APPENDIX 22
Memorandum from the Scottish National
Party
THE SNP POSITION
The SNP's aim is to achieve Independence for
Scotland. Once achieved there would be no locus for the party,
or indeed a Scottish Parliament, to take a view on the internal
domestic constitutional arrangements of what then would be another
independent state.
However, as long as the union exists and Westminster
houses hold power over Scotland's legislature the SNP may take
the opportunity as in this case to comment and respond to reform
for the House of Commons.
With these two points in mind, the Scottish
National Party welcomes the opportunity to comment on the memorandum
prepared by the Leader of the House.
The SNP believes that reform of the House of
Commons is long overdue. We believe that the structure and working
practices of the House of Commons are antiquated, and much work
needs to be done.
The turnout in the General Election held in
June 2001 was 59.4 per cent, the lowest since 1918. We do not
accept arguments put forward by the Government at that time that
this was due to the "politics of contentment"[3],
but that the electorate feel increasingly alienated by the political
process[4].
At a time when public confidence in Parliament as a whole, and
the House of Commons in particular, is at a low ebb, it is vital
that reform is embraced so that public confidence can be restored.
In particular, we agree with the Memorandum
that
"a number of these proposals will affect
the working of the second chamber".
With this point in mind, we believe that the
reform of both houses of parliament should be considered together.
This would allow for a greater degree of joined-up thinking when
examining what the most effective parliamentary system would be.
The Scottish National Party's position is that
an independent Scotland will build on the success of the system
of the Scottish Parliament, where a strong committee structure
renders a second chamber unnecessary. Such a structure would also
improve the parliamentary system at Westminster.
Within the current system the Government cannot
be held sufficiently to account and the role of MPs in influencing
the passage of legislation is far too restrictive.
The SNP believe that the committee system in
the House of Commons should be strengthened and modelled on the
Scottish Parliament's, whereby members can call the Executive
to account and scrutinise government proposals. This can take
place both at the pre-legislative stage and as Bills proceed through
parliament, while members also have the right to initiate legislation
autonomously or though parliamentary committees. Such committees
must, however, also reflect the position in the Scottish Parliament
where there is balanced representation among all political parties.
In this respect, the Scottish Parliament's structure
sets a good example of an effective unicameral system. The cross-party
Consultative Steering Group agreed the Scottish Parliament's committee
structure over a period of 18 months prior to the first election
in May 1999. Their proposals led to the establishment of two types
of powerful committees: Mandatory and Subject.
Subject Committees may consider and report on
the policy and administration of the Scottish Executive, and conduct
inquiries into matters that Parliament may require. They may scrutinise
primary and secondary legislation and proposed European Union
legislation. One major difference between committees in the Scottish
Parliament and the House of Commons is the ability of committees
to initiate their own legislation. We would consider that this
cross-party co-operation is preferable to the more adversarial
Westminster tradition, and would produce a programme of more considered
and accessible Legislation.
In addition to improving the legislative progress,
the Scottish Parliamentary committees have taken the opportunity
to convene outside of Edinburgh in different parts of Scotland,
thereby engaging more effectively with the electorate. Committees
are also able to appoint one or more expert panels of special
advisors from outwith Parliament. Such experts can lend their
expertise in areas such as investigations and in the pre-legislative
process, while parliament retains the ultimate authority in the
law making process. This expands on the expert advice currently
available to Select Committees in the House of Commons.
Mandatory Committees include a European Committee,
which examines European legislation to be applied and implemented
in Scotland, and an Equal Opportunities Committee. The cross-party
Business Bureau allows for the business of the Parliament to be
decided in a more consensual manner than in Westminster.
With respect to the proposals contained in the
Memorandum, we have several points to make.
MODERNISING SCRUTINY
OF THE
EXECUTIVE
Making More Effective use of time
The SNP welcomes the initiatives designed to
make more effective use of parliamentary time introduced in the
last parliament. We believe that the Westminster Hall debates
in particular should be established as a permanent feature of
parliamentary opportunities. Deferred divisions on matters debated
after 10 pm and Programming Bills should be continued as permanent
measures.
We agree with the Leader of the House that it
would be beneficial to introduce a larger number of shorter debates,
as opposed to the current practice of day long debates. Such developments
would, we believe, make better use of MP's time.
There must, however, be an assurance that
shorter debates should not squeeze out contributions from minority
parties.
Making Question Time more Topical
In practice, Question Time is already reasonably
topical, given the use of interventions by members to introduce
topical points to the debate.
As Ministers are already fully briefed on topical
issues, we see little reason for not reducing the period of notice
considerably from the current two weeks.
While we accept the current practice of making
less significant ministerial announcements by Written Answer,
we would be concerned by an expansion in the use of such a device,
which may curtail parliamentary debate and reduce the level of
scrutiny to which the government is subject. Allowing for this
reservation, we would welcome a separate entry on the Order Paper
for notice of written statements and a separate entry for their
publication in Hansard.
In doing so, however, the Leader of the House
must ensure that all parties are given the opportunity to contribute
to debates and that shorter debates do not mean that smaller parties
are squeezed out in favour of the government and main opposition
parties.
MODERNISING THE
SCRUTINY OF
LEGISLATION
Pre-Legislative Scrutiny
The SNP would welcome an expansion in the number
of Bills published in draft form to allow for greater pre-legislative
scrutiny.
We do not believe, however, that this proposal
goes far enough. It should be the case that the normal procedure
for legislation is that Bills should be subject to full pre-legislative
scrutiny, and that Bills should only be brought forward without
full consultation in exceptional circumstances. We believe that
it would be preferable to have good quality legislation as opposed
to quick legislation. The House of Commons' history provides many
examples of passing legislation in haste and repenting at leisure.
It is the case that when Bills are drafted in
haste mistakes are made. The Government's Anti-terrorism, Crime
& Security Act (2001) was badly drafted—as evidenced
by the fact that Ministers had to submit 48 amendments to their
own Bill, 19 of these involving the Scotland Office. While we
accept the need to bring forward such legislation quickly, this
should not be done by sacrificing due scrutiny.
The current system of "Sewell motions"
is unacceptable as it does not allow the Scottish Parliament any
effective means of commenting upon, amending or opposing any changes
made to a Bill in Westminster that may fundamentally affect Scots
Law. Until such time as all legislation affecting Scotland is
dealt with in the Scottish Parliament we believe that the government
must ensure that all Bills subject to a "Sewell motion"
should be presented to the Scottish Parliament prior to being
introduced at Westminster and should a Bill be amended at Westminster
after a "Sewell motion" it should be returned to the
Scottish Parliament for any amendments then to be properly debated.
Longer Scrutiny of Legislation
We agree with the proposal to allow Bills to
be carried over from one parliamentary session to the next, given
that a set time-scale is introduced that would apply to all Bills.
MODERNISING WORKING
PRACTICES
Making Time for Constituency Work
We agree with the memorandum that
"The structure of Commons working week needs
to reflect the importance and the pressure of Parliamentary business."[5]
Current procedure disadvantages members from
Scottish constituencies participating in business on Fridays,
due to the need to give over full days to constituency business.
We would, therefore, welcome proposals to allow MPs to devote
Fridays to such work without disengaging from business in Westminster.
This has already been done by the introduction
of non-sitting days in the house, and should be continued.
Making oral statements earlier
We welcome the proposals to initiate a regular
slot for ministerial statements at the beginning of each day,
given that a timetable of such statements was to be released in
advance.
We accept the need for a procedure to be developed
to allow "Immediate Statements" under exceptional circumstances.
Making the Parliamentary calendar more predictable
Given the proposals to set time limits for the
passage of legislation and to allow Bills to be carried over into
the next session, the SNP would welcome moves to publish a timetable
of work for the House well in advance.
Given such changes, it would be easier to plan
the summer recess in so far as the government would not be under
pressure to complete the legislative programme prior to the house
adjourning.
Any timetabling of the summer recess should
take into consideration the timing of Scottish school holidays,
which traditionally run from the end of June to the second week
of August.
MAKING USE
OF NEW
TECHNOLOGY
Many procedures in the House of Commons are
out of date. The use of modern technology to improve the accessibility
and efficiency of the workings of the house is still limited.
With regard to electronic voting, the SNP believe
that a good example has been set by the work of the Scottish Parliament.
Members vote in person, and in a way that speeds up the work of
the house. It is also possible to officially register an abstention
to a vote, which is not currently possible in Westminster. Such
developments would be beneficial to the workings of the House
of Commons.
It is perfectly possible for a member to wish
for political reasons to abstain in person, and this should be
allowed under any new voting procedures.
The option to table questions and amendments
by e-mail rather than in person would allow all members the opportunity
to participate in parliamentary business while in their constituency,
and as such is welcomed.
MAKING THE
COMMONS MORE
OPEN TO
PUBLIC AND
PRESS
It is the case that the public view of Parliament
and its proceedings reflects its antiquated nature. We would welcome
any changes to the communication strategy of the House of Commons
to allow it to become more accessible, and to promote a more modern
image of the House, its members and its work.
Press Lobby
We would welcome the earlier release of written
answers earlier in the day, and believe that such measures, combined
with earlier sittings of the House, would add to the breadth and
depth of the coverage of Parliamentary proceedings.
SUMMARY
The SNP's aim is to achieve Independence for
Scotland. Once achieved there would be no locus for the party,
or indeed a Scottish Parliament, to take a view on the internal
domestic constitutional arrangements of what then would be another
independent state.
Within the current system the Government cannot
be held sufficiently to account and the role of MPs in influencing
the passage of legislation is far too restrictive.
The Scottish Parliament's structure sets a good
example of a more effective unicameral system, and the House of
Commons should adopt similar procedures and practices.
In making any changes to the workings of the
House, the Leader of the House must ensure that all parties are
given the opportunity to contribute to debates and that shorter
debates do not mean that smaller parties are squeezed out in favour
of the government and main opposition parties.
31 January 2002
3 BBC News Website, (http://news.bbc.co.uk/vote 2001/hi/english/newsid-1376000/1376575.stm)
8 June 2001. Back
4
Ibid: "The BBC polled people who decided not to vote. Some
77 per cent said there was no point in voting because it would
not change a thing, while 65 per cent said they did not trust
politicians. Just over half said it was obvious that Labour would
win anyway". Back
5
"Modernisation of the House of Commons: A Reform Programme
for Consultation", page vii, paragraph 33. Back
| 
