Creation of a Devolution Scheme - Essay Example

Running head: Devolution Scheme Devolution Scheme The devolution scheme that was created by the last labour government in the United Kingdom stated that the Parliament of the United Kingdom was to grant statutory power to the Scottish parliament and government, the Welsh government and the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Executive with its Assembly-the Northern Ireland Assembly. The devolved government in the United Kingdom, which has been active for the last ten years, has the role of overseeing the working of the system. However, the responsibility of the department has been divided and unsettled (House of Commons 2009). The scheme is bound to fail or a reversion to a union state or it will end in a federal United Kingdom due to its unevenness and incompleteness. Firstly, the departmental responsibility has been divided and unsettled (House of Commons 2009). This is a clear suggestion of the downfall of the scheme. Clarification of where the responsibility of the system of devolution lies in the following things. Firstly, the coherence of the system must be maintained as a whole. The constitutional issues should be dealt with only when the need arises. Additionally, the mutual relationship between the Whitehall departments and the devolved administrations should not be replaced. Furthermore, the government of the UK should not be recentralized in the breaching of the sole purpose of devolution. Failure t act to the suggestions implicated above means that the devolution scheme will be scraped off and a federal United Kingdom created in which the responsibility of each department will be enforced in a written constitution. Questions have also risen as to whether the devolved governments, which are a part of the United Kingdom, should have individual Secretaries of the State in the Cabinet (Raco 2003). The relationships which exist between the administrations which are continuing to mature, the Secretary of State’s role has continued to decrease. This has raised questions and it has created need that the separation of the offices must be put forward. Any suggestion to change the role of the Secretary of State for Wales must put in to consideration that the process is still new. If individuals Secretaries of the State are created in the cabinet, this will force the devolution scheme to be scrapped of and a federal system of government will be introduced in which individual secretaries of the states exist. According to Morelli and Seaman (2007), the devolution process of the United Kingdom in terms of both income and social inclusion does not have any income equality. An instance of the inequality in income of devolution can be seen in the two most established instances of devolution. That is Scotland and Wales. According to a survey done by the British Household Panel, its data suggests that devolution appears to have had no discernable force on inequality on income (Wright 2005). This type of weakness might also lead to a federal government or a union government. This will enable each state to concentrate on its income equality. The United Kingdom will no longer have powers to grant statutory powers to the other countries. This is an implication that a union state will have to be introduced or a federal government introduced. The issue of the constitution of the UK being an ever changing character may also result to the failure of the devolution scheme. Instead of possessing a single document, many statutes of the Parliament exist. The parliament is usually made up of the queen, the House of Lords and the House of Commons. The House of Commons habitually has the legislations’ weight (Bradley & Ewing 2003). If any changes are to be done to the constitution concerning the devolution scheme, all the parties involved must be questioned. In order to eradicate the fact that House of Commons and the United Kingdom legislature having all the statutory powers, this means that a union state will be introduced or a federal government meaning the devolution scheme will be abolished. Consistent and effective measurements in matters pertaining devolution have not been clearly understood (Bolderson & Mallbett 1999). This in simple terms means that the policy areas that have been devolved to Scott and Wales have not been well understood. The policy terms have not been well understood since the United Kingdom does not constitute if a written constitution. If the devolution scheme is to minimize its weaknesses, this means that a comprehensive understanding of the policy should be put in place so that the interests of Welsh and Scott are put into consideration in the policymaking. If this method fails, then it is quite clear that a federal government will be introduced which has a written constitution and one that offers all governments freedom of being independent from other states. The United Kingdom departmental responsibilities have been placed solely on the United Kingdom (Kumar 2009). This has resulted in to Scott and Welsh having “part time” responsibilities in the departments. It is evident that the departmental responsibilities have been changed and the powers are likely to remain central, which is an added advantage to the functioning of the devolved government. If the responsibilities of the departments continue to remain unsettled, a union state will be forced to be created since then will Scott and Welsh have departmental responsibilities. The performance of the civil servants in the implementation of the devolution has proved to be quite low and bad practice is the order of the day (Jackson 2004). If the policy of the devolution scheme fails to be enacted in the training of all the senior civil servants, this will mean that a federal system of government will be introduced. A federal system will mean that ever government agent is quite aware of their responsibilities. If that is not the case, then a union state will be introduced in which all the systems of the governments have equal power sharing. This will mean that the responsibility of the departments will not entirely lie on the United Kingdom. The compromising states will share responsibilities making the functions of the civil servants easier and their duties done to perfection (Greer 2009). Some of the issues which are identified within Wales can only be addressed if a systematic programmed is introduced (Adams & Robinson 2002). A systematic programme can only be enforced correctly if a federal government is forced. This will assist in creating awareness of the pros of a federal government. All the duties will be done effectively. This means that the duties will not be the sole responsibility of the Whitehall. This will create and promote shared learning. It will also assist in best practices. If the devolution scheme is to fail, it is likely that a federal government will be introduced to fill the gap of the failed devolved scheme. In reference to accountability, all jurisdictions should utilize the same structure as the civil service in which their responsibilities are clearly defined. If a common written code is introduced in the entire jurisdiction, this means that the devolution scheme which will have been scraped off will led to a federal system of government (Cole 2006). The written code which will also be displayed in the constitution will contain all the details, principles and implications of the duties of every member of the jurisdiction. This will also help create accountability. If a federal system of government is introduced, this means that the codes will be written in a constitution if the devolution scheme fails to work. A mere legal analysis is also not sufficient in forming a federal government. Scotland devolution is created by the Scot Act (Stevenson 2006). The act is a piece of entrenchment provided towards the central government. In order for the legislation areas of the central government and federal states to draw clear boundaries, then a federal government must be introduced. In order for the United Kingdom to draw all the devolution acts, then they must have a written constitution and not a hundred statutes put together. This means that if the devolution scheme fails to work, then a federal system of government will have to be introduced (Trench 2004). The changes brought about the Government Act of 2006 have not yet been enacted by the Whitehall departments (Pilkington 2002). This means that the Whitehall department and the Welsh assembly of government need to provide a system that will create awareness if any act is passed. Furthermore a system in which all the states are considered equal and every state has the legislative rights to pass its bills which are enacted in the constitution will only be made possible through a union state or a federal government. If a union state type of government is introduced, then all the acts will be passed and not waiting for the confirmation of the central government. The absence of a structure in which the system of the devolved government works also will lead to the failure of the devolution scheme. A system in which the different political complexion is drawn is required. Additionally, a group of arrangements must be introduced in which the arrangements give out an opportunity for the political and territorial to express their differences, a system which also provides an opportunity to negotiate, have dialogue and a resolution to be formed in regard to their dispute. A union state government or a federal system will enable this kind of system to prevail. This is because a single government will not have the power to grant statutory powers (Bromley 2006). A joint ministerial committee also exists in the devolution scheme. The joint ministerial committee which has stopped working will also lead to the ultimate fall down of the whole scheme (Brooks & Cullinane 2006). In order to introduce a working ministerial team, then a union state or a federal type of government ought to be introduced in which a ministerial team will be appointed to regulate the affairs of the state. The territorial jurisdiction will secure and agreement on the Marine and Coastal Access. Furthermore, such type of system where the bills will be written down will only be efficient if a federal type of government is introduced or a union state type of government (Deacon & Sandry 2007). The agreed understanding of the principles set out for the devolution process may mean a different thing to the countries involved. If a federal system of government is introduced, then all the principles will be laid out in a single written constitution. This will delete some of the failures of the devolution scheme (Lopez 2000). Conclusion The devolution scheme, which consists of many failures, might result in to federalism or a union state. Federalism consists of a central government and other governments of different states. The other governments consist of different powers but at the same time, they are dependant on each other. If federalism is to be enacted, then there will be a change of power. The devolution system, which contains a lot of weakness, will be deleted and replaced by federalism. Federalism will contain in a written constitution unlike in the devolution scheme, which contains hundreds of statues, a single written constitution will be enforced. The devolution scheme is also proving to be a total fail. The devolution scheme has many weaknesses. Some of the weaknesses pointed out include the failure of the joint ministerial committee. Another failure is the lack of a written constitution, which will spell out all the bills. Additionally, the decision of the House of Commons weighs more on the legislature. Although both the federal and the union state type of government has its weaknesses, it is evident that they are the type of governments, which will most likely flourish if the devolution scheme finally comes to a halt. References Adams, J & Robinson, P. 2002. Devolution in practice: Public Policy Differences Within the UK. Institute for Public Policy Research. Bolderson, H., & Mabbett, D. 1999. Devolved Social Security Systems: Principal-Agent versus Multi-Level Governance. Journal of Public Policy, Vol. 18, No. 2 Bradley, A.W. & Ewing K. D. 2003. Constitutional and Administrative Law (13th Ed.). London: Longman. Bromley, C. 2006. Has Devolution Delivered? Edinburgh University Press Brooks R. M & Cullinane K. 2006. Devolution, Port Governance and Port Performance. Elsevier. Cole A. 2006. Beyond devolution and decentralisation: building regional capacity in Wales and Brittany. Manchester University Press. Deacon, R. & Sandry A. 2007. Devolution in the United Kingdom. Edinburgh University Press. Greer, L. S. 2009. Devolution and Social Citizenship in the UK. The Policy Press. House of Commons 2009. Devolution: A decade on. Accessed on 28th February, 2012 from http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmjust/529/52910.htm House of Commons, Justice Committee. 2009. Devolution: A decade on, 2008-2009, Vol 2: Oral and written evidence. The Stationary Office. Jackson A. 2004. Home Rule: An Irish History, 1800-2000. Phoenix. Kumar, R. T. 2005. Tax Devolution and Regional Disparities. Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 40 Lopez, A. 2000. Devolution. Geoffrey Young. Morelli, C. & Seaman, P. 2007. Devolution and Inequality: A Failure to Create a Community of Equals? Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers Vol. 32, No. 4 black well publishers. Pilkington, C. 2002. Devolution in Britain Today. Manchester. Manchester University Press. Raco, M. 2003. Governmentality, Subject-Building, and the Discourses and Practices of Devolution in the UK. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers. New Series, Vol. 28, No. 1 Stevenson, D. 2006. Devolution. The British Medical Journal. Trench, A. 2004. Has Devolution Made a Difference? : The State of the Nations 2004. Imprint Academic Wright, E. R. 2005. Changing Scotland: evidence from the British Household Panel Survey. Policy Press Read More