---

Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield): I have listened to the hon. Gentleman with fascination. That question has

25 Oct 1999 : Column 770

been put to the Secretary of State for Scotland on repeated occasions, including last Thursday night, but he appears unable to clarify what his role will be.

Dr. Godman: I do not accept that for one moment, and the hon. Gentleman would not expect me to do so. He is being provocative in a parliamentary way.

I am raising a serious issue: will Scottish Members question the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or the Secretary of State for Scotland on these matters? If the Ministry is the lead Department, I want to be treated as an equal when I get to my feet to voice the concerns of my fishermen.

There should be a memorandum of understanding on the relevant constituency roles of Members of this place and Members of the Scottish Parliament. Responsibilities have changed. In response to the question put to my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West, I say that responsibilities have changed dramatically--for instance in health and education, which are now the responsibility of MSPs. However, even in health, a Minister might have an official interest in a health matter where the lead is taken by the Department of Health in Westminster. For example, if a decision is taken to abolish the use of electroconvulsive therapy in the treatment of depression, the Scottish Health Minister may take the lead, and we would have something to say in this place.

I welcome the motion. I agree with the Minister and the hon. Member for Hazel Grove that we cannot have hard and fast rules, but it is important that Ministers respect our interest in matters that fall between reserved and devolved powers.

7.50 pm

Mr. Alasdair Morgan (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale): I want briefly to raise just one matter of interpretation--not nearly as many as the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman). My hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney) raised this issue in the debate last Thursday, and it has been partially alluded to by the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas). The first exception to the rules on questions is that a question can be tabled if it seeks information that the UK Government are empowered to require of the devolved Executive. I accept that that is reasonable in a devolved system--which is not one that I would choose. It is reasonable that if the UK Government are empowered to ask for such information, Members of the House should equally be empowered to ask questions about it.

However, we must consider that rule in conjunction with clause 96 of the Scotland Act 1998. The hon. Member for Clwyd, West referred to the equivalent clause in the Government of Wales Act 1998, which deals with questions that the Treasury can ask of the devolved legislatures. He said that the clause in the Government of Wales Act was fairly broadly drawn, but it is narrowly drawn compared with the clause in the Scotland Act.

The clause in the Government of Wales Act refers to the Treasury asking for information for the purposes of the operation of the Treasury, or some such phrase. Clause 96 in the Scotland Act makes no such stipulation; it simply says:

"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."

25 Oct 1999 : Column 771

Those qualifications are to do with the period or the form in which the information must be provided. There are no qualifications on the subject matter of the information for which the Treasury can ask.

All hon. Members realise, I am sure, that the Treasury is a reasonable Department and would not possibly ask Scottish Ministers to provide information that was not germane to the running of the Treasury. I suspect that that clause enables the Treasury to ask the Scottish Parliament to provide any information that it wants. That drives a coach and horses through these amendments to Standing Orders. If the Treasury can ask the Scottish Parliament to provide any information, Members of the House should be able to ask questions about any information for which the Treasury might ask--not information for which it has asked, but for which theoretically it might ask in the future.

We need clarification of this issue. Will the Minister reassure me? I do not see how he can, because the problem is not with the amendments to Standing Orders, but with clause 96 of the Scotland Act and the equivalent clause in the Government of Wales Act 1998.

The hon. Member for Hazel Grove argued that hon. Members will always find a way round the prescriptions that we are trying to put into Standing Orders. What on earth are we doing here if we know that, whatever we say, a way will be found to get round the amendments? I would rather waste my time doing something else than debating an issue of purely academic interest. I would welcome the Minister's reassurances on this matter.

7.54 pm

The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): I am pleased that colleagues who sat through the long debate on Thursday and did not get an opportunity to speak have recycled their speeches tonight, albeit on narrower points. In a sense, the narrower the point becomes, the more difficult it is to answer. There has been a curious tension in this short debate between those who want greater clarity and certainty and those from the grey camp who appreciate the benefit of this field being wide open so that discussions continue and practice develops. I would be foolish to try to resolve all the issues that have been raised.

We should listen to the voices of those who want greater opportunities rather than those who want greater prescriptiveness. There will clearly need to be a balance, and the Procedure Committee considered that balance carefully. The Committee, in its report, made important strides forward. It acknowledged the need to keep this matter under review. That may be the only point of clarity that we can achieve tonight, but it is an important first stake in the ground.

A second important stake in the ground is the recognition that this is a two-way process. Devolution is still in its infancy, and we must develop appropriate relationships with colleagues, whether at ministerial or Assembly level. As my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) said, we also need to go below that and talk to Members of the Assemblies.

It is incumbent on all of us to set a pattern of good behaviour. It is also important to consider any responses we receive. A good relationship is like a good marriage:

25 Oct 1999 : Column 772

we may have flaming rows, but we stay together and keep discussing matters. The question of who does what and what belongs to each other is in that area. We should allow the process to develop, discuss the issues, and be honest with each other.

A specific question was asked about the effect of the proposed motion on questions to Ministers. All that can be said at this stage is that it provides the basis for the Chair to decide whether a question is in order. It reflects the current rules of the House, modified to take account of devolution. There will always be grey areas. Our whole proceedings contain grey areas, and we are always trying to define responsibility and to find the right answers.

The Chair uses discretion in these matters. It is important that we protect the integrity of the Chair and preserve that discretion. However, ultimately a pattern will develop over a period that will set precedents in the House.

Mr. Grieve: I may be pre-empting the Minister's comments, but, with particular reference to the issue raised by the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman), I noted from the Order Paper that an answer was supposed to be published today--I do not know whether it has been--to a question about the executive functions of the Secretary of State for Scotland. Will the Minister refer to that when he seeks to answer the questions that have been raised?

Mr. Tipping: I can make no reference to that, because I have not seen the answer to the question, but I will make inquiries.

A number of Members asked why the terms of paragraph (b)(ii) of the motion differ slightly from the wording in the Procedure Committee's report. The straight answer is that time overtook us: the report was agreed before the memorandum of understanding and the concordat were published. All matters, whether devolved or not, are in theory covered by the concordat. The original wording would therefore have enabled questions to be asked about all devolved matters, but the revised wording makes it clear that questions can be asked about the mechanics of liaison with the devolved Administrations. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde earlier, the process rather than the outcome is under examination.

My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) and the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Morgan) raised a number of issues relating to innocent financial matters. Would the House still be able to debate expenditure in Scotland and Wales? Again, I feel that this involves a grey area, which will require testing. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) said that the House contained imaginative characters who would find new devices, but I think that it has been acknowledged, essentially, that the block grant will remain the responsibility of the two Secretaries of State. That means that the Estimates will be approved by the House, and that there will be ample opportunities for Members to discuss them. The real debate--the real area of potential disagreement--will, I think, focus on how the money is subsequently distributed, on a different basis. I should like to be able to give a clear answer now, but I think we shall have to work on this.

My hon. Friend also made an important point, which accorded with what he said about having good working relationships with colleagues in different bodies

25 Oct 1999 : Column 773

representing the same area. One point of conflict is likely to be the way in which constituency correspondence is handled. Some hon. Members are smiling. I am aware that this has already given rise to one or two flashpoints, and it is another matter on which we shall need to work, but guidance has already been issued to Departments.

The general expectation is that constituency correspondence on non-devolved matters should be routed through a Westminster Member of Parliament, and that letters about devolved matters should be dealt with through a Member of the devolved legislature. If a Member of the devolved legislature writes to a United Kingdom Minister about a non-devolved matter, a substantive reply will, I think, be sent. I do not think that there is any belief that a substantive reply will have to be sent, but the advice in the letter from Ministers suggests that in future the constituent who has raised an issue relating to a reserved matter ought to raise it through a Westminster Member of Parliament. That will require a good deal of give and take. There will be difficulties, but if we are determined to make the process work it is incumbent on us all to do our best.

---