It can be argued that the British government generally felt that the devolved arrangements that had been set in place meant that it could adopt a ‘hands-off’ approach to Northern Ireland and its problems. This was also typified by the proposal for the abolition of STV proportional representation for elections within Northern Ireland. Subsequently the abolition of proportional representation for elections was replaced by ‘first-past-the-post’ systems in Northern Ireland. This then established the nature of the relationship between the two governments and the two Parliaments for the next forty years. Hence the relationship between the two Parliaments and the two governments was confirmed by the inability of members of the Westminster Parliament to ask questions over devolved matters. ‘Politics was thus solely about this central issue and it was only in the early 1960s that there was a possibility that things might change.’
Nevil Johnson puts across the argument that the experience of devolution in Northern Ireland ‘demonstrated conclusively that a small autonomous political unit within the United Kingdom could not afford politically to diverge substantially in respect of the services it provided from the standards set by the central government and Parliament in London. It can therefore be established that a certain degree of limited autonomy describes the powers of the Northern Ireland government, as they were significantly constrained by Westminster. In the course of events legislative devolution was virtually impossible because of the political and financial restraints imposed by the 1920 Government of Ireland Act. As a result there was more of an administrative devolution, especially with respect to agricultural policy within Northern Ireland that led to subsequent restraints in policy variation.
The quasi-federal approach can also be used to describe the extent to which the Northern Ireland Government was willing and able to use its extensive devolved powers is. This can be explained by the fact that some scholars argue that the government was more akin to a federal system, as they were given powers in which they subsequently used. Birrell and Murie argue that ‘in spite of very real constraints, Northern Ireland and its government could and did diverge substantially from the standards and legislation operating at Great Britain and at Westminster as independent action, different policies and substantially different policies did emerge. In certain case studies, it was established that the implementation of policies within Northern Ireland was somewhat different to those implemented within Britain, for instance within educational policies. Great ambitions of the 1923 Education Act were hardly realised but did help improve certain areas of education. Although, despite the peculiarities of its politico-administrative system and the differences in it’s political cleavages with Britain, Northern Ireland still forms part of the UK. It might be expected then that policy would simply reflect that as formulated in London.
One further important issue that I have touched upon, which crucially affected the devolved Parliament was finance and expenditure. Northern Ireland did not have enough finance to implement the policies it wanted, as any monies it obtained would come from Westminster. Thus the ability to do things differently was considerably restricted. ‘The essence of the arrangements was that Westminster retained control of finance but expenditure was a matter of Stormont.’ This also led to limitations on the types of policy that could be initiated in Northern Ireland, which meant that Westminster had a large degree of autonomy on all financial considerations.
Devolution condemned Northern Ireland to economic, social as well as political stagnation during the inter-war years. Hence, economically, the most pressing problem Northern Ireland faced was the decline of the old staples – agriculture, linen and shipbuilding – and the consequent high rate of unemployment and social distress. The only real success story was the beginnings of modernisation of agriculture. Northern Ireland thus led Britain and the Free State in efforts to improve standards of produce and marketing. Compulsory marketing schemes ensured minimum standards of foodstuffs were also features of agricultural policy in Northern Ireland.
The above issues incorporate the all-important concept of Particularity, which refers to the extent to which regional policies were developed to suit regional conditions. Hence, stressing the distinctiveness of Northern Ireland as a region and on the right, embodied in the 1920 Act, to control its own development and formulate policies to suit its individual character. Such Acts such as the 1922 Live Stock Breeding Act, the 1933 Agricultural Marketing Act and the most important 1922-1936 Loans and Guarantees Acts can be seen to have been adapted to regional conditions. This can also be perceived with respect to the transport system, linen and shipbuilding industries.
Thus, in respect to economic controls there were many instances where Northern Ireland’s policies were distinctly different from those of Britain. Stormont also had the power to nationalise private industry and during 1935 it decided that road transport policy should be nationalised to ensure the effective co-ordination between road and rail. Some scholars, such as Birrell and Murie, argue that in discussing Stormont’s economic powers Stormont had the responsibility for initiating its own policies for economic progress and development, and was thus able to follow an independent and distinctive line without interference form Westminster.
Northern Ireland had security, law and order problems that had to be dealt with in order to reduce sectarian violence. In addition to developing a structure for the security services, Stormont enacted a series of wide-ranging powers designed to enable the government to deal with internal violence. These were embodied within the 1922 Special Powers Act. The 1922 Act provided government, inter alia, with the ability to detain people without trial – ‘internment’. The above Act was renewed yearly from 1922 to 1972, with the result that there was an underlying tension between the security forces and the Catholic Community. Thus, law and order had to be maintained within Northern Ireland, which involved resistance to subversion and keeping Protestant and Catholic apart. Wide discretionary powers were bestowed upon the civil authority, defined as the Minister of Home affairs, empowered to take all such steps and issue such orders as may be necessary for preserving the peace.
The official British position is that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. ‘‘The Northern Irish problem’ is a term widely used in Northern Ireland and outside as if there were an agreed and universal understanding of what it means. It is more accurate, and more productive, to consider the issue, not as ‘problem’ with the implication that a solution lies around the corner, but as a tangle of interrelated problems.’ For instance, there is the central constitutional problem of what the political context should be: integration with Britain? Or a united Ireland with independence? There are also continuing social and economic problems, which raise the issue of inequalities with Northern Ireland, for instance, in the area of employment.
There is an evident problem with security, law and order within Northern Ireland as well as problems with cultural identity relating to education, religious difference and distinct problems with the day-to-day relationships with the people who live in Northern Ireland. All of these issues that have arisen show that these are elements to the problem within Northern Ireland and that there is not just one dominant problem. It can therefore be argued that ‘the formulation and implementation of policy would have been more efficient and effective if removed from the bitter sectarian conflict, which constitutes Northern Ireland politics.’
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Birrell, Derek & Murie, Alan. ‘Policy & Government in Northern Ireland: Lessons of Devolution’ (Gill & Macmillan: Dublin, 1980).
Boyce, D. G. ‘The Irish Question & British Politics 1868 – 1986’ (MacMillan Education: London, 1988).
Brigid, Hadfield. (ed.) ‘Northern Ireland: Politics & the Constitution’ (Open University Press: London, 1992).
Buckland, Patrick. ‘A History of Northern Ireland’ (Gill & MacMillan: Dublin, 1989).
Connolly, Michael. ‘Politics & Policymaking in Northern Ireland’ (Philip Allan: London, 1990).
Dixon, Paul. ‘Northern Ireland: The Politics of War and Peace’ (Palgrave: London, 2001).
Greer, Alan. ‘Notes on Interpreting the Devolution Experiment in Northern Ireland’ (Conferencing System: 2002).
Johnson, Nevil. Editorial in ‘Public Administration’, LII, (1975).
O’Leary, Brendan & McGarry, John. ‘The Politics of Antagonism: Understanding Northern Ireland’ Athlone Press: London, 1993).
Website: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history
Website: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/niguide/govact20.html
Website: http://cain.ulst.ac.uk
Website: http://www.election.demon.co.uk/stormont/intro.html
Website: http://www.nics.gov.uk
Website: http://websites.ntl.com/~wellclge/depts/history/module1/ni20_72.htm
Website: http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/othelem/facets.htm (04/02/02).
Hadfield, B. (ed). Northern Ireland: Politics & the Constitution, (1992), p. 64.
O’Leary, B. & McGarry, J. (eds.) Politics of Antagonism: Understanding Northern Ireland, (1993), p. 111.
Website: http://www.nics.gov.uk (04/04/02).
Allan, P. Politics & Policymaking in Northern Ireland, (1990), p. 35.
Connolly, M. Politics and Policymaking in Northern Ireland, (1990), p. 42.
Johnson, N. editorial in Public Administration, LII, (1975), pp. 1-12.
Greer, Alan. Notes on Interpreting the Devolution Experiment in Northern Ireland, (2002). Taken from the Conferencing System.
Allan, P. Politics & Policymaking in Northern Ireland, (1990), p. 32.
Birrell, D. & Murie, A. Policy & Government in Northern Ireland: Lessons of Devolution, (1980), p. 266. cited in Greer, Alan. Notes on Interpreting the Devolution Experiment in Northern Ireland, (2002). Taken from the Conferencing System.
Birrell, D. & Murie, A. Policy & Government in Northern Ireland: Lessons of Devolution, (1980), p. 23.
Allan, P. Politics & Policymaking in Northern Ireland, (1990), p. 43.
Connolly, M. Politics and Policymaking in Northern Ireland, (1990), p. 43.
Buckland, P. A History of Northern Ireland, (1989), p. 39.
Website: http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/othelem/facets.htm (04/02/02).
Hadfield, B. (ed). Northern Ireland: Politics & the Constitution, (1992), p. 64.