UK COVID inquiry questions Devolution's Impact
Edinburgh: As the UK COVID inquiry concludes its three-week session in the Scottish capital, it leaves behind a trail of significant political and constitutional inquiries, rekindling the debate on the impact of devolution on Scotland's response to the pandemic.
One of the central questions being deliberated by inquiry chair Baroness Hallett is whether devolution has aided or hindered Scotland's ability to combat the COVID-19 crisis. Did the devolved powers enable a more tailored response, or did they create complications in decision-making?
A particularly contentious issue is whether Scotland would have fared better if it had complete autonomy over crucial decisions, such as those pertaining to borders and finances, as an independent nation. The question of whether the UK government should have had the authority to make pivotal public health decisions for the entire UK or at least for Great Britain is also under scrutiny.
Baroness Hallett faces the challenging task of determining whether the current constitutional framework, where health-related decisions are devolved to Edinburgh while control over borders and the wider economy remains reserved to Westminster, is optimal for handling a pandemic.
Throughout the inquiry, prominent politicians' behavior, morality, and personalities have made headlines, from Nicola Sturgeon's characterization of Boris Johnson as a "clown" to Scottish Secretary Alister Jack's dismissive remarks about Sturgeon's emotions. However, the core focus of the inquiry remains on analyzing underlying governmental structures for emergency preparedness and response rather than assigning blame for past failures.
A key revelation during the inquiry was the suggestion that the UK government could have invoked the 2004 Civil Contingencies Act to take control of public health decisions on a nationwide scale when the novel coronavirus first emerged. Cabinet Office minister Michael Gove, who provided evidence, deemed such a move "draconian" but hinted at exploring mechanisms to allow the UK government to intervene in devolved decision-making during a national emergency.
This proposal has stirred controversy as it challenges the fundamental principles of devolution established over a quarter of a century ago. Aileen McHarg, Professor of Public Law and Human Rights at Durham University, argues that the idea of Whitehall reclaiming control in an emergency is "completely unrealistic." She emphasizes that devolution encompasses various aspects of governance beyond health, such as education, social work, justice, and prisons.
McHarg highlights the existing challenges in joint working mechanisms between the UK government and devolved administrations, describing them as "the real weak point of the devolution arrangements." As the inquiry draws to a close, the debate on the role of devolution in the UK's pandemic response continues, with far-reaching implications for the future of constitutional governance.
