Now is the time for us to work together
Postcard — By Bethan Jenkins AM on October 22, 2009 6:00 am
Ourselves alone? Adams doesn't believe that Wales and Northern Ireland can learn from each other's devolution experience, but Jenkins believes we can
WALES has always felt an intimacy with Ireland not experienced elsewhere in the UK. Part of it is due to shared racial and cultural heritage, and partly because many of us that want independence look to the ongoing Irish model of self-determination, despite its obvious imperfections in that the six counties remain, for now, part of Britain.
There was something of a timeliness to the meeting of the British Irish Parliamentary Assembly, one of the new structures that came into being as a consequence of the Good Friday Agreement, when it was held in Swansea earlier this week. Discussions arising out of any paramilitary influence that remains in the North of Ireland were on the periphery, as Gerry Adams, the President of Sinn Fein reiterated that the days of violence are over, and that any attempts to return to violence would be viewed as reprehensible. Nonetheless, in its place was something that now worries us all in this economic climate: recession.
There are regional differences, but we are all feeling the slowdown for the same reasons, and in similar sectors. Yet in Ireland, there are two recessions taking place. The south, often referred to as the Celtic Tiger in the past decade because its economic growth reminded us of those of Asian countries, became the first euro zone to enter recession, in the first half of 2008. That recession could also be the longest and deepest of European states, particularly after Ireland was stripped of its valuable AAA credit rating.
Ireland had provided Wales with a model based on assiduous use of Objective One funding in order to attract inward investment, leaving behind its dependence on agriculture in favour of a knowledge economy. Sadly, we are now beginning to see that such investment can flow outwards – and people with it, a perennial problem for the country.
While both north and south have suffered common sector slowdowns, with construction and the housing markets providing the most obvious examples, the problems in the north are somewhat different. Unable to attract inward investment due to the Troubles for so long, the province also had to manage a slow decline in engineering in particular, and industry that had mushroomed out from the shipbuilding industry. At one time, it was common for sons to be apprenticed to fathers in workshops dotted across Northern Ireland.
The region had received an economic boost in the wake of the peace agreement, but then went on to suffer the sharpest contraction of any area in the UK, with housing and retail particularly exposed. It led Richard Ramsey, Ulster Bank’s economist, to predict that unemployment there could peak at 50,000 this year.
At this week’s British Irish Parliamentary Assembly, John Griffiths shared details of the Assembly’s ProAct scheme, designed to provide funding to businesses to allow them the ability and breathing space to develop skills among their staff base, rather than make redundancies, in order to prepare them for an improvement in the economy.
ProAct draws from the European Social Fund, and Ireland is looking to do something similar from a similar source. Over 2,000 workers at Dell in Limerick and Dublin were recently granted almost €15 million from the European Commission’s European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) to help retrain workers who are losing their jobs due to the effects of globalisation – companies leaving the country for cheaper labour markets.
Away from the economy, the different shape and speed of the separate devolution settlements that are being pursued both here and in Northern Ireland should be another reason for a sharing of ideas over the Irish Sea. In my question to Gerry Adams at the Parliamentary Assembly, he did not see how politicians of the North could help in our plight for more powers alongside the SNP in Scotland. I’m not so sure.
Wales may not have direct experience of the intense conflict which existed in the North of Ireland, but we can take lessons from the way in which political parties of such differing ideologies and outlooks for the future of the province are now working together, how they have welcomed international and external advice in seeking to make the Good Friday Agreement work, and in how we can share ideas on issues beyond the constitutional- from language rights, to allocation of affordable housing, to addressing the needs of newly emerging communities such as migrant workers, and the rights of black and ethnic minority communities.
While Wales is beginning to form a legacy of coalition governments, power-sharing in Northern Ireland has been far more stop-start, concerned with bringing together formerly implacable foes. In such circumstances, it would be easy to dismiss our political differences in Cardiff Bay as somewhat trite. However, as recent difficulties over the police and justice budget have shown, these once deadliest of enemies are now involving themselves in the administrative aspects of governance, and moving away from the politics that once dominated public life in the province.
In Wales, we are facing the realisation that we can work with differing political parties beyond our partisan, often in-built preconceptions of others for the over-arching benefit of the people of Wales. Coalition government is here to stay. Of course, if it can happen in the North of Ireland, it can certainly be sustainable here in Wales beyond the One Wales agreement. And who ever thought we would see the day when Martin McGuiness and Ian Paisley would shake hands, let alone share power, in the same government.
We must now use what the British Irish Parliamentary Assembly has to offer parliamentarians by means of structure, and influence much more strategically, so that we can be pro-active and campaign on issues that are common to us all. More specifically for those of us in the devolved nations, we must unite on common matters outside of our control in Westminster such as the benefits and taxation structures, on pensions, and inevitable cuts to our respective budgets from the Westminster government.
The opportunities are there for the British Irish Parliamentary Assembly to shrug off criticisms that it is a talking shop by delivering practical outcomes to benefit the people of these isles, and to work towards seeking observer status on the British Irish Council. Now more than ever we need to co-operate in the face of the intense economic challenges. We need to seek out our similarities rather than concentrate on what makes us different.
Tags: Bethan Jenkins, British Irish Parliamentary Assembly, devolution, Economy, Gerry Adams, Northern Ireland, recession
Tweet This
Share on Facebook
Digg This
Bookmark
Stumble
10 Comments
An interesting article. I’ve worked in both Wales and Northern Ireland (albeit in the latter during a time when devolution was suspended) and I’d share Gerry Adams’ rather than Bethan’s view – I’m not sure how the parties in particular can learn from NI’s experience.
The Good Friday Agreement obliges the parties to work together in government according to their electoral strength. The One Wales agreement is a voluntary coalition between Wales’s two largest parties, based on an agreed programme. A single party administration in Cardiff is possible – it is not in NI.
The existence of NI’s two communities is enshrined in the legislation that gives effect to the NI Assembly; obviously no such dimension is necessary in Wales.
Finally, there are three categories of powers in NI: devolved, reserved and excepted. Reserved (which includes justice and policing) are those areas which could be transferred in the future. No such provision is made in Wales, though perhaps it should have been.
I don’t say there aren’t areas where the two jurisdictions can’t learn from one another – I just doubt whether the experience of coalition government or acquisition of new powers are two of them.
Bethan says:
“We must now use what the British Irish Parliamentary Assembly has to offer parliamentarians by means of structure, and influence much more strategically, so that we can be pro-active and campaign on issues that are common to us all. More specifically for those of us in the devolved nations, we must unite on common matters outside of our control in Westminster such as the benefits and taxation structures, on pensions, and inevitable cuts to our respective budgets from the Westminster government.”
But the lack of clear commonality is one of the major stumbling blocks to such an approach. Lots of social security matters are actually devolved in Northern Ireland but not in Scotland and certainly not in Wales. Also the variable nature of excepted matters does not help – the devolution we have is incoherent from one part of the UK to the next. Perhaps an issue that is common to us all is the achievement of proper parity of responsibility?
Adam says:
“Finally, there are three categories of powers in NI: devolved, reserved and excepted. Reserved (which includes justice and policing) are those areas which could be transferred in the future. No such provision is made in Wales, though perhaps it should have been.”
Yes, it should have been. The Government of Wales Act 2006 was clear on lots of things. Identifying reserved policy areas and pinpointing exactly the excepted matters would have been hugely helpful, as anyone trying to make sense of the current situation would attest.
Bethan says:
“Ireland had provided Wales with a model based on assiduous use of Objective One funding in order to attract inward investment”
Irish growth rates were highest when the EU subsidies were lowest. At its highest, level subsidies were 4 % of GDP. Greece also received 4 % of GDP – but its growth rates were nowhere near Ireland’s. In short, the Celtic Tiger was created through tax cuts and cuts in regulation.
“…leaving behind its dependence on agriculture in favour of a knowledge economy.”
This is complete nonsense. Agricultural subsidies are one component of EU transfers. In Ireland’s case they boosted rural incomes, but retarded economic growth by keeping rural populations artificially high – when they would be more productive in other (urban) activities.
The asymmetry of the devolution settlements in different parts of the UK (the 6 counties of Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, the Isle of Man and the Channel Isles) can be interpreted as a strength insofar as it allows the scope of each settlement to reflect the political circumstances of each nation / province / jurisdiction, and to alter incrementally over time in response to demand and political developments in a way that a uniform federal system could not. It also enables the UK constitution to finesse the elephant in the living room in the shape of England.
Pinpointing ‘excepted’ matters was vital in NI to reassure the Unionist community and secure approval of the GFA. I disagree with Daran’s view that this would be helpful in Wales. Hard and fast distinctions are very difficult to enshrine in legislation in anything but the most general terms. Moreover the Megrahni imbroglio demonstrates that when devolved responsibilities (justice) also impinge on reserved ones (foreign policy and international diplomacy), all sorts of contradictions and confusion can arise. The current Welsh settlement in which specific ‘matters’ can be added to the generic headings in schedule 5 of the GoWA by agreement between the Assembly and the UK Parliament is a novel approach, but not without merit.
I’m less of an enthusiast about ProAct than Bethan (essentially it’s a slight extension of the previous regional selective assistance regime), but it is probably in bread and butter policy initiatives such as this that we can learn from each other. Former President Bill Clinton described the 52 states of the American Union as ‘policy laboratories’ where pioneering approaches could be tried out on a small scale and schemes seen as successful (e.g. the ‘Wisconsin’ welfare model) then copied more widely. Of course it would be wrong to confine ourselves to drawing inspiration only from the British Isles (scandinavian societies for instance share much in common with British ones), but the shared inheritance, legal, taxation and redistribution mechanisms mean that the superstructure within which policy has to work is more familiar. If the British/Irish Council and the Parliamentary Assembly are to evolve into more than decorations to the GFA then this is probably the direction to take it.
I need some better understanding: Is this article about the “British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body” (http://www.biipb.org/biipb/welcome.htm) or the British Irish Parliamentary Assembly that Bethan talks about.
To be honest, I’ve never heard of either, but only one appears when I Google.
Clarity please
The British constitutional settlement (including crown dependencies) is a dogs dinner of olympian proportion.
Trying to explain it to an American political scientist is like trying to explain Einstein in 3 pages.
Alan, I think the body in question is properly called the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body. For information, its remit is:
- The purpose of the Body is to bring together Members of the participating institutions to engage jointly in a wide range of non-legislative parliamentary activities, as follows:
- The four Committees conduct inquiries on matters of common concern. They meet regularly throughout the year and take oral and written evidence from interested parties on which to base their Reports. And important part of their work is to travel around both countries (including Northern Ireland) to conduct hearings relevant to their work. Committees also pay regular visits to Brussels, and maintains contact with both the European Parliament and the wider international community.
- There are two Plenary Sessions each year, alternating between the two countries and usually held at venues other than Dublin and London. The Body normally debates matters of political and general concern, reports from its Committees and Government responses, and has a question period with a Minister from the host country.
- The principal aim of the Body has been to contribute to mutual understanding. Through their work for the Body and through informal contacts. Members of the participating organisations have gained a greater insight into each others’ problems and inot mutual concerns. Several past and present Ministers have been Members of the Body when backbenchers at one time or another since its inception, and this has also helped to increase understanding between our countries.
Dai writes: “The asymmetry of the devolution settlements in different parts of the UK (the 6 counties of Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, the Isle of Man and the Channel Isles) can be interpreted as a strength insofar as it allows the scope of each settlement to reflect the political circumstances of each nation / province / jurisdiction, and to alter incrementally over time in response to demand and political developments in a way that a uniform federal system could not. ”
To an extent this logic is persuasive, but what if the settlements don’t reflect the political circumstances of each nation / province / jurisdiction? The current constitutional settlement in Wales is probably a case in point. It is hardly the “settled will” of the Welsh people.
Additionally, there is surely a case to be made that the asymmetry of policy areas devolved is a product of historical chance rather than the most appropriate settlement for now. To restate my earlier example, Northern Ireland has powers over social security because to a great extent this policy area developed during the previous period of devolved government there (1922-72) rather than because there are particular political or social circumstances that persuade that such powers be devolved there.
From a Wales perspective, our Assembly has in the main inherited the same policy areas previously administered through the Welsh Officer before 1999. Some additional areas have been added (the fire service, student funding etc), and our system is indeed flexible enough to accommodate, but I still feel that a better system for the Government of Wales Act 2006 would have been to follow the NI model and denote policy areas as devolved, reserved and excepted. That would not limit the development of “the scope of each settlement to reflect the political circumstances” and it would not be a federal system or structure. But it would provide much needed clarity over the possible future of devolution.
All in all, though, I think this is a good article and has drawn some interesting comment. The BIIPB is a valuable contribution to measuring the impact in policy and political terms of the new consitutional asymmetry of the UK. Bethan has done a good job in presenting the opportunities such a body offers for comparative constitutional and policy analysis in a world which Michael describes, at worst, as “a dogs dinner of olympian proportion.”
Funding via any artificial vehicle is no model for a sustainable economy, I’m sure Charlie McCreevy would disagree with Bethan’s commonly held assumption that it was handounts from the EU alone which put fuel in the Celtic Tiger’s tank. Michael Jones summed it up concisely.
My experience of life in Wales spans 55 years, it isn’t improving for the vast majority and it won’t until we stop holding out the begging bowl whether we are farmers or politicians, or both.
Without a thriving economy based on commerce rather than subsidy all our best talent will leave Wales as have my three eldest children. And I mean any subsidy whether it be sent from London or Brussels, just like pensioners who are too proud to claim state benefits because it is demoralising to admit that you need them then we in Wales need to ask why we spend so much time filling in forms and chanting the mantra of culture.
As far as the Irish connection goes I doubt very much that the younger generation have any boundaries to speak of, this is a small planet, Wales is a small country which was invaded by the Irish many times, and the English, the Vikings, the Angles, the Saxons…. and on and on.
Daran,
The point i was driving at was (apologies for failing to spell it out) was that in the current constitutional situation responsibilities can adjust over time to account for change – e.g. we could give Mr Salmond responsibility for supervising any banks that are insane enough to headquarter in Edinburgh rather than London and forego the ultimate backing of the Bank of England. Such situations already apply on the Channel Islands and Isle of Man. If we wanted to entrust the Assembly with control over Welsh banking we could, with the agreement of the commons and lords in parliament assembled and the assent of the crown, do so.
It all comes down to the unwritten constitution we enjoy (or not) and what one would propose to replace it.
I realise I failed to address Daran’s question. The point about the British constitution is that it is flexible and amendable. If the supposed ‘settled will’ of the Welsh people were to be expressed for anything short of total separation, then the UK could accommodate it. Although I happen to oppose the idea, a move to primary legislative powers for Wales, if supported by a referendum, need involve no new legislation in Parliament.