The way the UK Government works with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland risks undermining democratic accountability, new research suggests.
Jack Liddall, a postgraduate student at St John’s College, University of Cambridge, has mapped more than 25 years of transparency measures covering how the UK Government works with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. He identified progress since the mid-2010s but says the system still falls short of meaningful scrutiny. The research is published in The British Journal of Politics and International Relations.
“Where decision-making is opaque and governments are not properly held accountable, UK publics can, in turn, lose trust in democratic institutions,” he explains.
“The years around 2016 and 2022 marked key moments for greater openness in intergovernmental relations. The opening up of intergovernmental processes to parliamentary examination - while far from complete - occurred chiefly as a response to changing political-constitutional contexts.”
Liddall argues that it was political shocks, namely the 2014 Scottish independence referendum and Brexit, that forced change. “The dramatic intergovernmental ‘high politics’ surrounding the Scottish independence referendum and Brexit proved decisive in securing greater government transparency, following other long-standing, often unsuccessful, campaigns for enhanced scrutiny.”
He says ministers’ motives were pragmatic rather than principled. “The rationales behind these government-introduced transparency measures have been less than altruistic. They have not primarily been in the name of good governance nor improved accountability.”
Instead, “the deepening of highly technical intergovernmental working necessitated by Brexit– alongside rising tensions between UK governments – drove executives to open up intergovernmental relations processes to parliamentary and public scrutiny.”
Liddall notes that around 80 per cent of the transparency measures were introduced post-Brexit, including promises to release brief public accounts of ministerial discussions and to provide regular updates to parliaments.
Scotland led with a 2016 written agreement to provide agendas, timely summaries and annual reports; Wales followed in 2019; UK-wide reforms arrived with a 2022 overhaul of intergovernmental machinery.
There are now pledges to publish agendas in advance, issue summaries after meetings and allow committees to question ministers on what was agreed, but Liddall argues that these practices are “applied unevenly and remain largely voluntary.” In many cases, his research found that meetings still take place informally, with patchy or minimal records and no automatic route for follow-up scrutiny in Westminster or the devolved legislatures.
He added: “The transparency measures which have been introduced are far from comprehensive, with the vast majority of intergovernmental relations still occurring informally and behind closed doors. A culture of transparency is far from embedded.”
Nor has the UK moved from disclosure to what he considers genuine oversight: “There has not yet been a major shift from a culture of intergovernmental relations transparency to a culture of scrutiny in which the UK’s ministers and civil servants are tangibly held to account for their contributions to intergovernmental decision-making.”
His bottom line is stark: “Intergovernmental relations transparency is both unenforceable and dependent on government cooperation.” Without stronger, shared standards for publishing agendas, minutes and outcomes - and clearer roles for committees across all four legislatures – he concludes that major UK-wide decisions will continue to be taken “out of sight”, with accountability blurred.
