---

Mr. Swinney: An important point established during the passage of the Scotland Act 1998 was the right of the Scottish Parliament to debate issues that it considers appropriate. That point was well made in the Chamber, so it should not be a surprise to the hon. Gentleman. My party will certainly ensure that the matters that are devolved to the Scottish Parliament are properly dealt with there. Some of the unease and tension among Labour Members is evidence of the effectiveness of the way in which we scrutinise the work of the Executive in the Scottish Parliament, although I accept that that Executive also involves Liberal Democrats, however uncomfortable they may feel at times.

It is important that we address the issues that are of concern to the people of Scotland. That is the rule of thumb that my party follows in the Scottish Parliament.

Dr. Reid: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the question that he was asked? In view of what he said earlier, will

21 Oct 1999 : Column 640

he give an assurance not only to the House but, more important, to the people of Scotland that he and his party will spend the bulk of their time in the Scottish Parliament dealing with issues that are within the competence of that Parliament--the issues that the Scottish people want to be dealt with in Scotland and that they pay him and the other Members of that Parliament to deal with--rather than, as is currently evidenced in the majority of the parliamentary questions that they table there, dealing with issues which are reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament and which the Scottish people want to be dealt with in the United Kingdom Parliament?

Mr. Swinney: We will discuss the issues that are of relevance to the people of Scotland. I am interested to find that the Secretary of State is paying close attention to the questions tabled in the Scottish Parliament, but if I were to go much further down that road, Mr. Deputy Speaker would tell me that I was roaming out of order.

In Inverness yesterday, I chaired a meeting of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee of the Scottish Parliament at which the chief executive of Highlands and Islands Enterprise expressed his concern about the enormous damage being done to the highlands and islands economy by the fuel duty escalator. It would have been inappropriate of me to say to him, "Stop there. That is nothing to do with this Parliament. The Secretary of State for Scotland has to fight for the Scottish interest in Westminster." Members of Parliament who are sent to Westminster to represent the Scottish interest sign up to such issues of enormous concern left, right and centre.

Miss Anne Begg (Aberdeen, South): Can I take it, then, that the hon. Gentleman would be happy for someone from Highlands and Islands Enterprise, or whoever is concerned about the fuel duty escalator, to come down and give evidence to the Scottish Affairs Committee? That is the only conclusion that we can reach from what he is saying.

Mr. Swinney: I want to continue with my comments about the institutions of the House, but I will certainly answer the hon. Lady's point. My point in response to the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Alexander) and the Secretary of State is that it is unrealistic to believe that the Scottish Parliament will not encroach on or raise issues that are important to the Scottish people but happen to be reserved.

The principles in paragraph 5 of the Procedure Committee's report have been referred to at length. The first of the principles is that

"in passing the legislation which underlies devolution, Parliament has agreed that certain powers and responsibilities should pass from it to the devolved legislatures; parliamentary procedure or custom should not be called in aid to undermine that decision".

That is a robust interpretation of the Scotland Act 1998.

I am concerned about the fact that the third principle states:

"Members from an area to which powers have been devolved will have a particular interest in business affecting that area".

I suspect that there will be a trade-off between those principles as the issues that this Parliament wrestles with begin to change.

The Procedure Committee recommended that there be a continuing role for the Scottish Affairs Committee, and I certainly welcome that commitment. It is important that

21 Oct 1999 : Column 641

the role and responsibility of the Secretary of State be properly scrutinised by a Committee of the House to which he is accountable. He may properly divulge to the House some of the confidential documents about which I am most concerned, if his Scottish Executive colleagues are not prepared to release them to the Scottish Parliament to enable proper scrutiny there.

We need to be able to find out what the Secretary of State is doing, what he costs and what his office costs. That is a matter of enormous concern. The running costs for the Scottish Office for the current financial year were initially estimated at £2.4 million, but I read in the newspapers that they have gone up to £5.7 million and are expected to rise to £6 million in the next financial year. That is 138 per cent. more than the original estimate. If that is an example of the new Administration's book keeping, it is a pretty unhappy one.

I recognise that the Scotland Act 1998 entitles the Secretary of State to certain powers, but it is important that we should have proper scrutiny when he is removing from the Scottish block the amount that is required to run his Department. It is important that the Scottish Affairs Committee should be in there, scrutinising his activities. It should also scrutinise the work on reserved matters, including the climate change levy, the fuel duty escalator and IR35--the Inland Revenue document--all of which cause great concern to my constituents. In a Select Committee environment, members can consider dispassionately how those issues are handled.

When we debated the role of Select Committees earlier, the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) made an extensive case for the requirement on their members to act independently of the party Whip, on the basis of the evidence before them. That is exactly what we need Scottish Members on the Scottish Affairs Committee to do. They must consider what is happening dispassionately, from a Scottish perspective, and be prepared to call to account United Kingdom Departments that are pursuing an agenda on reserved matters that is hostile to the Scottish interest.

Mr. Alexander: Does the principle of the dispassionate scrutiny of the Executive by a Select Committee hold good north of the border, and would there be a conflict of interest when a party's leading spokesperson also held the chair of the relevant Select Committee?

Mr. Swinney: That matter is being considered by the Procedures Committee of the Scottish Parliament. I will happily abide by the outcome of that consideration. Before the hon. Gentleman makes such remarks, he should read the official record of that Committee and reflect on some of the remarks that his colleagues north of the border have made. I will not embarrass him by recounting them here, as that would probably damage my reputation more than his.

The Procedure Committee has recommended the retention of Question Time; we support that, but with restricted time. I have some concern about how much the criteria for questions can be extended. Madam Speaker referred to the acceptability of questions that relate to

"information that the United Kingdom Government are empowered to require of the devolved Executive".--[Official Report, 12 July 1999; Vol. 335, c. 21.]

That is endorsed by the Procedure Committee in its report as the basis for the admissibility of questions.

21 Oct 1999 : Column 642

Section 96 of the Scotland Act 1998 states:

"The Treasury may require the Scottish Ministers to provide, within such period as the Treasury may reasonably specify, such information, in such form and prepared in such manner, as the Treasury may reasonably specify."

If that is not a blank cheque for the Treasury to ask what it wants of the Scottish Executive and to require the Executive to supply that information, I do not know what is. It will open the flood gates as to what questions hon. Members may ask in this place. That is a practical illustration of the inconsistencies we face and the fact that some definitions may be stretched in a way that no one envisaged.

Madam Speaker has ruled--the Procedure Committee has supported her view--that Adjournment debates on Scottish subjects may be held in the House only when they relate to areas of ministerial responsibility. On 20 July, I raised a point of order with Madam Speaker about a motion that had been submitted by the Conservative Opposition for a debate on health policy within the United Kingdom. I asked Madam Speaker for some guidance on whether it was appropriate to debate health policy in the United Kingdom after 1 July when power was devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Madam Speaker said that it was not a point of order, and I obviously accepted her ruling. However, I think that we must consider the circumstances of all debates and the steps that led to that motion being accepted inadvertently for debate in the House. I am sure that the Select Committee on Procedure will examine the issue.

Mr. Browne: I intervene on the hon. Gentleman at this stage as he appears to have abandoned his prepared speech. He briefed the Scottish press yesterday about his intention to criticise the Secretary of State for Scotland about his decision to retain the Scottish Grand Committee, which the hon. Gentleman claimed was part of the Secretary of State's "empire building". Did the hon. Gentleman bother to tell the press that retention of the Scottish Grand Committee was part of the written evidence that the Scottish National party submitted in a memorandum to the Procedures Committee; or did he neglect to mention that?

---