Governance of the Union (Constitution Committee Report) Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate

Lord Thomas of Gresford

Main Page: Lord Thomas of Gresford (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)

Governance of the Union (Constitution Committee Report)

Lord Thomas of Gresford Excerpts
Monday 28th April 2025

(1 day, 22 hours ago)

Grand Committee
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Thomas of Gresford Portrait Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
- Hansard - -

My Lords, it seems to be my turn. I was a member of the Constitution Committee under our excellent chair, the noble Baroness, Lady Drake. I thank her for the way in which she chaired this report, which I fully supported.

I was particularly concerned at the increasing disregard of the Sewel convention, beginning with Boris Johnson’s Government. Among the many strains caused by Brexit, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, just referred, tensions with the devolved Administrations and Parliaments featured highly. Legislative consent was frequently sought at short notice and refusals by the devolved Parliaments to pass legislative consent Motions were ignored.

I have a quasi-proprietorial attachment to the Sewel convention, because I was present when it was announced by Lord Sewel on a late warm July evening in 1998. My great friend, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, then Conservative spokesman on Scottish and constitutional affairs, introduced into the Scotland Bill what he described as “a small drafting amendment”, stating to the effect that, in any legislative conflict between the Westminster and the Scottish Parliaments, Westminster would prevail. He said that he was not looking to vote on it. My colleague and close friend Lord Mackie of Benshie intervened to say that the amendment went to the whole root of devolution. Lord Sewel then said, seemingly off the cuff:

“However, as happened in Northern Ireland earlier in the century, we would expect a convention to be established that Westminster would not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters in Scotland without the consent of the Scottish parliament”.


He continued:

“I cannot believe that it is beyond our wit to develop such a convention. That is much more suitable than through the business of legislative ping-pong or tennis … There should be mature political dialogue to resolve a difference, which is better than legislative tennis”.—[Official Report, 21/7/1998; col. 791.]


The convention was later given legislative recognition in Section 2 of the Scotland Act 2016 and of the Wales Act 2017.

On 26 March, in his letter to Lord Strathclyde, the current chairman of the committee, Pat McFadden said that, as set out in the 2024 manifesto, the Government will

“strengthen the Sewel Convention through setting out a new MoU with the devolved governments”.

Work, he said, was under way after initial discussions last year and he is hoping for a new memorandum of understanding to be agreed by the end of the year. I have studied the Labour manifesto. Nothing is said about the Sewel convention in any of its sections relating to Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland, although it promises

“to end the chaos of sleaze and division, turn the page, and reset politics”.

In the Government’s response to our report, in which we had called for the Sewel convention to be respected, the Government said that they would

“establish a mutual baseline for engagement, and the importance of good policy outcomes, as the main objective of legislation UK-wide”.

I feel as an Athenian supplicant must have felt after sacrificing the odd goat or two at Delphi. What on earth is a “mutual baseline for engagement”? I think the time has come for some clarity.

In strengthening and revising the convention and the MoU, what opportunity will there be for representations from the devolved Administrations and Parliament, from political parties and other stakeholders? What guarantees are intended for the convention to be respected and followed? Do the Government intend to strengthen Westminster as against Cardiff, Belfast and Edinburgh? Or are the Government looking at a particular area of policy which may cross borders, such as national security? Will they pay attention to the call made just now by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, for consideration to be given to a reciprocal convention in relation to the devolved Administrations? What indeed is the “mutual baseline for engagement” and how will it be applied to ensure that the nations of the United Kingdom work harmoniously together, whatever the political nature of their Administrations?