Examination of witness
(Questions 228 - 239)
TUESDAY 2 MARCH 1999
THE RT
HON MARGARET
BECKETT, MP
Chairman
228. The Committee is delighted to welcome
the Right Honourable Margaret Beckett, President of the Council
and Leader of the House to give evidence to us today on our inquiry
into the consequences of devolution on the United Kingdom Parliament.
Mrs Beckett, may I warmly welcome you here today. I am sure that
the answers which you will give to our questions will be very
helpful to all members of the Committee in the important inquiry
which we are undertaking. May I first of all apologise for the
limited number of members of the Procedure Committee who are here
today. I am rather pleased actually that I can say that to you
because I hope that through the influence which you can exercise
you might help us to get better attendances at our meetings. The
demand upon members and the other responsibilities which they
have do from time to time make it very difficult for us to achieve
a quorum and to show proper courtesy to those people who come
to give evidence to this Committee. I am myself concerned and
have personally made representations both to the Government's
whips' office and to the Opposition's whips' office because of
the problems that this is creating for us and also the lack of
courtesy as a result which we appear from time to time to show
to those valuable witnesses who come before us. Having said that,
may I also thank you for the paper which the Government has submitted
on the consequences of devolution for the Westminster Parliament
and open up from the Chair with the first question. You say you
believe that although some procedural change here at Westminster
may become necessary, this should evolve — and I use the
words which you used in your memorandum — in the light of
experience. Nonetheless, do you think that there are any general
principles which should guide the House in its dealing with devolved
matters?
(Margaret Beckett) May I first thank you very
much for your kind remarks in introduction. May I just venture
to say that although I do understand and respect your concern
not to show discourtesy to your witnesses, it may be that perhaps
they are relieved at having fewer questioners on occasion. May
I take up the point which you make? In so far as I would identify
general principles it would merely be that we all seek, in our
various ways, in the devolved bodies and here, to observe the
courtesies, to respect the devolution settlement, to try to show
understanding towards the different roles and to treat each other
with the proper degree of respect which one would hope and anticipate
will be there from the outset. Other than that, obviously there
are, as I have indicated in the memorandum, likely changes which
may flow from fairly early on, changes in the pattern of tabling
of questions and things of that kind. We have encouraged Ministers,
as you know, to begin to reflect that as early as they can. Other
than that, I think that most of the concerns which I suspect will
appear over the years can be addressed in an evolutionary manner
and building on experience.
229. Moving on slightly to be a little more
specific, given that the new Scottish Parliament and the Assemblies
in both Wales and Northern Ireland are to be allowed to debate
whatever they wish, will it be possible, in your view as Leader
of the House, to restrict debate in the United Kingdom Parliament?
I refer of course particularly to debates which may well be wanted
by United Kingdom Members of Parliament from Scotland, Wales and
Northern Ireland.
(Margaret Beckett) I have the utmost respect for
the ingenuity of our colleagues and I strongly suspect that, with
all proper regard for courtesy and for understanding and respecting
the boundaries of what is properly the responsibility of devolved
bodies, one way or another members will find ways to air issues
which they wish to air.
230. As a member of the Chairmen's Panel,
as well as being Chairman of the Procedure Committee to which
you are giving evidence this afternoon, how would you advise,
as Leader of the House, that is if you feel it appropriate to
do so, the Speaker of the House or a chairman of a committee to
deal with matters which may well be raised by members which are
not any longer the responsibility of this House of Commons as
the United Kingdom Parliament?
(Margaret Beckett) I would not venture to give
advice either to Madam Speaker or indeed to experienced committee
chairs. I think we all have experience of chairs who remind colleagues
of the conventions, remind them of what is required to be in order
but nevertheless people seem to manage on the whole most of the
time to stay in order and to find ways. It is not for me to suggest
what particular tactics people might adopt but I do very strongly
suspect on the basis of my experience in this place that they
will find ways of airing the particular concerns they have and
staying in order while they are doing it.
Chairman: Clearly the amount of time
spent on Scottish Questions, whether or not there will be a role
for the Scottish Grand Committee or for that matter for the Scottish
Affairs Select Committee are all questions on which we shall want
to get answers from you this afternoon. They are very relevant
and of course members of this House, depending on their political
position, but even within the same political party, feel very
strongly on these matters that poor old England may well lose
out. I merely say that because I am going to give a flavour of
the sort of questions that may well come out in the course of
this session.
Mr Gardiner
231. Your memo talks quite a bit of the
cooperation you would like to see developing between the houses.
On the whole it is talking about informal links, informal cooperation.
Do you see any potential for more formal links, for example a
joint committee made up of a committee of this House and a committee
from a devolved legislature, something like that?
(Margaret Beckett) I was not in any sense suggesting
that this might not happen. It was more a feeling that the kind
of cooperation and the kind of relationships we would all wish
to see develop may be more likely to develop through informal
links at the earliest stages. They may then result in a move towards
more formalised structure, but I rather suspect that we'll get
a better atmosphere and relationship if people are making their
own arrangements to meet and to discuss as they feel the need,
rather than fitting into some structure which rather requires
them to meet and requires them to meet within a particular structure
and in some way fetters the nature of the relationship. People
tend not to go to meetings or not to want to engage in the same
way in things when they are compelled to go to them as opposed
to it being something they actually have chosen to do themselves
because the right kind of issues come up or for some reason there
are concerns they want to raise.
232. May I go on to look a bit more closely
at the grand committees? You said that there would be a continuing
need for the Scottish, the Welsh, the Northern Irish business
to be taken in grand committees. Could you perhaps give us some
idea of what sort of business you envisage the grand committees
might take?
(Margaret Beckett) I am assuming that we are adopting
the general convention that the grand committee broadly speaking
is the place for debate and the select committee is the place
for inquiry. On that basis, it seemed to me that it may well be
that the grand committee might look, for example, at the generality
of the block grant. I have observed that the role and the experience
of the different grand committees is not identical as has emerged
very clearly from the evidence given to you and indeed there are
clearly very strong differences of view among members even in
the same party about the usefulness of these structures and how
they might continue, which I must admit does somewhat reassure
me that perhaps we were wise in not rushing to be prescriptive
because clearly there are very strong differences of view.
Mr Darvill
233. Still on grand committees and the block
grant, you say that block grants made to the devolved administrations
might be debated in the grand committees. Do you intend that such
debates should consider the expenditure plans of the devolved
executives, or merely the size a calculation of the block grant?
(Margaret Beckett) My expectation would be that any detailed
scrutiny would be a matter for the devolved bodies but that it
is at this end, so to speak, that we are looking at the release
of the block grant. I would have thought it was that kind of balance.
I suspect there are bound to be grey areas and those will differ
from one grand committee and one devolved body to another.
234. If the size
of the block grant is to be the subject of debate, surely this
is a matter for the UK Parliament as a whole?
(Margaret Beckett) Certainly the issue of the
overall distribution of resources is obviously and very clearly
a matter for the UK Parliament.
235. May I go to the proposals concerning
select committees on Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish affairs?
Should they be amended to confine them to the responsibilities
of the Secretary of State and to liaison with the devolved legislatures?
(Margaret Beckett) That is obviously something
we should consider; it may be something on which this Committee
would want to advise. Broadly speaking the remit of the select
committee is indeed to shadow the department to which that committee
relates. I would imagine there would be a kind of natural development
of the way in which the committee works alongside the different
departments. There are likely to be differences there because
there are differences between the devolved bodies.
236. Do you think it would be useful to
give the committees power to look at the operation of reserved
matters in the country?
(Margaret Beckett) It does not seem to me that
they necessarily need to be given the power. I know there are
differences of view, I think I am right in saying, among those
who have given evidence to your Committee too about this matter.
It does not seem to me that you are likely to wish to say for
example to a continuing Scottish Affairs Select Committee, that
they will not discuss some reserved matter because it is a matter
for another departmental select committee. I do not think one
would necessarily say that. There may be specifically Scottish
aspects of policy on which they might wish to focus and which
might be properly within their remit. All of these things are
a matter of judgement, they are matters where there may be a legitimate
interest in more than one body.
237. Generally I think your theme is flexibility
as we go through this.
(Margaret Beckett) Absolutely.
Mr Burgon
238. You suggested in a memorandum to the
Modernisation Committee that the Regional Affairs Committee should
be reconstituted. What advantages does the Government see in a
Regional Affairs Committee rather than an English Grand Committee?
(Margaret Beckett) It is a mixture of things.
One of the advantages which I saw was that the Standing Order
exists and there is a precedent and there is some understanding
of the role that such a committee might have without it having
to be set up from scratch, even though I did propose to the Modernisation
Committee some changes from the way in which it worked previously.
So it is there. Also, it is partly that even before I saw some
of the evidence to this Committee, there is clearly a question
at least as to how the grand committees which presently exist
will evolve. There is even a question in some people's minds whether
they should continue at all. I do not think any Government or
indeed the House would wish to set up a new regional grand or
standing committee only to find that before you could turn round
almost all people were saying that grand committees are no longer
a good idea, let's not do it this way, let's do something different.
It was a mixture of those concerns and a very real feeling that
it is right, it would be right for the House to give careful thought
to whether there is a way in which we could give a greater voice
to members from the English regions in a variety of ways than
we presently do.
239. United Kingdom matters should presumably
be the responsibility of all members of the United Kingdom Parliament.
There will be some matters, including legislation, which will
affect England and Wales, or even England alone, for which the
Scottish Parliament is responsible in Scotland. There may be primary
legislation affecting Wales alone. Do you think there should be
some restrictions on the ability of, say, Scottish members to
vote on matters solely affecting England or Wales?
(Margaret Beckett) I would myself never be attracted
to something which gives a different status to different members
in this House. We are all members here, we are all elected on
the same basis and must have the same roles and freedoms. That
would be my view.
|
