Conclusions and recommendations
The future shape of the Union
1. In
the three post-referendum proposals for further devolution, each
developed separately and to be implemented bilaterally, it is
difficult to perceive the 'new Union mindset' which the First
Minister of Wales has championed, and easier to perceive a 'devolution
mindset' where powers are handed down from Whitehall along bilateral
channels. As the devolution settlement matures, the implications
for the operation of the Union as a whole of each transfer of
powers must be fully taken into account. (Paragraph 35)
2. We welcome the
level of public debate and engagement in Scotland over its constitutional
future, both during and after the referendum campaign. Despite
the high levels of awareness of constitutional debates, we note
with concern the limited timescale for the public and civil society
to be consulted as part of the Smith Commission process, and the
similarly limited formal opportunities for consultation and deliberation
on the Smith Agreement and the Government's draft clauses. This
rushed process cannot substitute for a full deliberation on the
constitutional future of all elements of the United Kingdom. (Paragraph
43)
3. The Government
has accepted the Smith Commission proposals for greater involvement
of the UK Parliament and the devolved institutions in the functioning
of the intergovernmental arrangements for devolution. We welcome
the proposal of the Smith Commission that the UK Government and
the devolved administrations should lay reports on the implementation
and effective operation of the revised Memorandum of Understanding
before their respective legislatures. We further welcome the proposal
for stronger and more transparent Parliamentary scrutiny inherent
in the proposal that conclusions of all inter-administration committee
meetings be reported as a matter of course. (Paragraph 52)
4. A commitment to
regular reporting to Parliaments is beneficial, and promotes transparency
at the heart of the intergovernmental process. However, if there
is no corresponding mechanism for Parliamentary scrutiny of such
reports then they are in danger of becoming formulaic. We therefore
recommend that the House of Commons develop a mechanism for systematic
and effective scrutiny of the intergovernmental operation of the
devolution settlement. A quadripartite Devolution Committee, comprising
the three territorial select committees and the committee with
oversight of the Government department with responsibility for
constitutional policy, could be established along the lines of
the present Quadripartite Committee on Arms Export Controls. Such
a committee could consider the regular reports to Parliament from
the Joint Ministerial Committee, undertake the tasks contemplated
by the McKay Commission, and keep the operation of the devolution
settlement under review. (Paragraph 53)
5. We acknowledge
the benefits to the Union, and to relationships with the devolved
institutions, of territorial Secretaries of State and Ministers
who can provide effective liaison between the UK Government and
the devolved institutions. It is important to the Union that all
its elements are represented at the Cabinet table. (Paragraph
56)
6. We recommend
that the Government review the resources and structure of the
departments which presently support the territorial Secretaries
of State, with a view to more effective management of the territorial
constitution. (Paragraph 59)
Devolution within England
7. The
transfer of powers away from the centre, to local communities
best able to access them, determine how they should be delivered
and hold authorities accountable for their delivery, is a fundamental
principle which has been ignored by the political systems in all
nations of the UK for too long. (Paragraph 74)
8. We are concerned
that the options set out by the Government for further devolution
within England lack clarity and urgency, setting out broad themes
for discussion—and even broader caveats—instead of
substantial proposals for devolution which are accessible to all
communities in England. There is a clear risk that without further
impetus early in the new Parliament the programme of devolution
may remain at the level of deals with cities, city regions and
local economic partnerships, without the genuine transfer of power
from the centre to localities which many are seeking. (Paragraph
75)
9. The level of democratic
debate on devolution within England is rising, and several substantial
proposals for reform have already been made. We recommend that
the Government establish, in the first six months of the new Parliament,
a commission to review proposals for further devolution within
England and to reach agreement on a suite of powers which local
authorities can draw down where they can demonstrate demand and
popular support. Such legislation should be introduced no later
than May 2016, for implementation by May 2017 at the latest.
(Paragraph 76)
10. For too long the
response to demands for further devolution in England has been
met by the dismissive twin responses of "England must decide
what it wants" and "England has shown no interest in
deciding". Those excuses no longer hold water, for a consequence
of the heated debate over independence for Scotland has been a
re-examination, in each city and county of England, of the relationship
it has, and wishes to have, with Whitehall. As the submissions
we have received from many local authorities, local political
parties and campaigning groups has shown, the structures of power
and governance in England risk promoting economic and structural
inequality. There is, therefore, a broad and urgent debate to
be had about the constitutional structures within England. We
have previously indicated that such a debate could be held as
part of an England-only precursor to a constitutional convention.
(Paragraph 77)
11. A Convention for
England, held over the term of the next Parliament, with broad
popular representation from the public and civil society, could
examine the relationship between England and the United Kingdom
and develop a process for further agreed devolution from the centre
to regions and localities. (Paragraph 79)
Devolution and the House of Commons
12. Detailed
and definitive proposals for implementation of English votes for
English laws have not been made available to the House, or to
this Committee, in time for any proper consideration in this Parliament.
While the Leader of the House has now set out the scheme which
he would like to implement, there has been no opportunity for
the House to examine the means he proposes to give it effect.
Any such proposals would have wide-ranging implications for many
aspects of the House's business, and the procedural and practical
implications would require detailed examination before implementation.
We recommend that the Procedure Committee in the new Parliament
give detailed scrutiny to the procedural and practical implications
of any proposal to introduce 'English votes for English laws'.
(Paragraph 101)
13. We note the proposals
made by each of the major parties for implementation of English
votes for English laws. The implementation of any proposals will
be a matter for the new House, and such proposals may of course
be varied in the light of that House's composition and the composition
of the Government. It is not for us to seek to bind a new House;
but we invite the new House, when examining any proposal to implement
'English votes for English laws', to consider the potential impact
on the United Kingdom of a situation where an administration,
in order to govern effectively, must demonstrate it has the confidence
not only of the whole House but also of English Members. (Paragraph
104)
The process of further devolution
14. Proposals
for devolutionary change in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland
and England have been made at what appears to be dizzying speed
since the Scottish referendum result in September 2014. Political
commitments have been made on the implementation of further devolution
for Scotland, and those commitments should be honoured in full.
It is nevertheless time to examine what the proposals for change
mean for the Union as a whole, and how our United Kingdom, built
on the twin principles of Union and Devolution, is functioning
for the benefit of all its citizens. Such an examination might
be undertaken most appropriately in a constitutional convention,
with citizen participation, to commence no later than the end
of 2015. (Paragraph 110)
| 
