Examination of witness
(Questions 240 - 259)
TUESDAY 2 MARCH 1999
THE RT
HON MARGARET
BECKETT, MP
Chairman
240. May I press you on that because to
an extent that is the West Lothian Question, is it not? Do you
think it is fair that matters relating to England under the new
dispensation might well be decided on the votes of members of
the UK Parliament elected from areas outside England? I know that
you could say that has happened in the past in respect of Scotland,
but we have sort of remedied that by devolution to a Scottish
Parliament and the Assemblies in Wales and Northern Ireland. Do
you think that we should perpetuate that position in respect of
England?
(Margaret Beckett) As is so often the case in
matters as complex as this, it is a matter of balance and you
may wish to see it as a sort of choice of two evils. There are
members who feel this is a question which ought to be considered
and reflected on and whether changes should be made? If you did
seek to change then you would incur the alternative evil which
is the notion of having members with a different role, different
responsibilities, different rights in this Parliament. To my mind
that is even less desirable.
241. Acting as Devil's Advocate, is that
not one of the problems resulting from the way that devolution
has been handled, some people might say from the rush in seeking
to implement devolution proposals too quickly? The second question
to you from me in this particular area is: do you not think it
might be seen to be better for the United Kingdom if the numbers
of MPs from Scotland were reduced rather faster than is the current
Government's intention, when, I think, current numbers will remain
until, is it, 2010?
(Margaret Beckett) We are of the opinion that
it is a little earlier; the Boundary Commission will report between
2002 and 2006.
242. I am open to correction but the fact
that the balance of MPs in respect of England, Wales and Scotland
is as it is because of the distances from London. Scotland has
benefited in having a greater number of MPs than is the case in
England. Do you think that might go some way to remedying what
some people may perceive to be an injustice?
(Margaret Beckett) My understanding is that this
change is to take place on what will quite soon be seen as a relatively
short period of time — 2003 to 2006 is not so very far away.
243. Is it 2002?
(Margaret Beckett) Something of that order rather
than 2010.[1]
First, I doubt very much whether those members, and of course
it is not a universal view, who strongly believe in devolution
and in the devolution of power ... I suspect they would quarrel
with the description of it as a rush and they would argue that
they have been pursuing this for a very long time indeed and throughout
that period this balance on the issue you raise has continually
been discussed. I think I am right in saying that both when your
own party favoured devolution rather more than it has done in
recent years and indeed in our party, in the end, no matter how
much people have thought about it and chewed over these issues,
they have come to the conclusion of leaving it alone.
244. Since you sent the memorandum in, for
which we are very grateful, have you developed any more views
on whether or not there should be select committees in the future
or are you leaving it to this Committee to give you advice.
(Margaret Beckett) The principal conclusion to
which I have come, reading the different evidence you have had,
is that I am profoundly thankful that the Government decided that
evolution was best and decided not to jump one way or the other
since clearly there are such very strong but such very different
views among those who have given evidence.
245. I know I anticipate your answer as
yes, but will you be taking the proposals and recommendations
of this Committee seriously when in fact we finally produce our
report? As you see, we are very much all-party although sadly
at this moment no members of the Liberal Democrat Party are present.
Will you deal with the report as quickly as possible?
(Margaret Beckett) We shall certainly take it
seriously. This is an issue on which the Committee has taken a
good deal of evidence and to which you have given a good deal
of thought and obviously it depends a bit how sweeping your recommendations
are, how fast it would be possible to move. Certainly we will
obviously give very serious thought and very great weight to what
the Committee says.
Mr Syms
246. Is there not a danger with what has
happened, certainly with Wales and Scotland, that we are going
to be rather "over-politicianed" with various tiers
and that if we take an evolutionary approach we allow the grand
committees to meet, the select committees to continue, the role
of Secretary of State, which I know is a role determined by the
Prime Minister, to continue but actually accountability is going
to be muddied. Would it not be a more honest view of the Government,
the logic of devolution, to chop all these committees and get
rid of the Secretaries of State, which are now virtually non-jobs,
and give devolution a free run? I think there is going to be a
real danger that people are going to be very confused by where
responsibility and accountability actually lies.
(Margaret Beckett) We are all very conscious —
and I know this was reflected in some of the evidence given to
you — that most members of the public have better things
to do with their time than worry about to whom exactly they should
go about any particular problem they wish to have resolved. That
is both understandable and indeed probably right. It is a mixture,
is it not? I can perfectly well see that for the sake of administrative
tidiness, shall we say, one might make proposals to make speedy
and abrupt changes to the way in which our committee structure
presently works. However, we might be in danger of creating problems
rather than resolving them. I thought the evidence you had from
Mrs Michie was most interesting. She indicated that she saw, I
think I am right in saying, no role for the committees, no role
for the Secretary of State, and said en passant that there
are 22 pages of powers but so what. I paraphrase, needless to
say, since she spoke with much more elegance than that. I found
that a somewhat surprising view and I thought that it might well
be that if such drastic action were taken speedily it might be
regretted and there is nothing worse than having to go back and
set something up again because you perceive that you have overlooked
one of the implications of making a very speedy change. I think
in general terms it has always been my view and my experience
in this House that we do work most effectively and members work
best with the grain of things when we proceed in a relatively
evolutionary fashion, when we proceed by experiment. I suspect
that what we may find is that a number of these things will wither
on the vine. Every member of parliament has far more to do than
any human being can actually do and far more pressures on their
time than they can readily accommodate. Everybody is only too
pleased to find some things they do not need to do. I think we
will find people in effect voting with their feet and then we
might be able to make changes which go with the grain of how things
are developing.
Mr Efford
247. There are many demands on the time
of the House and you have indicated that there is no realistic
prospect of increasing the amount of time available to discuss
select committee reports. Could you indicate the value there is
in discussing those reports balanced against the other demands
made on the time of the House and also how you envisage using
the additional time made available by devolution perhaps?
(Margaret Beckett) I would say two things in response
to that. First of all, I do not think any of us disputes that
there are many useful select committee reports which it would
be genuinely beneficial to discuss, but there simply has never,
under any Government, been enough time to do all of these things.
However, there is one issue which is being discussed presently
in the Modernisation Committee which may come forward with a proposal
for an experiment to set up a new body analogous to what is in
Australia called the "Main Committee" — though
nobody likes that title here and the one which I find most attractive
is perhaps the "Principal Committee". One of the issues
that the Modernisation Committee on a cross-party basis has identified
as something we should like to see addressed, irrespective —
not everybody wants to address it through this mechanism —
but one issue which everybody recognises is a problem and wishes
to see addressed is that there is not enough parliamentary time
at present for doing some of the things like debating select committee
reports and not enough opportunity for members to contribute to
such debates to the degree they would wish to do. We are looking
at whether or not this is a way of tackling some of those problems.
You asked me a second question, not just generally about the value
of debating.
248. Also the additional time which may
be available on the floor of the House because of devolution.
(Margaret Beckett) The devolution dividend; indeed.
I have some slight scepticism about how speedy the devolution
dividend is going to become apparent. When you came in the Chairman
and I were exchanging some thoughts about the ingenuity of our
colleagues in finding ways of raising issues that they wish to
raise. I suspect that certainly while we have members who are
used to our existing procedures and roles, we are likely to find
that any devolution dividend, and no doubt there could be some,
will not be enormous at the outset. It is one of the reasons why
the Government is suggesting an evolutionary approach. This will
change over time. Initially I suspect it will not be as abrupt
as some people think.
Chairman
249. May I just put a question to you on
the issues which this House might still tackle although basic
responsibility has been handed over to the Scottish Parliament.
If a member of the United Kingdom Parliament from Scotland wished
to raise the matter of the funding of a local hospital and particular
specialties in that hospital, who would decide whether or not
that was a relevant debate? Would it be Madam Speaker or would
it be the Secretary of State for Scotland?
(Margaret Beckett) It would depend on the forum
to some degree.
250. The forum would be the floor of the
House of Commons for an adjournment debate on, say, the availability
of heart transplant surgery in a particular leading hospital in
Scotland.
(Margaret Beckett) We go back directly to the
issue of ingenuity of colleagues. It would depend on how the issue
were couched. It may very well be that one could find examples
which it was simply not possible to couch in such a way that one
would readily be able to raise it on the floor of the House. I
suspect there will be, as I indicated earlier, a number of grey
areas. I am reluctant to get drawn into the precise boundaries
of the settlement and the judgements which might be made; indeed
that will, happily for me, be a matter for the chair.
251. Do you not think that you are placing
the chair in some difficulty?
(Margaret Beckett) I have every confidence in
the capacity of the excellent people who chair our committees
in the House.
252. What I am saying is that it may well
be, for you might take an adjournment debate on a Wednesday morning
as the current situation is, or even a late night debate, that
the actual subject might just appear to be within order and within
the responsibilities of, shall we say, the Secretary of State
for the Scottish Office, but when the debate is actually under
way it may well become apparent that matters relating to that
debate are really entirely out of order and the Secretary of State,
or whoever is replying to that debate, no longer has responsibility
for it. Whilst asking that question and hopefully giving you time
to consider a response, do you feel there are any grounds for
reducing the time currently allocated to Scottish Questions? All
these matters will have to be considered by this Committee before
we actually produce our report.
(Margaret Beckett) As with all of these things
it is going to be a slightly delicate balance. The Table Office
no doubt will have things to say when motions are tabled, the
chair will have an eye to these things, ministers will be advised
if they stray into such and such a territory they will be outwith
their responsibilities, it will be the responsibility of the devolved
bodies, and people will just have to adjust and learn to cope
with those things. No doubt there will be local relationships
where people will be able to see things raised in other ways,
the informal meetings that we were talking about earlier on may
be ways of clearing some of those boundaries and getting agreement
about where the balance of these issues might fall. I do think
it is rather a "suck it and see" process on which we
are engaged and on which I suspect we shall continue to be engaged.
With regard to Question Time as such, we have sought the views
of the Committee. I stress again that of course the settlement
is somewhat different for the different devolved bodies but, particularly
with Scottish Question Time being now 40 minutes and with that
particular measure of devolution, the question does arise as to
whether or not there will be a proposal for some change. We may
well see that reflected in the balance.
253. Would you not agree that Wales has
half an hour and Northern Ireland only half an hour because both
Question Times fall on a Wednesday, if my memory serves me correctly.
Of course Westminster actually has more responsibility in respect
of both Northern Ireland and Wales than it does for Scotland and
Scotland has 40 minutes. While I am not, as it were, trying to
force you into a corner or put you into too difficult a spot,
you would accept that this may well create some problem and Welsh
and Northern Irish MPs might consider that they deserve more time
or that Scotland deserves less time.
(Margaret Beckett) Indeed we do recognise that
this issue is bound to be a feature of a discussion in the aftermath
of the devolution settlement and that is why we did specifically
seek the views of the Committee as to what you as a Committee
feel might be the right balance in the future.
254. Your own memorandum made some suggestion
on this matter. I think it is 15 minutes or something like that.
(Margaret Beckett) I do not think we actually
put numbers in my memorandum. I think some of your other witnesses,
those who thought Question Time should remain at all and they
should not all be swept away along with the Secretary of State
and all the committees, made some suggestion of 15 minutes.
Chairman: We have received evidence
from Members of this Parliament, although coming from those areas
to which devolved government is being given, who think that virtually
everything should be swept away here and that they should be entirely
responsible for their own affairs except of course the granting
of the block grant and matters relating to defence and foreign
affairs.
Mr Darvill
255. The bit concerning me is this question
of questions and adjournment debates on particular issues. We
have to form a view fairly soon it seems to me as to how far members
in this House can raise those issues. You get an example, following
the example made by the Chair, that a particular local issue is
raised and the answer may come from the Minister or Secretary
of State who is replying, that really this is a matter for the
Scottish Parliament for example. Surely members will want to know
fairly soon how far they can go. I appreciate your point about
ingenuity but the executive could use that to oppose Members of
Parliament pursuing particular questioning.
(Margaret Beckett) It is a difficult area. There
will always be implications of the overall health policy pursued
by the Government here in Scotland or Wales or Northern Ireland
and that is bound to be an area which members here will wish to
explore. I think it is hard to draw hard and fast lines in principle
as to where that boundary might lie. It will be something which
will evolve over time in practice. Members will begin to say actually
that is not really a matter for Westminster. That has been debated
and thrashed out and this decision has been made in the Scottish
Parliament. That will then be reflected here, I suspect.
256. I can understand the evolutionary argument
because to a certain extent I agree with it. I can see in the
early stages certainly a whole series of conflicts.
(Margaret Beckett) Hopefully not conflicts but
certainly areas where things are not quite clear and that is partly
why I am cautious about the early devolution dividend because
it is something that may lead to issues continuing to be discussed
here more at the outset than they will be later.
257. In relation to Welsh affairs, it could
be the opposite in the early days because whenever Parliament
was discussing matters which relate to Wales there will be the
issue of whether further powers should be devolved or what sort
of powers the Assembly will have. In certain respects there is
a new dimension to Welsh affairs which could create more time,
certainly in the early stages, whereas with the Scottish example,
the powers have already devolved and there might well be a dividend
in the early days.
(Margaret Beckett) That also reinforces my other
concern that things will develop differently with relation to
the different devolved bodies and we have to leave space for that.
Mr Efford
258. There seems to be an assumption in
the questions about the length of Question Times that they are
adequate already. I wonder whether you have ever had a complaint
which suggests they are perhaps not adequate. If they were kept
as they were, for instance, it might allow adequate time to deal
with the issues in relation to Wales and Scotland.
(Margaret Beckett) Certainly one of the issues
that the Modernisation Committee has discussed to a degree is
both whether one might have some kind of question-type exchange
in a Principal Committee, but also whether that could be a more
sustained exchange, more along the lines of a short adjournment
debate rather than the quickfire of our normal Question Time in
the Chamber. I think you are right that there are many members
who feel that the opportunity for a really sustained exchange
on an issue which they wish to question is not as great as they
would now wish, but that is an issue which the Modernisation Committee
is giving some thought to and on which we may, if we agree, come
back with proposals to the House.
Mr Gardiner
259. May I pursue something which the Leader
of the House said earlier and that was about being reluctant to
see any system whereby there were distinctions in status between
Members of this Parliament? Pursuing the example we have had of
local health care and so on, which fall to the Scottish Parliament
and the issue of perhaps taking up specifically a constituent's
case, then we are all familiar with scenarios with local government
where we have no direct executive authority, but we are written
to as MPs about the dreadful way in which the parking regulations
are enforced or whatever it happens to be and you will write and
make representations on behalf of the constituent to the local
authority. Do you not feel that there is a difference in that
here is an area of policy for which this House will have UK-wide
responsibility and yet on which a Member of this Parliament will
no longer have a representative function in the direct effect
which the policy which is set here, the UK-wide policy which is
set here, affects his or her constituent. Is that not actually
to mean that there is a very real difference in the representative
function of Members of the House of Commons?
(Margaret Beckett) It is not an easy question
to address. If I think about the sort of role you are identifying
in the direct representation of a constituent, you say quite rightly
there is something of an analogy, although I know some people
argue not a perfect analogy, with the role vis-a-vis a
local authority where we have no direct responsibility. I am sure
we all have the same experience of being requested and indeed
agreeing to take up matters with all sorts of bodies with which
we have no links of accountability whatsoever, people's banks,
lawyers, all kinds of things. We have a mixed role, do we not?
There is the role for which this place exists of the scrutiny
of Government and the scrutiny of legislation and so on and there
is also the representative role which increases in what people
hope and expect we may take an interest in with every year that
goes by. Yes, of course it is a change in degree. I would have
to think more fully about it before I am absolutely confident
to what extent it is a change in kind.
1 Note by witness: the earliest year in which
a UK General Election could involve a reduced number of Scottish
MPs at Westminster is 2004. Back
|
