Seòmar agus comataidhean

I want to reflect on the conversation that we have had today about the top-down versus co-design way of government and the need to change post-Brexit, because what was a convention is now being swept under the carpet. What are the short-term and long-term solutions to change that? I am interested because, underpinning that, there is a centralisation issue that came out in some of the evidence that we have had.

Professor Denham, you talked about ministerial accountability in an English context. Is there not also an interesting issue to do with centralisation? When you look at the House of Lords, you see that the majority of lords are London based. We have similar tensions in Scotland on centralisation. Is there an issue that it is to do with moving from what we have now, which Professor Jim Gallagher nicely summed up as “constitutional carelessness” last week, and refreshing how accountability works in the UK and in the House of Commons? What are your short-term and longer-term priorities? I will kick off with you, Professor Denham, and work round the other witnesses.

That is very helpful. I am thinking about things like community wealth building, municipal ownership of energy and how the national grid works. There is something about best practice, and there is potentially something about whether the actual framework suits different parts of the UK in not only a subnational sense but geographically, in terms of different opportunities. It does not feel like there is political support for a more cross-Government approach—at not just the UK devolved nations level, but the local level—to tackling the climate emergency that could make the big difference that we really need.

Thanks very much. That is good because those are things that we can look at.

Philip Rycroft mentioned one or two of those things, as well as regions in England. Do you have any reflections on how we fix where we have got to after Brexit?

It has been really insightful to hear the collective experience and different perspectives that you have all given us this morning. It is very welcome.

I want to go back to the opening comments about the impact of Brexit on devolution and what needs to be fixed. I am thinking through those issues. Jim Gallagher, your paper contains a really interesting phrase: “constitutional carelessness”. William Wragg, a committee convener, said last week, “It’s politics”. This morning, Philip Rycroft said that it is the way that we have got used to working.

How do we move from here, where we feel that it is not working, to a system that will work? I am keen to hear your perspectives on what would be your priority. The evidence that we have had has included changing how the Governments work together; deciding whether the Governments should have to work together; dispute resolution and what that would look like; the possibility of entrenching Sewel; and interparliamentary work. What would be your priorities? How do you incentivise respect to make devolution work? You have been on the inside, in the civil service. If the question is too difficult, you do not have to answer, but I am thinking about how, practically, we can move on from here. What solutions should the committee be looking at to generate a bit of progress?

I am not sure who I want to come in first. Who looks most nervous about it? I am trying to be constructive and get solutions. Andrew McCormick, would you like to kick off?

In your paper, you have given practical examples of how to do that parliamentary scrutiny. It is very much worth us looking at that.

When something is clearly a devolved issue, to what extent will you actively consult committees in the devolved legislatures in order not just to understand the politics of the situation, but to gain interparliamentary awareness, so that committee members can identify what the devolved tensions are in a formal way?

That is helpful. I will leave that with you and your committee to think about. When you compare our report with the Senedd committee’s report, you can see that there are a lot of cross-overs. There is quite a range of people on our committee.

I will follow up on that question with Huw Irranca-Davies. I was very interested in your committee’s report, because of the cross-overs with what our committee thought. I want to hear your comments on solutions for interparliamentary and intergovernmental relations. I will start with interparliamentary relations, because you talked about your committee engaging directly with counterpart committees. What are the key lessons for developing solutions in respect of devolution across the UK?

That is very interesting and helpful for our report. What about the intergovernmental solutions that you have suggested in your report? In particular, you mention two potential solutions—a formal dispute resolution procedure and an independent secretariat—to strengthen intergovernmental work. Were those proposals agreed on a cross-party basis in your committee?

Where is the disconnect, then? We received really strong representations from witnesses at last week’s committee meeting, which was backed up by the huge number of people who wrote in and by the campaigns that are being run. People are very worried about the loss of access to live performances.

I want to come back to William Wragg on that question. The point about what is party political, what is constitutional and what the cross-overs are is really interesting. You mentioned the issue of respect and trust. How do you embed that in the process?

To what extent will your committee look at legislative consent motions when devolved concerns are expressed at a parliamentary rather than an intergovernmental level? To what extent is that on your radar? To what extent do MPs on your committee challenge the Government when looking at an issue in the round? I am thinking about the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill. On one level, that is very controversial, but our stakeholder input shows that people are unhappy on a different kind of scale. How would you handle something like that?