Governance of the Union (Constitution Committee Report)
Baroness Drake
That the Grand Committee takes note of the Report from the Constitution Committee The Governance of the Union: Consultation, Co-operation and Legislative Consent (1st Report, HL Paper 13).
Baroness Drake (Lab)
My Lords, the Constitution Committee has published a number of insightful reports on the governance of the union. Among the most significant was the 2022 publication Respect and Co-operation: Building a Stronger Union for the 21st Century. This report meticulously highlighted the worrying deterioration in relations between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations. It traced the erosion of trust and the growing sense of division that was largely attributed to a perceived lack of co-operation and respect in intergovernmental relations. Moreover, it pointed to insufficient commitment to the process of consultation and engagement between the Governments of the United Kingdom.
Continuing concerns about the state of relations between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations prompted the committee to conduct a follow-up inquiry, which brings us to the subject of today’s report, The Governance of the Union. This new report acknowledges that the union faced serious strains. It is undeniable that events such as Brexit, the challenges of Covid, the growing aspirations for independence in Scotland and the suspension of institutions in Northern Ireland presented major challenges, but these challenges, while very significant, do not entirely account for the difficulties in governance. These strains have in fact exposed deeper systemic deficiencies in the structures and processes of intergovernmental relations.
In an earlier report, the committee perceptively recommended the greater use of formal intergovernmental mechanisms, which are likely to become increasingly important when Governments of different political persuasions have to deal with each other and tensions inevitably arise. In 2018, Ministers agreed to review the existing intergovernmental structures and, in January 2022, the UK and devolved Governments jointly agreed to implement a new intergovernmental relations structure. The committee sought to determine whether the distinct pressures of recent years—Brexit, the pandemic, political tensions—remained present and whether the new structures are robust enough to weather future stresses. In doing so, it focused on: whether the intergovernmental relations structures introduced in 2022 are functioning effectively and whether they could be improved; observance of the Sewel convention; and the increasing use of primary legislation by the Government to empower UK Ministers to make secondary legislation and use Henry VIII powers in areas of devolved competence. Whatever the merits of a particular participant’s views, the evidence revealed a pervasive sense of lack of trust, respect and confidence in the system of intergovernmental relations.
The new intergovernmental structures introduced in 2022 represent a welcome initiative. They have the potential to address long-standing criticisms of the intergovernmental framework. Specifically, they aim to create a more regular, transparent and formal system of intergovernmental working and greater transparency, accountability and scrutiny from each Government’s respective legislatures. To realise these benefits, however, it is essential that the Government fully integrate these mechanisms into the day-to-day workings of government. The commitment to enhanced reporting made by all four Governments is a step in the right direction, but to fulfil this commitment all four must ensure that the reporting is timely, detailed and conducive to meaningful scrutiny by their respective legislators.
In this regard, the Government have made some positive moves. They have committed to renew opportunities for the Prime Minister and the heads of devolved Governments to collaborate with each other. They have acknowledged the importance of transparency and have asked the committee what additional information would be useful to see in their annual transparency report. They have committed to keeping the committee’s suggestions under review, including those for greater qualitative analysis for the state of intergovernmental relations, data on the legislative consent process, headline data on the number of meetings held at prime ministerial, Secretary of State or ministerial level, and links to the communiqués published after intergovernmental meetings. The effectiveness of these new structures will depend heavily on how they are operated in practice. Positive engagement and the sharing of information will be essential for success. Both the Government and the devolved Administrations must demonstrate a commitment to collaboration and transparency.
One important recommendation from the committee is the inclusion of a principle of positive engagement to be added to the existing principles in the 2022 review of intergovernmental relations. The Government have expressed agreement on the importance of attitudes and behaviours, pointing to their collaboration with the Scottish Government on the establishment of GB Energy as an example of positive engagement. However, it was disappointing that they did not accept the introduction of such a principle of positive engagement. Their argument was that updating intergovernmental relations principles is a shared responsibility across all four Governments. While I appreciate the point, it is crucial that the Government lead by example, particularly given their dominant position in the union. Can the Minister provide an update to the House on the qualitative progress of transparency and positive engagement in intergovernmental relations? How are these principles being embedded in practice?
Another key area explored by the committee is common frameworks. The report urges the Government to mobilise every effort to implement all 32 common frameworks agreed between the Government and the devolved Administrations. With the restoration of devolved institutions in Northern Ireland, these frameworks provide an important example of intergovernmental co-operation on important policy areas across the constituent nations of the union. I take the opportunity to acknowledge the dedicated efforts of my noble friend Lady Andrews, as chair of the Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee, and her colleagues for their tireless work in supporting those frameworks. Can the Minister update us on progress towards implementing the common frameworks programme?
The committee’s report highlights the importance of the wider machinery of government in facilitating effective intergovernmental relations. The appointment of a Minister for Intergovernmental Relations, based in the Cabinet Office, is a welcome step. The Minister, along with the Minister for the Constitution and European Union Relations, must work closely together to ensure a shared understanding of the devolved settlement and to protect the integrity of intergovernmental relations in whatever new arrangements may be introduced.
Turning to the Sewel convention, the committee considered the extent to which it had been observed prior to and since Brexit. The convention that the UK Parliament should “not normally” legislate on devolved matters without consent was well observed from 1999 until it came under strain following Brexit. The departure from the EU and the return of powers to Westminster and the devolved Administrations led to a significant increase in policy areas where the boundary between reserved and devolved matters was less than clear and the need for legislative consent became contested. On occasions, the devolved Governments took a more expansive view than the UK Government on whether consent was required, leading to differences of opinion and a deterioration in relations.
Since Brexit, the UK Government legislated without the consent of one or more devolved legislatures on multiple occasions and, at times, in relation to Bills unrelated to Brexit. This may be the result, in part, of the devolved Governments taking a more expansive view, but the trend is a matter of concern and highlights the need for closer and timely engagement between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations, even where devolved Governments are opposed to the union.
Confidence in the observance of the Sewel convention has declined and the committee rightly calls for improvements in its observance. The committee rejected the idea of replacing the Sewel convention with an express legal duty, as this would introduce rigidity and potentially involve the courts in what is fundamentally a political matter.
The Government are the more powerful, however. They must demonstrate greater awareness of the potential impacts of their policies on the devolved nations and engage in constructive dialogue to resolve differences. But there is also a need for a reciprocal convention requiring devolved Administrations to notify the UK Government of devolved legislation that could impact on reserved matters. A new principle of notification and engagement could be a feature in the Government’s proposed new memorandum of understanding, outlining how the nations will work together for the common good.
The report also recommends a greater role for Parliament and the Lords in scrutinising legislation that engages the Sewel convention. It suggests that the Government should go beyond the current Explanatory Notes and submit a memorandum to the House explaining the devolution implications of Bills and engagement. If the Government consider that consent is not required, they should justify that decision at the outset of the Bill’s consideration.
The Government agreed that greater transparency around engagement on Bills and their devolution implications would be helpful and are committed to delivering a new memorandum of understanding on legislation, which they hope to publish later this year. Can the Minister update the House on the progress on this new memorandum of understanding and on the proposals for greater transparency in the engagement process?
Another critical area addressed by the committee is the disturbing rise in the Government’s use of secondary legislation and Henry VIII powers to empower Ministers to make secondary legislation in areas of devolved competence or to amend Acts of the devolved legislatures. While the Sewel convention does not apply to secondary legislation, the committee recommends that the use of such powers in devolved competence areas should be accompanied by a requirement to consult. Furthermore, the Government should publish clear criteria on when such powers should not normally be exercised without consent of the relevant devolved legislatures.
Where UK legislation empowers UK Ministers to alter Acts of the devolved legislatures, they should not normally be exercised without the explicit consent of the relevant legislatures. The committee observed that it would be “constitutionally questionable” for Parliament to circumvent Sewel by introducing Henry VIII powers in a way that foresees or intends changing devolved legislation in areas of devolved competence. The Government committed to considering these proposals in their work with devolved Governments on legislation. Could the Minister update the House on the Government’s considerations, including setting out the circumstances in which the UK Government ought “not normally” to exercise a delegated power without consent?
Finally, I express gratitude to all those who gave written or oral evidence to the inquiry, which was of great value. I thank my excellent committee members for their depth of engagement with the governance of the union. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, was a much-valued member of the committee when the report was prepared. I also thank the committee clerk Kate Wallis and policy adviser Alice Edmonston for so ably supporting the committee. I beg to move.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My name is on the list, but I have withdrawn from the debate because I am moving an amendment in the Chamber—but I am very interested in the issue. That is why I am here.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
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?
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I have never been a member of the Constitution Committee; I have asked regularly to become a member and have regularly been rejected. It is my youth and exuberance, I think, that are not there; I am working on both.
I can speak only of Scotland, but I think this is an excellent report. My experience is that what really matters—and the report says this—are not so much institutional frameworks but mutual respect. I was a unionist foot soldier in the 2014 army, and I was shocked that disdainful Achilles sulked in his No. 10 tent and played no part in the campaign. I was also shocked when his victory speech was about not reconciliation and binding up the wounds but English votes for English laws, rubbing salt in the wounds in Scotland.
Subsequently, I used to advise Mrs Sturgeon on EU issues and was astonished at how little she was told about referendum planning and Brexit negotiations. The 27 European Governments knew far more about the negotiations, because of Mr Barnier’s meticulous briefings, than our devolved Governments did. Of course, then came the open contempt and childish insults of the Johnson/Truss period. I am very glad that we seem to have turned that page and that the grown-ups seem to be back. The 2022 arrangements do not seem to have worked perfectly, but they are clearly a lot better than previous ostentatious ostracism.
Bringing intergovernmental relations back to the centre and to the Cabinet Office is a very wise move, but I repeat that what matters are not so much the frameworks as mutual respect. Of course, Scots are absolute experts at having grievances, but there is really no reason to give them a real one. We should seize the moment now, when the wind is not in the SNP’s sails, and reinforce the union by showing that the centre respects, listens to and takes account of the views of the devolved Governments. They are democratically elected, too.
I have two smaller points to make. First, for me, the most striking paragraph in the report is paragraph 303, where the then Secretary of State for Scotland and Wales in the previous Government asserted that
“the Sewel convention should not apply to secondary legislation”.
I am a member of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, and this was news to me. Surely it is wrong. I hope that the present Government will honour Sewel in respect of primary legislation rather better than their predecessor did, but I also think that using delegated powers to do by ministerial fiat what Parliament said in the Scotland Act it would normally refrain from doing in primary law seems rather outrageous. I am very glad that, in its report, the committee disagreed with Mr Jack and Mr Davies.
I am not quite clear what the present Government think on that issue. The concluding paragraph of their response to the report is a little enigmatic. It states:
“The Government notes the Committee’s recommendations on developing criteria and publishing guidance on the use of delegated powers in devolved areas, and on engagement with the devolved governments on the use of these powers. The Government will consider this as part of its work on engagement with the devolved governments on legislation”.
Quiet, Sir Humphrey—I remember you well.
Finally, this is a small point but an important one. On cross-postings, positive engagement makes sense, but no such injunction will cut much ice in the public service without common understanding. There used to be many more cross-postings than there are now. When I worked in Brussels and Washington, I always had at least two Edinburgh-based civil servants on my staff. Others were seconded to the Treasury and to the Foreign Office, as well as to the Cabinet Office and No. 10. When I was at the top of the Foreign Office, I presided over two-way exchanges with St Andrew’s House in Edinburgh. I worry that devolution is eroding the concept of a united Civil Service. Of course there will always be problems when the political complexion of the devolved Government is different from that of the central government. That will always cause problems for civil servants, but if you cannot ride two horses you should not be in the circus.
It is very good that the silly jibes about Scotland, the Scottish Government and successive First Ministers have stopped and that we seem to be trying constructively to rebuild. Where is the memorandum of understanding promised by the Government? It is taking a while to cook. I look forward to seeing it.
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.
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, I, too, welcome this report from the Constitution Committee and the fact that it is one of several produced by the committee on the working of our devolved system of government. It has done a commendable job in analysing the process of inter-institutional relations within the UK and setting it within a clear framework of the value of the union.
I chaired the committee when it produced its first report on devolution, Devolution: Inter-Institutional Relations in the United Kingdom, in 2002. Our focus was on ensuring that the relationships worked well and that mechanisms for resolving disputes remained in good working order. At the time, with the same party in control in Westminster, Holyrood and Cardiff Bay, a great deal was done through personal contact. We recognised that one had to plan for a time when different parties were in control. Our foresight was not acted on; had it been, the relationships between the different Administrations may have been stronger than they have been. Indeed, I believe that the union would be stronger had successive Governments paid more heed to recommendations from the Constitution Committee.
I have criticised successive Governments for being in reactive mode in dealing with the devolved Administrations. There has been a tendency to concede powers in the belief that this will persuade people in the different parts of the United Kingdom to support remaining in the union. The reactive mode has a pervasive impact, in that, in day-to-day administration, the needs of the different nations tend to be dealt with as an afterthought and relations conducted on a grace-and-favour basis. The Constitution Committee has pressed consistently for a more proactive approach, putting the case for the union and emphasising the benefits that it delivers to all in the United Kingdom. It has highlighted ways for the relationships between the different Administrations to be strengthened. This report deserves to be given much more visibility than it has been, and is being, accorded.
I wish to focus on the issue of legislative consent and what is misleadingly called the Sewel convention. It was not a convention when it was first articulated, and it is not a convention now. It does not stipulate behaviour that is adhered to invariably. It is a statement of principle—of what can be described as best practice or the Government’s best endeavours. The understanding of its status was confused from the beginning and made worse by being embodied in the Scotland Act 2016 still under the rubric of a convention. I pointed out to the Government at the time that a convention in statute is a contradiction in terms. The Supreme Court in the Miller case recognised that it was no more than a political statement.
We need to get away from talking about the Sewel convention, in part because it is a constitutional nonsense, and because it invites a reaction from devolved Administrations when a measure is introduced. We need to focus on engagement at any early stage—as is delineated in this report—and build on what the Government variously claim is happening: engagement with devolved Administrations when legislation is being developed. As the report emphasises, that should be a two-way process: the devolved Governments should also engage with Whitehall when they are developing legislation. Alongside the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, I endorse the recommendation of the committee that consent should be sought where delegated legislation covers devolved areas.
The Government are working on a memorandum of understanding with the devolved Administrations, which, as we have heard, is expected to be published later this year. This is the only positive element in the Government’s response to the committee’s report; otherwise, the Government are basically satisfied with what is presently in place. The response does not do justice to the committee’s considered report. Given the track record of the Constitution Committee in making the case for the union, and the prescience of its recommendations, it is crucial that the Government adopt a more positive stance and act on those recommendations. I do not want us to debate this again in 20 years’ time and say, “I told you so”. I look forward to the Minister engaging more positively than Pat McFadden’s letter does with this very important report—it deserves better.
Baroness Humphreys (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, the members of the Constitution Committee and the committee clerks for an excellent, comprehensive report, which I know will make essential reading for Ministers in this place and in the devolved legislatures. It will also be of particular interest to all of us who have to deal with, and sometimes grapple with, the Sewel convention.
This is a poignant occasion for those of us on these Benches. We know that our late noble friend Baroness Randerson would have relished the opportunity to contribute to this debate today. As a Welsh Office Minister in the coalition Government from 2012 to 2015, her dedication to devolution and her influence over its processes was immense. She was also a member of the Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee, and I know how much pride she took in that role. She is sorely missed.
She and I had a conversation about the Sewel convention in the final months of the previous Conservative Government, when the convention had, once again, been breached. I mentioned how lucky she was to have been in office when things were easier. Her reply was characteristically clear, forthright and kind. She said, “It certainly wasn’t any easier. We worked hard, for long hours, sometimes late into the night, to make sure the Sewel convention wasn’t breached”.
For me, that summed up the difference between pre-2019 and the post-2019 reality we were then living in. Before the 2019 election, there was an understanding in Governments—including Conservative ones—of how precious our devolution settlements are to those of us who live in the devolved nations, and there was firm support of the convention. However, post 2019, Sewel almost seemed to become dispensable, sacrificed on the altar of UK nationalism and the then Conservative Government’s concept of binding the nation together.
The committee’s report confirms that the convention was breached 19 times in the four years after 2020 but had been breached only four times before 2020. This difference in attitudes to the convention, and to devolution itself, is highlighted in the report, with the committee calling for good will on the part of all four Governments of the UK. It emphasises the role of the UK Government, as the most powerful body, in recognising the impacts that their decisions may have on the other nations. Attitude and good will are of course impossible to legislate for, but I commend the committee on its recommendations for improving and strengthening the convention.
The committee calls for a culture of positive engagement to be added to the existing principles for intergovernmental relations. This would be a positive step forward that would make it possible for civil servants to remind Ministers in the UK Government, and in the devolved Governments, of the expectation that they should engage with one another.
The principle of early positive engagement is especially visible from this new UK Labour Government in relation to Wales, and I am grateful for that. With the exception of the Crown Estate Act—where, disappointingly, there was no prior consultation with the Welsh Government—legislative consent Motions from the Senedd now largely express satisfaction with discussions held with the UK Government. On some occasions, the Welsh Government may request the inclusion of their interests in a Bill.
However, I agree with the Senedd’s Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee in its call for
“a clear engagement timetable … This would provide a more transparent process so that legislatures, governments and stakeholders know what deadlines are being worked to”.
It is frustrating that the Second Reading of a Bill in your Lordships’ House can sometimes take place before the date of publication of the relevant Senedd committee’s report on the LCM. Better joint timetabling could remedy this and should, I believe, be included in the updating of the devolution guidance notes that the committee recommends.
I support these and other committee recommendations. I have to accept the reality that the Sewel convention is perfectly imperfect—or is it imperfectly perfect? I am not too sure. The use of “normally” in the assertion that the UK Government would not normally act in devolved matters leaves it open to interpretation, but it does prevent the devolved legislatures operating in a quasi-federal manner. Federalism would be a welcome step forward for those of us on these Benches, but it is probably a step too far for others.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
Who knows what will happen in the future? They used to sell tickets for the Devolution Committee, which my noble and learned friend Lord Irvine chaired in 1998. They were wonderful affairs, setting up devolution right across the country—including, later, in Northern Ireland. The committee did a great job, but one thing it did not do very well was work out exactly how these devolved Administrations were going to work with each other or with the United Kingdom Government.
After nearly 26 years—I served as Welsh Secretary and as Northern Ireland Secretary in that period—I can say that it did not go very well. In fact, it went very badly at times. Relations were okay when it was the same political party, of course. For example, I could go to Cardiff on a Monday morning and talk to Rhodri Morgan to sort out the problems of the world—and I continued doing that—but it was not quite so easy in Scotland. When I later had to deal, in another capacity, with Alex Salmond, it was a very different picture altogether. As the noble Lord, Lord Norton, said, when there are different parties in Cardiff, Edinburgh and London—as well as in Belfast, of course—it presents a totally different picture.
Over the years, the attempts to bring people together were pretty awful. Prime Ministers did not want to go to the meetings and rarely did. Although we were trying to deal with best practice, it was often too bureaucratic. The meetings were too infrequent. Civil servants wanted to devolve and forget, and let the devolved Administrations get on with things, yet we could learn a great deal from each other—and, eventually, we did. However, there was no real structure for doing that; what there was was wholly inadequate. Any communiqué that came from an intergovernmental meeting was utterly and completely useless—waffle of the worst possible sort that meant absolutely nothing—so, over the years, things got worse and worse. I pay credit to the last Conservative Government because they successfully started to change the way in which the devolved Administrations and the United Kingdom Government worked. That was good, but there are a couple of things that we could look at; they have been partly highlighted by this excellent report from the noble Baroness, Lady Drake.
The first is the use of the territorial departments. There are a couple of paragraphs saying that it is a good thing to have them, but we need to look much more carefully at how they operate. It is a good idea that the Cabinet Office now takes responsibility for intergovernmental relations, but you can bet your bottom dollar that Pat McFadden and Nick Thomas-Symonds have a million other things to deal with. There must come a time when we have Ministers wholly dedicated to the question of devolution and relations between the Governments, and that has to work within the structure of the Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland. How that operates I do not know, but those departments are entirely devoted to relations between those countries and the United Kingdom Government. Why do we not use them more? Why is that not seen as the way forward? There is not enough on that in the report and certainly not enough in the Government’s response, bearing in mind that those are three Cabinet Ministers dealing with the devolved areas and Administrations.
Next, as far as I can see, there is nothing in the structure we are dealing with today that addresses interparliamentary relations rather than Government-to-Government and Executive-to-Executive relations. But there is an organisation that does precisely that, which resulted from strand 3 of the Good Friday agreement, which I and my Irish counterpart chaired all those years ago. We set up a sophisticated mechanism by which the devolved Parliaments—the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Senedd and the Northern Ireland Assembly—and the Irish Parliament and both Houses of this Parliament get together regularly, twice a year, with sub-committees. It is the only way that Parliaments compare notes and best practice. Why can we not look at that as a way to build on the best practice of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly?
Those are just a couple of suggestions. There is a lot of work to be done. This is extremely important. It has improved in the last couple of years, but there is a long way to go yet.
Lord McInnes of Kilwinning (Con)
My Lords, I was amused to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, about the lack of activity of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, during the referendum. Unlike the noble Lord, I was involved in that campaign; my job was to be sent along, by my Labour and Liberal Democrat comrades in Better Together, to tell the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, to do less in the referendum rather than more.
As other noble Lords have, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, and her committee on an excellent, thoughtful and clear-eyed assessment of the governance of the union. I will focus my remarks on a couple of salient points.
I found a breath of fresh air the acknowledgment in the report of how much the governance of the union requires a constructive attitude and culture from all parties. The chemistry is just as important as the physics of the processes and structures that are put in place. It is a great testament to the union that it has been sustained in what have been very choppy political waters. That demonstrates to me that many of the structures and joint working arrangements are actually working pretty well. As we have read in the report, many of them were set up in 2022 with the joint agreement of the UK Government and the devolved Administrations. Perhaps things were not quite as bad after 2019 as some of us may remember.
However, the greatest threat to the union will always be if it is seen to fail to operate. If the governance of the United Kingdom is seen to be broken, why should that union not be clearly questioned? Her late Majesty the Queen famously said that the monarchy needed to be seen to be believed. In my view, this is just as important for the functioning of the governance and joint working of the structures of the union. I therefore welcome the establishment and optical importance of the Council of the Nations and Regions of the UK. However—this will not come as a surprise to the Minister, as I have asked her about it in your Lordships’ House—I believe that body is less important than the Prime Minister and Heads of Devolved Governments Council.
The Council of the Nations and Regions should not be in any way a replacement for regular meetings between the Prime Minister and First Ministers, who all, as Crown Ministers, have a wider responsibility than purely to their regions. I do not want to denigrate the roles of the mayors or indeed that of the Deputy Prime Minister, but there needs to be a very close and connected working relationship between the Prime Minister and the First Ministers—and, in the case of Northern Ireland, the Deputy First Minister as well. What does the Minister foresee as the timetable for prime ministerial and First Minister council meetings going forward? The report suggests that there were inevitably tensions between the UK Government centrally and the devolved Administrations during Covid, but that was actually the time when there was cause for regular contact between the Prime Minister and First Ministers, which can only have been a good thing.
My second point of emphasis, to echo the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, is to support the importance of the relevant territorial offices being engaged in all bilaterals between individual departments and devolved Administrations. The Civil Service landscape across departments varies in expertise when dealing with the devolved Administrations. I know that it is not common for the Treasury to be praised for joint working, but it had an excellent team when I was in government, which understood nuance and joint working with the devolved Administrations. However, in too many departments, to echo the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, including the Foreign Office, devolved Administrations were often not taken very seriously and continuity to ensure that good relations were built was not always there. Can the Minister suggest how the territorial offices’ role is going to be improved in these areas?
Since 2016, the union faced a difficult time as the implications of Brexit and Covid were wrestled with, just at the same time as there was an Administration in Holyrood prepared to do anything to fulfil their aspiration for the end of the union. I ask noble Lords to reflect that perhaps that was the reason why perhaps not everything could be shared with the devolved Administration in Edinburgh as it should perhaps have been. With this excellent report, I hope that the Government will continue to focus on strengthening structures while also encouraging a constructive culture of working for the people across the United Kingdom.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, for her very clear presentation of the report and all the work that she did on this report and many others as chairman of the committee. She did an excellent job.
Devolution is about difference. It involves recognising that the nations and regions of the United Kingdom are different, with different needs, and that they are different in how they address those needs and in their political composition. Devolution acknowledges this and has mechanisms for coping with difference, particularly where it impacts on the UK as a whole, or other devolved Administrations, as the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, clearly recognised in his very experienced contribution. This committee, in successive reports, has sought to ensure that the mechanisms are fit for purpose, are used and are used in a constructive way.
We occasionally lapsed into pessimism. There is a line in the summary of the report that says that
“the reality of different political parties holding power in different parts of the UK is that publicity engendered by high-profile public disputes will at times be more appealing than resolving issues through established governance structures”.
Sadly, I think that we can all recognise that as being true, and we can recognise certain periods when that was even truer than usual. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, threw light on some of the dark places in trying to make devolution work.
I turn to the Sewel convention, and I use the word “convention”—with the noble Lord, Lord Norton, looking at me—not in the constitutional law sense but with an admission that it is not the law but a political convention. That is how the committee describes it, not as a constitutional convention but as a political convention; it is a matter of terminology. The need to observe the conditions and principles that the convention embodies was well put forward by my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford and referred to by several other contributors.
The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, spoke in the debate, and I pay tribute to her for the work that she did on common frameworks, which are there to ensure that we can have a single market and that there are not adverse effects from what happens in one part of the United Kingdom on other parts—or, if there are, they are recognised and prepared for. That is an integral part of the devolution procedure, yet the internal market Act, and the passing of it, was one of the most obvious cases in which the Sewel practice was not followed, disgracefully and repeatedly.
Much of what the report is about is the positive spirit in which we need to engage these processes; the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, illustrated that when talking about the Civil Service. To start with, departmental Ministers need to understand devolution better—that applies not so much to the territorial departments but the other departments for which it is not central to their way of thinking. Civil servants in all departments need a better understanding of devolution and to avoid what one of our witnesses described as the unitary mindset, which is still present and needs to be dealt with.
As the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, indicated, the territorial department has a potential role, but there is a difficulty here in getting the right balance for where it should be in the constitutional structure. We saw stages, for example, when the Johnson Government became a rival Government of the respective countries. In relation to Scotland, they were trying visibly to compete on who would build the bridge: the UK Government or the devolved Government.
Somebody needs to speak in this debate about England, because not much has been said about England, as in the whole devolution story. Some of us are not entirely happy with the method that has been chosen to bring devolution to England, because it involves single individuals having a lot of concentrated power, which is a very confused and jumbled pattern, even for those who advocate it. However, a genuine attempt has been made to build on what is there as part of the overall devolution pattern.
We are to have the Council of the Nations and Regions. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McInnes, that the meetings of the Prime Minister and the First Ministers will prove more important than that council. I am bound to inquire what the council will do. I have a real fear that it will become simply a bureaucratic process that everybody has to go through, but which is not a real contributor to the effective working of the constitution. There was the proposed appointment, which did not happen in the end, of Sue Gray—the noble Baroness, Lady Gray of Tottenham—as the Prime Minister’s envoy to the nations and regions. Nobody else, as far as I know, was appointed to that job when she was not appointed to it, which suggests that the whole thing is surrounded by a miasma of confusion and nobody is quite sure how it will work or whether it can be made to work.
In general, the Government’s response to the committee has been encouraging and constructive. However, one area where they have been particularly weak—as was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and others—is around delegated legislation and the application of the same principle that Sewel applied to primary legislation to delegated legislation. Statutory instruments are the means by which many of the detailed changes in people’s lives are made. Nowadays, they, rather than primary legislation, set out so much of the detail that determines what people can buy, what conditions they can educate their children in and so on. There is enormous potential for trespass on devolved powers and a lack of a working process for consultation—that has to be dealt with.
When the Government responded to us on that, all they said was that they noted the committee’s
“recommendations on developing criteria and publishing guidance on the use of delegated powers … The Government will consider this as part of its work on engagement with the devolved governments on legislation”.
That may be true, but it is pretty weak, feeble and unconvincing. These are important decisions, and they are a test case for making the machinery—through which devolution can operate when there are differences—that can be made to work. I therefore call on the Minister—when she comes to respond to the committee, not just today but later in the year in more detail—to address this problem before it gets too serious.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, there are moments in political life when structures matter and there are moments when tone matters. There are moments—rarer, but no less important—when what matters most is constitutional clarity: the discipline of understanding where authority lies, who is responsible and how the pieces of a great union fit together. This debate touches on all three, and it is a pleasure to speak in it, especially as I was a member of the committee at the time of the report’s publication.
The Constitution Committee’s report is serious and valuable, and I very much pay tribute to the brilliant clerks and the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, for her excellent and calm chairmanship. It is fair to say that we were not a committee of shrinking violets, and the noble Baroness displayed a degree of patience and diplomacy that would have made Metternich proud.
The Government’s response also recognises much of what must be done to strengthen the practical bonds between our Governments. But it is important to be aware of the potential risks that could corrode the foundations of our union even as we speak the language of strengthening it.
That is why the Conservatives have always worked to strengthen the union. Mutually respected working structures and processes for engagement are essential, as the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, highlighted. It was a Conservative Government that introduced the 2022 Review of Intergovernmental Relations—here I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord McInnes—to strengthen the structures, improve transparency and establish, for the first time, a properly formalised dispute resolution system. It was a Conservative Government that delivered the UK shared prosperity fund, the levelling up funds and direct UK investment into all parts of the country. And it was a Conservative Government that delivered more than £3 billion of levelling-up funding for Scotland, over £2.5 billion for Wales and over £1 billion for Northern Ireland—funding provided on top of the Barnett formula. That record matters, but it is also important to recognise and guard against the potential new risks that lie ahead.
One of the greatest risks lies in the Government’s plan to negotiate a new memorandum of understanding on the Sewel convention. The Sewel convention, as confirmed in the Miller 1 judgment—here I am afraid I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beith, and not my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth—is primarily a political convention, not a legal obligation. It rests on trust: that Westminster will not normally legislate on devolved matters without consent but that it retains the sovereign right to do so. It is deliberately unenforceable in law, and that is its strength. Conventions survive through mutual respect, not judicial supervision. The committee was right to reject calls to codify Sewel. To invite the courts into political disputes would shatter the union’s foundations. Should any future proposals move in that direction, they must be firmly resisted.
Even without legislation, the Government’s approach carries risks. Embedding the Sewel convention in a formal memorandum of understanding, without parliamentary scrutiny, would hollow out the convention’s political character, turning it into a bureaucratic entitlement. It would replace political trust with procedural expectation and could turn Westminster’s sovereign discretion into the false appearance of obligation. The risk is not theoretical. We have already seen how sensitive and contested questions of legislative consent have become. These disputes reveal a deeper truth: determining whether a measure affects devolved competence is often a matter of political judgment. Embedding such judgments into a MoU risks giving them the false appearance of legal fact, inviting litigation where there should be political debate.
Can the Minister explain how the Government will safeguard the United Kingdom’s constitutional integrity if the memorandum of understanding creates procedural obligations that the courts may one day be asked to enforce? Have the Government prepared a legal issues memorandum assessing the risk that the MoU could create justiciable rights? If so, will they publish that memorandum or place it in the Library? In line with paragraphs 5 to 8 of the Attorney-General’s Legal Risk Guidance, have the Government formally assessed the likelihood that the memorandum could be subject to judicial review and the risk that any resulting obligations could be enforced by the courts? Will they publish a summary of that legal risk assessment?
These are important considerations. Administrative process cannot confer constitutional authority. An MoU which redefines a constitutional principle could tear constitutional authority from Parliament, turn legislative consent into a weapon and leave the union weaker in law and in spirit.
The committee also recommends a formal “principle of positive engagement”. This would codify a duty for Governments to work together on developing and implementing policies of common concern. The intention is understandable, but there are inherent risks. Formalising “positive engagement” must not risk shifting consultation into a form of co-decision, implying that devolved agreement is required not just on devolved matters but on areas properly reserved to Westminster. Over time, this would erode the constitutional boundary between consultation and consent. It would encourage a culture where every major policy risks becoming a four-nation negotiation, undermining clear executive responsibility. The union must remain a living political community, not drift toward a federation of mutual vetoes. Although we support positive engagement, it must always be within the constitutional framework that gives the union its enduring strength.
Beyond these major issues, there are other important issues on which we must reflect. It is only in the last six or seven years that identified structures and processes for regular engagement have emerged. It is therefore critical that they are monitored, and they require proper record-keeping and retention of institutional memory to have an established point of reference. Can the Minister confirm that this will happen?
The common frameworks process, despite understandable delays, remains a constructive example of the importance of intergovernmental co-operation. I pay tribute to the tremendous work of the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews.
The new Council of the Nations and Regions has made a strong start, but it must complement, not compete with, the direct and formal meetings between the Prime Minister and the heads of the devolved Governments, as several noble Lords have mentioned. Likewise, the territorial offices—the Scotland Office, the Wales Office and the Northern Ireland Office—remain critical in reinforcing the UK’s voice across government. Their role must be strengthened, not sidelined. How will these processes work together? How will the Government ensure that the council strengthens the union, rather than confusing or weakening it?
On secondary legislation and delegated powers, the Government should listen carefully to the committee’s warnings. The goal must be genuine engagement, without ceding the right of the UK Parliament to legislate for the United Kingdom as a whole.
Finally, I turn to the crucial issue of Civil Service impartiality within the devolved Administrations, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard. As the Government’s response acknowledges, the Devolution and You programme was launched in 2015, yet nearly a decade later, senior civil servants still struggle with basic devolution principles, as the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, pointed out. Furthermore, the Constitution Committee’s 17th report of 2022-23, Permanent Secretaries: Their Appointment and Removal, recommended that civil servants in devolved Governments must work only within devolved competence and that the Cabinet Secretary should issue clear guidance to that effect. It found that senior civil servants in Scotland and Wales, although accountable to devolved Governments, remain part of a single United Kingdom Civil Service, and recommended that the Cabinet Secretary manage any challenges, issue guidance and require Permanent Secretaries to escalate concerns and seek written directions if necessary.
The then Government accepted these conclusions and said that they were considering how best to implement them, so I ask the Minister to confirm the following. Is it still the Government’s position that civil servants must work only within devolved competence? Has the promised guidance been issued? If not, will it be published, and when? These are serious constitutional commitments. Clear action is now needed. The Civil Service must remain a single and impartial institution, serving the Crown and the union it upholds.
To conclude, strengthening the union requires more than good process; it requires clarity of authority, discipline in constitutional thinking and respect for the enduring sovereignty of this Parliament. The union cannot be held together by promises alone; it takes action, trust, respect and the political will to defend what we have built together. In the end, the strength of the union will be measured not by what we say but by what we do.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Drake for securing this excellent debate and the Constitution Committee for its report and the interest it continues to show in this area. As the spokesperson for the Cabinet Office as well as the Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland Offices, I recognise the importance of the issues raised today, so I thank all noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions. I should also put on record that, as someone who was born in Scotland—can noble Lords tell?—and who lives in England, I genuinely appreciate the importance of making government and governance work for all nations and regions in the UK.
Let me be clear: as the Prime Minister has said, to ensure that we are indeed a United Kingdom, it is crucial to give greater importance to respect and collaboration in the service of all people, across all parts of this country. This is essential for effective governance, to tackle our shared challenges and build a United Kingdom that works for everyone.
This Government were elected on the promise of change, renewal and reset. To do this, it is our duty to work in the service of the people to deliver on their priorities. That is why in our manifesto we committed to clean up politics and return it to the service of working people through resetting the UK Government’s relationship with the devolved Governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—although, as noble Lords have highlighted, not least as the noble Lord, Lord McInnes, has stated, this is chemistry as much as it is physics, which is a line I think I am going to use repeatedly going forward. We are doing just that.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, I assure your Lordships’ House that our reset and re-engagement has been based on a relationship of mutual respect. That is how we are seeking to re-engage with the Governments across the United Kingdom. This work began on day one of the new Government, with the Prime Minister speaking to the heads of the devolved Governments within hours of his appointment. He then visited Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast respectively to meet them in the following days.
To reassure the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, this Government genuinely believe in devolution, which is why we undertook this reset from day one. These early and proactive actions of the Prime Minister have led the way for the rest of our Government. The Prime Minister has been clear that rebuilding the country requires UK-wide delivery by working effectively with all levels of government. That is why, in our manifesto, we committed to ensuring the structures and institutions of intergovernmental working improve relationships and collaboration on policy.
With regard to the principle of positive engagement, in response to my noble friends Lady Andrews and Lady Drake, the principles for intergovernmental relations were jointly agreed between the UK Government and the devolved Governments as part of the 2022 Review of Intergovernmental Relations. There are no current plans to reopen this and add a new principle. Instead, we are focusing on how we embed the spirit of positive engagement in our work alongside the devolved Governments at all levels as we reset.
There is now frequent, proactive engagement between Ministers and their devolved counterparts on a range of issues. Noble Lords have rightly pointed out that this is not just about how often we speak but about the quality and calibre of what we are discussing, at the same time making sure that regular engagement is a theme. The structures set out in the 2022 Review of Intergovernmental Relations are functioning well and have withstood changes across all Governments. There have been 20 formal meetings of these structures since the general election. The top-tier meeting between the Prime Minister and the heads of the devolved Governments has taken place. To reassure the noble Lord, Lord McInnes, these meetings will happen twice a year.
The Interministerial Standing Committee and Finance: Interministerial Standing Committee have met. However, we really should have thought about the names of these groups when we had the meeting. The portfolio-level interministerial groups are up and running. These latter groups provide an important place for discussion of the impacts upon each other of policy changes across the different Governments and for shared learning and co-operation. As the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, raised, as did the noble Lord, Lord Beith, they are meeting as early as possible to discuss legislation before it comes in front of your Lordships’ House. For example, just last month the Minister for Energy attended the Interministerial Group for Net Zero, Energy and Climate Change alongside Ministers from the Scottish and Welsh Governments and the Northern Ireland Executive, where they discussed local energy initiatives and benefits to communities.
We are using the intergovernmental structures to ensure that there is collaboration with the devolved Governments. These structures help to ensure that the importance of devolution is reflected in policy-making and that effective outcomes are delivered across all parts of the United Kingdom.
In response to my noble friends Lady Drake and Lady Andrews, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, on the qualitative progress in transparency reporting and how our principles are being embedded in practice, in the first month of government we have been focusing on actions rather than reports. We are currently considering how we can supplement the impartial Intergovernmental Relations Secretariat’s annual report, the first of which is forthcoming, with our own reporting from a UK Government perspective. These principles matter not just to those formal structures set out in the intergovernmental relations review but apply more broadly. Overall accountability for the system of intergovernmental relations includes adherence to its principles collectively with the top-tier intergovernmental structure: the Prime Minister and the heads of the devolved Governments.
In addition to these structures, as many noble Lords have highlighted, we committed in our manifesto to establishing a new Council of the Nations and Regions. To reassure the noble Lord, Lord Beith, this is not a tick-box exercise or a talking shop. To reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, we believe that the Council of the Nations and Regions is complementary, hence the timings of the meetings, with the top tier of the IGR meeting at the same time as CNR, with the CNR meeting following.
The council brings together the UK Government, the devolved Governments and the mayors of strategic authorities to determine actions for tackling some of the biggest and most cross-cutting challenges that the Government face. The first meeting, which was held in Edinburgh on 11 October last year, was delivered within the first 100 days of this Government. The Prime Minister has been clear that the purpose of the council is a genuine, meaningful and focused partnership to unlock the whole of the UK’s untapped potential to make everyone, everywhere, better off. The inaugural meeting discussed the broader growth picture and maximising inward investment opportunities ahead of the international investment summit. That summit then delivered a commitment of £63 billion of private investment into the UK, which will create close to 38,000 new jobs across the country.
However, these formal structures are not the sum total of engagement. Collaboration also happens on a day-to-day basis across government. This cross-government co-ordination and engagement with the devolved Governments is supported by Minister Alexander. As a Minister of State in the Cabinet Office, he covers the union and devolution policy across Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in addition to his existing responsibilities at the Department for Business and Trade.
What is really important is that we can come together when it matters. That is how this Government are delivering for the people of the United Kingdom, whether that is through the UK Government or national Governments coming together when their people need them. We saw this earlier in the year when Storm Éowyn made landfall. Ahead of the storm, the Cabinet Office, alongside the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive, issued an emergency alert to approximately 4.5 million people in Northern Ireland and the central belt of Scotland containing information on how to stay safe; this was the largest real-life use of the emergency alert to date. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster also chaired a ministerial COBRA meeting with Cabinet colleagues, the First Minister of Scotland and the First and Deputy First Ministers of Northern Ireland to discuss what support and mutual aid the UK Government could provide to Northern Ireland.
I must stress this: we are not done. We will continue to build on this. We will continue to collaborate with our colleagues in the devolved Governments. We want to continue to work in service of the people of the United Kingdom to deliver for the people of the United Kingdom.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, and my noble friend Lady Andrews, as we set out in our manifesto, we are determined that the structures of intergovernmental working are used to improve collaboration on policy. In that spirit, we committed to strengthening the Sewel convention—this was specifically in our manifesto; I have a copy here if noble Lords would like one—which is something that I know this House and the Constitution Committee take very seriously. The convention is a vital part in ensuring all of the relevant democratic institutions have a say in the legislation that concerns matters within their competence. As such, we are taking the time to get the MoU right.
In the meantime, it is important to note that the Government have already been acting very much in the spirit of that commitment. I am sure that those with a keen interest will already know that 11 legislative consent Motions have been passed in this Session, with a further 14 positive memorandums recommending consent. Our ambition is that this trend continues.
I turn to noble Lords’ specific questions on the Sewel convention. The Government have set out their commitment to strengthening the convention by setting out the new MoU. We hope to move forward with the agreement and publication later this year. Discussions with the devolved Governments will continue in the coming months in order to finalise a draft. With regard to the specific question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, those will of course form part of our thinking, but it would not be appropriate for me to comment further at this point, given where we are in the negotiations.
On the question of secondary legislation and the Sewel convention—several noble Lords, in particular my noble friend Lady Drake and the noble Lord, Lord Beith, asked about this—although the Sewel convention does not apply to secondary legislation, UK Ministers have made commitments not to use SIs in devolved areas without the agreement of the devolved Governments.
My noble friends Lady Drake and Lady Andrews asked for an update on the programme on implementing common frameworks. I fear that my noble friend Lady Andrews will be much more informed about that than me. However, I can say that 28 common frameworks are provisionally operational, with one having been implemented fully and three at an earlier stage. At the Interministerial Standing Committee meeting in December, all four Governments agreed to finalise the remaining frameworks by the end of this year; we are making best efforts to facilitate this.
While these constitutional issues and discussions are important for the function of good governance, we have also been focusing on delivering across the UK on the issues that matter to people, working closely with the devolved Governments and local partners to do so. This is clearly demonstrated through our work to establish Great British Energy, a new publicly owned company which will own, manage and operate clean power projects up and down the country, generating cheap home-grown electricity. We are delivering on our first step in establishing GB Energy by providing £125 million to set up the new institution at its home in Aberdeen.
In addition, we have published Invest 2035, which sets out a modern industrial strategy that will help deliver growth across the whole of the UK. The industrial strategy is being designed and implemented in close collaboration with local, regional and devolved Governments, the details of which will be published in the coming months. Partnership with devolved Governments will make this a UK-wide effort and support the considerable sectoral strengths of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
I have a series of additional answers, but hopefully I will not detain noble Lords too long. The noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, and the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, asked about the Civil Service. Cross-posting of civil servants can play a key role in the building of first-hand experience of working in another Government. We are keen to make long-term intergovernmental placement opportunities more readily available by working with colleagues in the devolved Governments to remove barriers to them. We are also piloting an intergovernmental shadowing scheme that will provide civil servants across the UK with a more informal but still practical experience of how government works. I will revert on the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, about an update on Permanent Secretaries. On impartiality, she and the Committee will be aware that all civil servants are expected to follow the Civil Service Code and the impartiality requirements laid out in it.
Noble Lords will not be surprised to hear that I take very seriously the role of the territorial offices, given how much time I spend in them, and the roles of their Secretaries of State. It is the role of the Secretaries of State and the territorial officials in the Scotland Office, the Wales Office and the Northern Ireland Office to represent the interests of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland within the UK Government and to advocate for government policies in those nations. We see that working every day, whether that is the city deals being delivered in Northern Ireland, legacy, GB Energy or the additional funding delivered for coal-tip safety in Wales.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Norton, that we could have had part of this debate last Friday, when we had a debate with the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, about the role of recommendations for public inquiries. He made a valid point both last week and today about how the Government should reflect constantly on recommendations and ensure that they are answered.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, for reminding us of the dedicated work that her and many noble Lords’ friend, Baroness Randerson, did to make sure that devolution actually worked. I pay tribute to her for her work. If it is acceptable, I will revert to the noble Baroness on Senedd timing and the recommendations of the report.
As ever, I thank my noble friend Lord Murphy for highlighting the importance of making devolution work and how difficult it can be. I think we can all appreciate the challenges he had in his various roles in government. He mentioned Alex Salmond, but he also had to deal across parties in Northern Ireland to make devolution work at some challenging points. I also thank him for his work on the Good Friday agreement, which, as he said, laid out alternative options. I will consider and reflect on what he said about interparliamentary assemblies and how we can make sure that their roles are reflected going forward.
On that note, I thank all noble Lords once again for their participation in today’s debate, but particularly my noble friend Lady Drake and the noble Lords of the Constitution Committee for their report on the governance of the union. I know that noble Lords will continue to take a keen interest in this matter and, undoubtedly, ask me many questions both here and in the Chamber. I look forward to continuing the important discussion we have had today.
Baroness Drake (Lab)
My Lords, I will not keep you too long. I thank my noble friend Lady Anderson for her fulsome reply. It is much appreciated. I think my noble friend Lady Andrews and I feel that there is a certain timidity on the positive engagement principle: having drafted something in 2022 does not necessarily mean that it is set in stone, so there should still be an aspiration to stay with that principle. If you win that principle with all the other devolved Administrations it will definitely be indicative of progress.
On the annual transparency report, I am sure the committee will love to continue engaging with the Government. It is really a very important part of it; actually, if done correctly, it would be a clear statement of faith by the Government that they do want to change things.
I did not refer particularly to the impact of the Council of the Nations and Regions because it was so new, but the follow-up report, Executive Oversight and Responsibility for the UK Constitution, which is heading this way, starts to pick up some of the issues that people have articulated today.
I was delighted to hear my noble friend Lady Anderson say that she was upbeat and that the work of the Government was not done. That was very positive and welcome. The memorandum of understanding is certainly awaited with interest. I completely agree with her that it needs to be done correctly but, equally, it needs to be ambitious as well, we hope.
On secondary legislation, the Government’s use of such powers and Henry VIII powers, there is actually a bit of a precedent with the Fisheries Bill, in a sense that somebody put their toe in the water first, which starts to embrace some of the things. The committee has not and never has proposed a rewriting of the constitutional settlement, but the most important thing, which we heard from the noble Lords, Lord Thomas and Lord Kerr, the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, and many others, is that the danger for the Government is that if it is perceived that Ministers are empowered too easily with delegated and Henry VIII powers, with the intention of undermining the devolved legislatures, then that union cohesion comes under a lot of pressure. That is the issue that is being struggled with: that sense of faith, or otherwise, by the devolved Governments as to how the UK Government are behaving in that respect.
Finally, as ever, one of the most perceptive comments came from the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth—as an ex-chair of the Constitution Committee, I would not have expected anything less from him—when he said that the context of this report has to be understood. He is right: the Constitution Committee’s reports are predicated on a belief that the UK is a joint endeavour and shared asset for all the nations, regions and communities. That is our opening premise on which all of our analysis is made, and has been by Constitution Committees since they engaged with this issue. That is so important. That means that any Government not only have a responsibility to improve the relations of today—obviously, the current Government are seeking to do that—but have to build something that will weather future stresses. That is the bit that is still in play. Obviously, we will look to the Government to build something that has the capacity so that we do not see what we started to see with Brexit and other problems.
I thank everybody who participated today. It has been a great debate, and good luck to the committee taking this forward with the Government.