Martin Burch

Devolution, change and European union policy‐making in the UK

Burch M., Gomez R., Hogwood P. and Scott A. (2005) Devolution, change and European Union policy‐making in the UK, Regional Studies 39 , 465–475. This paper explores the extent to which European Union policy‐making in the UK has changed as a result of devolution. The paper draws on material concerning economic development and the structural funds, agriculture and rural development, and environmental policy. The extent to which there has been a change in the outcomes (content and impact) of policy is examined. Evidence from Scotland, Wales, the English regions and UK central government reveals that it is not yet possible to judge the magnitude of changes in policy outcomes in any comprehensive and definitive way. Consequently, the paper concentrates on changes in the way European Union‐related policies have been handled post‐devolution. An argument emphasizing continuity with pre‐devolution is examined and found wanting. Changes in the handling of policy are evaluated in relation to notions of political ‘potential’ and ‘opportunity space’. Consideration is given to changes in key participants, policy‐handling networks, and the values and understandings underpinning policy‐making. It is clear that in comparison with the English regions and regions in many other Member States, Wales and Scotland enjoy a privileged if dependent position in national European policy‐making. They have applied new resources in a more focused way and have pursued a more territorial take on Europe, while still remaining insider participants in UK/European Union policy‐making. The conclusion is drawn that in the emerging system of UK multilevel governance, the magnitude of change in the handling of European policy varies across territory and policy, but is especially significant in relation to Wales and Scotland. Moreover, these changes are beginning and will continue to impact on outcomes.

Having it both ways: explaining the contradiction in English spatial development policy

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to ask how the UK Government can currently hold such incommensurable positions, explicitly and implicitly, in respect of spatial development priorities within England, and suggest a research agenda that might produce a better understanding of such contradictions.Design/methodology/approach – The paper contrasts evidence on the changing spatial economic geography of the UK with data on recent trends in identifiable regional public expenditure. Current spatial development policy is analysed in detail and contrasted with a range of implicit development decisions made by central government in recent years. The paper considers the adequacy of the literature on metropolitan dominance within UK political and economic life in explaining the discrepancies between what government says and does in terms of spatial development.Findings – Significant discrepancies are found between formal spatial development aspirations as expressed in the Public Service Agreement on Regional Eco...

Answering the English Question

Whenever devolution within the United Kingdom has been proposed, the ‘English Question’ has always emerged as its inevitable corollary. If there is greater home rule for the rest of the United Kingdom, so the argument goes, should a similar ‘solution’ not also apply to, or within, England? Should England as a whole have its own institutionalised political voice or, alternatively, should it be divided into devolved units of government? Since 1998, England has been the gaping hole in a devolution settlement that has still affected only 15 per cent of the UK population (or just over a quarter if the strengthening of citywide governance for London is deemed a devolutionary measure). Until recently, the English barely seemed to care but that may be starting to change. In the face of recent evidence that the people of Scotland and Wales have an appetite for more nationalist governments and further autonomy, there is a growing perception that the English may be ‘losing out’. Clear answers to the English Question, however, seem as far away as ever; not least because of the bewildering array of ostensible solutions on offer.

The English regions

The English regions in their present guise began to emerge as distinct entities from the late 1980s. Their involvement in European policy making has always been restricted, as indeed has been the role of the English regions more generally. However, since then the regional tier has developed significantly, as the English regions have played an increasingly important part in economic regeneration policies and initiatives. Many of these initiatives have been funded through EU schemes. Thus, ostensibly the EU has been a significant driver in the development of this increasingly important tier of governance in England. In this chapter we consider the extent of Europeanization at this regional level in England. Following Bache and Jordan (Chapter 2), the way we have approached this concept and its definition is to regard it as fundamentally concerned with the study of domestic change which is evident through what might be termed ‘the EU effect’. That is, change that would not have happened or would not have happened in the way it has if it were not for the existence of arrangements and relationships consequent upon the establishment and development of the EU. So, a starting point for our analysis is that Europeanization concerns the nature of and the processes whereby this EU effect is manifested. We then draw in the concept of Europeanization used in this volume as a working definition to be applied and considered in the light of the evidence we present.

European Business and the Assemblies

The new Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly were expected to have key and pioneering roles to play in the UK-EU policy process. The central legislative framework for devolution — the White Papers and the Parliamentary Acts — stated this explicitly. The essentially prescriptive and general nature of the legislation meant that the manner in which the two assemblies, and their committees, would interact with the UK-EU system remained undecided at the time of its publication. Importantly, it was left up to the territorial institutions to determine, in accordance with their own consultation procedures, how the Parliament and Assembly would best input to EU business. Furthermore, given that domestic and regional parliamentary influence across the EU varies considerably between Member States, the new assemblies could look to many different models of parliamentary influence to determine ‘best practice’. With devolution, therefore, both the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly had a clear opportunity to create the necessary institutional setting and procedures to conduct effective sub-Member State parliamentary influence over EU affairs.

Adapting to Europe: the Pre-Devolution Story

The devolution of power to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland makes explicit that UK governance has become more multi-levelled in recent times. Prior to devolution the most obvious manifestation of this multi-levelled situation was the interaction between the UK government and the EU. A clearly anticipated impact of devolution was the formal introduction of ‘third-level’ governance into pre-existing patterns of handling European policy within the UK.16 Whilst European policy was to be reserved to the UK government, much of its substance was to be devolved. Outlining the preparations for, and introduction of, this development is the purpose of the chapters which follow this one.

Introduction: Labour, Constitutional Change and European Policy

The United Kingdom (UK) Labour government elected in May 1997 introduced a major programme of constitutional reform. This programme embraced a wide range of measures including commitment to the reform of the UK Parliament, the creation of an independent central bank, the introduction of freedom of information legislation, the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into UK law and measures for devolution. Taken as a whole, this programme was ambitious and radical in its implication. One of the world’s most ancient systems of parliamentary government, which had evolved into its contemporary characteristics over many centuries, now faced substantial restructuring on a wide front. True, reform had been undertaken in the past, but the breadth of the Labour programme made this one unique.

Relations between the Devolved Administrations and the European Union

In this chapter we report on the considerations which were influential in designing new representative offices to act for the devolved administrations in Brussels. We depart from the approach taken in previous chapters of attempting to integrate the Scottish and Welsh stories within a common chronological framework, instead focusing on each separate administration in turn. Documenting developments in this way helps to illustrate and account for the different paths of development followed in Scotland and Wales in establishing their representative offices. Both this development and the role to be played by each office within the newly devolved system of governance strongly reflect the constitutional asymmetry of the devolution settlement.

The Post-Devolution Governance of Rural and Environmental Affairs: Early Impressions

In the report so far we have examined institutional change in a broad sense, not focusing on specific arrangements for individual policy areas. That coverage is important because there are general features relating to the handling of all areas of policy. In addition, we have thereby covered the machinery for horizontal issues that cut across different UK and devolved departments responsible for European policy. However, a lot of European business is dealt with in a more sectorised manner, whereby the functional departments do not have to consult widely across government. Instead, the Brussels-London-Edinburgh/Cardiff triangle comprises officials in one policy area. In this chapter we focus upon agriculture and, in a shorter study, on environmental policy. Our interest is once again in how far the policy machinery has changed as a consequence of devolution.

European Business and the Executives

A key expectation arising from devolution was that it would impact significantly on the UK’s EU policy administration structures — both at the centre (Whitehall) and within the former territorial administrations (Edinburgh and Cardiff). That devolution was bound to have important consequences for the political Executive and bureaucratic components of the polity at all levels arose in part from the commitment by the UK government to involve the devolved administrations in what is, after all, a reserved matter. In addition, this expectation reflected the fact that, in Scotland, approximately 80 per cent of the competencies assigned to the devolved administration would be affected by European legislation. Although it might be argued that the retention of the Scottish and Welsh Offices suggested that they could input the territorial perspective on UK European policy, the fact that both were considerably down-sized in terms of resources (and respectively re-designated Scotland Office and Wales Office), as well as considerations of ‘legitimate’ governance, made this approach both impractical and in some senses inappropriate. Rather, in such a situation, the common sense notion of ‘good government’ which emerged accepted that the devolved administration in Edinburgh, and by extension in Cardiff, should have a part to play in the UK-EU policy process. In this chapter, we examine how the three administrations adapted their existing EU policy arrangements — or acquired new capacity in that area — to suit the new constitutional situation and to respond to the challenges that devolution introduced.