Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20
- 39)
WEDNESDAY 21 JUNE 2000
DR J REID,
MR B WILSON
AND DR
L CLARK, QC
20. I feel I am being told what I am saying
when I have not said that. Could the Secretary of State clarify
the mechanism for allocation of Structural Funds? Does European
Structural Funding go directly to the Scottish Parliament from
Europe or does it go to the UK Treasury and then to the Scottish
Executive as part of the assigned budget? What is the mechanism?
(Dr Reid) If you do not know that after all your years
in Parliament ... The money which goes to the Scottish Executive
to administer within the Scottish Parliament comes from the United
Kingdom block grant.
21. Perhaps you should tell your own Scottish
Parliament Finance Minister, because he does not seem to know
the answer. He gave two separate answers on two separate occasions
saying opposite things.
(Dr Reid) The whole idea of devolution is that the
people who are accountable to the Scottish Parliament speak to
the Scottish Parliament and I have no intention of speaking to
the committees or otherwise in the Scottish Parliament because
I am accountable to this Parliament and I have just given you
the answer. You did not hear the answer.
22. It would be better if you actually clarified
that to your own Scottish Executive Minister.
(Dr Reid) May I just correct you? Mr Welsh does not
seem to know that they are not my Scottish Executive Ministers.
He is a Member of the Scottish Parliament and they are his Scottish
Executive Ministers.
23. I accept that. ... to say to the Scottish
Finance Minister, because this clearly involves UK Treasury and
UK policy. May I say, had you explained it to the Finance Minister
in the Scottish Parliament then he would not have been confused?
Why did both you and the Chancellor of the Exchequer refuse to
give evidence to two major inquiries, to the Finance Committee
and to the European Committee of the Scottish Parliament? If you
had there would be no confusion in the statements made by the
Finance Minister surely?
(Dr Reid) There are two questions. On the first one,
I do not know what was said by the Minister being referred to,
so I am not prepared to take that. I would make a general statement
that if I am being held responsible for every mistaken statement
which occurs in the Scottish Parliament, it is a responsibility
which was not explained to me when I took this job and might have
affected my acceptance of it. So far as the second one is concerned,
which is why I chose on two occasions to feel it was more appropriate
for someone else to address the Scottish Committees, I do not
know whether you are aware of the guidelines. It is all in the
Cabinet Office network, it is in the House of Commons Library,
it has been for a year.
24. May I say to the Secretary of State—
(Dr Reid) May I answer your question, which is what
you want me to do? Are you aware of the guidelines about Ministers'
appearances before Scottish Committees? Are you?
25. Yes.
(Dr Reid) So you will be aware that it says, "If
Ministers are invited to attend in circumstances where they cannot
be required to do so then it is a matter for them as to whether
they attend or not".
26. Certainly and you chose not to attend.
(Dr Reid) Do you accept that? This has been agreed
between the parliaments. You asked me a question and I am going
to go right through the guidelines and tell you why I did not
go to that Committee.
27. If we accept that the Secretary of State
can, because of devolution, not appear before the Scottish committees,
that he will accept that is his decision, may I say that if he
had he might have clarified the problem clearly facing the Finance
Minister and clarified these problems regarding UK policy? I shall
tell you what Mr McConnell said. He said that the money from the
European Commission goes directly to the Scottish Executive and
they pass it on to local problems. He said that on 15 June, but
on 30 May he said that money passed from the European Commission
to the UK Treasury and then to the Scottish Executive, a straight
contradiction. I would suggest to the Secretary of State that
on UK policy if he appeared before those committees he might be
able to clarify those matters on UK policy and statutory duty.
(Dr Reid) I am trying to answer questions and I am
getting a series of assertions. Would you prefer me to answer
the question as to the rules and regulations for Ministers appearing
before committees and how I applied them or do you want to deal
with the matter of the European Structural Funds?
28. Both are connected.
(Dr Reid) May I deal with the first matter then and
make it absolutely plain? These documents are agreed by both parliaments.
They have been published for a considerable amount of time. Some
of the comment I have seen suggest that the people asking the
questions and writing letters have never read them or been aware
of them. "5. If Ministers are invited to attend in circumstances
where they cannot be required to do so then it is a matter for
them as to whether they attend or not". Then in the list
of criteria and considerations we should take into account the
first one says, "Ministers' primary duty of accountability
is to the UK Parliament, which retains sole authority for non-devolved
matters". The third point is that one of the considerations
shall be—and this is highly relevant to the Committee if
you wish to listen rather than laugh.
29. I have seen this tactic before Secretary
of State.
(Dr Reid) I am sorry, I am just reading out documents
which two parliaments agreed and you are a member of both so I
thought you would be aware of them.
30. We are all aware of them and what you are
doing.
(Dr Reid) Let me read it then. One of the considerations
when I was invited to attend the committee investigating European
Structural Funds was "whether the Minister", me, "or
another UK Government representative has recently attended to
give evidence on the same or a closely related topic; or, in the
case of the Scottish Parliament, where a Minister has recently
given, or been invited to give, evidence to a Commons or Lords
Select Committee on the same or a closely related subject".
I was invited to this Committee to do it. I am, under the first
point, under a duty primarily to this Committee and under the
third point of the published and well-known guidelines, invited
to this Committee to discuss this subject or a closely related
subject. We have been discussing today the very subject which
the Scottish committee requested I attend to discuss and that
is precisely on this occasion why I did not go to the committee.
I would have thought that all members of this Committee in particular
would have been well aware of precisely the reasons as laid down
in the guidelines agreed between the two parliaments.
31. We have a straightforward problem of the
Finance Minister saying he cannot speak on UK matters and will
not speak on UK matters and the Minister with UK responsibility
not fulfilling his duty in allowing this committee access to information.
Could I ask the Secretary of State, if he will not appear before
the Scottish Parliament committees, will he give an undertaking
to provide the Scottish Parliament's inquiry with UK documentation
to the Commission on how additionality is fulfilled in the UK?
(Dr Reid) Of course and that is in the guidelines
as well. Under the concordats that information is already shared,
which I should have thought the honourable Gentleman would have
known and under the guidelines ... I can read chapter and verse.
32. Would that go to the inquiry?
(Dr Reid) It is as well to clear it. Since the honourable
Gentleman has been speaking at great length outside this Committee
I should be allowed a couple of minutes just to put him right
on all the facts. Point 5 of the guidelines and considerations
covers this as well. One of the considerations is "whether
the devolved legislature might", that is Scottish Parliament
in this case, "acquire the information by some other means
(evidence may have recently been given to the Westminster Select
Committee", it says here for instance, "on the subject
or if it is seeking mainly factual material might a memorandum
be provided, at least in the first instance)". It goes on
to outline the other methods by which it can be done. In other
words, all of the answers to the questions which the honourable
Gentleman seeks to be making an issue of have been available to
him and everyone else for the past nine months in the House of
Commons Library and, as I understand it, in the Scottish Parliament
and indeed on the net.
33. Can you confirm that Structural Fund expenditure
counts as comparable expenditure in the Barnett Formula?
(Dr Reid) I cannot confirm that off the top of my
head but I shall take advice from behind me. Yes, it is, provided
of course that it is spent on comparable things.
34. That takes us back to earlier arguments
which he has denied.
(Dr Reid) Sorry, which earlier argument did I deny?
35. Regarding ESF and its effect on the Barnett
Formula and future Scottish budgets. Could I say that we now have
a situation where the Secretary of State will not explain UK policy
directly to two major investigations by two Scottish Parliament
committees and where a Scottish Executive Minister says he cannot
explain UK policy. Could I ask you how that fulfils your department's
objectives to "promote links between the Scottish Parliament
and Westminster"?
(Dr Reid) I have read out to you the agreement between
the two parliaments. That is agreed by the two parliaments, at
least by a majority within them. What I will not allow is those
who have never accepted devolution, those who do not support devolution,
those who wish to undermine devolution, attempting to use any
partnership agreements to force either of these parliaments into
a battering ram against the other. I will not allow that to happen.
It is not the wish of the Scottish people. It is the wish of a
minority in the SNP. I will not allow it to happen.
36. I quite agree with you, Secretary of State.
(Dr Reid) Good.
37. There should not be a battering ram between
two parliaments but there should also be contact and you should
explain UK policy to the Scottish committees which are investigating
matters which include UK policy because that is not what has been
happening.
(Dr Reid) You diminish your colleagues round this
table. Most of them are elected representatives of the Scottish
people. This Committee represents the political will of the Scottish
people. This Committee has the power to inquire into reserved
matters. You are a member of this Committee. You could have raised
any of these matters at any time. You could have taken the trouble
to read the guidelines. Do not attempt to split asunder the representatives
of the Scottish people and do not attempt to insinuate that the
people on this Committee are somehow less capable of looking after
reserved affairs than you and your party sitting in Holyrood.
38. Again you are putting words in my mouth.
(Dr Reid) Those are your opinions; they are my words.
39. I in no way denigrate this Committee at
all. I am a member of it, in fact the longest serving member of
it. What I am intent on doing is asking you what use is the Scotland
Office in fostering goodwill with the Scottish Parliament and
supplying information about UK matters which you have not done
to the committees. I do not think that would in any way infringe
your fears about problems, in fact it would help the two parliaments
work together. It is you who are undermining devolution by your
failure to appear properly before Scottish committees on this
UK issue.
(Dr Reid) People can judge. They do not have to look
in the crystal ball, they can read the book. They can look at
the last 25 years and can see whether you or I have supported
devolution and they can look at every statement which is issued
and see whether you or I are fostering partnership between the
two parliaments. People will make their own judgement on that
and I am content that as ever three quarters of the people of
Scotland will decide that those of us who hold my view, which
is that the two parliaments should work in partnership, will be
in the vast majority compared to the minority, who are yours,
who want to see Great Britain broken up and parliaments rent asunder.
Mr Welsh: Once again you have used your office
for party-political propaganda. I am happy to have my record over
the past 26 years in this Parliament on devolution, for which
I voted. You know and I know that I want independence for Scotland,
but I fully supported devolution in that time. Within the Scottish
Parliament I am fully making sure that Parliament works and works
well for the Scottish people. You are lowering the status of your
office in making such accusations which are unfounded as far as
I am concerned.
| 
