Devolution in practice II
Public policy differences within the UK
timescale
December 2003 – September 2005
top line
Literature concerning devolution is dominated either by debates on national identity or by
governance and constitutional matters. The impact of devolution on economic and social
policy is still an under-explored area of research.
For this reason, ippr proposes to revisit Devolution in Practice, seen by many as the key
text exploring public policy divergence within the UK. We propose to update developments
in health and education; explore new policy areas such as social inclusion, transport and
housing; and to flesh out the emerging debates on territorial justice, subsidiarity and
solidarity.
policy context
Devolution is one of the most radical constitutional changes in the governance of the
United Kingdom for generations, and has created new centres of political power and new
devolved polities in four different territories within the UK. However, devolution should not
be seen as simply a change to the constitution – it is also a major change to the public
policy-making process.
The Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales, the Greater London Authority
and (when sitting) the Northern Ireland Legislative Assembly have powers in a wide range
of policy areas and are responsible for billions of pounds of public expenditure. True, the
UK has always had a differentiated policy process, with separate administrative structures
for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. This did allow for significant territorial variations
in policy process and outcomes, but devolution has taken this to new levels.
It is remarkable just how little attention has been paid to the consequences of
differentiated policy making and just how little comprehension we have of the policy
debates in different parts of the UK. Devolution in Practice remains perhaps the only
attempt to map policy-divergence across numerous policy areas across the four nations of
the United Kingdom. But since this publication public policy debates have moved on: the
political parties have published their manifestos, devolved elections have taken place in
Scotland and Wales and the Lib-Lab coalition in Wales has ended. Northern Ireland is
again under direct rule.
Furthermore, there is still little idea of how much policy variation we should have in a single
nation state (albeit it one with four stateless nations). While there is popular support for
devolution to ‘bring power closer to the people’, there are also worries about ‘post-code
1
lotteries’ and the ‘North-South divide’. The ‘National Health Service’ is still regarded as a
UK institution (despite the fact there are now four national health services). We do not
propose constructing a crude ‘league table’ on the successes or failures of the devolved
institutions and Whitehall. Rather we shall aim to examine in more detail the nature of
policy divergence in the UK and the pressures for (and constraints upon) differentiated
policy-making.
Therefore we propose to re-visit Devolution in Practice. We intend up-dating some parts of
the publication, particularly in health and education where policy debates are constantly
changing. We shall also explore important new policy areas, such as transport and social
inclusion. Importantly, we also intend to bring all the work of the project together to map
out the crosscutting themes of public policy debates across the UK.
aims / objectives
Our aim is to help bring balance to the post-devolution literature – researching the
economic and social impact of devolution to accompany the larger literature on identity
and constitutional issues. We will take a number of policy areas in turn and examine how
policy is diverging, what pressures have led to this divergence, when does divergence
become problematic and how can ‘good practice’ be spread across the UK. We will also
examine broader questions: what should be the balance between centralism and diversity
in delivering key public services, and do variations in policy between different parts of the
UK matter?
We will work closely with the key players both in Whitehall (at the Cabinet Office, HM
Treasury, and policy departments) and in the devolved administrations (in Scotland,
Wales, London and Northern Ireland). We will also work closely with colleagues in ippr
London who have specific expertise relating to particular policy agendas.
As ippr is the leading think-tank in the UK, and has a strong record of work both in
constitutional reform and across numerous public policy areas, we are well placed to
explore this under-researched.
key components
Section 1 – Devolution and Social Inclusion
The commitment to abolish child poverty by 2020 is perhaps the single most important
policy objective of the UK Government. Are there different circumstances in the devolved
territories, and if so does Whitehall appreciate the differences? As London has the highest
levels of child poverty in the UK, how has Ken Livingstone responded? Do the recent tax
and benefit reforms have different impacts upon London, Scotland, Wales and Northern
Ireland? How does the single welfare state constrain policy-making in the devolved
territories, and what will be the impact of the SR2004 Child Poverty review? To what
extent do the devolved administrations share the child poverty pledge, and what role can
they play? What anti-poverty policies are they pursuing, how do they differ from Whitehall
and how successful are they?
Also relevant is the UK Government target of reducing regional economic disparities, and
the forthcoming Joint Ministerial Committee on the economy. There are many policy areas
we would wish to explore in this section of the project, and they include economic policy,
employment policy, childcare and Sure Start, regeneration, neighbourhood renewal and
area-based initiatives, and the many policy schemes designed to promote ‘community’.
It is proposed that a free-of-charge, internet-based, report on Devolution and Social Inclusion be
prepared, and a high-profile event be held in either Cardiff, Belfast or Edinburgh. This would help
raise the profile of the issue, and generate wider public debate. We would aim to secure ministerial
2
attendance both from Whitehall and the devolved administrations and to secure press coverage in
both devolved and national press.
Section 2 – Health and Education
These are the two devolved policy areas with the highest public profile, and they account
for a large majority of the budgets of the devolved administrations. It may well be that the
ultimate success of devolution is judged upon these areas, but it seems as if the general
public feels that devolution has made little difference to the quality of provision. Devolution
in Practice examined policy divergence in these fields, but what has happened since the
devolved elections?
The keynote initiatives are well known and in many ways have set the terms of some
policy debates in England – free long-term personal care, abolition of up-front tuition fees,
et al. But what is the second-term agenda, and is there any sign that the devolved
territories can become ‘policy-laboratories’? To what extent are the devolved
administrations bringing forward new ideas rather than simply rejecting the approach of
Whitehall? And how do decisions taken in Whitehall affect policy in the devolved territories,
for example in the Higher Education White Paper?
Are we able now to start assessing the impact of policy initiatives on policy outcomes, for
example in terms of waiting lists or school attainment? Where does policy seems to be
working, and where does it seem to be failing? And are concerns about public acceptance
of different standards of public service (of equity and diversity) becoming more
pronounced post-devolution?
Section 3 - Sustainability Issues
Issues such as the environment, housing and transport have been little researched in the
post devolution world. Yet in many ways these areas diverge the most.
Uniquely among EU nations the National Assembly for Wales has sustainable
development built into its constitution. But what difference has this made in practice, and
has sustainable development really been built into policy development. What is the
situation in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Whitehall (which have no such duty)? Do the
devolved administrations have different understandings about the trade-offs between the
environment, the economy and social progress? How has this manifested itself in actual
policy areas – for example, planning policy, urban sprawl and attitudes to GM food? In
Devolution in Practice it was argued that agricultural policy in England was significantly
more sustainable than in the devolved territories. Is this a unique policy area, or does this
apply more widely?
What of the connected policy area of transport? How is that developing post-devolution?
Do the devolved administrations have different views on the role of transport in the
economy and in society? How is this playing out in policy areas such as the liveability
agenda? Was the London congestion charge typical of devolved decision-making, or
simply a response to the unique pressures of London? How sensitive is the Department for
Transport to the devolved territories in such areas as aviation policy and on the rail
network?
Scotland has had for some time a substantially different housing system from the rest of
the UK policy, but how have things changed post-devolution? How has the split between
housing policy (devolved) and housing benefit (reserved) worked out? What other
Whitehall initiatives have impacted upon housing policy in Scotland, Wales and Northern
Ireland – particularly in the field of local government? What motivated the Treasury to
intervene (and offer funds) in stock transfer debates in devolved territories, for example in
3
Glasgow? And is it important that stock transfer was more successful in Glasgow than
Birmingham?
Section 4 – Conclusion
At the end of this project, a broad swathe of public policy areas will have been researched
under the Devolution in Practice umbrella: including rural affairs and economic
development. But what common cross-cutting themes can be ascertained? Do the
different administrations attach different levels of importance to choice in public sector
provision – and how do they balance this against equity? Do different attachments to
equity reflect different value-bases in the different nations? The UK government has
introduced greater degrees of conditionality into (mostly reserved) functions such as active
labour market policies and housing benefit. How have the devolved territories responded
to those initiatives, and where are they with the rights and responsibilities debate? It is
often said that Whitehall has more ‘control-freak’ tendencies than the devolved
administrations but to what extent is this true? And in any case what impact does this have
on outputs and standards? Rhodri Morgan has claimed that his approach to public service
reform is to treat the people of Wales as citizens, not consumers. To what extent is this
true, are there different notions of ‘ownership’ between the four countries of the UK, and
how far are there different expectations of public service delivery?
Devolution has prompted debates on the notion of territorial justice, and Devolution in
Practice developed this concept. But this important debate is in its infancy needs to be
taken forward. Demands are often made of the UK centre to better articulate its role, but
what does this mean in practice? Where do the boundaries of policy variation and
economic disparity lie in a single nation state, and what should we make of claims of postcodes lottery? While it is nonsense to try to develop a ‘devolution-o-meter’, is there a
methodology or a typology by which we judge how diversity becomes inequity? How does
London, and the proposed English regional assemblies, affect this debate? To what
extent are fiscal transfers dependent on an UK-wide sense of citizenship and solidarity?
Indicative list of working seminars
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Social Inclusion: Poverty, Employment and Neighbourhood Renewal
Health
Education
Environment (possibly held with Transport seminar)
Transport (possibly held with Environment seminar)
Housing
Cross-Cutting Themes of Public Services Reform
Solidarity and Subsidiarity
Methodology
The project will consist of a seminar series of commissioned papers, supported by
secondary research work to produce background papers to inform discussion and debate.
Where appropriate seminar papers will be commissioned from members of the ESRC
Devolution Programme, utilising the findings of this £5m research programme. These
seminar papers will form the basis of the final edited publication.
outputs/ dissemination
This project will involve two types of event. A series of seminars will be held throughout the
UK. In each of these seminars we shall examine the key issues outlined above, with
papers presented by academic and policy experts to a selected audience. In particular,
4
researchers from ippr and the ESRC Devolution Programme will be invited to contribute
fully to this process. Participants will come from all parts of the United Kingdom and
include representatives of academia, the civil service, executive agencies, employers,
trade unions, elected institutions, local government and NGOs. This will be backed up by
secondary research work to produce background papers to inform discussion and debate.
It is planned that a number of public events will also be held across the UK to build on this
work, raising the profile of the issues and generating wider public debate. At these events
we would aim to secure ministerial and press attendance. In particular the programme of
work will result in a keynote publication that ippr north will launch at a major event.
project team
A full-time Research Fellow will be appointed to work on this project. John Adams,
Research Director of ippr, will manage the researcher on a day-to-day basis north.
ippr is the leading independent think-tank in the UK. Through our well-researched and
clearly-argued policy analysis, our strong networks in government, academia and the
corporate and voluntary sectors and our high media profile, we can play a vital role in
maintaining the momentum of progressive thought. www.ippr.org
Devolution and Constitutional Change is one of the Research Programmes funded by the
UK’s Economic and Social Research Council. The ESRC is the UK's largest funding
agency for research and postgraduate training relating to social and economic issues. It
has a track record of providing high-quality relevant research to business, the public sector
and Government. The ESRC invests more than £53 million every year in social science
research. The Devolution Programme is a major £4.7 million investment set up by the
ESRC in 2000 to explore the impact of the devolution dynamic and to feed the research
into policy debates. www.devolution.ac.uk
5