Week 5.1 MultiLevel Governance, Intergovernmental relations and the strategies of interest groups

1
Week 5.1 Multi-Level Governance,
Intergovernmental relations and the strategies of
interest groups

• 5 points
• NB meaning of IGR (central-local )

2
Intergovernmental relationsA Scottish
Government?

• the Scottish Executive is a somewhat confusing
  term on which unionists insisted to distinguish
  it from the British Government
• Autonomy hard to come by. As Keating lecture
  suggests, this problem is not unique to Scotland.
• Intergovernmental relations used to cope with
  reserved/ devolved overlaps
• Lords report The pattern of devolved and
  retained functions is an intricate one. It can be
  hard to see in practice (and sometimes in
  principle) where a devolved function stops and a
  retained one starts. Even if that were clear,
  many policies or initiatives of one level of
  government will require some degree of contact
  between the devolved administration and UK
  Government.

3
Scotland - UK Picture

• NB secrecy
• Little parliament-parliament contact. Mostly
  through executives (although NB Sewel and WL
  Question)
• Little use of formal mechanisms/ concordats
• Barnett, civil service and party/ government
  links (although change over time in civil
  service coalition)
• Exception of FPC elderly proves rule? Also Hep C
  compensation.
• McLeish and the importance of personality

4
Scotland - UK Picture

• Similar discussion by Trench
• JMC underused
• Ministers can meet elsewhere (e.g. EU
  agriculture)
• Asymmetrical relationship and lack of
  coordination down to neglect of periphery
  (remember Bulpitt?)
• Examples include the (non) applicability of the
  Curry report on FMD, plans for a Supreme Court of
  the UK and the impact HE fees would have on
  Scotland.
• Lords report worried about reliance on
  informality in long term

5
Europe Mixed picture

• Scottish Executive estimate that 80 of their
  business has a strong EU dimension
• Strong bargaining position, own office in
  Brussels
• Involvement still decided by centre and examples
  of success limited
• EU implementation devolved but with UK override
  powers
• Irony of formal participation going down.
• Scottish formal participation possible, but only
  if UK line taken and negotiations kept secret
• UK treatment also apparent in FMD example
• Informal process (MLG?) allows most contact
• Civil service contact puts Scotland in better
  position than other sub-national offices

6
Intergovernmental relations and the use of
Consultation

• Huge consultation the Scottish policy style
  (CSG)?
• NB
• Numbers misleading
• UK comparison
• EU influence

7
Types of Consultation

• OPEN
• (1) Call for ideas - "issue paper"
• (2) Green paper or equivalent - ie framework/
  agenda with specific questions (based on
  preliminary consultation with groups)
• (3) Re-consultation based on previous responses
  or consultation taken after a formal evaluation
  of an existing service annual review (NB
  categories 4-7 will also be based on previous
  consultations)
• (4) Based on White Paper or equivalent (e.g.
  Partnership Agreement if there is agreement on a
  firm proposal)with firmer statement of intent
  before final formulation stage
• (5) Consultation on the implementation of policy
  (including broad proposal to revise guidance
  i.e. a revision of policy without legislation or
  particularly formal scrutiny)
• (6) Draft guidance/ regulations arising from
  Acts (or draft bills for final comments)
• CLOSED

8
Scottish Executive Consultation Types 1999-2004
9

10
Interest Groups and Multi-Level Governance

• (NB Civic forum)
• Background
• 2 rounds of interviews, 1999 and 2003/4
• Influential/ relevant groups identified
  business, trade union, voluntary, professional
• Questions on strategy/ focus (level of government
  and type of government), levels of access and
  satisfaction with process (esp. 1999 round).
• So discussion revolves around question of ACCESS
  and comparisons between the 2 rounds

11
Types of group in Scotland, 1998
I.e. largest proportion is UK with Scottish
branch. So while group devolution may mirror
political devolution, UK and EU policy lead kept
in the centre.
12
The Question of Access

• The Question of Access What does it involve?
• Willingness to Access
• Change of Focus to the new institutions or old
  links maintained? NB skinning cats
• Is lobbying in Scotland and elsewhere good value?
• Within Scotland - Scottish Executive or Scottish
  Parliament? Hedging Bets?
• Ability to Access
• The resources of Groups e.g. lobbying
  restricted to Scotland? Costs of lobbying
  similar in all levels?
• The Willingness of Scottish Parliament and
  Scottish Executive to engage
• The quality of access cosmetic consultation?
• Competition for access pluralism in action?

13
The Simple Picture then the Complex Picture

• Significant shift of focus
• Positive image of Scottish Parliament and
  Scottish Executive
• Plurality a more open, accessible and healthy
  policy process.
• Substantive debate rather than lobbying
• Networks of groups developing
• Groups tend to hedge their bets

14
Qualifications

• MSP and Scottish Executive inexperience
• Scottish Parliament/ Scottish Executive
  relationship unclear.
• Pluralism means sharing access
• Consultation does not mean negotiation
• Consultation fatigue/ resource constraints.
• Different groups, different policy areas

15
The Willingness of groups to access the Scottish
Parliament/ Scottish Executive

• A refocus of efforts
• Increased policy capacity and presence (slow)
• More group collaboration and new alliances
• But
• Devolved/ reserved issues

16
Group Differences

• Economic Groups
• Business groups crisis and pragmatism in 1st
  session. More Scottish attention in 2nd.
• Large groups had more to lose i.e. Scottish
  Office, DTI, Treasury and PM office links. FSB
  most to gain.
• Crucial factors ownership, markets, size
• Practical effects - Devolution of responsibility
  to CBIS (but NB membership largely UK/ MNCs),
  IODS, FSBS, etc. while London HQ kept Europe.
• The Gang of 5
• Unhappy groups Scottish Landowners Federation,
  Big Banks?

17
Some notable economic areas

• Financial sector
• Whiskey
• Rural Affairs
• Freight Transport

18
Social Groups (including professions)

• Summary
• Engagement with Labour before devolution
• More social issues devolved
• UK network issues
• Devolved structures
• However
• Westminster Links
• The central belt issue

19
Notable policy areas

• Housing and homelessness
• Social Work
• Health
• Employment
• The EIS

20
Summary

• Whilst there is a clear willingness of groups to
  seek access in Scotland, this is qualified in
  terms of policy area and the type of group.

21
The resources of groups to engage

• The pace of consultation may be too great to be
  sustained
• The expenses incurred as a result of
  over-consultation, and information overload
  generally - they find it a strain on limited
  resources
• Even the largest and best resourced groups (eg
  UNISON) have described the problem of
  consultation overload and stretched resources.

22
Analysis by groups

• Business Less concern
• Most affected/ concerned IOD, SCDI
• Trade Unions STUC and UNISON well resourced
• Most Affected RMT, GMB
• Voluntary the SCVO is well resourced
• One Parent Families example

23
What is the focus of access in Scotland? The
Hedging Bets Question

• 1999 summary
• Positive attitude to the Scottish Parliament and
  the process
• Regular dialogue with MSPs, civil servants and
  cross party groups
• The Parliament and its committees have become a
  significant focus for groups wanting to influence
  policy, to a much greater extent than in other
  devolved systems in Europe
• Insider groups just as likely to contact MSPs
• Ministerial meetings

24
Group and Sector differences

• From 2003/4 interviews
• The gang of 5 tends to meet ministers
• Some business groups have a day-to-day
  relationship with civil service and Scottish
  Enterprise
• Trade associations meet more with civil servants
  (NB lack of primary legislation in these areas)
• MSP links less important for agricultural and
  fishing groups
• SCVO relationship with Scottish Parliament is a
  pain
• Social policy groups more likely to contact MPs
  (not surprising)
• Episodic policy
• The STUC relationship not what it expected
• UNISON hedges bets
• GMB direct MSP contact, civil service through
  STUC

25
The Ability to Access the Scottish Parliament/
Scottish Executive

• The groups themselves
• Have a positive attitude to devolution
• Consider themselves to be engaged in the process
• Believe their input is taken into consideration
• Find the location of the Parliament more
  convenient because of time saved, reduced
  travelling expenses, and proximity to the
  political actors
• But are worried that as the institutions mature
  they will rely on groups less

26
Accessing MSPs

• Business the CBI and FSB are shorthand groups
  for Scottish Parliament committees
• Trade associations report no problems
• Professions access much better than
  Westminster. AHP example.
• Not exactly lobbying MSPs are desperate for
  information
• Groups like Age Concern service cross-party
  groups
• The SCVO complains of too much access. It
  often refers/ delegates
• Environmental NGOs discuss the relative ease of
  pursuing members bills
• Trade Unions a lot of STUC engagement, but they
  often delegate the task

27
Interest Group Access to the Scottish Executive

• Ministers
• Gang of 5 meets monthly - Ministers are very
  accessible and enthusiastic. The change from
  devolution is enormous. Seeing ministers at
  Whitehall was like seeing God.
• Good STUC access
• Trade Associations mixed reports
• Voluntary sector 2nd term differences

28
Civil Service/ Agency Contact

• Many groups discuss the openness of the CS their
  ability to just pick up the phone and e-mail CS
  on a day-to-day basis.
• In this sense, much more groups seem to be
  insider (although just an impression).
• Groups such as UNISON, the FTA, the FSB and the
  SCVO discuss pre-consultation, when CS will call
  them to ask for initial thought before the final
  production of a consultation document.

29
Group differences

• Business Group differences
• STUC concordat
• Trade Associations good links
• SCVO good links
• Voluntary sector 2nd term differences

30
The Quality of Access

• 1st round
• Devolution has produced more concern with the
  substance of policy, as opposed merely to
  lobbying for resources
• The policy process is more open and consultative
  than before
• However, they don't know if consultation will
  make a real difference. Many are adopting a "wait
  and see" position

31
2nd round

• Business from under pressure to excellent
  access, reflecting Scottish Executive focus on
  economy in 2nd term.
• Issues business rates, workplace parking, 3rd
  party planning appeals
• STUC excellent access and agreement on areas of
  interest (bar Health and Safety).
• Less agreement on policy.
• Some groups across sectors bemoan the lack of a
  relationship between access and influence.
• 1st and 2nd term differences
• Homelessness
• Care for the Elderly
• Mental Health

32
The competition for Access? (Pluralism issue?)
Winners and losers?

• Remember New Politics. One of the aims of this
  study has been to analyse the extent to which the
  strengthening of the Scottish dimension of policy
  making will produce new forms of social
  solidarity. Will it be less appropriate to talk
  about winners and losers, or insider/ outsider
  groups?
• Also remember relative position is important
  (like Energy Company profits)

33
Potential for competition

• Business Groups and the STUC?
• Rural Businesses and Environmetal NGOs?
• Winners and Losers -
• Winners most groups reported a steep rise in
  their ability to access the Scottish Parliament
  and Executive.
• Social groups the particular winners in 1st term.
• Business in the 2nd?
• 2 particular losers The SLF and the BOS.

34
Summary of 2nd round or 2nd term differences

• Business groups under less pressure
• The significant role of the TUC and unions has
  been institutionalised
• Some voluntary sector groups are concerned about
  their relative lack of access in the second term.
  
• Ministers delegating decisions
• Committe turnover question
• Pluralism issues