Chamber and committees

Absolutely—thank you.

You have mentioned the importance of the institution of the Parliament in this area. Court cases tend to be about Government policy issues and about bills going through here, but there has been some commentary, particularly from Lord McFall, about us sleepwalking into a situation in which legislative control lies with the Government. The use of secondary legislation has raised concern about that.

Is there a wider issue about how the devolved Parliaments should play a role? Who should be protecting the nature of the Scotland Act 1998 as it stands? Are there any mechanisms available to the Parliament—for example, through the Presiding Officer or the committees of the Parliament—that we have not used to our full advantage in exploring some of these issues?

Are there any further questions from the committee? I want to ask a final question in relation to some of the aspects of what we talked about on the importance of intergovernmental relationships and the direction of government in Westminster. We have not been able to find a single voice in favour of the REUL bill or anyone who thinks that it is a good idea, except for a small cohort in the ruling Government in Westminster.

Obviously, there are genuine constitutional concerns out there, and we do not know what impact the new Windsor agreement will have on the relationships with Northern Ireland, which, again, is in a completely different position from Scotland and Wales at the moment. Where will the pressure come from to make a change to that? Is it absolutely about personalities and relationships? Will it take a change of Government? Is there a mechanism for change, given John McFall’s concerns that we are possibly sleepwalking into executive power in the UK? Where will the political and civic pressure come from as these tensions continue over time?

I thank all the panel members for their evidence, which will indeed help us in our inquiry. I am minded of somebody asking for directions and being told, “Well, I wouldn’t start from here.” I think that that is what we all feel about this at the moment.

Thank you very much for your attendance. I will move the meeting into private session for our final agenda items.

Under item 2, we will continue to take evidence in our inquiry into how devolution is changing post-European Union and how devolution should evolve to respond to the challenges and opportunities of the new constitutional landscape.

We are joined virtually by our colleague Mark Ruskell.

I warmly welcome our panel: Professor Nicola McEwen, professor of territorial politics at the University of Edinburgh; Akash Paun, senior fellow at the Institute for Government; and Professor John Denham, professorial research fellow in the department of politics and international relations at the University of Southampton and director of the centre for English identity and politics. We have received apologies from Professor Jo Hunt, professor of law at Cardiff University.

Over the past few months, our inquiry has identified fundamental concerns that need to be addressed in relation to how devolution is working post the UK’s exit from the European Union. We have seen tensions around the Sewel convention, the balance of power, where decision making now lies, and scrutiny. Will you give your general observations on those areas? We will begin with Professor McEwen.

Thank you. We will move on to question from committee members, starting with Mr Cameron.

Thank you.

Mr Paun?

Good morning, and welcome to the ninth meeting in 2023 of the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee. Under agenda item 1, is the committee content to take item 3 in private?

Members indicated agreement.

Sorry about that.

Good morning, and a warm welcome to the eighth meeting in 2023 of the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee.

Agenda item 1 is a decision on taking business in private. Are members content to take item 3 in private?

Members indicated agreement.