IFG - Westminster and devolved governments must co-ordinate their coronavirus responses
A new Institute for Government reports says the four governments of the UK must better co-ordinate their different approaches to lockdown restrictions to control the rising number of cases in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Published today, Co-ordination and Divergence: devolution and coronavirus warns that poor communication and a failure to share information have led the four governments to make decisions without considering the impact of their actions on other parts of the UK. Politicians must be sure that they do not forgo the potential benefits of co-ordinating their divergence – in terms of lives saved – because they are unwilling to reach consensus on the best way forward for the whole of the UK.
Devolution is deliberately designed to allow for divergence, but when it happens it needs to be managed carefully to avoid negative impacts. A lack of co-ordination during the crisis – specifically on the details of restrictions – has created confusion amongst the pubic and businesses and may have undermined public compliance. For example, a lack of agreement over travel restrictions placed on people living in high prevalence areas led the Welsh government to prohibit people from other parts of the UK from entering Wales.
Since May, meetings between the four governments have become sporadic. In the early phase of the crisis, between the end of March and the beginning of May, COBR was convened four times to allow the prime minister and first ministers to meet; it was not convened at all between 10 May and 22 September. Ministerial Implementation Groups – which facilitated daily contact with devolved ministers – were disbanded by the UK government in May, without consulting the devolved administrations.
The approach to easing lockdown restrictions in the four nations has diverged since May – different decisions have been taken on timing and on the number of people that can meet, for example. Politicians have made different choices based on local factors and epidemiological evidence but also – most significantly – according to their own political judgment.
The new IfG paper says the four governments of the UK should:
- agree a regular schedule of meetings, including high-level cross-government meetings between leaders, and more frequent operational-level meetings
- commission scientific advice on a UK-wide ‘circuit-breaker’ lockdown as opposed to separate approaches in each of the devolved administrations
- agree restrictions on travel from areas of high-risk areas to lower-risk ones to prevent further restrictions at UK internal borders
- agree thresholds for imposing lockdown conditions that will trigger economic support to ensure an equitable distribution of economic support.
Jess Sargeant, IfG senior searcher and report author said:
The different lockdown rules in the four parts of the UK have made devolution more visible than ever before. Divergence allows ministers in Westminster, Holyrood, Cardiff and Stormont to take the decisions they think best for their nation. But the benefits of doing things differently must be carefully weighed against the problems this can create. With all four parts of the UK facing rising infections, a more co-ordinated approach is needed. Coronavirus should unite, not divide, the UK.”
Notes to editors
Latest News from
JRF - Coalition warns it would be a terrible mistake to cut the £20 uplift to Universal Credit01/12/2020 10:35:00
Over 60 organisations and bishops issue a public statement expressing their deep concern at the failure of the Government to announce that they are making the £20 uplift to Universal Credit permanent and extending it to legacy benefits.
Evidence used to justify hospitality closures is “tenuous,” says IEA research01/12/2020 09:35:00
Research from the Institute of Economic Affairs, authored by Head of Lifestyle Economics Christopher Snowdon, casts doubt over the relevance of evidence on which Tier 2 and Tier 3 restrictions on the hospitality sector will be based.
The Spending Review is 'unlikely to be enough to address health and care pressures': The King's Fund responds to the Spending Review26/11/2020 14:35:00
Sally Warren, Director of Policy at The King’s Fund, responded to the Chancellor’s Spending Review
Initial reaction from IFS researchers on Spending Review 2020 and OBR forecasts26/11/2020 13:35:00
IFS Director Paul Johnson says: “Rishi Sunak has been spending truly astonishing amounts of money this year and plans to continue to do so next year in response to Covid.
Spending Review 2020: IPPR response26/11/2020 12:35:00
Spending review misunderstands 'basic economics' and will leave economy needlessly damaged
Rishi cannot tax our way out of debt or spend our way out of a recession — Adam Smith Institute26/11/2020 11:35:00
Following the spending review by the Chancellor, the Adam Smith Institute’s Deputy Director Matt Kilcoyne criticises the public sector spending splurge
Chancellor’s words ring hollow as less is spent on levelling up - JRF26/11/2020 10:35:00
Helen Barnard, Director of the independent Joseph Rowntree Foundation responded to the Chancellor’s Spending Review
IEA - The Chancellor’s diagnosis was correct but “the medicine is inadequate”26/11/2020 09:35:00
Mark Littlewood, Director General at the free-market think tank the Institute of Economic Affairs, responded to the Chancellor’s Spending Review