Governance of the Union (Constitution Committee Report)

Baroness Andrews Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Andrews (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a real pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard. I cannot understand why he has not been appointed to the Constitution Committee. I make my formal declaration: he will be nominated collectively by us as soon as possible. We need his forensic examination.

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate and to echo what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, about my noble friend Lady Drake’s chairmanship. She not only was forensic but made us realise that we have a unique responsibility in the Constitution Committee. Nobody else does that job, and we have to do it with scrupulous attention and vigilance.

That conviction was evident in the report as well, as well as the historical review of how relations between the devolved Administrations and Westminster had deteriorated. Goodness knows there was evidence from our committee and from the Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee, which I had the privilege of chairing. It was particularly evident during the passage of the internal market Act and of the European retained law Act, and, of course, in the almost systematic disregard for the Sewel convention.

This report, with its emphasis on the union and how it could and should mean more and work better, is particularly timely given the change of Government. In the Government’s response, we see time and again the emphasis that they have reset relationships across the union and that there is more commitment to intergovernmental structures and more respect. We welcome that, and in particular the approach they are now taking to revising the Sewel convention. I will not repeat the magnificent description of it by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. I hope we can have some plain English for

“mutual baseline for engagement, and the importance of good policy outcomes”

as the policy objectives. However, I want to ask the Minister, in addition to translation, whether this is designed to replace or update the convention, or to reinforce the Government’s commitment to it in its present form. I look forward to an answer.

We also welcome the institutional innovations, such as the Council of the Nations and Regions and the specific Minister, but we asked for more transparency. It was all a bit random. We asked for assurances that council meetings would be held consistently and that agendas and attendance would be inclusive as a means of accountability. We had no response on that so, again, perhaps we can be updated on the publication of routine information and the annual report. These are reasonable questions.

In some respects, the responses have been of the “Move on, nothing to see here”, variety. For example, the Government have also rejected the sensible recommendation that the devolution guidance note should be updated to include proposals coming from Wales designed to strength communication across the UK. The Government say it is unnecessary because it is taken care of by the extensive Civil Service devolution capability programme, but we know that training programmes are all about process, not promoting the relationships that mean you know the nuance of devolution and appreciate the cultural diversity that is driving the differences.

Most disappointing, as my noble friend said, is the Government’s refusal to add a principle of positive engagement to those listed in the Review of Intergovernmental Relations. That would send the most powerful signal of all that, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said, what counts is not institutions but the quality of engagement: the visible trust that exists between people who know each other well and can be honest with each other. The Government say that this principle is embedded across the DAs. So far, so familiar: Governments often say that they do not need to do something because everybody who takes an interest in it knows it is already being dealt with. Well, up to a point, but sometimes you need to make things explicit for them to really make a difference.

Let me end on a more positive note, on the future of common frameworks. I am pleased to see some previous members of the marvellous Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee here. Its demise has left a real gap in access to information about and understanding of the role that common frameworks can and do play in fostering a stronger union. The gap that has been left has been recognised by the Constitution Committee, which is now taking on the task of keeping a watching brief on the operation of the outstanding frameworks, of which there are only three, but also on whether any new developments are coming forward that Parliament needs to know about.

The Government have gone even further and met two of our committee’s most consistent complaints. First, they recognised that common frameworks were originally envisioned as not just managing divergence but agreeing common policy processes—not technical processes. That is their sui generis promise, but it has not yet been realised. The Government have now reverted to their original and positive intention by making it clear that:

“It remains our ambition that Frameworks are used to help develop UK-wide policy where appropriate”.


Hooray for that. Secondly, oversight of the programme is reverting to the Cabinet Office, where it should always have been.

I look forward very much to the Government’s response to this debate on the report, which is important for this House and important for the union.