The Scottish Affairs Committee has published an interim
report on intergovernmental working during the coronavirus
pandemic. The report focuses on the effectiveness of the four
nations approach, the intergovernmental machinery and the issues
around policy divergence.
·Confusion
around messaging and transparency are among
concerns.
·The committee found policy
divergence following an early adoption of a common
approach.
·Concerns over cessation and
bypassing of intergovernmental forums.
·Government urged to outline how
priorities of devolved nations will be incorporated into decision
making in the future.
An interim report by the Scottish Affairs
Committee has expressed concerns over the long-term future
of intergovernmental working between the UK and Scottish
governments as the coronavirus pandemic has cast doubt on the
suitability of existing intergovernmental
structures.
The report, which focusses on intergovernmental
working during the pandemic, describes the ‘unprecedented
coordination’ between the UK nations through the ‘four-nations
approach’. It paints a picture of a collaborative approach in the
early stages of the crisis, citing the UK-wide Joint Action Plan,
the Coronavirus Act and UK-wide procurement of PPE as high
watermarks.
However, the Committee heard how mixed messaging and
policy divergence happened ‘almost by accident’ after key
intergovernmental forums coordinating the Covid response ended as
lockdown measures were eased, beginning with a Boris Johnson’s
address on 10 May. The speech, announcing an easing of measures
and a change of message from ‘Stay at Home’ to ‘Stay Alert’, was
broadcast UK-wide without stating the changes that only applied
to England. The Committee called on the UK Government to
outline how it will address this.
The Committee was ‘concerned’ by the recent disuse of
the bodies that had made the ‘four-nations approach’ effective,
namely COBRA meetings featuring Scottish and devolved ministers
and ministerial implementation groups. It recommended that
the Government outline how the priorities of the devolved nations
will be incorporated into the proposed new coronavirus response
bodies.
The report describes structures not keeping up with
the pace of devolution and changes in ministerial communications.
The Joint Ministerial Committee, unused throughout the pandemic,
was ‘not fit for purpose’ for the pandemic, the Committee heard.
This calls into question how Scotland’s and the devolved nations’
priorities will be represented, and over the resilience and
suitability of these structures in a crisis and for the future of
intergovernmental relations, the report said. The Committee
recommends that the Government explain how it will incorporate
these concerns into the ongoing review of Intergovernmental
Relations.
The Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee,
MP said: “The coronavirus pandemic has had
a devastating impact on both Scotland’s health and economy. It is
also profoundly affecting devolution as the response to the
crisis reveals the pre-existing creaking mechanisms of
intergovernmental.
The overlapping responsibilities of policy areas
operated by Westminster and Holyrood in the pandemic response
make intergovernmental communication absolutely critical in
effectively controlling the spread of the virus. This was the
cornerstone of the ‘four-nation’ approach that served so
effectively at the start of the crisis.
But as the focus has shifted from containment to
opening-up the economy we are concerned that the structures that
made this possible have stopped. We heard that there is a ‘void’
in ministerial-level communication and which appears to have
occurred around the time that some divergence and confusion in
messaging began to emerge. Simple mistakes of not making clear
which nations in which new policies apply must not be made
again.
Meanwhile The lack of clarity over what role, if
any, Scottish and devolved decision-makers will play in new
structures is a source of major concern.
The early stages of the ‘four-nation approach’
demonstrate how effective engagement can be. So, we need more of
it, not less. And it needs to be a permanent feature of the
future of devolution.
That voice at the table is essential in reaching
effective clarity and coordination that can save lives, limit the
suffering caused economically, and to provide a well-rounded
recovery, leaving a more resilient
devolution.”
