Memorandum submitted by Grayling Political
Strategy
1. DESCRIPTION
OF GRAYLING
Grayling is an international public relations,
public affairs and event management group. The organisation has
been operating for over 25 years, and is now part of Huntsworth
plc.
Grayling's public affairs arm started life as
Westminster Strategy in 1986; the Brussels office opened in 1990
and then, ahead of devolution, offices were opened in Edinburgh
in 1996 and Cardiff in 1998. The four public affairs offices are
known as Grayling Political Strategy (GPS). We also work in association
with an independent company in Northern Ireland
GPS is the only organisation of its kind with
directly managed teams, working in an integrated way across the
four "political capitals" of London, Brussels, Edinburgh
and Cardiff. We are founder members of the Association of Professional
Political Consultants.
2. OUR APPROACH
TO THE
COMMITTEE'S
QUESTIONS
As an organisation we are politically neutral
and have no collective view on questions of whether more devolution
or less is to be preferred, or whether a new constitutional arrangements
between the nations of the United Kingdom is a good thing or not.
Where we feel we can legitimately comment and
be helpful to the Committee is in addressing questions from a
practical point of view, relating our comments to the experience
of working with many organisations, often with more than one political
institution.
We have specifically concentrated on Scotland
and Wales, as the two areas in which devolution in the UK has
been in place the longest, and where we have had our own two teams
working with clients alongside the devolved administrations since
they were established.
3. RESPONSE TO
THE COMMITTEE'S
SPECIFIC QUESTIONS
Question 1: Westminster: How does Parliament deal
with devolution issues, eg legislating for Scotland and Wales?
Scotland
There have been numerous conflicts between the
Westminster Government and the Scottish Executive and Parliament.
Some of these have emerged as a result of genuine differences
in view on policies such as free personal care, foundation hospitals
and higher education funding.
However, there have also been examples of an
apparent lack of communication in relation to policy making; for
example over the Serious Organised Crime Agency where British
and Scottish Ministers had different perceptions about roles and
responsibilities; or the new UK Supreme Court where Scottish Ministers
were apparently not adequately consulted before the announcement
despite obvious implications for the Scottish legal system.
Current mechanisms rely to a large extent on
goodwill, a point recognised by the House of Lords Select Committee
on the Constitution which said:
"We are concerned by the sheer extent of
the reliance on goodwill as the basis for intergovernmental relations
within the United Kingdom. We are also concerned that goodwill
has been elevated into a principle of intergovernmental relations:
it is used to explain the avoidance of disputes and to justify
maintaining the present informality of the system." And went
on to state that "we have an unresolved concern that these
mechanisms may not prove adequate to the challenges arising from
a highly-charged political dispute, especially if the parties
are accustomed to informal rather than formal dealings with each
other".
Another area of concern is the use of Legislative
Consent or "Sewel" motions. This was a mechanism initially
designed so that the Scottish Parliament could agree to let Westminster
legislate for the whole UK on matters which were technically devolved
but on which a UK solution was deemed to be preferable. However,
this was supposed to be the exception and not the rule and it
was envisaged that only a couple of such motions would be brought
forward annually. In the first two sessions of the Scottish Parliament,
76 such motions have been lodged. This suggests that the issue
of the respective powers of the two Parliaments has not been definitively
answered.
Wales
There has been increasing comment in Wales—amongst
the media, politicians, and our clients—on the "West
Lothian" question: or the "West Clwyd" question,
as it is becoming known in Wales. Under devolution to date, the
absence of primary powers has left the National Assembly in the
position of hoping that primary legislation bids are included
in the Queen's speech. Inevitably a packed Westminster legislative
timetable has meant that only one out of four bids for Welsh legislation
is successful. This will change under the new Government of Wales
Act. The Assembly will have a more formal process for proposing
its own legislation, and this seems likely significantly to change
the relationship between the National Assembly and Parliament.
Over the last decade there have been numerous
occasions in which policies of the Westminster Government have
been in conflict with the National Assembly. Some of these conflicts
have in part been due to the lack of a majority held by the—Labour—Assembly
Government. An example was the decision not to introduce top up
fees in Wales. Divergence in policy on this subject area was down
to opposition parties voting together to set a clear difference
in policy to that in England: a valid democratic tactic, it could
be argued, but one which perhaps was not necessarily envisaged
when devolution was initiated. Such outcomes may be more common
if and when different political parties run the administrations
in the National Assembly and Westminster.
The Assembly Government has managed to take
formal positions on issues it could be argued are beyond its devolved
remit. For example, although the National Assembly has no power
over planning decisions on energy facilities generating more than
over 50 megawatts, the Assembly Government has stated its formal
opposition to new nuclear power stations being built in Wales.
This position may be tested if in the future the Westminster Government
decided—as it is currently entitled to do—that there
should be new nuclear power stations built in Wales.
Overall
All the evidence, so far, is that the devolution
settlement in Scotland and Wales, far from being a fixed position,
is in fact a long-term process in which more responsibilities
flow to the devolved institutions. Inevitably, this will increasingly
highlight concerns about the ability of Scottish and Welsh MPs
to influence legislation affecting only England.
Whitehall: What impact has devolution had on Whitehall?
Has there been a change in culture? How have they responded to
the divergence in policy making? How have the Concordats developed,
and are they working?
In our experience, this is very much "work
in progress". The reliance on goodwill has been mentioned.
Areas such as public health—where the ability of health
systems to join up in the prevention of a disease such as Avian
`Flu will be critical, may warrant fuller investigation.
The emergence of separate drug regulatory regimes
and other divergent services in Scotland, England and Wales rightly
attracts considerable attention. Does a "fair" democratic
settlement equate to everyone, across the UK, having access to
the same treatments or a similar level of social care or education?
Tension about these matters is clearly rising. How long before
the "Barnett formula" is re-opened for investigation?
Although these and other battles are likely
to be fought pretty robustly in coming years, the shifting culture
towards a new way of working should be noted. In the public sector,
some organisations have created offices in the devolved institutions
and work effectively with them. Most are focused on improving
their understanding and standards of representation; have begun
to develop their own communication programmes; and invest considerable
time in creating closer ties with their counterparts in Edinburgh,
Cardiff and Northern Ireland.
While such activity creates cost, it should
be encouraged and allied to a wider education programme—across
the UK—about the new constitutional settlement. Given the
generalized lack of UK national media coverage about the new devolved
institutions—particularly for Wales—this should be
a priority.
This would also help the private sector, where
understanding of the new constitutional settlement is patchy.
As would be expected, company engagement in the devolved institutions
relates directly to two factors—"do we have business
interests that are affected by these new bodies", and, if
so, "what powers do they have which affect us?" Probably
inevitably, it has taken time for many companies to perceive how
their interests are affected but it is also clear that, in the
last two or three years, more are waking up to the need to consider
their interests. A small but growing percentage of clients commission
our services in two or, sometimes, all three of our UK offices.
Clients regularly comment on the strong interest in collaborative
working they discover in the devolved institutions. But confusion
continues about the precise roles of both institutions, particularly
in Wales.
What is the future of the current Secretaries
of State for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland? Are the current
arrangements for the Wales and Scotland offices within the DCA
appropriate?
Of paramount importance is the need for clarity
in working relationships and protocols between the UK Executive
and the devolved institutions.
What are the other outstanding issues around reserved
and devolved issues? How could these be best resolved? Is the
UK's model of asymmetric devolution sustainable?
At a devolution conference GPS hosted in London
in December 2006, an expert panel drawn from academics, politicians
and advisers in Scotland, Wales and England lamented the fact
that devolution had found no resonance in England. This "asymmetric
devolution", the panel felt, presents a huge challenge. Voter
indifference everywhere will become a concern if levels of activity
and engagement continue to decline and will in turn rob the devolved
institutions of their legitimacy if voters seem less and less
willing to turn out. Hopefully the May elections will prompt not
just analysis, but consideration by politicians themselves about
ways of stimulating local democracy across the UK.
What are the broader consequences of devolution
for the future of the UK's constitution?
For the last 10 years, Labour has dominated
the politics of the mainland Britain. A different era, one in
which other parties or coalitions come to the fore, will test
the new devolved structures. We have no view as to whether or
not the UK should adopt a federalist structure, but the implications
of devolved power should in our view be debated much more widely
in society.
It is a particular concern in our view that
there is virtually no UK-national media coverage of the Welsh
Assembly, and that coverage of the Scottish Executive and Parliament—while
strong in Scotland—remains thin in the London-based media.
Newspapers of course essentially report what they think will interest
their readers and it is therefore pointless to demand greater
coverage. It will have to be led by politicians themselves and
their willingness to lead an engaging and vivid debate.
Another point worth noting is that the outcome
of the May elections is masking an important underlying change.
Voters are being asked to use different electoral systems. Thus
in both Scotland and Wales, voters now have experience of a constituency
plus regional list system as a result of devolution—alongside
first past the post which is used at UK level. Moreover, in Scotland
a Single Transferable Vote system will now be applied to local
government elections. Does this matter? GPS is not itself in a
position to draw conclusions, but it is possible that voters may
find this confusing. It may also lead some to conclude that they
prefer one model to another.
Viven Hepworth
Chief Executive
April 2007
| 
