SCOTTISH AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
1992-97
Report by Mr William
McKelvey, Chairman of the Committee
1. The Scottish Affairs
Committee was re-established in 1992 after a gap of five years
during which it had not proved possible to set up the Committee.
The end of the 1983-87 Parliament had seen a breakdown of the
consensus based approach to Committee work and it was with these
memories still in mind that the new Committee began its work in
1992.
2. The Committee chose a
relatively uncontentious and therefore safe subject for its first
inquiry (Transport Links with Europe). The Report was unanimous,
well received and laid the basis for tackling more difficult subjects.
The next subject, Drug Misuse in Scotland, was highly contentious
though not in party political terms. This was a lengthy and high-profile
inquiry and though the Minutes of Proceedings of the Report show
all the scars, the divergence of views were buried when it came
to agreeing the report unanimously. The inquiry, to my mind,
constituted a watershed in demonstrating a maturity of approach
and an ability to tackle difficult subjects. Our recommendations
had a major impact in shaping the Scottish Office Ministerial
Task Force's own conclusions on drugs policy in Scotland. The
Committee has since developed a pattern of carrying out two major
inquiries per session, interspersed with short inquiries into
topical concerns which require a speedy response. We have taken
evidence on the departmental annual report on a regular basis
from the Secretary of State and The Scottish Office's Principal
Finance Officer. But for political reasons, it has not been regarded
as appropriate to produce reports on the Government's expenditure
programmes.
Relations with the Public
Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office.
3. Evidence given to the
Procedure Committee has suggested that the assessment of departmental
performance could be improved if based on reports from an independent
audit body. In its 1990 Report, the Procedure Committee suggested
that Select Committees might take forward NAO reports. The Committee
produced a Report on the Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and
Islands Enterprise in March 1995. We were aware that the National
Audit Office was about to begin its own study of Scottish Enterprise's
Financial Management and its report was published in August 1996.
This strikes me as the type of report which the Scottish Affairs
Committee could usefully take up. The other example of overlap
with the Public Accounts Committee concerns Health Care International
(HCI), a private hospital project which failed, having received
a large amount of direct and indirect financial assistance. The
Committee took evidence from the Secretary of State on the project
but felt unable to agree a report and simply published the evidence
taken. I believe that, had the Scottish Affairs Committee been
able to ask for a memorandum from the C&AG and use it as the
basis for questioning, some of the political heat might have been
taken out of the subject. Under these circumstances the Government's
policy objectives would have taken a back seat in favour of an
examination of the Scottish Office's efficiency and effectiveness.
I should therefore like to see the relationship between the PAC
and NAO become less exclusive and select committees able to request
memoranda from the C&AG. The C&AG would not himself be
asked to question the policy objectives of the Department nor
would he brief committee members on any matter outside his specific
remit.
Committee Staff
4. The Committee has been
served by its Clerk, Committee Assistant and Secretary. During
the 1995-96 Session, we had the additional help of an Assistant
Clerk. Although this was largely a training post, the extra pair
of hands gave us some flexibility which we used to take on smaller
inquiries. The question of staff resources is closely tied up
with the role which the Committee is expected to play. If we
are to continue along traditional lines, with Committees deciding
their own agendas I believe that the present situation is broadly
satisfactory. Inevitably there are peaks and troughs to Committee
work which make it difficult to plan staffing levels. In our
case, there is a need for greater flexibility in staffing rather
than a significant increase in staffing levels. The one area
in which flexibility does exist is that of specialist advisers.
Specialist advisers can vary but where a committee feels that
it has struck gold I would like to see specialist advisers able
to devote up to two full days per week to committee work on top
of travelling to and from and attending committee meetings. Given
adviser's other commitments this is rarely possible. On our Drugs
inquiry, for example, we had three excellent advisers but as clinicians
their time was limited and they were difficult to contact during
the working day. The current maximum daily rate of pay for specialist
advisers is £137. This may be appropriate (even generous)
for academics or retired people who have other sources of income.
It is, however, unlikely to be sufficient to attract freelance
consultants. I do not wish to see select committees become yet
another honeypot for consultants, but we have to be realistic
about what type of advice we can purchase. Perhaps there could
be a flexibility in the system to allow for higher daily rates
in exceptional cases where advisers are self-employed freelance
consultants.
5. The broad responsibilities
of the Scottish Office cause difficulties for the Committee Members
and staff. Unlike the non-territorial Committees we are unable
to acquire a high level of specialist knowledge of all our Department's
responsibilities. The Scottish Affairs Committee is not therefore
a suitable candidate for a full-time specialist assistant. Depending
on the subject under investigation, expert advice on inquiries
is therefore of particular importance to the Committee.
6. The Committee Office
already has an arrangement with the NAO, whereby staff are seconded
as specialist assistants to select committees. There is flexibility
in the arrangement and, in the case of the HCI inquiry, mentioned
above, it would have been possible to second an NAO auditor to
the Committee for the duration of the inquiry. I am not sure
that this would have been a valuable addition, as the person concerned
would have had no access to departmental accounts and documents.
In the event we were well served by the two specialist advisers
we appointed.
Scrutiny of Agencies and other
non-departmental bodies
7. The Committee has taken
evidence from one Next Steps Agency and from a wide number of
NDPBs during the course of inquiries. The Committee conducted
a lengthy inquiry into the operation of two major NDPBs: Scottish
Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise. We have not
however held specific scrutiny sessions with Agencies and NDPBs.
There is merit in doing so; in the case of agencies, for example,
I believe that the Committee should have early sight of agency
Framework Documents when they are reviewed or published. I hope
that the Committee will be able to hold scrutiny sessions with
agencies and NDPBs in the next Parliament. However, I have to
be realistic about the prospects for this. There are enough difficulties
in ensuring that the five Departments within the Scottish Office
come under the eye of the Committee. We have unfortunately been
unable to even touch on the subject of education during the course
of the current Parliament.
Pre-legislative inquiries
8. The Committee has had
ample opportunity to undertake pre-legislative inquiries on the
White Papers on the water industry and local government reorganisation.
I doubt whether it would have been possible to achieve agreed
reports on these subjects and the Committee wisely felt they were
best avoided. Of course, it is conceivable that White or Green
Papers may provide suitable subjects for inquiry and I am in favour
of committees having an input into the process out of which legislation
emerges. But I would not wish to see a presumption in favour
of the notion that select committees are committees of pre-legislative
scrutiny. If the House wants pre-legislative scrutiny then it
should build on the example of the Special Standing Committees.
Select committees should retain their ability to set their own
agendas and avoid being bounced into inquiries to suit the Government's
legislative programme. If select committees are to have a formal
pre-legislative role, I fear that the Whips will take a greater
interest in the outcome of their inquiries and cross-party consensus
will break down. There is one further point to be made. Many
opposition Members may feel that their role (whether in or out
of committees) is not to help improve the Government's legislation
but rather to subject the executive to scrutiny and hold it accountable.
Statutory Instruments and
European Documents
9. The Liaison Committee
has already discussed the question of using the departmental committees
to sift negative instruments, identifying those of political importance
which might justify debate. This suggestion was, in my view,
rightly rejected. The Scottish Affairs Committee would have been
deluged with Statutory Instruments to such an extent that, without
extra staff, work on inquiries would have ground to a halt. The
situation concerning European Union legislation is very different.
Draft legislation does not specifically concern Scotland, though
certain subjects, such as fisheries and Less Favoured Areas may
have a disproportionate impact on Scotland. It would therefore
be difficult to impose a duty on the Committee to scrutinize such
measures as it is a matter of judgement as to which measures concern
Scotland. But these are matters which the Committee can take
up if it wishes.
Difficulty in obtaining evidence
from Government Departments and summoning named officials
10. Due to the lack of a
Scottish Affairs Committee between 1987-92, I believe the Scottish
Office had become unfamiliar with the demands which a departmental
select committee placed on its Department. The Scottish Office
has over the years become less reticent in providing documentation.
However, their willingness has depended on the inquiry and a
generosity of spirit has not extended to requests for internal
working documents on sensitive issues. In one case a request
for a Regional Selective Assistance appraisal for a project many
years earlier was rejected on the grounds of commercial confidentiality.
Consultants' reports represent a grey area. Their use has increased
and "advice to Ministers" now comes from a variety of
sources both public and private. Consultants' reports are the
property of the client (in this case the Government Department)
and as such their production cannot be required by committees.
We have on one occasion had difficulty in obtaining a consultant's
report which was central to our inquiry. The report was initially
withheld on the grounds of commercial confidentiality, though
we were unable to elicit an objection from any of the commercial
organisations which might have been affected. Eventually, the
Department gave way and made the report available under restricted
conditions. I suspect that this was a case of departmental unfamiliarity
with the various ways in which confidential material could be
made available to committees.
11. In December 1993 the
Committee conducted an inquiry into the dismissal of Greater Glasgow
Health Board's Chief Executive and his ensuing appointment as
Special Projects Manager with the NHS Management Executive. It
would have been impossible to carry out the inquiry without the
appearance of the former Chief Executive, Mr Peterken, before
the Committee and this request was readily agreed to. But in
general, I can see no particular advantage for select committees
in having the power to insist on the appearance of named civil
servants so long as Ministers can restrict what the officials
say. I agree therefore with the Trade and Industry Committee's
suggestion that the House should specify the reasons it would
accept for refusal by civil servants to answer questions. As
for Members being ordered to attend as witnesses, I can see no
justification for Members being treated differently to any other
member of the public. If a Member refused to attend, the Committee
would still need to have recourse to the House to enforce its
order and this would give an appreciable measure of protection
against a committee's abuse of its power.
Other issues
12. The major constraint
on the activities of the Committee is the time which Members can
devote to its work. Time is a commodity which, for Scottish Members,
can be in very short supply. The special nature of Scottish legislation
means that parliamentary commitments bear more heavily on Scottish
Members than on English and Welsh colleagues. The reduced number
of Scottish Conservative MPs has affected the Committee in a number
of ways. Most obviously it has meant that English Conservative
Members have had to sit on the Committee in order to maintain
the Government's majority. Whilst these Members have made a valuable
contribution to the Committee's work it is unreasonable to expect
them, especially as the election draws nearer, to commit time
to concerns which are remote from those of their constituents.
Second, the reduced number of Scottish Conservative MPs has meant
that they are without exception drafted onto Scottish Standing
Committees; this effectively rules out work on Tuesdays and Thursdays.
These factors need to be borne in mind when discussing requests
for greater staff resources. Committees are already swamped by
paper and I fear that Committee Members, as opposed to Clerks,
are at present unable to make full use of the expertise which
they have available.
13. It is in this context
that I turn to the suggestion by the Trade and Industry Committee
of Parliamentary Commissions. Paradoxically perhaps, the idea
of a Commission avoids the accusation of greater resources leading
to staff driven-inquiries. A Parliamentary Commission could establish
factual information on complex subjects which the committee could
either publish without comment or draw on in the way that the
PAC uses C&AG memoranda. It would be important, however,
to maintain firm control on the use of such Commissions. There
would be a danger of committees setting them up, at no cost (financial
or of time) to themselves in response to requests that the committee
`do something' about a complex and newsworthy subject. I would
also wish to see any such Commissions retained firmly under the
control of the House authorities and not allowed to develop into
another NAO.
14. The Committee has, as
a matter of policy, met frequently in Scotland. In addition to
holding on average 25% of our formal evidence sessions in Scotland,
the Committee has also placed considerable emphasis on informal
meetings in connection with inquiries. These informal visits
have ranged from needle exchanges in Glasgow and an abattoir in
Grampian, to the nesting sites of the corncrake at the northernmost
tip of Skye. Where necessary the Committee has made overseas
visits in order to obtain information which would not otherwise
have been available. However, the overwhelming bulk of our travelling
has been in Scotland and for certain inquiries, such as Mountain
Rescue Services or Northern Isles Freight, almost all evidence
sessions were held as near as possible to the people concerned
with the inquiry.
15. Throughout the last
Session, the Committee's pattern of frequent meetings in Scotland,
usually on a Monday, has been severely disrupted by the frequency
with which the Scottish Grand Committee now meets and by the location
of its meetings. After a ten year gap, the Government has twice
made use of Special Standing Committees for Scottish legislation.
I have been asked to Chair both Special Standing Committees and
the Committee staff, rather than the Public Bill Office, have
provided support for the evidence taking stages. Inevitably there
has been a considerable degree of overlap of membership between
the Select and the Special Standing Committee, especially on the
Conservative side. This overlap and my Chairmanship have allowed
the Select Committee to, in effect, close down for the period
during which the Special Standing Committee took evidence. These
arrangements have worked well but I can foresee problems if the
assumption that the relevant Select Committee Chairman should
Chair the Special Standing Committee's evidence sessions is adhered
to. In cases where there is no significant overlap in membership
between the Select Committee and the Special Standing Committee
it might not be possible to put the Select Committee's work on
ice for the duration and the resulting workload on the Select
Committee Chairman and staff would become intolerable.
