Devolution (Constitution Committee Reports)

Lord Lexden Excerpts

Monday 9th October 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

My Lords, we return to the debate on the Constitution Committee’s reports and the report of the EU Committee on devolution. Among other things, this debate brings us the maiden speech of a new noble friend. My noble friend Lord Duncan of Springbank is to reply to this debate in terms that I hope will reassure us about the Government’s enduring commitment to the union. He follows in office my long-established and personal noble friend Lord Dunlop, who throughout his career has been a staunch defender of the union and sometimes showed a little more flexibility than I have managed to create.

Since I entered the House in 2011, nothing has brought me greater satisfaction and pleasure than my three-year stint on the Constitution Committee between 2012 and 2015. Wise counsel was provided by convivial colleagues from across the House. Immensely skilful chairmanship was supplied first by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, and subsequently by her successor, my noble friend Lord Lang of Monkton—how wonderfully well they steered our discussions. The testimony of a wide variety of expert witnesses helped to add authority and depth to our discussions. Absolutely first-rate officials drew our conclusions and recommendations together in lucid reports to the House and the Government. When the work is done, however, those involved in the committee’s activities have to brace themselves for some disappointment. The Government’s responses to their detailed and carefully considered reports on issues of great political significance are invariably delivered after long delays, in breach of the commitment included in paragraph 11.39 of our Companion to the Standing Orders:

“The government have undertaken to respond in writing to the reports of select committees, if possible, within two months of publication”.


I was a member of the committee when it carried out its inquiry into intergovernmental relations in the United Kingdom. Is it not extraordinary that over two and a half years should have elapsed between the publication of the committee’s report and this debate? In their response of just five and three-quarter pages, which they took just under two years to prepare, the Government make a perfunctory apology for the delay but offer no explanation for why this protracted delay occurred. Convincing apologies surely need to be accompanied by clear explanations.

Indeed, throughout the response as a whole, explanations of the Government’s views and decisions on the issues raised in the committee’s report are hard to find. The Government seem to think it sufficient simply to assert their own positions and views in a rather curt fashion without giving their reasons for adopting them or for rejecting, as they so often do, the committee’s recommendations. I note, too, in passing that the Government need to improve their proofreading: there is a serious grammatical error at the start of paragraph 8.

I am perhaps in danger of being unfair; the response has positive features. In paragraph 12 it states:

“The concordats and devolution guidance notes will be reviewed by the four administrations in due course”,


repeating the point for good measure in the following paragraph. But when will this be done? Rarely are definite dates assigned to the useful developments foreshadowed in the response.

We are told more than once that plenary sessions of the Joint Ministerial Committee—the linchpin of the entire structure of intergovernmental relations—are to be held more frequently. This pledge seems to be being redeemed. The Joint Ministerial Committee met in October last year and again in January this year. The terse communiqué of just eight sentences issued after the meeting in January stated:

“Ministers agreed to meet again in Plenary format later in 2017”.


Has a further date been fixed in conformity with the pledge to increased frequency?

The Constitution Committee’s report noted:

“The current reporting of JMC meetings is bland and unilluminating; much more information could be made public in advance of and after meetings”.


The eight unilluminating sentences issued after the last JMC meeting on 30 January hardly suggest that improvement is on the cards. There is, however, a specific undertaking in paragraph 17 to publish a report on intergovernmental relations this autumn. Has a firm date been fixed for its appearance?

The large measure of uncertainty surrounding many features of future intergovernmental relations surely lends weight to the Constitution Committee’s recommendation:

“The Government should consider whether the framework of inter-governmental relations should be set out in statute”.


In that way core principles and the basic shape of the system would be clearly defined and the devolved Governments would have their place in the system firmly delineated, but the Government say, curtly, in paragraph 6 of their response that they do not agree, without of course giving any reasons.

At the heart of both the Constitution Committee’s reports before us today there stands a question of immense national significance. The report The Union and Devolution sums up that issue perfectly:

“The UK Government needs fundamentally to reassess how it approaches issues relating to devolution. What affects one constituent part of the UK affects both the Union and the other nations within the UK”.


My noble friend Lord Empey, who has been detained in Belfast today for pressing family reasons, has often eloquently deplored the haphazard and ill-considered nature of recent constitutional changes which show why a new approach is needed. Ten months ago one element of our constitutional arrangements ceased to function. The ramshackle coalition of political incompatibles at Stormont collapsed. It had impressed no one with its capacity to deliver good government. Here is one illustration of the need for the fundamental reassessment for which the committee has called to ensure that such a crisis is fully considered in the wider context of the union.

Another issue that proves the point is the denial of the right to same-sex marriage in the same part of our country, even though it commands widespread support there. Why should our fellow countrymen and women, who are fully part of our union, have to endure such discrimination?

How valuable it would be to have a Cabinet Minister to whom the active guardianship and protection of the constitution was entrusted. Sir Oliver Letwin, then in nominal charge of the constitution, took the Constitution Committee’s breath away by dismissing the need for such active guardianship and protection out of hand. There is a pernicious phrase, “devolve and forget”, which was rightly disparaged by my noble friend Lord Lang in his powerful opening remarks. The danger it expresses is increased by the unduly wide scope of the convention which, remarkably, still bears the name of a disgraced former Member of this House. Is it not time to consider such aspects of devolution afresh from the standpoint of the union, the rock on which we all rest, remembering always that one large part of the reason Northern Ireland has suffered so grievously in our lifetimes is that the Parliament of the union gave it no attention during its first period of devolution after 1920?