Money well spent to back devolution

THE points made by Mike Fordham QC on behalf of the Welsh Government in the Supreme Court case which seeks to overturn the prorogation of Parliament are extremely valid, and justify the decision of Counsel General Jeremy Miles to take part in the proceedings.

One largely overlooked area is the consequences for devolution of prorogation.

As Mr Fordham has pointed out, the UK Parliament and the National Assembly work together in producing a significant amount of legislation.

It is not uncommon for the Assembly to give the Westminster Parliament permission to legislate on its behalf, often on detailed technical matters.

With Parliament prorogued, such collaboration cannot proceed.

What has happened, therefore, is that legislation has either been passed in a hurry at Westminster without proper consultation, or it has fallen because of the lack of time available.

Such an issue may seem relatively unimportant to those who concentrate on the central question of whether prorogation was put into effect to block Parliament from scrutinising – and potentially torpedoing – Boris Johnson’s Brexit plan.

But it is important that the principle of devolution is not overlooked as collateral constitutional damage.

It may be 20 years since our National Assembly and the Scottish Parliament were inaugurated, but some people and departments in Whitehall have still not taken on board the full implications.

We now live in a multi-parliamentary state where power is no longer held uniquely at Westminster.

A decision to close down Parliament has implications for the devolved bodies and the administrations which serve them.

If Mr Johnson has acted in a cavalier fashion towards the Parliament of which he is a member, he has paid no regard whatsoever to the devolution settlement.

Mr Miles’ decision to intervene was, quite rightly, taken on constitutional grounds.

The reasons for doing so go far beyond the question of whether we should remain in the EU or leave it.

Brexiteers have already accused the Welsh Government of wasting money by going to the Supreme Court.

It is our view that, whatever the outcome of the case, the money has been well spent.