British government asserts control over the north
07 December 2022
SoS Chris Heaton-Harris
lambasts north's political parties.
In late October, in the run up to the deadline for the restoration of the Stormont executive, there was much speculation over potential alternatives to the current political arrangements in the north. The argument made by nationalist politicians and commentators, was that in the event of a collapse of the institutions, a reversion to the default setting of direct rule was unacceptable. For them the alternative to devolution was not direct rule but rather an arrangement that would greatly enhance the role of the Irish government in the administration of Northern Ireland. Sinn Fein leader Michelle O’Neill made an explicit call for such an arrangement, describing it as a form of “joint authority”. However, almost two months on we are nowhere near such a scenario. Talk of joint authority was promptly dismissed by both the British and Irish governments as not being a viable prospect. They also made the point that, even if such an arrangement were practical, it was not a provision in the Good Friday Agreement and was therefore politically unacceptable. Instead, what we have seen is the assertion of a form of direct rule through the imposition of a budget by the Secretary of State (SoS) and the enactment of new legislation by the Westminster parliament.
Budget
On November 24 the (SoS) Chris Heaton-Harris made a statement setting out the budget for Stormont departments. Whilst this covered the broad parameters of public spending the implications couldn’t have been clearer. In the current financial year Stormont had a projected overspend of £660 million - equivalent to almost 5% of the total budget – which would be dealt with through a mixture of cuts and taking an advance from next year’s block grant. This leaves around £330m that will have to be made up in spending cuts. As well as cuts in the short term the mechanism of taking money from future grants also serves to store up further financial pressures down the line. In his budget statement Heaton-Harris identified spending cuts in the education sector and the raising of transport fares as some of the potential sources of savings and additional revenue. He also raised the possibility of introducing domestic water charges. Such a stark picture is in contrast to that presented by local politicians earlier in the year when it was claimed that agreeing a budget and forming an Executive would unlock up to £300m spending to tackle the cost-of-living crisis.
The implications of the budget are already being felt with the Department of Education (DE) announcing that basic funding for schools in Northern Ireland has been cut by 0.5%. In a letter to schools the DE said it "has had to make some very difficult decisions". While there will be extra money to cover rising energy costs and pay awards this only amounts to 3% of the schools’ budget, well below the current inflation of 11%. The inevitable consequence of such a funding gap will be cuts, both in services and in staff wages. The Education Authority (EA), which is responsible for the day-to-day funding of schools and school services, may also need to find about £100m in savings from its block grant in 2022-23. That could affect services like Special Educational Needs (SEN), school transport, school meals or maintenance. And it is not just education. This is likely to be the scenario right across the public sector. In short, the budget lays out the framework for another round of austerity more severe than that which took place in the wake of the financial crash.
Direct rule
.
Alongside a budget, the
British government has also enacted legalisation that gives this version
of direct rule a more formal legal structure. The misnamed Executive
Formation Act gives new powers to the SoS and clarifies the decision-making
powers of senior civil servants. Under its provisions an election
date can be deferred indefinitely; MLAs salaries reduced; a regional rate
set and public appointments approved. Civil servants will take
decisions in line with that published by the government the "primary principle"
of which is that departments manage their spending within the limits of
the budget laid out by the SoS. While this may not be direct rule in name
it certainly is in substance.
Return of Stormont?
While the restoration of the devolved institutions is the declared position of all the parties involved there are serious doubts whether this can be achieved. The stated position of the DUP is that it will return to the Executive once its concerns over the NI Protocol have been addressed. However, its demands are set at a level that makes a rejection of any agreement between the UK and EU over the protocol almost inevitable. Rather than grab whatever concessions are forthcoming from the EU and declare them a victory and a route for returning to the Executive, as a number of commentators have urged, the DUP will continue to use the protocol as an excuse to stay out. This is because the DUP’s primary objection to resuming government is not the NI Protocol. The record of the DUP on the protocol has been ambiguous and contradictory. They initially welcomed it before moving to a position of begrudging acceptance and then to opposition. Even when rhetorically opposing the protocol they have overseen its implementation. For example, during his period as Minister for Agriculture the DUP’s Edwin Poots was facilitating checks at ports. As recently as last July he was lobbying the British government to water down its anti-protocol bill to allow farmers in the north to claim higher EU subsidies. When challenged over this Poots claimed it was alright to cherry pick the protocol. This is hardly the position of a party that sees the NI Protocol as an existential threat to unionism.
What is really driving the DUP’s reluctance to re-enter the Executive is the decisive movement of a significant section of unionism away from support for power sharing. This was evidenced in the surge of support for the TUV at the most recent Assembly election. While it may not be a big group in percentage terms it is big enough to hold sway over a party that wants to maintain itself as the leading party of unionism. In this scenario the DUP going into an Executive in which it is serving under a nationalist First Minister (an office that the party has elevated to a totem and based whole election campaigns around) is a non-starter. The reality is that the devolved institutions can only exist as long as unionism is seen as having the upper hand and enjoying the lion’s share of the patronage. Once this is in doubt, even on a symbolic level, the whole system goes into crisis.
Opposition
The imposition of direct rule has drawn a muted response from Irish nationalists and also other groups who would present themselves as some sort of opposition. Sinn Fein has moved rapidly on from demands for joint authority to stunts such as re-calling the Assembly in order to “express concern” over the delay in delivering an emergency fuel payment. Of course, the DUP are completely unmoved by this, and the many other stories of hardship that are reported daily, and the Executive stays down. The return of direct rule has also completely flummoxed the trade union movement which had been pushing for the return of devolved government as the means to address the problems associated with the cost-of-living crisis. With this prospect now receding they have nothing to say. Indeed, the demands of ICTU were extremely modest in any case and didn’t go beyond a call for the British Treasury to provide funding to enable the Executive to roll out mitigation schemes. The proposition that workers’ wages should keep up with inflation was not on ICTU’s agenda.
The weaknesses with all these
claims for Stormont as some sort of protection for workers is its abysmal
record as a government and its inability to bring forward anything that
could be recognised as a meaningful reform. The system is nothing
more than a machine for the distribution of sectarian patronage.
This is understood by the population of the north and is the primary reason
for public indifference over the fate of the devolved institutions.
But indifference is not opposition and the underlying assumptions around
the settlement, that imperialism is not a factor and that community identities
are the primary political driver, go unchallenged. That may
change as material conditions deteriorate through economic recession and
austerity, and the controlling hand of the British state becomes ever more
visible. However, as it stands, the essential process of building
an independent working-class movement in opposition to capitalism and imperialism
has barely begun.