| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Wigley: It is clearly incumbent on us to do our best, but I think it unfair to expect constituents to know exactly where the demarcation lies. That applies particularly in Wales, where the legislative function may lie in Westminster while the Executive and secondary legislative function may lie in Cardiff. That must be a matter of give and take between members.
Mr. Tipping: That is a strong point. It must be recognised that, while we struggle with the issues here, constituents may have greater problems in resolving them. I have always believed that we are not the fount of all wisdom: occasionally we get things wrong, and a good deal of common sense exists among the electorate. I agree that we shall have to work at it, and that there will have to be a good deal of give and take.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield): If a United Kingdom Department received a letter from, say, a Member of the Scottish Parliament about a reserved matter, would there be any objection to a substantive reply being sent to the MSP, but a copy being sent automatically to the Member of the United Kingdom Parliament representing the area in which the MSP had his or her constituency?
Mr. Tipping: There might be a good deal of sense in that, but I feel that we must respect confidentiality. Although in principle I would like to support that idea, I think that it involves clear issues of confidentiality and respect. I hope that, as we all become more accustomed to the procedures, we shall make further progress.
Dr. Godman: I do not think that we have publicised sufficiently the responsibilities of MSPs and MPs in Scotland. Constituents, especially elderly constituents, may be confused. I am currently dealing with a health case involving a constituent, who has told me that she has no desire to consult the local MSP. There are four MSPs
in my area, so it is a complicated matter, and I think that better publicity would help constituents to knock on the right door.
Mr. Tipping: One answer might be to consult the guidance note that will shortly be placed in the Library. It will set out as clearly as possible the division between reserved and devolved matters under devolution legislation. I know that many of my colleagues use the Library research papers as a way of informing members of the general public. I accept, however, that much work remains to be done.
The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) asked for a definition of official duties and official interests, and I should like to be able to give him a clear example. Let me attempt to explain how I think the system will work.
It seems to me that if Ministers of the Crown are taking an interest in various items and are going around the country making statements and speeches and, in a sense, trying to influence policy-making, Back Benchers will notice that. I feel that such Ministers would be showing an "official interest". Again, this is a grey area, but technically they should not be going beyond their ministerial responsibilities. If they are unwise enough to speak out of turn and take an official interest in matters that are not technically their preserve in terms of a reserved-devolved list, I do not think that it would be unreasonable for Back-Bench Members to use their wits, and the resources of the Table Office, to question them. As I have said, however, it is a grey area, and one to which I am sure we shall return.
That brings me back to where I started, and to where the Procedure Committee left off. These are difficult issues. As I said at the outset, this is not the first occasion on which we have discussed devolution, and I am sure that it will not be the last. Many Members on both sides of the House have anxieties. They appreciate and can identify the conflicts. We need to be honest with each other and to admit that there are difficulties and conflicts. However, we have decided on the current route and we should all use our best endeavours to make the system work.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
Motion made, and Question proposed,
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst):
With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield):
I agree with the motion as far as it goes. I put down one marker: the Procedure Committee felt that the role of the Scottish, Welsh and, I hope, in due course, Northern Ireland territorial Select Committees should go further than the current Standing Order, or even the amendment to the Standing Order. It appears to the Procedure Committee that the work of the territorial Committees for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will be unnecessarily limited if they cannot go further in inquiring into matters that will have a major UK impact on Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The Secretary of State for Scotland, who I am delighted to see in his place, at one stage had responsibility for transport. One can imagine matters relating to transport having a major impact on Scotland. Therefore, the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs might want to take evidence from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. It was the Procedure Committee's view that, if we were to have excellent co-operation between the devolved areas of the UK and the UK Parliament, the territorial Select Committees, which we recommended should remain, should no longer fall under the current Standing Order, but be able to take a broader perspective.
The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman)--I am glad that I have got the constituency right; it is an important constituency in Scotland--raised a matter relating to agriculture. Clearly, in that instance, it would be important for the Scottish Affairs Committee to be able to take evidence from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I have already referred to transport.
Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Inverclyde):
Some months ago, during the passage of the Scotland Bill through this place, I questioned the advisability of retaining the Select Committees on Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland and, indeed, the Grand Committees, once the two Assemblies and the Scottish Parliament were up and running and had developed institutions and procedures of their own, but I acknowledge the good sense of what the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) has said. If the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food comes back to the House from the annual negotiations in Brussels concerning total allowable catches and quotas, it might be useful for him or her to be questioned on behalf of Scottish fishing communities by the Select Committee.
I am doing a headstand, but I believe that, in the long run, the Committees should go. We should devise other means of cross-examining Ministers and of carrying out our work on behalf of our constituents--I am talking about Scotland, of course.
The recommendation in paragraph 21 of the Procedure Committee report has been honourably adopted by the Government. The recommendation is that
Perhaps in the short run the policy makes sense, especially in light of what I said earlier about the need for Scots Members of the UK Parliament to liaise and to develop relations with Members of the Scottish Parliament. It appears that the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs will act as some kind of liaison committee with Committees in the Scottish Parliament. I wonder--the Minister will have to write to me, of course--whether discussions have taken place with the Executive in the Scottish Parliament concerning a similar Committee being set up in that Parliament to negotiate with the Scottish Affairs Committee in its role as a liaison committee.
I remind the Minister that several Committees in the Scottish Parliament are concerned with the functions that are the responsibility of the First Minister and his Executive. Therefore, I should like to know whether there is a likelihood of a liaison committee being set up in the Assemblies, particularly the Scottish Parliament, so that the relevant two Committees can get together to deal with matters that appear to be reserved, yet are devolved in some respects.
I am sorry to come back to the fishing industry, but it is an important matter. In relation to Brussels, it will be dealt with by a concordat, presumably. I am glad to accept that, but it seems that issues may be raised within both the Scottish Parliament and UK Parliament, involving the Secretary of State for Scotland in the latter case, of course, where we need to liaise closely with our colleagues in Edinburgh.
I should like to know what discussions have taken place with the body in Edinburgh concerning the important matter of maintaining good relations with the Scottish Parliament. It is not a bad idea for the Scottish Affairs Committee to perform that function in the short and medium term. That important aspect of the Select Committee's modus operandi might be overtaken in time with the setting up of a council of the isles, where matters of mutual interest will be debated by representatives of all the Assemblies and Parliaments. Until that comes along, despite my view of the Scottish Affairs Committee and Scottish Grand Committee, we will, as the Minister rightly said, inevitably have to review such matters, perhaps annually. Perhaps the Standing Order will have to be amended again in a year, when our Scottish Parliament will be a year older and, I suspect, our colleagues in that Parliament will--vis-a-vis the United Kingdom Parliament--be even more jealous of their powers.
That, subject always to the discretion of the Chair, and in addition to the established rules of order on the form and content of questions, questions may not be tabled on matters for which responsibility has been devolved by legislation to the Scottish Parliament or the National Assembly for Wales unless the question:
(a) seeks information which the UK Government is empowered to require of the devolved executive, or
(b) relates to matters which:
(i) are included in legislative proposals introduced or to be introduced in the UK Parliament,
(ii) are concerned with the operation of a concordat or other instrument of liaison between the UK Government and the devolved executive, or
(iii) UK Government ministers have taken an official interest in, or
(c) presses for action by UK ministers in areas in which they retain administrative powers.
That Standing Order No. 151 (Statutory Instruments (Joint Committee)) be amended as follows:
In line 22, to leave out the words "and not required to be laid before or to be subject to proceedings in this House only" and insert the words "and not within paragraph (10) of this order"
In line 23, at the end, to insert the words "any statutory instrument made by a member of the Scottish Executive or by the National Assembly for Wales unless it is required to be laid before Parliament or either House of Parliament and not including"--[Mr. Tipping.]
That Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended as follows:
In item 12 of the table, to leave out the words in column 2 and insert the words "Scotland Office (including(i) relations with the Scottish Parliament and (ii) administration and expenditure of the offices of the Advocate General for Scotland (but excluding individual cases and advice given within government by the Advocate General))"; and
In item 16 of the table, in column 2, after "Welsh Office" add the words "(Office of the Secretary of State for Wales (including relations with the National Assembly for Wales))"
8.10 pm
"such Committees liaise with colleagues in the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly".
The motion says:
"In item 12 of the table, to leave out the words in column 2 and insert the words 'Scotland Office'"--
I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is here--
"'(including (i) relations with the Scottish Parliament'".
Let us look at what is being deleted in terms of the examination of the Scottish Office, the administration of and expenditure by the Advocate General's Department and the policy functions that are discharged by the Advocate General.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |