THE Smith Commission process on giving Holyrood more powers was undertaken with "excessive haste", constitutional experts have claimed, and might have to be revisited after the General Election.

Appearing before the House of Lords Constitution Committee to discuss the proposed changes to give the Scottish Parliament more powers on tax and welfare, Professor Michael Keating referred to the "unrealistic timetable" set out for the cross-party Vow. Draft legislative clauses were drawn up within four months of the referendum result.

Referring to them, the Director of the Economic and Social Research Council's Centre on Constitutional Change said: "This was not debated within the general public. There's not a lot of understanding about what these involve. It was done in excessive haste. There are all kinds of technical problems. There was not time for a proper discussion with representatives of civil society. There was not time to do a lot of the technical work that is needed to make sure the details of these are right. I couldn't see what the hurry was."

He pointed out how the cross-party agreement had now been superceded, at least from Labour's viewpoint, which has proposed additional powers. "It would have been healthier if the parties had paused a little, taken their proposals into the election and this would have given an opportunity for a proper discussion in the next parliament."

Dr Mark Elliott from Cambridge University also said it was "extraordinary" that the enhanced devolution was being pushed through with such speed.

While he said it was politically understandable the Vow was made and the timetable was imposed, he told peers: "Constitutionally, it's quite extraordinary to be contemplating quite significant changes of this nature and to be trying to hurry them through in this sort of way."

The expert in public law welcomed the scrutiny now being given to the Smith proposals but noted they were only draft clauses.

"There is significant room for improvement in some areas," he declared. "One concern which that raises is whether or not this scrutiny process is as helpful as it might be if what's being scrutinised is something which is quite preliminary and is going to have to change quite substantially between now and when more crystallised proposals are brought forward. But it's good this is happening."

Labour's Baroness Taylor said the Vow had "led to more problems than it actually solved" and noted how Parliament was in a difficult position; to scrutinise something that appeared a fait accompli with the outcome "pre-determined by political leaders".

Prof Keating stressed how the current leaders could not bind the next Parliament, which could be fragmented. "I suspect this whole package will be reopened again and negotiated. When it is, I just hope that Parliament will take the time necessary to think these things through properly," he said.

Dr Elliott argued that whether or not the issue of enhanced devolution were reopened would depend on the outcome of the General Election but he said the Smith Agreement was not in the same league as, say, the Good Friday Agreement, which reached consent after a long period of deliberation.

"I don't think Parliament, constitutionally, should feel it's been presented with a fait accompli whatever the politics of it might be and it should bear that distinction in mind," he added.