UK Government Union Capability

Earl of Kinnoull Excerpts

Thursday 1st July 2021 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[The Earl of Kinnoull]

That this House takes note of (1) The Dunlop Review into UK Government Union capability, and (2) the progress update on the review of inter- governmental relations, both published on 24 March.

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

My Lords, if the previous debate was about a major part of the United Kingdom’s external soul, this debate is about a major part of our internal one. The past 25 years have seen huge changes in how we are governed, with the devolution of much power from Westminster in various stages. The job of creating the mechanics as to how the UK’s resulting governmental bodies interact has, however, not kept step; this is contributing to the significant creaks and groans within the union that are of such concern today to so many here—certainly to me. I thought I would remind the House of some of the history and then draw some conclusions.

The instrument that governs the principles of intergovernmental relations in the UK is the memorandum of understanding of October 2013. This 60-page document is in fact only a draft, as it was never fully adopted by all the parties. It vests the responsibility in the UK Government for the MoU and the Joint Ministerial Committees with the Deputy Prime Minister—a position vacant since 2015. Ten pages are also taken up with a chapter entitled “Concordat on Co-ordination of European Union Policy Issues”. Those two anachronisms are not the only issues.

The Scottish independence referendum was in September 2014. The resulting Smith commission agreement led to a substantial additional number of powers being devolved, as duly happened pursuant to the Scotland Act 2016 and the Wales Act 2017. These significant changes in the devolution settlements represent yet more things that the drafters of the October 2013 MoU had not sought to address.

Under the strong chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Lang of Monkton, who will speak later, our Constitution Committee reported in May 2016. The committee went into things in impressive detail in its report, The Union and Devolution, which built on its incisive May 2015 report on the Smith commission agreement. It concluded that the UK Government must

“devise and articulate a coherent vision for the shape and structure of the United Kingdom, without which there cannot be constitutional stability.”

Indeed, the whole report is as relevant and to the point today as it was five years ago.

The Brexit process kicked off in June 2016, just one month later, and exacerbated the situation. In our report, Brexit: Devolution, the European Union Committee commented in July 2017:

“The devolved governments, and some of our witnesses, have also argued that fundamental reform is needed to give the devolved institutions a more formal role in UK decision-making post-Brexit, analogous to that of regions and states in federal systems.”


I remember well the evidence sessions. The committee could not take a formal view on this, of course, as it was outside our remit, but the very fact that we included this paragraph shows how concerned we were.

The start of 2018 was probably the low point, but in March 2018, the review of intergovernmental relations—the IGR review—was launched. This is expressly a

“joint review of the existing Memorandum of Understanding on Devolution.”

That quote is from GOV.UK. In mid-2019, the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, was asked to review the UK Government’s union capability, a task he very ably concluded in late November that year. Then, after a period of great silence, on 24 March this year we got four documents. I am now going to switch out of history mode and consider each in turn.

The first document was the Dunlop review itself. This is a seminal and well thought-through document, and it is a pity that it had to wait in the wings for 16 months. The report had four principal propositions and one notable other proposition. These were: a great new office of state in the Cabinet; a reorganisation of the devolved nation departments, with a single Permanent Secretary; UK-wide project funding arrangements; Joint Ministerial Committee reform; and new Cabinet committee arrangements.

The second 24 March document was an update on the IGR review. This would appear to be quite close to the finishing post, as almost all the text is agreed and the remaining issues would seem to me to be rather less challenging than some of those successfully tackled in the run-up to the trade and co-operation agreement, with which I am so familiar. I ask the Minister why it has taken more than three years to get to these 15 pages and when the vital process will finally be concluded. If the finishing post is passed, this draft would seem a good answer to, and endorsement of, the fourth Dunlop proposition.

The third 24 March document was the inaugural Intergovernmental Relations Quarterly Report. This very interesting document is highly significant. In his foreword, Michael Gove is quite clear that there will be not only quarterly reports from now on but annual reports into IGR activity. This transparency is as commendable as it is vital. I have no doubt it will drive the process of putting devolution as a core factor, ever present in UK Government thinking on all matters. No ministry will want to report a poor level of devolution engagement. The reports will also provide convenient documents for parliamentary scrutiny, and I hope that a debate on the annual report, in government time, will, as a matter of course, become a fixture in both Westminster Houses. Perhaps the Minister could comment on this point. I hope he will also congratulate those involved on their work on this important inaugural quarterly report.

The fourth and last 24 March document was the Government response to the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, in the shape of a letter from Michael Gove. This says on the first page,

“From the moment we received your report we have been keen to implement policies in line with your recommendations.”


However, the reality is that, despite these warm words, only the third, fourth and fifth Dunlop review propositions are addressed in the letter—admittedly, broadly in line with the Dunlop review. Things are, however, very unsatisfactory where the first two Dunlop review propositions are concerned. The Michael Gove letter does not seek to address the propositions directly and instead refers to changes to the board structures of government departments and a new advisory group to the Cabinet Office. Such changes are invisible to the ordinary citizen and miss the essential point of the Dunlop review’s two leading propositions—the symbolism.

Having a totemic office of state—an exclusive advocate at Cabinet level—would be a public recognition that the union is precious to the core and that there is a much more powerful voice in Whitehall for the smaller in our collection of proud nations. Instead, today, these responsibilities form a part only of the portfolio of one of the busiest Cabinet Ministers. This cannot be the winning answer and it cannot be consistent with the words:

“we have been keen to implement policies in line with your recommendations.”

In January 2020, I was in Canada, at a conference of Commonwealth Speakers. Our hosts had also invited the Speakers of their many regional Assemblies, and over the course of the three days, I had the opportunity to speak to many of the Canadians. The very consistent message was how much effort they put into their union, with a regular diet of meetings and gatherings, the consistent involvement of the Prime Minister and great care taken linguistically with every parliamentary speech. One especially experienced Speaker told me that after their own tensions of the mid-1990s, “We not only had to talk the talk, we had to walk the walk.”

In closing, therefore, I ask the Minister whether he accepts the enormous value of the symbolism of the first two Dunlop propositions and what further plans the Government have to provide for them. I look forward very much to the debate and I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

My Lords, in the traditional way, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I must say that it is always remarkable, given the time constraints, that one gets an incredibly high standard of speech out of two minutes. I have been gripped at every stage. I also thank the Minister, who gave his usual thorough response to things.

A number of interesting themes came out of the debate but, as ever, there were one or two slight shocks where I felt that I had learned something. An example was from the noble Lord, Lord Trevethin and Oaksey, regarding his point on forum shopping. That is just the sort of thing that a proper intergovernmental structure would be able to think about and probably improve life on.

The key themes were, first, that the Dunlop review, which was universally welcomed all round, was not the complete answer. On that, the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, was very strong, as was the noble Lord, Lord Lang of Monkton, and others. I am sorry that there is no time to mention the names of everyone who spoke.

The second key theme was that the time has come to get to the finish of the intergovernmental review. The need is to roll up the sleeves, get on with it and get it over the line. I pointed out the anachronisms in the 2013 MoU and it is shameful that such a good, modern state as ours should be operating on that half-cocked basis. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, the noble Lords, Lord Bruce and Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, were particularly strong in their speeches on that issue, as were others.

Possibly the most important matter was the necessity for a change in attitude. I mentioned the attitude of the Canadians on something that they consciously decided to do after their own “eek” moment in the mid-1990s. The issue came back time and time again: from the noble Lords, Lord Lang, Lord Wigley and Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton—who made a good speech—the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and the noble Lord, Lord Dodds. That is a very powerful full house of all sorts of parties, all making the same point.

That brings me to my final point, which is that we are all here as strong supporters of the union and here to help. We want this to succeed and that is a strong body of advice to the Government about how they can make things better. It is not meant in any competitive way but in a constructive way. I hope that the Minister will take back many copies of Hansard, plough through it, be able to talk to his colleagues and persuade them that a number of the ideas that came up today are in fact important and should be actioned as soon as possible.

Motion agreed.