Devolution (Constitution Committee Reports) — House of Lords, 2017-10-09
Topic: Mixed Topics
William Cullen (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, in its report The Union and Devolution the Constitution Committee, of which I was a member, made this as one of its recommendations: "There is a strong case for creating a flexible framework, based on appropriate principles, as a guide for future action within which any further demands for devolution can be considered in a coherent manner" The committee found that in the past there had, "been no guiding strategy or framework of principles to ensure that devolution developed in a coherent or consistent manner and in ways that do not harm the Union" I have to say that I find the Government’s response to the case advocated by the committee to be entirely disappointing. The Government state that that they support the approach which was taken by the Smith commission and the Silk commission. That approach was, they said, considering proposals for devolution against a set of principles. One initial difficulty I have with this response is that the principles applied by the Smith commission were not similar to those of the Silk commission, as the Government claim, but were different in kind. The Smith commission followed the line agreed with the representatives of the five political parties in the Scottish Parliament, namely that a package of new powers for Scotland should, "not cause detriment to the UK as a whole nor to any of its constituent parts" It was a negative principle. It was understandable that the commission used it in testing the outcome of negotiations between those parties within a short timescale, but it focused not on what devolution should do, but on what it should not do. The Silk commission, on the other hand, applied positive principles such as collaboration, equity, stability and subsidiarity. Part of its stated vision was that: "Devolution of power to Wales should benefit the whole of Wales and the United Kingdom" Elsewhere in their response, the Government also state that their approach to devolution, "is governed by the principle that … it is the right thing to do for the integrity and success of the UK" So far, so good, but what are the other principles that they have in mind? That is not clear. Surely if the Government are in favour of the application of a set of principles to consideration of further devolution, a matter of great importance for the constitution of this country, they should say what are those principles, and do so clearly and coherently. However, they seem to have avoided doing so. The committee identified some of the core principles which it considered should govern the relationship between the union and the devolved nations. They are solidarity, diversity, consent, responsiveness, subsidiarity and clarity. These are positive and constructive principles going to the strength of the union and the vitality of that relationship. In the case of some of these core principles, the Government have responded. Others they have ignored. It is somewhat strange that where they have agreed with the Committee, they have mostly referred to the negative principle adopted by the Smith commission in the circumstances I referred to. It is in the light of these matters that I find the Government’s response on matters of principle unsatisfactory and, indeed, lacking in clarity and coherence. It is of some interest to note that in the course of its report the European Union Committee made this recommendation: "Thanks to Brexit, it is now more important than ever that reform of the devolution settlements should be underpinned by a clear and agreed framework of guiding principles".