230.We asked witnesses whether there was a case for replacing the Sewel convention with an express statutory provision that the UK Parliament will not legislate in areas of devolved competence without the consent of the relevant devolved legislature.
231.Ms Evans supported this idea. She thought there could be an exception “when required for reasons to be agreed”, such as when it came to international obligations, defence, national security and macroeconomic policy.287
232.In written evidence the Senedd Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee said “a more robust constitutional footing for the Sewel convention, built around a clearly defined and universally understood process” could improve understanding of devolution in Whitehall and provide a greater incentive to ensure legislative consent “is factored into work planning in UK Government departments and the UK Parliament.”288
233.Professor McAllister thought that if the Sewel convention were cast in a statutory framework, “it might create greater opportunities to consult effectively before it went into a court environment”. Ultimately, the sanction of going to court would have to be present because otherwise the situation would not be different to that which we have now.289
234.In written evidence to the Scottish Parliament’s CEEAC Committee, the Scottish Government said:
“The Scottish Government’s view is that a convention which can be observed or not by the UK Government, as it chooses, cannot provide any security to the Scottish Parliament that its responsibilities or views will be respected. The Scottish Government also notes that the convention has been set aside in areas where there are disagreements between the Scottish and UK Governments, and the powers and responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament are being adversely affected (notably the [UK Internal Market Act 2020]): that is, precisely the circumstances in which the convention was intended to protect devolution.”290
235.Other witnesses were more sceptical. Professor Martin described the proposition of abolishing the Sewel convention altogether and replacing it with an express statutory provision that Westminster will not legislate in areas of devolved competence as “a fundamental re-organisation of the state”. He said it would not be “the hardest form of quasi-federalism that the UK could come up with” but would require detailed and fulsome debate and would be “a significant limitation of the practical sovereignty of the Westminster Parliament”. He did not think it should be presented as a minor, technical modification—it would be a “big deal”.291
236.Professor Gallagher thought it unrealistic to replace the Sewel convention with an express statutory provision that Westminster will not legislate in areas of devolved competence. Firstly, because the statute book remains interconnected and “it often makes practical sense … to have a bit of devolved and bit of reserved in the same legislation and you are just giving people extra work if you do not do that.” And secondly, because such a provision would be unenforceable: “the legislation that wished to trespass upon devolved matters would merely say, ‘Notwithstanding the provisions of the Scottish devolved independence Act of 2025, we propose to legislate for the following devolved matters’. Given the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty or supremacy, that legislation would override the previous legislation.”292 Dr Anderson and Dr Brown Swan were also dubious: “So long as Westminster is sovereign and supreme, any attempts to strengthen the Sewel Convention could be repealed by any future amendment.”293
237.Mr Jack said it would be a “profound mistake” to make the Sewel convention legally binding: “It would fundamentally alter the devolution settlement and gravely weaken the union by preventing the UK Parliament from legislating on behalf of the whole country where necessary.” He said that the Sewel convention was “never intended to give devolved Administrations a veto over UK-wide legislation”.294
238.Mr Davies said that if the Sewel convention were made statutory “we could have a situation in years to come where, if people voted again in a referendum to rejoin the European Union but one of the devolved Administrations did not like the idea much, it could theoretically put a block on that happening. That would be completely wrong.”295
239.In written evidence DLUHC said:
“The UK Government is committed to the Sewel Convention and will always seek consent from the devolved legislatures when the process is engaged. The Sewel Convention is a Parliamentary Convention and there are no plans to alter its status.”296
240.In Respect and Co-operation: Building a Stronger Union for the 21st Century we said:
“If the operation of the Sewel convention is strengthened and mutual respect between the UK Government and devolved administrations restored, this will obviate any need to consider transforming the convention’s status into a legal rule. We do not believe it would be desirable to involve the courts in adjudicating disputes on the meaning and application of the convention, which are best resolved through political deliberation. A rigid approach to the convention could also limit the ability of the UK Parliament to legislate in devolved areas when it would be appropriate to do so and beneficial to all parties. However, it will be important to keep the new process under review, with the option of considering more substantive procedural changes if the circumstances demand it.”297
241.While improving respect for the Sewel convention is essential, replacing the convention with an express legal duty that the UK Parliament will not legislate in areas of devolved competence without the consent of the relevant devolved legislature would be excessively rigid and would potentially involve the courts in what is fundamentally a political matter between the UK Government and the devolved governments.
242.As discussed in Chapter 1, the Devolution Guidance Notes (DGNs) were produced by the Cabinet Office to provide guidance to civil servants on working arrangements between the UK Government and the devolved administrations. Several DGNs are severely out of date; for example, the DGN ‘Post-devolution primary legislation affecting Scotland’ was published in November 2005.298
243.In Respect and Co-operation: Building a Stronger Union for the 21st Century we recommended that the DGNs “should be updated as a priority”.299 In its response to that report the previous Government said it would consider updating the DGNs alongside its updates to the Cabinet Manual.300 Though the then Government committed on various occasions to produce an updated Cabinet Manual by the end of the last Parliament—including in correspondence to this committee from the Cabinet Secretary, Simon Case,301 and in a statement made by the leader of the House302—this was not forthcoming.
244.In written evidence to this inquiry DLUHC said it did not think there was a case for updating the DGNs:
“[W]hile the devolution guidance notes (DGNs) set out valuable advice on working relations with the devolved administrations, they should also be read as part of a wide spectrum of guidance and publications on intergovernmental working, such as the review of intergovernmental relations. They are supplemented by the extensive Civil Service wide devolution capability programme … it is not currently a priority to update the DGNs.”303
245.Other witnesses were in favour of updating the DGNs. The Northern Ireland Executive Office said: “There would be merit in updating the Guidance Notes to reflect the new [intergovernmental relations] arrangements and to provide amendments to reflect updated circumstances, for example, the devolution of policy and justice in Northern Ireland.”304
246.Dr Rycroft told us updating the DGNs was “on the to-do list” during his time as a senior civil servant but was never done. He thought updates to the DGNs should be done in collaboration with the devolved governments.305 Dr Goodall noted that much had changed since the DGNs were last updated, including the UK’s exit from the European Union and the COVID-19 pandemic.306 Professor Martin questioned the prominence of the DGNs in their current form and wondered how many Whitehall civil servants were aware of their existence and content.307
247.The Senedd Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee said:
“[T]here should be a clear engagement timetable published and followed for all UK Bills that include devolved provision. In our view such requirements should be covered and set out in revisions to the DGN. This would provide a more transparent process so that legislatures, governments and stakeholders know what deadlines are being worked to.”308
248.The Committee provided a list of potential updates to the DGNs:
249.The Senedd Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee also noted that the DGNs had not been updated to reflect the new intergovernmental relations structures or developments around common frameworks.310
250.The Devolution Guidance Notes are out of date. They do not take account of significant developments such as the return of powers following the UK’s departure from the European Union and the development of common frameworks, or the introduction of new intergovernmental relations structures in January 2022. They also make outdated references; for example, they refer to the “Scottish Executive” instead of the Scottish Government and the “National Assembly for Wales” instead of the Senedd.311 We reiterate our previous recommendation that the Devolution Guidance Notes should be updated as a matter of priority, and we urge the new Government to do so without delay. This should be completed alongside long overdue updates to the Cabinet Manual.
251.In updating to the Devolution Guidance Notes, the UK Government should consider the proposals made by the Senedd Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee, and how these could be expanded to include the Scottish and Northern Irish institutions.
252.While witnesses generally agreed that the DGNs needed to be updated, some thought the first step would be adherence to the Guidance Notes as they currently stand, including provisions on early engagement and collaborative working, which were “not seen consistently enough”.312 This led us to consider whether there was a case for expanding the principle of positive engagement (discussed in Chapter 3) to include the process of seeking and obtaining legislative consent.
253.Professor Martin said consultation and discussion does take place where legislation impacts on devolved competences. However, the courtesy and timeliness can vary quite significantly.313 Professor McAllister echoed this by saying that consultation—particularly around legislative consent—often came late in the process by which point “it was almost impossible for the devolved Government to influence any real change. It felt as if that was a gesture rather than a meaningful intervention.”314 Reflecting on his time as a civil servant, Professor Gallagher said:
“Good practice would be for the UK Government to share in confidence their legislative intentions at the centre with the Scottish Government. We used to do this and it has fallen into disuse now.”315
254.The Northern Ireland Executive Office said experience had been “variable” when it came to the UK Government consulting the Northern Ireland Executive prior to legislation being introduced in the UK Parliament that alters its executive competences. It noted that “[T]here have been instances where significant legislation has been introduced with short periods of notice to the devolved administrations, despite evident implications for them.”316
255. Ms Evans said that lack of consultation from the UK Government prior to introducing legislation altering the executive competence of Welsh ministers had become worse “since about 2022” and this was partly due to “the UK Government becoming increasingly hostile to devolution”.317 She said that where engagement on legislation took place “late in the day” it made it difficult for the Welsh Government “to pursue [its] own legislative solutions to areas that might benefit from alignment between the UK Government and the Welsh Government”. She added that early discussions between the UK Government and the Welsh Government about the UK’s Government’s programme of primary legislation would be helpful,318 and the interministerial groups were a forum in which these earlier discussions could be facilitated.319
256.Ms Evans also told us that when it came to UK legislation, the UK Government could often make “relatively minor” amendments that would enable the Welsh Government to recommend the Senedd grants consent. However, this required a lot of discussion at official and ministerial level and engagement did not always take place in enough time. For example, when it came to the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill, she said the previous UK Government introduced “substantive amendments to Welsh Ministers’ functions without any meaningful prior engagement”. When the Welsh Government said they could not support the legislation, the Government proceeded regardless.320
257.By contrast, DLUHC said the intergovernmental relations structures regularly involve engagement on legislation. All six Interministerial Standing Committees (IMSC) had discussed legislation to date. These discussions also took place at portfolio level. For example, in January 2024 the Interministerial Group for Justice discussed the Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Bill and in May 2023 the Interministerial Group for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs discussed the UK Government’s Retained EU Law Bill.321
258.DLUHC also said:
“For any bills which engage the legislative consent process, including those which alter devolved executive competence, UK Government officials work closely with their counterparts in the devolved administrations to discuss a bill’s content along with the bill’s devolution analysis prior to introduction … The time available for engagement on different bills can obviously vary given the urgency or complexity of legislation.”322
259.Mr Jack told us the UK Government engaged the Scottish Government “very early on, particularly at official level” but the Scottish Government did not do the same when it came to their legislation.323 He spoke about his experience raising concerns with the Scottish Government about its United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) Bill, which was passed by the Scottish Parliament in 2021.324 In Respect and Co-operation: Building a Stronger Union for the 21st Century we provided an account of what happened:
“The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill and the European Charter of Local Self-Government (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill were both passed by the Scottish Parliament, despite early requests by the Secretary of State for Scotland to make changes to specific provisions in those bills on the basis that they were ultra vires. After these requests were rejected the UK Government’s decision to make a referral to the Supreme Court was criticised by the First Minister of Scotland, Rt Hon Nicola Sturgeon MSP, as “morally repugnant”. The Supreme Court subsequently ruled that the provisions in both bills were ultra vires. Lord Reed, the president of the court, observed: “Counsel for the Lord Advocate explained to the court that [an] approach to the drafting of [the relevant section], taking no account of limitations on legislative competence, had been adopted as a matter of policy.”325
260.Mr Jack said there was an existing obligation under the Sewel convention for both the UK Government and the devolved governments to consult. He did not think the Scottish Government would pay any particular attention to an additional requirement to engage326 and it would not stop it “ploughing on” when it came to its own legislation.327 He said: “Either they get their legislation over the finishing line or they have a fight. They do not mind which, because they are not of the United Kingdom.”328
261.The Devolution Guidance Notes specify that when a bill alters the executive competences of the devolved ministers, the devolved ministers should be adequately consulted. Where a bill has a significant effect on devolved matters, the papers accompanying the bill before the Parliamentary Business and Legislation Committee should indicate what consultations have taken place with the relevant devolved governments.329
262.In Respect and Co-operation: Building a Stronger Union for the 21st Century we said:
“The Devolution Guidance Notes require early consultation with the devolved legislatures on the devolved aspects of UK bills, to address any significant issues in good time. During Brexit, it is clear this guidance was not always followed but subsequently there is evidence that it is again being followed. We welcome this and recommend the guidance should be followed as a matter of course from now on. We believe it would be desirable for all efforts to be taken to resolve any substantive disagreements before a bill is introduced to Parliament. This could be achieved through the more robust arrangements for joint working (including the new dispute resolution process) agreed as part of the review of intergovernmental relations.”330
263.We have since expressed concern again in our legislative scrutiny reports about lack of consultation by the UK Government with the devolved governments. For example, in our report on the Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill we said:
“We are concerned by reports from the Scottish and Welsh governments that they were not specifically consulted about the Bill despite it altering the powers of devolved ministers. We cannot conceive of a reason why consultation could not have taken place on this Bill. We recommend the Government informs the House, by way of a statement during the Bill’s passage through the House, why consultation did not take place. The House should be kept informed of any ensuing consultation with the devolved administrations.”331
264.In response to that report, the Government said:
“The Government has consulted with the Scotland and Wales Government and with Northern Ireland officials on this Bill. Officials engaged with the devolved administrations prior to the Bill’s introduction in the other place through the Common Framework working group process. Senior official engagement on the Bill dates back to 2022. Additionally, Minister Felicity Buchan MP has engaged with Scottish and Welsh Ministers on the Bill’s provisions. We intend to engage with Ministers in Northern Ireland to seek their support now that power has been restored to the Executive and the Assembly.”332
265.In supplementary written evidence the new Government told us:
“The UK Government is committed to resetting the relationship with devolved governments and looks forward to working collaboratively with them, as demonstrated by the Prime Minister’s visits to the UK nations soon after taking office. The UK Government also intends to agree with the devolved governments a new memorandum of understanding regarding the Sewel Convention and outlining how the nations will work together for the common good.”333
266.For UK Government consultation with the devolved administrations on UK legislation to be meaningful and effectively resolve differences, it must be timely. We recognise that the legislative timetable in the UK Parliament can make early engagement a challenge and that there are, at times, conflicting accounts from the UK Government and the devolved administrations regarding the timing and quality of consultation. We nonetheless reiterate our previous recommendation that instructions in the Devolution Guidance Notes regarding early consultation should be followed as a matter of course.
267.We note that there is currently no reciprocal convention requiring the devolved administrations to give notice to the UK Government of devolved legislation that could affect reserved matters. We recommend the principle of positive engagement, discussed in paragraph 201, includes a requirement that the UK Government and the devolved governments engage on legislative proposals that impact upon one another’s areas of legislative competence. This should be a feature of the new Government’s manifesto commitment to strengthen the Sewel convention “by setting out a new memorandum of understanding outlining how the nations will work together for the common good.”334
268.This memorandum of understanding could include a requirement that a decision by a devolved legislature to withhold consent to a bill be pre-conditioned by meaningful engagement on the part of the devolved government with the UK Government, with both parties having an obligation to make every effort to resolve any concerns raised.
269.Early consultation via a principle of positive engagement would also help resolve differences of view between the UK Government and the devolved governments as to whether legislative consent is required for particular bills.
270.Each of the devolved legislatures’ standing orders stipulate the process for obtaining legislative consent from the legislature. In short, each of the devolved governments is required to submit to their legislature a ‘legislative consent memorandum’, which sets out provisions in the bill that engage the Sewel convention in the view of the devolved government, explains the effects of those provisions on areas of devolved competence and makes a recommendation as to whether the legislature should grant or withhold consent. A designated committee within the legislature is then given responsibility for scrutinising the government’s memorandum and recommending whether consent should be granted or withheld. A ‘legislative consent motion’ can then be tabled, debated and voted on by members of the legislature.335
271.Concerns were raised by witnesses about the effects that late engagement had on the capacity of the devolved legislatures to effectively fulfil their scrutiny function.336
272. The Northern Ireland Assembly Committee for the Executive Office said consideration should be given “in relation to timescales and opportunities” for the devolved administrations to consider legislative consent motions “so Departments can present impacts that Committees can consider”.337
273.Dr Goodall said that five years ago approximately 45 legislative consent motions would be requested from the Senedd in a parliamentary term. This number is now requested in individual years, which has an impact on the Senedd’s capacity to consider them.338 He thought it important that the Senedd’s own timetable and requirements be respected and gave an example of a time when consent was sought by the UK Government when the Senedd was not sitting. Earlier engagement could have avoided this.339
274.This was echoed by the Senedd Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee, who identified a “democratic deficit” arising from an increase during the Sixth Senedd of UK bills including provisions within devolved competence. The Committee said changes were being made to Welsh primary legislation without full scrutiny from the Senedd.340
275.Late consultation by the UK Government on legislation which potentially impacts upon devolved competence diminishes the devolved legislatures’ and their committees’ capacity to effectively scrutinise legislative consent motions. The UK Government should note the time required to consider adequately the increased number of legislative consent motions which are now being put before the devolved legislatures and should take account of the devolved legislatures’ timetables to help ensure in as far as possible that sufficient time for scrutiny is available.
276.Several witnesses advocated a greater role for the UK Parliament, and in particular, the House of Lords, in strengthening respect for the Sewel convention.341
277.The role of the House of Lords in monitoring respect for the Sewel convention has grown in recent years. In Brexit legislation: constitutional issues we recommended the Procedure and Privileges Committee should consider “how legislative consent could be given greater prominence in the legislative process at Westminster”.342 As a result, that Committee recommended that:
“when legislative consent has been refused, or not yet granted by the time of third reading, a minister should orally draw it to the attention of the House before third reading commences. In doing this the minister should set out the efforts that were made to secure consent and the reasons for the disagreement.”343
The House agreed to this recommendation, which is now part of the legislative process in the House of Lords.344
278.In addition, following a recommendation by this Committee in Respect and Co-operation: Building a strong Union for the 21st Century, all consent decisions by the devolved legislatures are now notified both on the order paper and in the list of bills in progress in House of Lords Business.345 Instances where the UK Government has not sought consent from the devolved legislatures, but they have nevertheless granted or withheld consent, are notified in the list of bills in progress in the House of Lords Business by referring to the ‘correspondence published’ by the relevant devolved legislature.346 If consent from a devolved legislature is pending this is also notified in the list of bills in progress.347
279.In Respect and Cooperation: Building a Stronger Union for the 21st Century we also recommended:
“On introduction of a bill to the House of Lords which engages the Sewel convention, the Government should submit a memorandum to the House about the devolution implications, explain[ing] what engagement has taken place with the relevant devolved administrations.
In our scrutiny of the bill, the Committee will take into account the Government’s memorandum, progress in securing legislative consent and any further evidence or materials, including the view of a committee of a relevant devolved legislature, we consider necessary. As the Committee has done previously, we may occasionally advise the House on the wisdom of proceeding with a bill in the absence of legislative consent. Depending on the timing of each devolved legislature’s consideration of a legislative consent memorandum and motion, including the possibility of amendments requiring the consideration of supplementary memorandums and motions, we might have to issue a report at a later stage.”348
And:
“At present when the Government considers consent is not required from a devolved legislature and proceed to give effect to that view, there is no parliamentary scrutiny of this determination. In future we recommend that the Government should justify its approach to the House at the beginning of a Bill’s consideration.”349
280.In its response to these recommendations the then Government said:
“The Government sets out its understanding of the territorial extent of a bill when it is introduced to Parliament, as part of the bill’s explanatory notes. This generally includes a dedicated chapter explaining our reasoning on the bill’s territorial extent, as well as a clause-by-clause summary of where we consider the legislative consent process is engaged.
We are engaging in discussions with devolved counterparts on principles for future working on legislation, including our approach to engagement on legislative consent. We will carefully consider the Committee’s recommendations in the context of this work.”350
281.We recognise that the Explanatory Notes accompanying a bill set out the Government’s understanding of the territorial extent of the bill. However, they do not provide the House of Lords with an explanation of what engagement has taken place to date to secure the consent of the relevant devolved legislatures. We reiterate our previous recommendation and urge the new Government—on introduction of a bill to the House of Lords that engages the Sewel convention—to submit a memorandum to the House about the devolution implications of the bill and explain what engagement has taken place with the relevant devolved administrations.
282.Where the UK Government considers consent is not required from a devolved legislature and proceeds to give effect to that view, we reiterate our previous recommendation that the Government should justify its approach to the House at the beginning of the bill’s consideration.
290 Written evidence from the Scottish Government to the Scottish Parliament’s Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, p 4: https://www.parliament.scot/-/media/files/committees/constitution-europe-external-affairs-and-culture-committee/correspondence/2023/scottish-government-response-to-the-committees-letter-of-25-may-2023.pdf
297 Constitution Committee, Respect and Cooperation: Building a Stronger Union for the 21st Century (10th Report, Session 2021–22, HL Paper 142), para 140
298 House of Commons Scottish Affairs Committee, The relationship between the UK and Scottish Governments (8th Report, Session 2017–19, HC 1586), para 99
299 Constitution Committee, Respect and Cooperation: Building a Stronger Union for the 21st Century (10th Report, Session 2021–22, HL Paper 142), para 141
300 Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities, ‘Government Response to the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution report Respect and Cooperation: Building a Stronger Union for the 21st Century’ (2 September 2022), p 6: https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/28473/documents/171574/default/ [accessed 22 September 2024]
301 Letter from Simon Case, Cabinet Secretary, to Baroness Drake CBE, Chair of the Constitution Committee and William Wragg MP, former Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (13 June 2023): https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/40335/documents/196977/default/
309 Ibid.
310 Ibid.
311 See, for example: Cabinet Office, Devolution Guidance Note 3: The Role of the Secretary of State for Scotland, (October 2006): https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a78994ae5274a2acd188515/role-secretary-state-scotland_20.pdf [accessed 22 September 2024] and Cabinet Office, Devolution Guidance Note 4: The Role of the Secretary of State for Wales: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a79630840f0b63d72fc565a/role-secretary-state-wales.pdf [accessed 22 September 2024]
322 Ibid.
325 Constitution Committee, Respect and Co-operation: Building a Stronger Union for the 21st Century (1oth Report, Session 2021–22, HL Paper 142), para 118
328 Ibid.
329 Cabinet Office, Devolution Guidance Note 8: Post-Devolution Primary Legislation affecting Northern Ireland: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a797df740f0b63d72fc6480/post-devolution-primary-ni.pdf [accessed 22 September 2025]; Cabinet Office, Devolution Guidance Note 10: Post-Devolution Primary Legislation affecting Scotland: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a79c7efe5274a18ba50ec92/post-devolution-primary-scotland.pdf [accessed 22 September 2024] and Cabinet Office, Devolution Guidance Note: Parliamentary and Assembly Primary Legislation Affecting Wales: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5ad9edd4ed915d32a3a7100a/DGN_-_Parliamentary_and_Assembly_Primary_Legislation_Affacting_Wales.pdf [accessed 22 September 2024]
330 Constitution Committee, Respect and Co-operation: Building a Stronger Union for the 21st Century (10th Report, Session 2021–22, HL Paper 142), para 136
331 Constitution Committee, Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill (4th Report, Session 2023–24, HL Paper 66) para 18
332 Letter from Baroness Neville-Rolfe DBE CMG, Minister of State at the Cabinet Office to Baroness Drake CBE, Chair of the Constitution Committee (15 March 2024), para 15: https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/44366/documents/220646/default/
334 Labour Party, Change: Labour Party Manifesto 2024, (13 June 2024), p 109: https://labour.org.uk/updates/stories/labour-manifesto-2024-sign-up/ [accessed 22 September 2024]; written evidence from the Senedd Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee (GOU0008), para 30
335 House of Commons Library, ‘Legislative consent: what, why and how?’ (13 April 2018): https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/legislative-consent-what-why-and-how/ [accessed 22 September 2024]
337 Written evidence from the Northern Ireland Assembly Committee for the Executive Office (GOU0009)
341 Q 34 (Prof Jim Gallagher and Dr Philip Rycroft); written evidence from the Senedd Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee (GOU0008); written evidence from Dr Paul Anderson and Dr Coree Brown Swan (GOU0001)
342 Constitution Committee, Brexit legislation: constitutional issues (6th Report, Session 2019–21, HL Paper 71), para 60
343 Procedure and Privileges Committee, 4th Report (Session 2019–21, HL Paper 140), paras 40–43
344 This procedure has applied to several recent bills. For example, see the Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill, HL Deb, 20 March 2023, col 1547, see also Automated Vehicles Bill, HL Deb, 19 February 2024, col 377 and Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill, HL Deb, 26 March 2024, col 582–583
345 See, for example: House of Lords, ‘Order Paper’ (8 May 2024): https://lordsbusiness.parliament.uk/?businessPaperDate=2024–05-08 [accessed 22 September 2024] and House of Lords, ‘House of Lords Business’ (8 May 2024): https://lordsbusiness.parliament.uk/?businessPaperDate=2024–05-08 [accessed 22 September 2024]
346 See, for example: House of Lords, ‘House of Lords Business’ (29 March 2022): https://lordsbusiness.parliament.uk/?businessPaperDate=2022–03-29§ionId=40 [accessed 22 September 2024]
347 See, for example: House of Lords, ‘House of Lords Business’ (19 March 2024): https://lordsbusiness.parliament.uk/?businessPaperDate=2024–03-19§ionId=40 [accessed 22 September 2024]; Constitution Committee, Respect and Co-operation: Building a Stronger Union for the 21st century (10th Report, Session 2021–22, HL Paper 142), para 138; Procedure and Privileges Committee, 4th Report (Session 2022–23, HL Paper 161), paras 1–5
348 Constitution Committee, Respect and Co-operation: Building a Stronger Union for the 21st century (10th Report, Session 2021–22, HL Paper 142), para 138
349 Ibid., para 139
350 Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities, ‘Government Response to the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution report Respect and Cooperation: Building a Stronger Union for the 21st Century’ (2 September 2022), p 5: https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/28473/documents/171574/default/]