The four governments of the UK must better co-ordinate their coronavirus approaches

The early phase of the coronavirus crisis was characterised by close co-ordination between the four governments of the UK. Decisions to close pubs, schools and eventually impose lockdown in March were made jointly by all administrations. But over the course of the year, the four-nation approach has broken down, and there has been a marked deterioration in co-ordination, co-operation and communication between Westminster and the devolved administrations. The four governments of the UK have taken decisions without considering their impact on other parts of the UK, creating confusion amongst the public and what rules are in place where – and why decisions have been taken.

Each government took its own approach to easing, and now re-imposing, lockdown restrictions

In May, each government published its own roadmap for easing restrictions, and differences in the lockdown rules in each part of the UK started to emerge. In some cases, this was simply an issue of timing: non-essential retail reopened in Northern Ireland and England a week before Wales and two weeks before Scotland. But there were also more substantive differences. For example, Scotland and Wales took a staged approach to reopening pubs and restaurants, permitting venues to open outdoors before indoors. And despite being the first to reopen hospitality in July, the Northern Ireland executive prevented ‘wet pubs’ not selling food from reopening indoors until September – which was more in line with the Republic’s approach.

As the UK faces a second wave, more fundamental differences in approach have become apparent. Northern Ireland and Wales have adopted strict temporary ‘circuit-breaker’ (or ‘fire breaker’) restrictions. Scotland and England have continued to take a more regional approach; England setting out three tiers of local lockdown and Scotland five levels.

Different political judgements have been the primary drivers of divergence

Divergence is not only acceptable but desirable. It allows governments to respond to local circumstances – for example, Northern Ireland, with the lowest number of deaths, eased restrictions faster than other parts of the UK back in May. But difference decisions, do not seem to have been driven by case numbers alone, with Wales introducing a circuit breaker lockdown despite having the lowest Covid-19 rates in the UK – according to the Office for National Statistics. Sometimes they reflects political preferences, with Welsh and Scottish governments taking a more cautious approach to easing restrictions and the UK government, acting for England, giving more weight to economic factors – perhaps as a result of its greater exposure to the economic consequences of lockdown.

Whatever reasoning lies behind the divergence in approach, it must be weighed against the problems it creates, with different rules creating confusion amongst the public and businesses, and potentially undermining compliance. A recent SAGE paper said that the differences across the UK in the rules on the number of people or households that could meet, and whether or not children were included in this total, risked “undermining the logic of the measure.” Businesses operating UK-wide have also faced difficulties in following and complying with the different rules and guidance in place in each part of the UK. A failure to agree travel restrictions for those living in high-prevalence Covid areas has prompted the Welsh government to shut its border to people from parts of England, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

The four governments need to step up their co-ordination in the next phase of the pandemic

To manage divergence and its consequences , the four governments need to co-ordinate their decisions in the next phase of the crisis. While scientific advice is closely co-ordinated between the four governments, with the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish chief medical officers and/or chief scientific advisers participating in the UK government SAGE structures, there has been a decline in intergovernmental working at the political level since the start of the crisis. COBR, a key forum for joint decision making between the leaders of the four nations in the early stage of the crisis, did not meet at all between 10 May and 22 September. The Ministerial Implementation Groups which facilitated daily contact between ministers from each part of the UK, were disbanded at May, and ministers from the devolved administrations have not been invited to attend the cabinet committees put in their place.

Co-ordination does not mean that there must be complete uniformity across the UK, but the four governments must share information, fully consider the implications of divergence, and agree common elements to their approach. To achieve this, the four governments must ramp up intergovernmental meetings – and where agreement necessary, be willing to compromise. Politicians must not forgo the potential benefits of co-ordinating their divergence – in terms of lives saved – because they are unwilling to reach consensus on the best way forward for the whole of the UK.