Examination of Witnesses (Questions 40-59)
RT HON
DOUGLAS ALEXANDER
MP, DAVID CAIRNS
MP AND DR
JIM WILDGOOSE
4 JULY 2006
Q40 Mr McGovern: Annex 9 of the Annual
Report deals with staffing levels and the figures tell us that
year on year, certainly since 2002, the actual numbers of staff
employed are less than the complement required. Try as I might,
I have not found a way to blame that on the Liberal Democrats.
Seriously, even as recently as last year they were below complement
by nine. Is there a reason for this?
Mr Alexander: I can assure you
that that decline in no way compares with the number of staff
who would lose their job in the Department of Trade and Industry
if another party's proposals to abolish the DTI were implemented.
In all seriousness, this was a matter I looked at in anticipation
of my appearance before you today. I shall ask Jim Wildgoose to
say a word in a moment as the Head of the Office. The assurance
I should simply give to the Committee is that unlike the staff
changes which took place post 2003, when my predecessor, Alistair
Darling, was appointed, where there was a conscious decision to
reduce the staff numbers to reflect the changed role of the Scottish
Secretary, these reflect management decisions rather than any
policy decisions which were being exercised. In fact, for reasons
Jim will explain, they do not reflect any change in the activities
of the Scotland Office.
Dr Wildgoose: I have to say the
blame lies with the Head of the Scotland Office for these changes.
In many ways the complement figure is a notional figure. It is
a start-of-year figure and in fact the difference between the
average employment over the year, which is the actual figure,
and the opening figure over the several years has been about the
same over the years. The complement figure really is somewhat
notional. When I took over in May of last year I looked very carefully
at this and it was not helpful to have figures which were so different.
The difference between actual and complement in many instances
was that we were not planning to fill vacancies anyway in terms
of the work. So we took a management decision to reduce the complement
down to 54, which you will see is the starting figure in 2006-07.
That reduction actually occurred quite quickly after May. The
60 is in fact the opening figure for the year; the opening figure.
We actually reduced the complement in three areas. There was some
duplication in the management of finance, in the management process
there and that involved two staff reductions, a senior person
and a secretary. We felt there was duplication with that. We also
reduced the press office from three to two and we felt that level
of resource was reasonable and we had one reduction in the election
set-up in finance in the services division in election accounting
work. Then we amalgamated the two private offices that we previously
had and in fact that change has been very effective in terms of
taking forward the work of the two ministers in the Office. These
decisions were taken by the Management Board, they were not decisions
which I took myself. They looked very carefully at the work of
the Office and what the requirements were, so we are confident
that it has not had any effect on the actual level of output and
the quality of the output that we have.
Q41 Mr McGovern: That has possibly
pre-empted my second question. In my previous job as a trade union
official we always viewed what we called non-foreigner vacancies
quite cynically. We regarded it as fewer people doing the same
amount of work. Could you confirm what you have just said, that
it has had no effect on the quality of the service provided by
the Scotland Office?
Dr Wildgoose: That is certainly
our management judgment. This is not simply me looking at this,
this is the view of the management team that we have. We look
at these issues regularly every six weeks; we have a Management
Board meeting and we look at the staffing levels each meeting
we have to assess the position. Sometimes we look at increases,
sometimes we look at decreases, sometimes we fill jobs quickly,
sometimes we look at whether we need to fill a job immediately.
There is actually a continuous process in terms of assessing what
staffing levels we require. I can safely say that my own view
and the view of the board is that we have not adversely influenced
the work of the Office through these changes. I might say that
really the only operational effect previously of the complement
figure was to do with budgeting and we have moved away from that
process. In terms of the 2006-07 budget we are moving to an average
actual staffing level for the budgeting which we feel is a better
measure, a better way of projecting and forecasting budgets. These
sorts of issues are in fact very much to the fore in general governance
arrangements of departments within the UK Government.
Q42 Mr McGovern: Last September the
Scotland Office told us that it regularly reviews its complement
and a review would be taking place later that year, 2005. Is what
you have just outlined the result of that review?
Dr Wildgoose: More or less. We
looked at it fairly quickly after the election in May last year
and we do a continuous process. Effectively that was the review.
We do look at this regularly through time.
Q43 Mr McGovern: So the review which
was referred to last September has taken place and this is the
outcome.
Dr Wildgoose: Yes, it has.
Q44 Mr MacDougall: The Annual Report
mentions a programme of regular meetings with business interests
and industry representative bodies across Scotland. Have you found
these meetings to be productive? What are the preoccupations of
Scottish business when you have such meetings?
Mr Alexander: It would be rather
presumptuous of me on the basis of about six weeks in office to
offer you a definitive view. Suffice to say that in the meetings
I have already undertaken with SCDI, with Alexander's the bus
manufacturers in Falkirk and a range of other businesses which
I have visited even in recent weeks, it is clear to me that businesses,
while always of course looking at how their offering to the market
can be improved and looking to Government to provide a framework
in which they can be supported, set great store by macroeconomic
stability. The kinds of recent reports published by OECD and others
have complimented us but that is certainly something I hear echoed
in my discussions with Scottish business. There is an awareness
that on the foundation of macroeconomic stability which has been
developed over recent years there has been an ability to make
investment decisions with a degree of certainty which was not
previously available to Scottish business. Perhaps I could let
David say a word, given that for the whole of the year he is in
discussion in terms of the Annual Report and meeting a range of
business organisations and individual companies.
David Cairns: That is absolutely
right. There is also absolutely no clamour on their part to abolish
the Department of Trade and Industry. I have not detected that
among Scottish business figures. In the last year we have chosen
in the context of the energy review to have a great many discussions
with people involved in the energy sector. Offshore I went to
visit an oil rig, into nuclear power stations and I am going to
Cockenzie on Friday. We have been very much engaged in that particular
sector, which obviously has had challenges to do with the global
increase in oil prices and energy prices in general, which has
been a challenge not just in Scotland but right round the world.
That has been an issue we have raised there. Of course the strength
of the economy and the economic activity levels also bring challenges
for business as well, because there are fewer unemployed people
and that brings challenges too. The North Sea oil sector particularly
has seen its most successful year in decades in terms of new licences
so that has brought out a lot of pressures in terms of the supply
chain and in terms of the availability of skilled labour. There
are certain pressures around in the energy sector as well. To
come back to the point Mr Banks made, you do occasionally get
frustration from business about the length of time it can take
to get planning; not remotely unique to Scotland of course. It
is an issue you hear elsewhere. These are the general concerns
that we hear from business, but on the wholeand I would
say this would I not?the general economic climate in Scotland
at the moment is very positive. There is a great deal of business
optimism out there and that is not just reflected in our comments,
it is reflected in all of the surveys of business undertaken by
the Bank of Scotland, by the various institutions, the mechanical
engineers and so on, who take monthly surveys, all of them reporting
a great deal of optimism in Scottish business.
Mr Alexander: I would just echo
the point David made about the energy sector. I do not know whether
you have had the opportunity to familiarise yourself with the
Press and Journal today, a prestigious Scottish publication,
under the headline "Jobs galore" there is an announcement
by Shell of a major £600 million contract with Subsea 7 to
design, build and operate two vessels for Shell. The vessels will
be used respectively to support undersea work on oil and gas facilities
and by remotely operated vessels and also by divers. Those vessels
are going to be used in the North Sea and elsewhere and evidence
exactly the kind of opportunities which are being grasped by Scottish
businesses as David was describing.
Q45 Mr McGovern: Is there a general
feeling with businesses that whilst there will always be challenges
for business under any environment, the long-term stability we
have enjoyed in terms of the economic climate, being able to invest
with some certainty et cetera, has been a key issue, enabling
them to plan more longer term and with greater confidence?
Mr Alexander: Certainly I should
say that is an accurate reflection. It is also one which in recent
days the academic community has echoed. I do not know whether
you have had a chance to see the study which received significant
publicity in the Glasgow Herald yesterday, but it again
made clear that in the kind of global open markets of the 21st
century a sustained period of instability would be deeply prejudicial
to the interests of the Scottish economy and investment in the
Scottish economy. That is why the Government are determined to
resist those who would argue that the break-up of Britain should
take precedence over the sustained economic growth we have seen
over the last eight years.
Q46 Gordon Banks: Coming to this
place from private business before May last year, I should like
to support what the Secretary of State said there about the stability
of the economy. My sector is the construction sector; that is
where I came from. I appreciate that the Secretary of State has
only been in the job for six weeks, but maybe the Minister has
experience he can outline for us. Have you had any particular
discussions with the construction sector on the skills shortage
in the construction sector in Scotland which has seen a lot of
Eastern European labour coming in because there is a lack of Scottish
indigenous tradesmen?
Mr Alexander: I cannot claim yet
to have had the opportunity to meet with major construction sector
employers, but from my own experience as a constituency MP, which
may well be echoed around the room, one of the distinctive features
of the labour market we have developed in recent years in Scotland
is the fact that those people who happen to find themselves unemployed
as a result of the two recessions visited upon Scotland in 18
years by the Conservative Party have largely now secured employment.
Certainly in terms of my own constituency I now find a situation
where, contained within the residual pool of people who find themselves
unemployed are people who do need support, perhaps because they
are not job ready in terms of numeracy problems, literacy problems
or drug dependency issues. That is why I think it would be exactly
the wrong approach to abolish something like the New Deal, which
is targeted directly at providing exactly the kind of support
those individuals need in order to be job ready, to be able to
make a contribution to the Scottish economy. That being said,
I also think it would not be appropriate to deny the reality that
the kind of workers which Danny Alexander and you referred to
are already making a significant contribution to the Scottish
economy, not just in rural Scotland but also in urban Scotland.
It is in part because of their capacity to contribute to the strength
of the Scottish economy, not, as many people according to the
newspaper feared, arriving to claim benefits but instead arriving
to pay taxes, to work, to contribute and then return to their
home countries, that there is a very dynamic labour market within
Scotland. That is not to say there are not continuing pressures,
but I believe the right way to address that is to have a coherent
strategy for the labour market which asks what the modern skills
are that we shall need in exactly the kind of vocational trades
that you describe. How do we equip Scottish workers to have those
skills? That is why it is essential that we see sustained investment,
not just in the university sector but also in the FE sector, to
make sure that in colleges like the one in Paisley we are producing
exactly the kind of skilled tradesmen which are required and why
it would be deeply damaging to see the kind of cuts which in the
past have been visited on those sectors at exactly the point at
which Scotland is not just making its way but prospering within
the global economy.
Q47 Mr Walker: What cuts are you
alluding to? You alluded to damaging cuts.
Mr Alexander: The third fiscal
rule which the Conservative Party are proposing which would see
year on year a reduction in terms of public expenditure for what
is claimed to be a sharing of the proceeds of growth.
Q48 Gordon Banks: You mentioned vocational
skills. In your discussions with the First Minister or with other
ministers are you encouraging them to develop a situation where
schools and FE colleges are working much more closely together
to give vocational skills to the people who maybe do not want
to follow an academic route and give them these skills at 14,
15 and 16 rather than just keeping them in school?
Mr Alexander: Absolutely. There
is a recognition within the Scottish Executive, although it would
be for them to answer your question directly, that there are pupils,
in terms of our strengthening economic position in the future,
whom we have a considerable interest in keeping in education,
who would not wish to pursue the academic route in terms of further
education. If one thinks, for example, of somewhere like John
Wheatley College in Easterhouse, that is an exemplar of the kind
of transformation we have seen in the FE sector, which I feel,
certainly looking back over decades, has not received the support
it rightly deserved in terms of its significance to developing
the kind of Scottish economy all of us would wish to see. I do
therefore welcome the fact that there has been sustained investment
in further education in Scotland over a number of years now which
reflects the reality that we shall certainly have a higher proportion
of the jobs created in the Scottish economy in the future being
graduate jobs, but nonetheless there is a vital and enduring need
to make sure we equip Scottish young people and Scottish workers
more generally with appropriate skills for the full range of skills
which will be required for a modern economy.
Q49 Mr MacNeil: For business and
jobs can you think of anything which might put Scotland in the
company of Norway, Ireland and Iceland, who are third, fourth,
fifth in the OECD in terms of wealth per head, as opposed to being
an underperforming part of the nation in 13th place?
Mr Alexander: I can trade OECD
statistics with you if you would like in terms of recent reports
which have been published about the strength of the Scottish economy.
In terms of the examples you cite, I have to say that my reading
not just of Scotland's economic history but my understanding of
economic policy stretches back long enough to make me rather wary
of the idea that there is a single transferable answer to the
challenges of modern economic success in the globalised marketplace.
If we had been having this conversation in the 1970s, one of the
features might have been German industrial banking. There might
be an article asking why Japan was in a position where we have
the Ministry of International Trade. Then you would have moved
onto a discussion about the distinctive attributes of Silicon
Valley. The truth is that all countries, the United Kingdom included
and Scotland therein, have to work hard to make sure they have
the essential elements of modern economic success in place. I
believe, if you look at the trend rate of growth, if you look
at the levels of employment being enjoyed in Scotland at the moment,
if you look at the stability in terms of the housing market, there
are grounds not just for pride in terms of what has been achieved
in recent years compared with other advanced economies, but also
real grounds for optimism. The idea that there is, for example,
as your party advocates, a long-term strategy for Scotland based
on a commodity such as oil, which as we all know is highly volatile,
seems to me to be naive when the real challenges are, as I have
just described, to make sure that they are a foundation of economic
stability. We then have the right economic responses to make Scotland's
place in the future. That involves sustained investment in educationsuccess
in the boardroom begins in the classroomthat means that
post school education has to be valued and it means that we have
to drive up not just standards in terms of vocational education
but also make sure that our graduates are equipped for modern
economic success. I believe those building blocks are in place
which account for the success that Scotland has enjoyed and which
explains why every major survey which has been produced in recent
months in relation to the Scottish economy by credible independent
forecasters recognises not just the success we have enjoyed but
is optimistic about the prospects for Scotland's future.
Q50 Mr MacNeil: I take that as "No
hope of catching Norway, Ireland and Iceland".
Mr Alexander: With the greatest
of respect, you cite Ireland as an example. Distinctive choices
were made by Ireland in an era when the European Union was essentially
a fairly closed trade bloc. It would be naive, although it would
be characteristic for your party to say that any relatively globalised
market, which we now see, where supply chains can stretch from
Falkirk, where I was visiting a bus manufacturer a week ago on
Friday, to Shanghai, the logic which made sense in terms of the
choices which Ireland was making for itself in the 1970s and 1980
necessarily makes sense in terms of the modern challenges we face.
I believe that if you look at the framework of macroeconomic stability
which has been established it is literally the envy of the world
and that is why report after report, whether the Fraser of Allander
Institute at home or the OECD abroad has recognised the strength
of our macroeconomic stability. That stability is, however, not
the end of the discussion but the starting point of the discussion.
To imperil that stability, as I believe your policies would, would
of course be highly irresponsible, but on that foundation of stability
we do need to make sure we have the appropriate skills mix for
a modern economy. I believe we are making the right choices both
north and south of the border. Do not take my word for it, take
the word of the OECD in their most recent report which placed
great weight on the economic stability which had been achieved
at a UK level and look most recently at the report produced by
the Fraser of Allander Institute only this week which highlighted
the very perilous dangers of throwing away that stability in pursuit
of the volatile resources that your party advocates as a sustainable
basis for Scotland's prosperity.
Q51 Mr Davidson: When we met the
oil industry recently they were unhappy about the Treasury and
it is worth mentioning that they were very supportive of DTI whom
they felt understood very well what the oil industry was about.
It was a noticeable contrast in the views between the Treasury
and the DTI. Why they were unhappy with the Treasury was because
of the increase in corporation tax. Can you tell us the mechanism
by which the Scotland Office was consulted on that matter?
Mr Alexander: I was only appointed
a number of weeks ago, but I can tell you that I understand my
predecessor, Alistair Darling, had frequent and detailed conversations
with the Chancellor, as you would expect of a Cabinet colleague
in the days and weeks preceding the Budget. I can myself vouch
for the fact that I similarly had discussions with the Chancellor
immediately preceding that. There is some risk in relation to
your question in presuming that the Scotland Office would regard
there as being a wholly different set of fiscal policies which
are appropriate for Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom.
Q52 Mr Davidson: It would be wrong
to presume that. I was not asking that. I was simply seeking clarification
on the mechanism. While I appreciate that the Chancellor and the
then Secretary of State for Scotland would have met and chatted
and so on, what I am still not clear about is the actual mechanism
by which these dialogues are conducted. Is there a formal mechanism
by which the Chancellor consulted the Secretary of State for Scotland
on the change in corporation tax on the oil industry that will
reassure us that there will be formal consultation on any future
change?
Mr Alexander: Ultimately these
are judgments exercised, as any Budget judgment, by the Chancellor.
That is informed by the discussions which are held with Cabinet
colleagues. I understand that it is a matter of record that there
were discussions between the then Scottish Secretary and the Chancellor
of the Exchequer preceding the judgment which was reached by the
Chancellor. I should not wish to leave the Committee with the
impression that any other Cabinet Minister ultimately exercises
that judgment. While there is consultation, as the Chancellor
made clear repeatedly in his Budget statement, the Budget judgment
that he makes is the basis on which the Government forms the taxation
policy.
Q53 Chairman: Your Annual Report
tells us that £19.1 billion was paid to the Scottish Consolidated
Fund in 2004-05. This compares to an original Estimate of £21.3
billion. Why were your forecasts so inaccurate?
Mr Alexander: Perhaps I might
ask Jim to explain because this was a question I asked him some
time ago.
Dr Wildgoose: There is a technical
reason for this and it is to do with the handling of pension payments
for NHS staff and teachers. A correction was required to the figures
which is reflected in the outturn figure but is not reflected
in the original provision figures. This change in the arrangement
was discovered in fact after the final provision figure was set
in the table in the year in question. This is quite a technical
issue and I would be happy to write to the Committee about this
if that would be helpful.
Chairman: Yes, that would be fine.[3]
Mr Davidson: Could it be in short words?
Q54 David Mundell: I am very pleased
that we have the chance to raise the matter of the operation of
devolution. We have two members of the Scottish Parliament present
in our audience today and I am sure they are very welcome and
we all want to work very closely with them. I do not want to get
into a discussion about whether or not there is going to be a
new First Minister or indeed whether there is going to be a new
Prime Minister, but I am sure you do agree with me that relationships
between Westminster and Holyrood and between the Scottish Executive
and the UK Government have to be robust enough and clear enough
to be able to operate when we have governments of different persuasions
alternately in either parliament. I am not convinced at the moment
that they are and I think it would be helpful if perhaps you could
talk through how these relationships actually work in practice.
For example, you have alluded to discussions you have recently
had with Mr McConnell. What is the formality of these discussions?
How is that programmed? How does the system work? Are you convinced
that system would work if it were to be Mr Salmond or another?
Mr Alexander: I shall resist the
temptation to place on record once again my disbelief at the prospect
of either Mr Salmond or, I suppose from your point of view, Ms
Annabel Goldie, taking office as Scotland's First Minister, because
I think we should probably deal with facts. In terms of your substantive
point about the degree of formality in the relationship with the
First Minister, clearly that depends on the communication. I do
not suppose it is sharing any kind of state secret to say that
the last conversation I had with the First Minister was by text,
preceding that was a telephone call and preceding that was a face-to-face
meeting. The serious point I make is that your argument is, with
respect, well-trodden ground. I know that it was a subject you
raised with my predecessor Alistair Darling at the equivalent
hearing last year. I share with Alistair the background as a lawyer
before entering Parliament and his scepticism that a greater degree
of rules and regulation being devised at this juncture by the
Scotland Office and the Scottish Executive respectively would
strengthen what I believe are settled and well-working relationships.
Frankly there is a question, not least in light of the conversations
we have been having about staffing levels in the Scotland Office,
as to whether it would be a judicious use of time energy and finance
to send over a group of civil servants to try to scenario plan
in terms of different scenarios about how relationships should
be established in different ways. Instead we should recognise
that there are clear arrangements which I believe have served
us well. The fact that to dateand I certainly hope this
continueswe have a Labour-led Executive in Holyrood and
we have a Labour Government at Westminster is not prejudicial
to my argument. A government of whichever hue in Westminster and
an administration of whatever hue in Holyrood would, I believe,
because politics is ultimately about delivery, have an interest
in having effective working relationships, notwithstanding the
fact that the ambition of those administrations may be different
from the Labour administration which presently holds office. I
am afraid, with respect, I simply disagree that having a whole
battery of further rules, regulations and arrangements would necessarily
serve an arrangement well which is working effectively just now.
Q55 David Mundell: Just now, without
any new rules and regulations, we have a joint ministerial council
which has hardly met at all. Do you regard that as being unnecessary?
Mr Alexander: No. The Joint Ministerial
Committee which you describe has met. Again I inevitably bring
to this discussion my previous perspective as the Europe Minister
in relation to its functional work as the Joint Ministerial Committee
on Europe. The reason there have been both frequent and effective
meetings of the Joint Ministerial Committee in relation to Europe
is that it makes good sense for there to be an aligned British
negotiating position when we go to Brussels or to Strasbourg or
wherever. To have a committee which meets regularly, which brings
in devolved administrations, is eminently sensible. In other areas
of policy, as devolution has matured, it has emerged that the
Joint Ministerial Committee process is more of a long-stop. I
do not per se take that as being a criticism either of
the original proposals or indeed how devolution has come to mature.
The Joint Ministerial Committee is only one of the mechanisms
by which effective coordination is taking place. The Scotland
Office has a role in that. Increasingly, under my predecessor
as well, there is very effective coordination bilaterally between
Whitehall departments and the Scottish Executive and the fact
that per se they are not choosing to meet on a regular
basis, as some have suggested is necessary, through the mechanism
of the Joint Ministerial Committee, I do not see as being to our
discredit. I see it as a reflection of the fact that a great deal
of important business can be done bilaterally directly between
the Whitehall department, sometimes coming through the Scotland
Office but dealing directly with Scottish Executive ministers.
Perhaps David could add his perspective, given his regular contact
with Scottish Executive ministers on exactly these kinds of questions.
David Cairns: Obviously at the
time of devolution it was an innovation; it was not something
we had had in this country before. There was an attempt at the
time of the Scotland Act to put in place a suite of different
arrangements which could take place in order for devolution to
be maintained and stability ensue. I am aware of the allegation
which you have made that it is all done on a nod and a wink through
the Labour old boys' network, which I think is the phrase you
have used in the past. I simply do not think that stands up to
scrutiny. There is a memorandum of understanding and there are
devolution guidance notes which are adhered to. The memorandum
of understanding itself, which was written up and devised at the
same time as devolution, actually says that most contacts should
be carried out on a bilateral or multilateral basis between departments
which deal on a day-to-day basis with the issues at stake. That
is actually what happens day in day out, week-in week out, most
recently on the decision of the Scottish Parliament to pass a
legislative consent motion allowing the Barker judgment to be
overturned so that mesothelioma victims could get compensation
and could get justice much more quickly. If the Scottish Parliament
were to legislate itself, it would have to begin a whole new round
of consultations and its law would take a lot longer to reach
the statute book. I do not think that if we had had to wait until
the next JMC meetingand it would only have been a couple
of times a year anywayto resolve those issues we should
have done justice by the mesothelioma sufferers and the Scottish
people. We need to be much more dynamic, we need to be much more
fleet of foot, we need to be able to address real issues as they
come along in the exemplary way which directs discussions between
the Scottish Executive department and the Department for Constitutional
Affairs here, between myself and between Margaret Curran so that
we could actually make sure that everybody was informed what was
going on. We needed that flexibility to be able to respond quickly
and we have got the result everybody wants to see and the legislative
consent motion went through with absolutely nobody opposing it.
We need the formal structures in place such as the JMC Europe
but we also need arrangements which can respond quickly to events
as they unfold.
Q56 David Mundell: Are you actually
saying that nothing could be done to improve the inter-governmental
parliamentary relationship and that it is as good as it could
be?
Mr Alexander: I feel a sense of
deja vu in the sense that they asked the same question
to my predecessor at the session last year where he replied that
it would be a stupid man who says nothing can ever get better.
Q57 David Mundell: With respect,
one would hope you had brought a new perspective to the role and
sometimes when somebody does come into a role with a new perspective
then they can identify things which people who had previously
been in the role had not necessarily seen. On that basis I am
asking whether you think there is anything that needs to be done
that would improve the working relationships between the two parliaments
and the two governments. I am sure one thing we can agree on is
that it is important that, whatever the government, either Holyrood
or Westminster, they should be capable of working together and
not get bogged down in relationship mechanics.
Mr Alexander: Of course this is
a matter which any incoming Secretary of State would have regard
for and would look at circumstances. I do think, if your claim
that this is all done on a nod and a wink was judged favourably
in the past, that after the shameful sending off of Wayne Rooney
on Saturday the idea of basing anything on the basis of winking
would be judged rather rash. I do find myself in sympathy with
my predecessor on the substantive point which is that my background
as a lawyer and my practical experience, both as a departmental
minister and now Secretary of State, suggest to me that the memorandum
of understanding, which itself identifies effective bilateral
working as the way forward has proved to be both durable and effective
and in that sense I would not offer you false hope that with a
new Secretary of State there is a fundamentally different view
on what I believe is a successful joint partnership approach which
can be taken forward in the future.
Q58 Mr MacNeil: As a lawyer, I wonder
whether you are paid by the word by any chance. Devolution has
been described as a process rather than an event. What do you
trust the current Scottish Executive have devolved to them next?
Mr Alexander: I should regard
the constitutional settlement which has been reached as reflecting
a durable basis on which relations can be taken forward between
the Scottish Executive and the United Kingdom Parliament. It is
rightand again, my predecessor rehearsed these arguments
when he was before this Committee last yearthat there have
been, at the margins, specific examples of where powers have been
transferred and in a moment I shall ask David to say a word about
the Sewel convention. Perhaps the railways are the most substantive
example, where, my predecessor judged on coming into the post,
both as Transport Secretary and then as Scottish Secretary, that
it was the right view given the existence of the distinctive franchise
in Scotland. I would not hold out at this prospect, notwithstanding
the conversations which will appropriately take place in relation
to Arbuthnott. The idea that I have in my head a range of further
powers that I would wish to devolve is wrong. Rather than your
position I hold to the position that we do have a durable settlement
and in that sense one of the learning points that people have
gained over recent years is that, unlike some of our critics,
devolution has not proved to be a motorway without exits towards
independence: instead it reflects, in the words of the late great
John Smith, the settled will of the Scottish people.
Q59 Mr MacNeil: Have you tested that?
David Cairns: Very briefly, more
in response to Mr Mundell's point earlier on, since last year
there has been an investigation by the Scottish Parliament's own
procedures committee into how the mechanics of the Sewel motion
operate and you have produced a report which I believe attracted
some press interest on this matter. Whilst I should not want to
pre-empt the Government's response to that, I think we would be
very minded to look favourably upon the improvements to the operation
of Sewel that you are suggesting in your report. That would represent
one way of changing the way in which the parliaments and the executives
are related to one another; a perfectly sensible and moderate
change to it.
3 See Ev 17 Back
|