membership of the Committee is listed at Annex A. The

Committee however regrets that some parties decided to serve on

the Committee as observers and did not therefore fully participate in

the Committee’s investigations.

1.4 Before commencing any structured deliberations each party

represented on the Committee was invited to put forward themes for

1

the Committee to consider. Eight themes were put forward by 3 of

the parties - Ulster Unionist Party (UUP), Democratic Unionist

Party (DUP) and Ulster Democratic Party (UDP). After

deliberation the Committee agreed in the first instance to examine

the following two themes in parallel:

Political development in the Nationalist and Unionist

communities since 1972 which would examine the movement on

both sides in terms of political thinking and the effect of direct

rule and related issues on the administration of Northern Ireland.

Relationships within the British Isles and the implications of

Decentralisation throughout the regions of the UK.

1.5 However given the advanced state of the proposed devolution

arrangements for Scotland and Wales, which obviously played an

important part in the Committee’s considerations, coupled with, at

that stage what was a possibility of a Northern Ireland Assembly as

part of the settlement from the political negotiations, the Committee

agreed at the beginning of 1998 to concentrate its efforts on the

theme addressing the implication of decentralisation throughout the

regions of the UK. This report therefore outlines the deliberations

of the Committee on this issue.

1.6 As part of its deliberations the Committee in the first instance

sought advice from academics on the issues to be addressed within

this theme. A list of academics met by the Committee is attached at

Annex B. The Committee also met various representatives to

2

discuss in detail specific issues which had been highlighted during

the meetings with the academics. A list of these representatives is

also listed at Annex B.

1.7 As has already been indicated, the proposed devolution

arrangements for Scotland and Wales were central to the

Committee's discussions. The Committee travelled to Wales on

18 March and to Scotland on 15 April to meet with officials from

both the Welsh and Scottish Offices as well as with representatives

from the main political parties within both regions. The meetings

which took place during both these visits were extremely beneficial

to the Committee’s deliberations and highlighted the views and

feelings of the people of Wales and Scotland to the proposed

devolution arrangements.

1.8 During the Committee's deliberations it became increasingly evident

that future relationships with Europe would be an important area to

address within any devolution arrangements. The Committee

therefore travelled to Brussels to meet with representatives from the

Northern Ireland, Welsh and Scottish Regional Offices and with a

representative from one of the regional governments in Germany to

discuss how proposed devolution arrangements would affect each

region’s relationship with Europe. These meetings were also

extremely informative.

1.9 Furthermore the Committee sought submissions from each of the

political parties represented on the Committee on their proposed

3

devolution arrangements for Northern Ireland. Four parties put

forward submissions which are included at Annex C of this report.

1.10 Due to the time constraints imposed by the closure of the Forum the

Minutes of Evidence have not been included in this report.

1.11 The Committee wishes to thank all those who took the time and

effort to meet with the Committee during the course of its

examination of this issue. It would also like to express its gratitude

to all those who facilitated the Committee by providing

accommodation for meetings and supplying hospitality to

Committee delegations.

4

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 The Home Rule debate has a history dating back to 1885/86 when

the Liberals support for Home Rule in Ireland led to Liberal interest

in Home Rule for Scotland and Wales. However Home Rule was

largely unsuccessful at this time because its attractiveness was

believed to be limited, the costs high and the outcome uncertain.

2.2 During the period since then there have been several attempts at

devolution throughout different regions of the United Kingdom.

Northern Ireland was however always treated differently within the

United Kingdom and the following paragraphs therefore look firstly

at the attempts at devolution in Northern Ireland and then at the

attempts in Scotland and Wales.

Northern Ireland

2.3 The first attempt at devolution within Northern Ireland came at the

turn of the century, when Northern Ireland was recognised as a

separate entity in Ireland under the Government of Ireland Act

1920. This Act provided for two devolved legislatures in Ireland -

one for the six counties of Northern Ireland and another for the 26

counties of the Irish Republic.

2.4 However the Southern Legislature was never established and in

1921 under the Anglo-Irish Treaty the South of Ireland was granted

Dominion status and became the ‘Irish Free State’. By this time

5

Northern Ireland was up and running as a devolved unit within the

United Kingdom.

2.5 Under the Government of Ireland Act the Northern Ireland

Parliament became responsible for what were called transferred

matters. These were broadly matters domestic to Northern Ireland

eg agriculture, health, education, housing, local government etc.

The remaining matters, known as excepted and reserved matters,

were under the jurisdiction of Westminster. Excepted matters

included matters of imperial or national concern while reserved

matters included postal services, saving banks, certain major taxes

and the Supreme Court.

2.6 The Northern Ireland Parliament was prorogued in 1972 for various

reasons which have not been gone into in detail in this report and

power reverted to Westminster. What was intended to be a

temporary period of direct rule began.

2.7 In 1973 the Northern Ireland Constitution Act finally dissolved the

NI Parliament, replaced most of the 1920 Act and made provision

for another form of devolved administration. Powers were

devolved from Westminster to a Northern Ireland Assembly on

1 January 1974 within which a power-sharing executive began to

operate. The Assembly was however prorogued after four months

and power once more reverted to Westminster. Then began the

period of direct rule which still exists in Northern Ireland until this

date.

6

2.8 Various attempts have however been made since 1974 to find a

system of government which would be acceptable to the Northern

Ireland community. Of particular note are the Northern Ireland

Convention and the ‘rolling devolution’ initiative.

2.9 The Northern Ireland Convention was set up in 1975 to consider

what provisions for the government of Northern Ireland would be

likely to command the most widespread acceptance throughout the

Northern Ireland community.

2.10 However a report produced by the Northern Ireland Convention in

November 1975 was rejected by the then Secretary of State on the

grounds that he did not believe that it would command sufficient

widespread acceptance throughout the community to provide stable

and effective government. The Convention reconvened in

February 1976 but talks between the political parties broke down

almost immediately and on 6 March 1976 the Convention was

dissolved without finding any agreement acceptable to Westminster.

2.11 While devolution remained on the agenda, the main thrust was more

towards a more positive form of direct rule until James Prior was

appointed Secretary of State on 13 September 1981. He became

convinced that a new initiative was needed and worked out the

outline of a scheme that became known as ‘rolling devolution’.

Essentially this scheme set up an Assembly initially with an

advisory and consultative role until agreement was reached on

devolution arrangements which would achieve widespread

community support. Only then would executive power be

7

transferred in stages until the necessary mutual confidence had been

built up between parties.

2.12 The elections to the Assembly took place in October 1982. Both

the SDLP and Sinn Fein fought the election but on an abstentionist

ticket which meant that the proposals of attracting cross-community

consensus was a distant prospect.

NI Assembly - Devolution Report Committee

2.13 As part of the Assembly’s work, a Devolution Report Committee

was established with a remit of examining ‘how the Assembly might

be strengthened and progress made towards legislative and

executive devolution.’

2.14 Four reports were presented by this Committee. The first report

contained recommendations for the strengthening of the role of the

Assembly in the short term, most of which were accepted and

implemented by the Government. The second report merely

contained the papers prepared by the three parties participating in

the Assembly ie Official Unionist Party, Democratic Unionist Party

and the Alliance Party together with written proposals and advice

submitted to the Committee by outside persons and bodies.

2.15 The third report, prepared by Sir Frederick Catherwood MEP, who

responded to the Committee’s invitation to act as adviser for this

particular occasion, recommended that the entire range of functions

involved in the Northern Ireland Constitution Act of 1973 be

8

transferred to the Assembly; that the initial Executive would require

the support of two-thirds of the members of the Assembly; that a

long-term administration should require the support of just 55 per

cent; that members of Committees be elected by a List system of

PR; that a Bill of Rights be enacted; and that 30 per cent of the

members of the Assembly could request the Secretary of State to

test the constitutionality of any Assembly legislation before the

judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

2.16 Although these proposals were endorsed by the three Assembly

parties, the Alliance Party would only support the proposals on the

strict understanding that they would form the basis for further

discussions between the Secretary of State and the other parties

including the SDLP; that the discussions should be solely concerned

about political structures within Northern Ireland and that they

should not be used to dispute the current Anglo-Irish negotiations.

2.17 The Government took no action on the Catherwood proposals and a

few weeks later on 15 November 1985 the Anglo-Irish Agreement

was signed. The two Unionist parties voted to suspend the sittings

of the Assembly other than the sittings of the newly established

'Committee on the Government of Northern Ireland' which was

established to examine the implications of the Anglo-Irish

Agreement for the government and future of Northern Ireland and

the operation of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 and the

Northern Ireland Act 1982.’ The Alliance Party withdrew from the

Assembly in December 1985 in protest against this decision. The

Unionists then withdrew the Catherwood proposals and on

9

13 March 1986 the Committee was discharged; its last act was to

publish its proceedings in its fourth report. The Assembly was

finally dissolved in June 1986.

2.18 The most recent attempt at devolution came as part of the

multi-party negotiations when an agreement was reached on 10

April 1998 between 8 of the 10 political parties who were elected to

the Forum viz Ulster Unionist Party, Social Democratic and Labour

Party, Sinn Fein, Alliance Party, Labour, NI Women's Coalition,

Progressive Unionist Party and Ulster Democratic Party. This

agreement proposes among other things the setting up of and the

arrangements for a Northern Ireland Assembly. The agreement will

be put to the people of Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic in a

referendum on 22 May 1998.

Scotland and Wales

2.19 Attempts at devolution for Scotland and Wales culminated in the

1960s with the revival of the Scottish Nationalist Party and when

the Scottish and Welsh Secretaries of State really came to the fore

as quite powerful figures within the Cabinet. During the period

1974-1979 the Labour Government attempted to introduce

devolution in Scotland and Wales but the proposals failed in

referendums.

2.20 During the following 18 years the Conservative Government was

content to devolve administrative powers, as was the case with the

10

regions set up in England to administer central Government

Services, but they were not prepared to devolve political power.

2.21 However on assuming power in 1996, the Labour Party campaigned

on a promise for devolution for Scotland and Wales. Following the

publication of a White Paper a referendum was held in each region.

2.22 In the referendum for the Scottish Parliament on 11 September 1997

voters were handed 2 ballot papers. The first asked the voter to

indicate whether they agreed or did not agree that there should be a

Scottish Parliament. The second asked whether they agreed or did

not agree that a Scottish Parliament should have tax-varying

powers. In Wales the referendum which was held on 18 September

asked voters to indicate on a ballot paper whether they agreed or

did not agree that there should be a National Assembly in Wales.

2.23 The turnout at the referendum in Scotland was 60.4% compared to

50.3% in Wales. In Scotland 74.3% agreed that there should be a

Scottish Parliament with 63.5% agreeing that a Scottish Parliament

should have tax-varying powers. Just over 50% in Wales agreed

that there should be a Welsh Assembly.

2.24 The change of mood in Scotland since the 70s is believed to be the

result of the people living there feeling disgruntled that their country

was being run by a party who had no political representation in

Scotland together with the fact that the campaign for a "YES-YES"

vote was, in 1997, a single well organised campaign which had not

been previously been the case. The difference between the turnout

11

for the referendum in Scotland and that in Wales is believed to be

due to the existence of the Scottish Constitutional Convention, a

devolutionary pressure group - such a thrust is absent in Wales.

2.25 The change in mood in Wales, although not as radical as the

feelings in Scotland, was believed to be in some way due to the

backing of the proposed arrangements by the local government

sector which had not been in favour of devolution in 1979 mainly

because it believed at that time that its powers would be diminished

- under the proposed arrangements a responsibility will be placed

on the Assembly to promote local government.

2.26 Bills for the proposed devolution arrangements are currently passing

through Parliament and Scottish and Welsh Office officials are

putting in place the arrangements for a Scottish Parliament and a

National Assembly for Wales to be operative in the year 2000.

2.27 The following chapters of this report examine the present position

within the different regions of the United Kingdom, consider the

proposed arrangements for Scotland and Wales and discuss the

implications for Northern Ireland.

12

3. CURRENT ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE

GOVERNMENT OF SCOTLAND, WALES AND

NORTHERN IRELAND

3.1 The system of public administration in Scotland, Wales and

Northern Ireland is led in each region by a Secretary of State who is

a Cabinet Minister. Each Secretary of State has overall

responsibility for the government of their respective region and is

accountable to Parliament.

SCOTLAND

3.2 The statutory functions of the Secretary of State for Scotland are

administered by 5 Scottish Office Departments - Agriculture

Environment and Fisheries Department, Development Department,

Education and Industry Department, Department of Health and

Home Department. The Secretary of State also has some degree of

responsibility for a number of other Scottish Departments which

include Scottish Record Office, Scottish Court Service, Registers of

Scotland, Scottish Courts Administration.

3.3 The Secretary of State is supported by two Ministers of State and

three Parliamentary Under Secretaries of State.

WALES

3.4 The statutory functions of the Secretary of State for Wales are

administered by the Welsh Office which is responsible for industrial

and economic development, education and training, health, housing,

13

social services, transport, planning and environment, local

government, agriculture and arts and cultural heritage.

3.5 The Secretary of State is supported by two Parliamentary Under

Secretaries of State.

NORTHERN IRELAND

3.6 The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland works through the

Northern Ireland Office and her main statutory functions are

administered by 6 Northern Ireland Departments - Department of

Agriculture, Department of Economic Development, Department of

Education, Department of the Environment, Department of Health

and Social Services and the Department of Finance and Personnel.

3.7 The Secretary of State is supported by two Ministers of State and

two Parliamentary Under Secretaries.

3.8 One of the criticisms of this form of government in Northern Ireland

is that the Ministerial team has a constituency base in England,

Scotland and Wales but no direct electoral accountability to the

citizens of Northern Ireland. The result is that the system of public

administration in Northern Ireland has serious problems with

accountability - the so-called 'democratic deficit'.

14

4. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE

4.1 The Committee believes that it has carried out a full and thorough

investigation into the effects of decentralisation within the UK.

During its investigations the Committee met with academics,

representatives from various organisations and political parties,

officials from the Scottish and Welsh Offices and representatives

from the Northern Ireland’s, Scotland's and Wales’ regional offices

in Europe - all amounting to over 30 hours of advice and evidence.

A full list of those with whom the Committee met is attached at

Annex B.

4.2 This chapter provides a summary of the information provided to the

Committee during its investigations.

General

4.3 Devolution was generally seen as being central to the Labour

Government’s plans to modernise the Constitution. It was also seen

as part and parcel of the Government’s wider constitutional debate

which includes the reform of the House of Lords, electoral reform,

politics of Europe etc.

4.4 Flexibility was the key word put forward for understanding the

current Government policy given that different devolution

arrangements are proposed for Scotland than those proposed for

15

Wales. This meant that the arrangements for Northern Ireland

could be different again.

4.5 It was generally accepted by all that devolution in some form was

the best way forward for Northern Ireland. It was pointed out to the

Committee that integration into the United Kingdom was now seen

as anachronistic and that Northern Ireland could not fully integrate

into the United Kingdom without being highly unusual.

Mr D Morrow, University of Ulster said:

‘We are now thrown back to deciding a form of government

for Northern Ireland that we can live with. We are no longer

talking about a form of government for the United Kingdom

as a whole; that seems to have been removed from the

agenda by decisions taken elsewhere.’

4.6 The concept of British identity was identified as being central to the

debate. The problem appeared to be that there was no single

definition of Britishness and the meaning depended on the context.

4.7 Dr Graham Walker in his written submission to the Committee

stated:

‘The Scottish and Northern Irish questions both compel

critical analysis of the contemporary meanings of the idea

of ‘Britishness’. These meanings vary according to

context and people in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and

indeed Wales, have all at various times been upset by the

16

tendency of many English people to equate the terms

‘English’ and ‘British’ and appear to discount the

non-English dimensions to Britishness.’

4.8 Dr Walker pointed out to the Committee:

‘The objective now is to promote the idea that the British

State can be restructured in a decentralised fashion around

different symbols and different shared concerns.’

Key Features of Proposed Devolution Arrangements

4.9 The various aspects of the proposed arrangements for Scotland and

Wales are set out in the table at the end of this chapter.

4.10 This Committee has not considered the electoral system proposed

for each of the devolved bodies - this has been the subject of

consideration by the Forum Committee on Electoral Reform.

4.11 The most significant part of the proposed devolution arrangements

is that Scotland will have legislative powers in relation to the

matters for which it will be responsible. The power delegated to the

National Assembly for Wales is limited to secondary legislation

which means that they will make Orders in Council. However Ms

Morrow, QUB pointed out to the Committee that as there will be

fewer instruments going through Parliament this means that the

quality of the delegated legislation for Wales will improve and that

such legislation is likely to be scrutinised properly.

17

4.12 The Scottish Parliament will also have tax-varying powers. It was

however suggested to the Committee that the tax power could be a

double-edged sword. Dr Graham told the Committee:

‘Commentators have also observed that the tax power

could be a double-edged sword. It could be a pretext for

a reduction in the block grant because under the present

system used to calculate the distribution of public money

in the United Kingdom - the so-called Barnett formula -

Scotland gets more than its fair share. Scotland comes

after Northern Ireland with regard to the proportion of

public expenditure per head. Now it has been predicted

that this system will come under greater scrutiny with

devolution and that pressure will be exerted from the

north of England for a reduction in Scotland’s share’.

4.13 Dr Carmichael also addressed this issue. He told the Committee:

'The Scots voted, albeit in fewer numbers, for tax-raising

powers, but for three pence in the pound. That will only

pay for a small fraction of what Scotland spends or what

money is spent in Scotland ........ So there are questions

about taxation and spending. What is going to happen

about equalising taxing and spending across the United

Kingdom?'

4.14 All the parties with whom the Committee met in Scotland believed

that there will be a re-assessment of the Barnett formula within the

18

next 5-10 years. This was one of the concerns expressed by the

representatives from the Conservative Party in Scotland who were

the only party to campaign for a NO vote in the referendum. The

representatives recognised that Scotland enjoys a spending

advantage over other regions in the UK and that devolution will

mean a new formula for the allocation of money to Scotland may

have to be entrenched between Scotland and England.

4.15 Although the Scottish MPs will continue to play a full role at

Westminster the political parties believe that through time the

number of Scottish MPs will be reduced.

Constitutional Status

4.16 The Government has pledged on several occasions that the

constitutional arrangements for Scotland and Wales within the

United Kingdom remain unchanged and that Westminster will

continue to be the Sovereign Parliament.

4.17 Ms Morrow, QUB informed the Committee that she does not

believe that this will actually be the case. She pointed out to the

Committee:

‘By giving both these nations (Scotland and Wales) more

control over their own affairs, they are inevitably making

certain constitutional changes, particularly with regard to

Scotland, where by giving the nation law-making powers,

they are altering the balance of power within the state,

19

albeit in areas where the Sovereign Parliament has

decided to forego its sovereignty.......... Legally it would

still be possible but politically it will be quite difficult.’

4.18 Mr Morrow, University of Ulster also addressed this issue when he

met with the Committee. He said:

‘Devolution is technically about an Act of Parliament; it

still maintains the notion of Parliamentary sovereignty.

However it is impossible, politically, to think of any

Westminster Parliament abolishing the Scottish Parliament

without the prior consent of the Scottish people. So,

effectively, you are devolving the whole basis of power to

something very new, to new regional consent to being

governed........... So you are effectively talking about a

transfer. ............. Will a clear relationship emerge

between Scotland and the central Parliament which people

will be happy about and can clearly identify with, or will

we reach a point where a clash between the wishes of the

two authorities is almost inevitable?’

4.19 Dr Carmichael also addressed this latter issue when he informed the

Committee:

‘Who is going to retain ultimate sovereignty? In theory it

will be Westminster. As Tom Dalyell said, however, in

the House only yesterday "In practice, will the Scottish

Parliament with an elected mandate really bow down to a

20

Westminster Government or will it precipitate a

constitutional crisis?" We had experience of that here in

1972 and in the end Westminster prorogued Stormont.’

4.20 Northern Ireland whilst being part of the United Kingdom has

always been kept at arm's length and has always had distinctive

arrangements for its government which were not countenanced by

the rest of the United Kingdom.

Quangos

4.21 The definition of a Quango (quasi-autonomous non-governmental

organisation) or non-departmental public body (NDPB) was defined

in a recent Government Consultation paper ‘Opening up Quangos’

as

‘a body which has a role in the processes of national

government, but is not a government department or part of

one, and which accordingly operates to a greater or lesser

extent at arm’s length from Ministers.’

4.22 The Consultation paper also explains that the term ‘NDPB’ derives

from Sir Leo Pliatsky’s ‘Report on Non-Departmental Public

Bodies, January 1980. The full list of NDPBs and other public

bodies is published annually in the Cabinet Office publication

Public Bodies which gives basic details about the four categories of

NDPBs. Public Bodies 1997 indicates that for Northern Ireland

there are 161 NDPBs in Northern Ireland:

21

53 Executive Bodies (including 5 Education and Library Boards)

35 Advisory Bodies

35 Tribunals (including 20 Social Security Tribunals)

38 Other Bodies (which include 4 Health and Social Services

(HSS) Boards, 4 HSS Councils, 20 HSS trusts)

4.23 The Committee notes that 9 of the Executive Bodies (including 5

Education and Library Boards) fulfil functions carried out by Local

Government in Great Britain.

4.24 The Forum debated the consultation paper ‘Opening up Quangos’

at a plenary meeting on 21 November 1997. Criticisms regarding

quangos aired during the debate were similar to those criticisms

identified in the Consultation Paper - that is, Quangos are unelected,

unaccountable and controlled a large amount of expenditure.

Concern was also expressed about how individuals were appointed

to them but it was recognised that some reforms had been made

through the Nolan recommendations.

4.25 Professor Knox suggested to the Committee that the recent

consultation paper on Quangos should not be about opening up

Quangos but rather it should be about making those Quangos

directly accountable to elected representatives.

4.26 The concern regarding the large amount of expenditure controlled

by Quangos was addressed by Professor Knox, when he met with

the Committee. He pointed out that the Government’s own figures

22

published by the Department of Finance and Personnel in the

Northern Ireland Expenditure Plan and Priorities note:

'In 1995-96 gross expenditure by 44 executive,

non-departmental public bodies and the 32 national health

service bodies totalled £4,707 million.’

4.27 Professor Knox continued:

‘By my calculation that is 57% of total Government

spending. That is quite significant: 57% of total

Government spending is in the hands of the appointed

executive agencies or non-departmental public bodies.

Compare that with the net expenditure by the 26 local

authorities - the only democratic forum that we have in

Northern Ireland. Their expenditure in 1996-97 amounted

to £219 million, so approximately 2.7% of public

expenditure is controlled by the only democratic forum

that we have. By way of comparison, the Northern

Ireland Housing Executive’s budget and the moneys paid

to 44 housing associations for 1996-97 amounted to

£220 million. What we pay for housing in Northern

Ireland is comparable to what is spent by our whole local

government system.’

4.28 During the debate criticism was also levelled at the high level of

remuneration for those appointed to public bodies in comparison to

that which is paid to an elected representative.

23

4.29 However the academics and representatives of the various bodies

with whom the Committee met were all of the opinion that Quangos

have a role to play in Northern Ireland but that their role should not

be one of decision-making.

4.30 Ms Morrow, QUB pointed out to the Committee that the level of

accountability under the new regimes in Scotland and Wales is

bound to improve particularly where Quangos are concerned and

indicated that Northern Ireland is a quangocracy in many ways.

4.31 Mr Hanna, Belfast City Council suggested that Quangos have a role

to play in Northern Ireland as he believed that there were

individuals who were not elected representatives but who could

bring an element of expertise to a body. He also pointed out that it

would be inconceivable for all bodies to be elected. However he

stressed that in his view the role of elected members in decision

making should be greatly enhanced.

4.32 The representatives from the Scottish political parties agreed with

the aforementioned points. Quangos will be the responsibility of

the Scottish Parliament and the political parties fully expect the

Scottish Parliament to consider the dispensation of responsibilities

between the Parliament, Local Government and Quangos.

4.33 The Government of Wales Bill provides for the merger of three

public bodies - the expanded Welsh Development Agency will take

on the functions of the Development Board for Rural Wales and the

Land Authority for Wales - into one ‘Economic Powerhouse’.

24

However the representatives from Plaid Cymru pointed out that the

relationship between the Powerhouse and the Assembly is not clear

but they stressed that in their view it must be accountable and

scrutinised.

4.34 The Labour Party in Wales informed the Committee that while they

were not opposed to Quangos in principle they were concerned

about how some members were appointed to bodies. It felt

however that the Government for Wales Bill provides for this

concern in that it requires that the Assembly should be consulted

before an individual is appointed to a Public Body.

Local Government

4.35 The present system of local government in Northern Ireland is

based upon recommendations contained in the Macrory report of

1970. The Macrory report divided services in Northern Ireland into

two main categories - regional services for which the Northern

Ireland Parliament would be responsible and district services which

would be administered by 26 councils. The responsibility for the

regional services transferred to Westminster when the Northern

Ireland Parliament was prorogued in 1972 but the 26 councils have

retained their limited responsibilities.

4.36 The proroguing of the Northern Ireland Parliament therefore created

a large gap in the Macrory recommendations and consequently the

powers of the current 26 district councils were designed by way of

25

accident and are deemed to be unsatisfactory in terms of

democracy.

4.37 During the meeting with the Committee Mr Hanna, Belfast City

Council argued that in his opinion there was a need for strong local

government because he believed that Councils had to be aware of

the differing needs within communities and provide facilities which

otherwise would become remote from the citizen.

4.38 He believed the best way forward for improving democracy in

Northern Ireland was the establishment of a regional government

with a reduced number of councils.

4.39 During the visit to Wales the Committee learnt that it is unlikely,

given a recent reorganisation of local government in Wales, that the

number of local authorities will be reduced with the creation of the

National Assembly for Wales. It was pointed out to the Committee

that the Government of Wales Bill which provides for a National

Assembly for Wales, places a responsibility on the Assembly to

‘sustain and promote local government in Wales’. All the Welsh

political parties pointed out that the Assembly will not be able to

take powers from local government but will have the ability to

transfer powers to it.

4.40 The Bill also requires the Assembly to establish and maintain a

Partnership Council for Wales which will consist of Assembly

members and members of local authorities in Wales. This Council

26

will have no executive powers but will advise both the Assembly

and the local authorities on policy being or to be pursued.

4.41 As asserted in the White Paper ‘Scotland’s Parliament’ the

Government has established an Independent Commission to study

how to build the most effective relations between the Scottish

Parliament and Scottish Executive and a strong and effective local

government. The Government hope that the outcome of the study

will feed into the party manifestos and that there will be a political

consensus as to how local government will be treated in the

manifestos. This Commission is due to report in the autumn.

4.42 The Committee recognises that the relationship between any future

Northern Ireland Assembly and local government will be

particularly vital to the good governance of the people of Northern

Ireland and the effective provision of its services to the community.

Relationship with Europe

4.43 All those academics who spoke to the Committee identified the

relationship with Europe as an extremely important issue for the

Committee to consider within the implications of decentralisation of

the regions of the UK.

4.44 Relations with Europe are the responsibility of the United Kingdom

Parliament and Government and in pursuing its interest in the

European Union the Government works through the offices of the

UK Permanent Representative in Brussels (UKREP).

27

4.45 Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales all have a presence in Europe

through the Northern Ireland Centre in Europe, the Scotland Europa

Centre and the Welsh European Centre respectively. These

organisations are supported and funded by local authorities,

agencies, organisations within the public and private sectors etc

within their respective regions. In return they act as a facilitator and

a source of advice for their subscribers.

4.46 The Committee travelled to Brussels to meet with representatives

from each of these organisations. During the meetings it was

impressed upon the Committee that to influence decisions in Europe

it is important to have in place an effective networking, lobbying

and information gathering system.

4.47 The Committee noted during the visit to Brussels that the Scottish

and Welsh Offices already have in place representatives who are

working with UKREP to establish procedures for providing

effective communication with the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh

Assembly and as well as to monitor and scrutinise the developments

in Europe in relation to the interests of the proposed Scottish

Parliament and Welsh Assembly.

4.48 While none of the representatives whom the Committee met could

define how the future relationship between their organisation,

UKREP and the Parliament or Assembly representatives would

evolve, they were all of the opinion that each would still have a role

to play within Europe with UKREP remaining responsible for

representing the views of the United Kingdom to the European

28

Institutions. Each of the representatives however appreciated that

the role of their office might be different from the role they currently

carried out.

4.49 The representatives for the Scotland Europa Centre and the Welsh

European Centre however emphasised that they believed that an

official government presence in Europe greatly enhanced the

standing of the region and welcomed the idea of their respective

regional governments being officially represented in Europe.

4.50 The Committee recognises that devolution will allow direct access

to Europe for Scotland and Wales and will also strengthen their

voice in Europe. Mr Walker, QUB suggested to the Committee

‘The argument is often put that devolution would give different

parts of the United Kingdom greater clout with regard to Europe,

and that would include Northern Ireland if it became part of the

restructuring process. In this area also there would have to be

something along the lines of a joint council of central and regional

governments and a modus vivendi reached between different sets of

civil servants on European matters. Otherwise the potential for

friction and incoherence would be very great in this area.’

4.51 Mr Dougal, Head of European Commission Representation in

Belfast during his meeting with the Committee, indicated that while

he believed that the NI MEPs currently did an excellent job for

Northern Ireland in Europe their work and the interests of Northern

Ireland would be best served by better back-up for the MEPs. He

indicated that in his view there was a need for a channel through

29

which elected representatives could become more involved in

Europe and through which their voices could be heard. To this end

Mr Dougal pointed out that the support of any proposed devolved

body for Northern Ireland would give the NI MEPs more clout in

any dealings with Europe.

4.52 Mr Dougal did point out to the Committee that it would be

advisable for any future Assembly, especially any European

sub-Committee to work closely with the MEPs.

4.53 During the Committee’s meeting with Mr Hanna, Chief Executive,

Belfast City Council he indicated that at present the Council worked

with and part funded the Northern Ireland Centre in Europe but in

the event of an Assembly, the Council would, in his opinion,

welcome the opportunity to work with an official Assembly

representative in Europe. Mr Hanna believed that such an

arrangement would greatly enhance the work of the Council and

Northern Ireland as a region.

Relationship between Regional Governments within the UK

4.54 Part of the Committee’s examination was to look at the implications

of decentralisation throughout the regions of the United Kingdom.

During the meetings with the academics it was suggested to the

Committee that while devolution will have advantages there are

also problems.

30

4.55 What has commonly become known as the ‘West Lothian Question’

was one such issue which was highlighted with frequency during

the Committee’s deliberations. Ms Morrow, QUB pointed out that

the question by Tam Dalyell (West Lothian) - Why should Scottish

MPs who have a much more limited range of responsibilities than

their English counterparts, be able to vote on issues that affect

Scotland and Wales?’ has remained unanswered since the 1970’s.

Dr Carmichael also highlighted this question as one of the

problems. He stated ‘Then there is the West Lothian Question

‘Who votes where on what?” Is it right for Scots, Welsh and

Northern Irish Assembly members to have a say on matters that

solely affect England? Dr Carmichael asked ‘If that cannot be

resolved, does that make federalism inevitable?’

4.56 Dr Walker informed the Committee:

‘On the question of United Kingdom reform you will see

more attention being paid to issues in the Scottish context

which have a wider significance for other parts of the

United Kingdom including Northern Ireland. The best

publicised of these so far is the West Lothian Question

and the suggestion that the Scottish representation at

Westminster be cut after a Scottish Parliament is

established. Perhaps this will happen but clearly there are

implications for other parts of the United Kingdom

including Northern Ireland.....’

31

4.57 The Council of the Isles proposal was discussed at some meetings.

Dr Morrow, University of Ulster told the Committee that in his

opinion the Council of the Isles proposal was about how to join up

different policies, different sets of political discussions, the sets of

slightly different parameters while recognising that although they

are different they are connected.

4.58 The reaction in Wales to the proposal for the Council of the Isles

was mixed. Helen Mary Jones, Director of Equal Opportunities,

Plaid Cymru and a representative on the National Advisory

Committee which has been set up to advise the Secretary of State

for Wales on matters relating to the Assembly, informed the

Committee that the idea of the Council of the Isles had captured the

imagination of members of the Advisory Committee while the

representative from the Conservative party had not heard about the

Council of the Isles proposal.

4.59 The representative from the Welsh Office informed the Committee

that any relationship between Wales and Northern Ireland would be

up to Wales and Northern Ireland but that he believed that it would

be beneficial for a united front to be displayed by MEPs.

4.60 The Council of the Isles proposal received a more positive reception

in Scotland. The representative from the Scottish Office believed

that it could perform a useful function for discussing peripherality

issues which all regions have in common. He pointed out that it

would depend on who served on such a Council but that if it was

32

Ministerial or MP representation a common voice could command

support at Westminster.

4.61 The Scottish Nationalist Party suggested that issues which Scotland

and Northern Ireland might have in common could include

Transport links between Scotland and Northern Ireland and

Pollution in the Irish Sea.

4.62 The Liberal Democrat Party representative informed the Committee

that it would like the Council of the Isles proposal to survive if

nothing else as he felt it would promote the British Community

throughout the islands.

Further Implications of Devolution

4.63 It was stressed to the Committee by several academics that there

are further significant implications to be considered arising from the

devolution debate.

4.64 Ms Morrow identified several issues for the Committee to consider.

She said:

'Scotland and Wales are going to gain a much more

coherent administrative political identity than they have

had for years. This means that they will have a louder

voice in United Kingdom-wide debates in a way that

Northern Ireland has not had for a long time .......

Scotland and Wales are going to find themselves in the

33

position of having a figure-head - something which we

lack at present. They will have an identity that will make

them much stronger in the various tussles for Government

money.'

'Money will also be important. The Scottish and Welsh

Governments will be able to disperse their moneys more

or less as they choose. That is going to be particularly

important to them because they can control industry.

Northern Ireland has been in an artificially good position

for attracting external investment for a long time.

Scotland and Wales are going to catch up and they are

going to be ruthless at attracting investors.'

'The level of accountability is bound to improve under

these new regimes. In Scotland and Wales Quangos will

be kept under much tighter control and they are going to

be in the public domain. England is going to have the

same problem as this.'

'One final implication is that the proposed devolution for

Scotland and Wales is going to make the quality of

democracy here, which is fairly poor, look even worse. In

the longer term it will probably generate a deeper sense of

discontent with arrangements for local government and

province-wide functions here given the lack of input from

locally-elected representatives and MPs.'

34

4.65 Mr Morrow, University of Ulster informed the Committee that:

'The really big question is whether the United Kingdom

will break up as a result of devolution, in which case at

least Scotland, like the Republic of Ireland, may become a

separate country. And how would that affect us as

neighbours?'

'There is some movement in regions of England to demand

the same devolved power (as Scotland). If the Scottish

model is seen to be a success and attracts a lot of

investment, many English regions will be queuing up for

their Parliaments.'

4.66 On this latter point Dr Carmichael informed the Committee:

'One of the problems of regionalisation is what to do with

England.'

35

KEY FEATURES OF PROPOSED DEVOLUTION ARRANGEMENTS

:

SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT

129 Members - 73 elected by first past

the post system, 56 by proportional

representation on a party list system.

Will take over responsibility for work

undertaken at present by the Scottish

Office and other Scottish Departments.

Law-making competence in devolved

areas.

Income Tax raising powers.

Structure:

Scottish Executive, under First Minister,

accountable to Scottish Parliament.

Continued full role for Scottish MPs at

Westminster.

Liaison role for Secretary of State for

Scotland.

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

FOR WALES

60 Members - 40 elected by first past

the post system, 20 by proportional

representation on a party list system.

Will take over responsibilities that the

Secretary of State currently exercises in

Wales.

Power to make secondary legislation.

Structure:

Assembly headed by First Secretary who

will appoint a number of Assembly

Secretaries. Subject Committees will

match the responsibilities of the

Assembly Secretaries who will serve on

the respective Committee.

Continued full role for Welsh MPs at

Westminster.

Liaison role for Secretary of State for

Wales.

36

5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 The Committee recognises that devolution is clearly the way

forward for the United Kingdom as a whole and therefore

recommends that Northern Ireland should be treated the same

as the rest of the United Kingdom in that regard.

5.2 The Committee unanimously agrees that Northern Ireland

should have a devolved administration but recognises that each

party has its own views as to the form such a devolved

administration should take.

5.3 The Committee recommends that any new administration for

Northern Ireland should take a comprehensive look at the

whole administrative system in Northern Ireland including the

Quangos and Local Government to ascertain if the distribution

of powers and responsibilities are suitably placed.

5.4 The Committee criticises the fact that Quangos at present have

too much control over a large amount of public expenditure.

5.5 The Committee concludes that the relationship between any

future Northern Ireland Assembly and Local Government will

be particularly vital to the good governance of the people of

Northern Ireland and the effective provision of its services to

the community.

37

5.6 The Committee recommends that there should be a meaningful

role for a devolved administration at all appropriate levels

within the European Union to ensure that Northern Ireland's

position is strengthened.

5.7 The Committee further recommends that any devolved

administration for Northern Ireland should work closely with

the NI MEPs.

5.8 Recognising the concerns put forward by the Scottish political

parties the Committee recommends that devolution should not

lead to a reduction in the allocation of public expenditure to

Northern Ireland and that the allocation should be sufficient,

and if necessary, increased to meet the needs of the region.

5.9 The Committee also recommends that devolution should not

lead to any reduction in the number and role of Northern

Ireland's representatives at Westminster.

5.10 The Committee believes that there would be enormous

advantages in liaison between regional devolved Governments

within the British Isles.

38

ANNEX A

MEMBERSHIP OF STANDING COMMITTEE A

POLITICAL AFFAIRS

Ulster Unionist Party - Mr R Stoker (Chairman)

Mr K Maginnis MP

Mr R Coulter

Mr S Gardiner

Democratic Unionist Party - Mr N Dodds

Mrs I Robinson

Mr J McKee

Mr M Carrick

Alliance Party - *Mr G Lynch

*Mr S Farry

Ulster Democratic Party - Mr G McMichael (Vice-Chairman)

Progressive Unionist Party - Mr H Smyth

Labour - Mr M Curran

NI Women's Coalition - *Ms R Whitaker

* attend the Committee on behalf of the party under Rule 14(4)(a) of the

Forum Rules of Procedure.

39

ANNEX B

STANDING COMMITTEE A

(POLITICAL AFFAIRS)

INDIVIDUALS/ORGANISATIONS WITH WHOM

THE COMMITTEE MET

27 November 1997 Dr G Walker Queen's University

Belfast

8 January 1998 Ms K Morrow Queen's University

Belfast

15 January 1998 Mr D Morrow University of Ulster

Jordanstown

29 January 1998 Prof Colin Knox University of Ulster

Jordanstown

Dr Paul Carmichael University of Ulster

Jordanstown

11 February 1998 Mr John Kennedy Clerk NI Assembly

12 February 1998 Mr Stephen Plowden

10 March 1998 Mr Brian Hanna Chief Executive Belfast City Council

Mr J McVeigh Head of Economic Development Belfast City Council

16 March 1998 Mr Jim Dougal Head of European Commission European Economic

Representation Belfast Community

Commission

VISIT TO CARDIFF, WALES

18 March 1998 Dr Hugh Rawlings Head of Devolution Unit Welsh Office

Ms Anita Gale General Secretary Welsh Labour Party

Mr Andrew Bold Assistant General Secretary

Mr Marc Philips National Chairman Plaid Cymru

Ms Helen Mary Jones Director of Equal Opportunities

Prof Nick Bourne Constitutional Affairs Spokesman Welsh Conservative

Party

40

Cllr Jenny R Anderson Leader of Liberal Democrats Welsh Liberal

Official Opposition on Cardiff Democrats

County Council

Mr Russell Deacon Senior Policy Adviser to Welsh

Party

Ms Kirsty Williams Deputy President of Welsh

Party

VISIT TO BRUSSELS, BELGIUM

30 March 1998 Ms Mathea Fammels NI Centre in Europe

(Brussels)

Mr Ronnie Hall DG XVI European Commission

(Regional Policy and

Cohesion)

Prof Jim Hughes Welsh European

Centre

Mr Donald Maginnes Scotland Europa Ltd

Mr Wolfgang Dietz Representative for Baden German Regional

Wuerttemberg Government

2 April 1998 Sir Kenneth Bloomfield Former Head of NICS

VISIT TO EDINBURGH, SCOTLAND

15 April 1998 Mr Paul Grice Scottish Office

Mr I Stewart Head of Research Scottish Conservative

Mr D Letchie & Unionist Party

Mr D Munn Head of Policy and Research Scottish Labour Party

Mrs R McKenna MP

Mr K Pringle Head of Communications Scottish National Party

Mr A Myles Former Chief Executive Scottish Liberal

Democrats

4

• Relationships within the British Isles and the Implications of Decentralisation Throughout the Regions of the UK (Standing Committee A) (introduced on 1998-04-24 00:00:00 - CREATE - e841575) [This document] [view current proposal at this moment]
  • None (introduced on 1998-04-24 00:00:00 - REPORT_PROPOSAL - e841576) [view current proposal at this moment]