Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1-19)
MR DONALD
GORRIE, MS
KAREN GILLON,
MR ALEX
JOHNSTONE AND
MR ANDREW
MYLNE
7 MARCH 2006
Q1 Chairman: Good morning. Donald, can
I welcome you and your colleagues to the first meeting of the
Scottish Affairs Committee to be held in Scotland since the general
election of 2005. My colleagues and I are delighted to be here
this morning in Edinburgh and it is very appropriate that the
first witnesses in our inquiry into The Sewel Convention: the
Westminster perspective are the Scottish Parliament's Procedures
Committee as your report last year was the catalyst for our inquiry.
Can you first please, for the record, introduce your team?
Mr Gorrie: I am Donald Gorrie.
I am the Convener of the Procedures Committee of the Scottish
Parliament. Karen Gillon is the Deputy Convener, Alex Johnstone
is a Conservative member and Andrew Mylne is our committee Clerk.
Q2 Chairman: Before we start the
detailed questions would you like to make any opening remarks?
Mr Gorrie: Yes please. If I may
I will give a little of the background and then ask Andrew Mylne
to refresh all our minds about the factual position as it is at
the moment. Could I say how much we welcome this interest by your
committee in the Sewel Convention and the chance to discuss this
issue. Speaking personally, my perception is that the relationship
between Scottish MPs and Scottish MSPs in all parties leaves a
good deal to be desired and things like this can only improve
the interchange between the Scots in the two Parliaments. I am
the fairly recent Convener of this committee following the change
and so I am not an expert on all the evidence that the committee
took. Karen Gillon was involved all that time and she and Andrew
Mylne could answer any questions on that. The Procedures Committee
in the Scottish Parliament has responsibility for bringing forward
proposed changes to the standing orders and they can only be changed
on a motion by our committee. It is a cross-party committee. At
the moment it has seven members—three Labour members and
one each from the Scottish Nationalists, the Conservatives, the
Liberal Democrats and the Greens. It is worth noting that the
report on the Sewel Convention was a unanimous report. The committee
looked into the issue because there was a problem when the Scottish
Parliament considered what we called then Sewel motions in that
quite often the discussion was about the whole aspect of Sewel
motions and independence and devolution and all that rather than
the merits of the particular issue. This irritated people and
so the committee had a look at it and I think the issue has now
settled down and the committee has put into formal standing orders
what were previously just use and wont procedures, so we think
we have improved our end. Obviously, we are not in a position
to make suggestions to yourselves but we did make some suggestions.
I think it is fair to say that we feel the Scotland Office commented
adversely on some things that were actually suggested to us by
witnesses rather than being the conclusions of the committee,
and I think there is perhaps more agreement than might appear
from the Scotland Office memorandum. The particular point that
has been made very strongly by various people is that we could
improve the relationship between the two Parliaments as to how
they deal with this legislation, that the two Governments talk
to each other, but both of us are trying to keep a grip on legislation
and on the activities of the Governments in our two Parliaments
and we feel there is scope for improvement in that way and therefore,
as I say, we greatly welcome your inquiry. I will ask Andrew Mylne
to remind us about the status of the position in the Scottish
Parliament at the moment.
Mr Mylne: What I would like to
do very briefly is outline the procedures that we now have in
the Scottish Parliament which have been introduced as a result
of this report. As the Convener has already said, these procedures
largely formalise a system that had existed and had been built
up as a matter of practice over the previous six years, although
it has introduced some new elements. The new procedure is basically
aimed at increasing the transparency and clarity of the procedure
while retaining flexibility where that is needed. In particular
it aims to maximise the amount of time available for Scottish
Parliament scrutiny. In outline, the procedure has two stages.
The first involves the lodging of a memorandum by the Executive
and the consideration of that memorandum by a lead committee of
the Parliament. The second stage involves the lodging of a motion,
also normally by the Executive, and a decision by the Parliament
as a whole whether to pass that motion, and there is normally
a week between these two stages. The rules go about this by defining
at the outset what counts for our purposes as a "relevant
Bill". This includes Bills the purpose of which is to alter
the legislative competence of the Parliament or the executive
competence of Scottish ministers as well as Bills making provision
in devolved areas. The rules also define the point in the Westminster
process at which our Scottish Parliament procedure is triggered.
The aim here was to enable scrutiny to begin as early as possible
while minimising the risk that the procedure would be triggered
when something in Westminster was not going to proceed very far.
With government Bills, which can be assumed to follow all the
way through, the trigger is the introduction of the Bill. With
a private Member's Bill the trigger is the Bill completing its
first amending stage with the relevant provisions intact. With
Bills that only become relevant Bills by virtue of amendments,
the trigger is when those amendments are either lodged or tabled,
depending on whether they are government amendments. In each case
the new rule requires the Executive to provide a written memorandum
within two weeks. It is worth mentioning that perhaps the main
innovation in the new rules compared with the informal practice
before is that the Executive is required to provide a memorandum
regardless of whether it intends lodging a Sewel motion itself.
It is also worth noting that at the second stage of the procedure
the motion may be lodged by any MSP. In practice it has always
been the Executive that has lodged motions but in principle it
is open to any MSP to do so, and under the new rules, if a non-Executive
member wishes to lodge a motion, then they must also lodge a memorandum
in advance of doing so. The rules specify the information that
the memorandum must contain. In particular this has to explain
what sort of provision the Bill contains and give reasons why
(or why not) the Executive thinks that the Parliament should give
its consent. The memorandum will also usually contain a draft
of the motion. That is basically what the rules provide. There
are two other recommendations in the report that I would mention.
One is a recommendation that the Executive should make an announcement
after each Queen's Speech outlining which Bills in the Queen's
Speech it proposes to be subject to this process, and that is
to be done by letter, and also that there should be some changes
in practice in the way motions are worded to make them more clear
in terms of the extent of the consent that is being conferred.
In terms of the procedure that we now operate those are the main
points.
Q3 Mr MacDougall: In what you describe
in paragraph 203 of your report as "a spirit of constructive
inter-parliamentary dialogue", a spirit with which we on
this committee would fully concur, you make some suggestion as
to how we at Westminster might change our associated procedures.
Could you briefly recap on how you would like us to change our
procedures?
Mr Gorrie: Three of the main things
that we suggested were, first of all, tagging of Bills in progress
at Westminster to which the Sewel Convention would apply so that
people at Westminster knew which Bills were involved. In our case
we have a motion but the tagging would make it clearer to the
people who are interested in that issue at Westminster. The second
is the question of having explanatory notes for every Bill outlining
whether the Bill triggers the Sewel Convention and in what ways
it engages the convention; and, thirdly, a formal process for
the Scottish Parliament, possibly through our Presiding Officer
to the Speaker at Westminster, to notify Westminster when a "legislative
consent motion", which is our new name for Sewel, has been
passed—I can never remember it so I do not suppose other
people will either—so that there will be contact from Parliament
to Parliament rather than merely going through ministers. Obviously,
the Governments have to co-operate but we think the Parliaments
could co-operate better as well.
Q4 David Mundell: Thank you, Convener.
I particularly want to ask you this, Donald, and Karen. At the
moment the reality is that we have a Labour-led Scottish Executive
and a Labour majority in Westminster. I am sure the test of the
procedures has to be whether they would work if we had different
political arrangements either in Scotland or in Westminster. I
would be particularly interested in your views in relation to
the process in that context because I have serious reservations
as to whether it would work. One of the examples I take is the
last Sewel motion I voted on as a Member of the Scottish Parliament
which was in relation to the Gambling Bill, which was then very
significantly changed to the Bill that ultimately appeared at
the end of the Westminster process. I just do not see how that
would have been possible had you had a government of a different
persuasion from the lead role in Holyrood and therefore I would
be very interested to see how you think these processes would
work in that sort of environment.
Ms Gillon: That is one of the
primary reasons, David, why we engaged in this process, that we
all acknowledge that at some point in the future, although I probably
take a different perspective from you as to how far in the future
that might be, the two Governments in Scotland and in the UK will
be of a different political colour, and we felt it was important
that, rather than just have an ad hoc arrangement, we had a more
formal arrangement between the two Parliaments and the two Governments
as to how that would be taken forward. From our perspective things
are now within our standing orders as a clear process by which
the consent of the Scottish Parliament would be sought. I hope
from our dialogue that a similar commitment will be made from
the UK Government through yourselves recognising the importance
of a constructive dialogue. It is in nobody's interests, whatever
government we are of, for the two Parliaments to be in conflict
with each other at whatever point in the future. That is why from
my own perspective it is important that Scottish Members of Parliament
are aware of decisions taken by the Scottish Parliament and of
any concerns raised through the committee report from the evidence
that has been taken, so that they are informed as to what their
colleagues here in Scotland feel. Obviously, that happens in an
informal manner between MPs and MSPs if they are of the same party
and within the same constituency, and it happens in other ways
but I think there is a need for us to have a better dialogue between
the two Parliaments as well as to how we communicate issues around
legislative consent motions to our colleagues at Westminster.
Mr Gorrie: The point you raised
about a Bill which changes quite materially as it goes through
is a very important point, and I know Alex Johnstone has views
on this which he might wish to contribute.
Mr Johnstone: One of the reasons
why people like me spent a lot of time prior to 1997 campaigning
against the Scottish Parliament was that we realised that there
would be significant points of friction between a Scottish Government
and one in Westminster. The Sewel Convention is one of these key
areas which have worked to try and prevent that friction from
taking place and consequently will always have a political dimension.
I do not think it is our job or yours to try and block that political
dimension but we can do a great deal to continue to smooth the
path. The problem we have at the moment is that I believe much
of the understanding which has gone on between Westminster and
Edinburgh has happened at governmental level, and that works very
well, of course, when we have the same party in government in
the south as the main party in government here in Edinburgh. The
fear we have is that that need not necessarily be the case for
ever more, and for that reason I think there is a sound justification
for trying to develop this procedure, to get it more rooted in
the parliamentary relationship rather than in the governmental
relationship so that we have some formal structure which will
stand us in good stead should that future eventuality ever come
about. One of the most difficult political aspects of this, and
it is exploited politically by those who see advantage in it,
is the point that was highlighted by David Mundell just a moment
ago, and that is where legislation changes radically after consent
has been given. The committee, in drafting its report, did not
seek to impose a structure which would require re-assessment of
legislation at a later stage. In fact, it is part of the relationship
between the two Parliaments and must be based on trust, and consequently
it is inappropriate that the Scottish Parliament or any committee
of it should have any kind of say over legislation once it has
been passed in Westminster, but at the same time it is very important
that Westminster Members and Westminster Governments realise that
that relationship of understanding is something that must be protected
for our mutual political benefit. For that reason I think it is
important that you look at ways in which we can broaden that consultative
process to take in situations where radical changes are made to
legislation during its passage through the House of Commons and
the House of Lords. That appears not to be covered by the consent
that was granted in the first instance, so I do not think I seek
a formal arrangement; I seek a procedure by which the understanding
can be extended and made more mutually beneficial as time goes
on.
Q5 David Mundell: I do not want to
put words in my former colleagues' mouths, but I think, Karen
and Alex, and to an extent you, Donald, you are saying that the
current arrangements ultimately are not sustainable; the current
arrangements have been able to get things through the initial
period of the Parliament but the current informality could not
continue in a situation of Parliaments of different persuasion.
Mr Johnstone: It would certainly
be my view that the current arrangements could not be sustained
in a relationship between two executives which were mutually aggravated
towards each other.
Mr Gorrie: With respect, the word
should have been "previous" rather than "current"
because we have got through the new standing orders and formalised
the thing and probably we would accept that the reason the committee
looked into the issue was they were dissatisfied with the informal
arrangements. It is early days yet but the formal arrangements
seem to be bedding down quite well, so I do not personally see
why they should not work in the circumstances you have outlined.
Q6 Chairman: I appreciate that there
should be a better arrangement between the two Governments and
the two Parliaments. If there are any disagreements between the
two Governments and the two Parliaments, what will be the mechanism
to resolve those disputes or disagreements?
Mr Gorrie: I suppose the reading
of the Scotland Act as to who does what. There has to be some
discussion, presumably at government level. If they are trying
to run the railways in a sensible way they try and negotiate as
to whether the thing changes at Carlisle or Berwick or whatever,
and that presumably should be mirrored in the Parliament, looking
at the practicalities of the issue. If there is an issue that
the Westminster Government is very keen to have hundreds of casinos
or hundreds of nuclear power stations or whatever and the Scots
do not, there is going to be a good political row about that but
in the end it is a question of the interpretation of the Scotland
Act, I think, but Karen may have a view.
Ms Gillon: I suppose ultimately
it depends whether or not a future government of another political
persuasion would carry on the convention from a Westminster perspective.
From our context our standing orders are clear, that this is the
process that we would have to follow. At Westminster, as I understand
it, it is still a convention, that the Government will seek the
consent of the Scottish Parliament if it wishes to legislate in
a devolved in area and the Parliament will then decide whether
or not it will give its consent. I suppose the real friction comes
if a future Conservative Government, for example, or even a Liberal
Democrat Government, decides to do away with that convention and
legislate at a whim, because of the majority, against the will
of the Scottish Parliament. Ultimately we could then legislate
in Scotland to change the law in Scotland and we would get into
a game of parliamentary ping-pong, such as you sometimes have
with the House of Lords, between the House of Commons and the
Scottish Parliament. You would legislate, we would legislate,
you would legislate, we would legislate, and ultimately we would
get ourselves into a bit of a mess, I imagine. If the government
of the day maintains the convention that it will consult with
the Scottish Parliament and it will seek the consent of the Scottish
Parliament to legislate in a devolved area, I think the other
issues can be resolved meaningfully in dialogue between the Parliament
and Scottish MPs. However, if the Government withdraws that provision
then I think we are in for a serious difficulty but you are then
undermining the will of the Scottish people and I think that is
a serious decision for any government at Westminster to take.
Q7 Mr Walker: I suppose you could
argue that the Scottish Parliament will truly come of age when
it has a good old-fashioned ding-dong with the UK Parliament.
It would be quite interesting to see what happens and the excitement
and the passion and depth of feeling that that generates but,
just taking Donald and Karen back, you said the relationship between
MPs and MSPs leaves a great deal to be desired. Can you expand
on that slightly? Where do the frictions occur between, say, these
wonderful people round this table from Scotland—obviously
not me because I am from Hertfordshire—and perhaps their
MSP colleagues in similar seats or where they share boundaries?
Ms Gillon: Can I flag up that
I never said that the relationship left a lot to be desired. I
have a very productive relationship even with your colleague sitting
next to you[1],
who is one of my three MPs who cover the constituency that I represent.
I think where communication breaks down is when we pass the legislative
consent motion and you are not aware of the concerns that have
been raised in the Scottish Parliament. I think that is a two-way
process but we need to get better at passing on to our colleagues,
either informally or formally, the concerns that have been raised
and you guys need to get better at asking or searching out the
information. I do not have any hesitation in saying to David X,
Y or Z and I am sure he would not have any hesitation in saying
it to me, and similarly with MPs of my own party, so I do not
have a problem with that. It is not in the informal relationships;
I think it is maybe in the formal relationships. We do not have
a clear structure whereby the committee report of the Parliament,
for example, can be passed to the House of Commons for information,
not to bind you in any way, shape or form but as another document
to give more information because they usually take evidence and
they usually present that, weighing up all the different angles
that are presented.
Mr Gorrie: I did say that I thought
the relationship could be improved. Perhaps I should have clarified
that. Certainly I would agree with a lot of what Karen has said,
that it is not friction or animosity. I think there is a failure
to communicate to a large extent and it is a two-way process.
You can find that perfectly competent Scottish MPs are not really
aware of how big an issue something is here and vice versa, and
I think having better dialogue, either formally or informally,
between the Scottish Parliament and Westminster would benefit
both of us. I think the Sewel Convention is an example of that.
The presence of Sewel on the Westminster radar would be invisible
to most people It is not antagonism; it is just that perhaps we
fail to get our message over in some respects and I think this
is an opportunity, which is very welcome, to try and improve that.
Q8 Mr McGovern: In your opening remarks
you touched briefly upon the Scotland Office responses. If you
look at the submissions from both the Executive and the Scotland
Office it would appear that the Scottish Executive are pretty
supportive of the proposals, whereas the Scotland Office were
much less so. In fact, it looks as though the Scotland Office
did not really like them at all. Would you or your colleagues
care to comment on that?
Mr Gorrie: I formed exactly the
same impression, but our excellent committee Clerk said I had
to read the Scotland Office paper more carefully. As I think I
said, the Scotland Office paper comments on various issues but
I think it does not focus on what our committee was actually proposing
but rather on some of the evidence we had. Of the three points
we made, one of them they are reasonably accepting of, are they
not, the explanatory notes issue? There is the tagging, the explanatory
notes and the formal process between the Parliament and Westminster,
which I think it says it did not see much point in. [2]That
is an issue for the two Parliaments. I think there is a slight
implication in the government paper that if the two Governments
are co-operating that is all that is really needed. Our argument
is that there should be better co-operation between the two Parliaments
and that does not in any way reduce the need for good co-operation
between the Governments. I think the Scotland Office paper is
less hostile than I thought it was at first reading and I think
we can go ahead. The tagging is a specific issue which you may
or may not support but it was just a suggestion of some way to
bring to the attention of Scottish Members of Westminster especially
that this Sewel issue is coming up.
Q9 Mr McGovern: On the same subject,
as you know, at Westminster for several years now we have been
changing and updating our practices and procedures. Do you think
the Scotland Office response has suggested that Parliament is
much more willing to change than Government is?
Mr Gorrie: Yes. I spend my life
criticising governments. I think that all governments are capable
of very great improvement and it is our job to try to improve
them. The response from the Scotland Office, as I said, is not
as hostile as it at first sight seems, and the Westminster Parliament
has, since I departed from it, shown great enthusiasm for improving
its ways and so I hope that as part of that you will work to improve
the way that we deal with these legislative consent motions.
Ms Gillon: I think sometimes there
is a view within Government that they will always be Government
and therefore the current mechanisms suit them because they are
the Government. Obviously, the Civil Service who advise the Government
will always be the Civil Service regardless of who the Government
of the day is and the mechanisms that they have, if they work
for them at the moment, suit them and therefore they are less
willing to change, and that is as true in our Parliament as it
is, I am sure, in yours. My main desire for this, because I believe
in the devolution settlement, was to ensure that we had a robust
mechanism that could work whatever the hue of the Government of
the day was and that is a Parliament to Parliament relationship,
and the Executives have a part to play in that and the Civil Service
have a part to play in that but I want a mechanism between our
two Parliaments that allows the two Parliaments to work regardless
of who the Government of the day is.
Mr Johnstone: That is a very important
point and, although I come from a rather different position from
where I am today, I also see it as extremely important for the
political future of the United Kingdom that we find reasonable
accommodations in this area, and that is why I agree with all
the conclusions that Karen has just summed up.
Q10 Chairman: Convener, your committee
proposed that the Scottish Parliament amendments should be considered
at an extra stage at Westminster and the Scotland Office response
was, "It would be extremely difficult in the management of
business at Westminster to have a two stage system of consent,
which would mean that the Government would not be in a position
to amend the Bill if the second consent was withheld". What
is your response to that?
Mr Gorrie: As I was not involved
in the detailed consideration I will ask Andrew Mylne to give
the factual position from the committee.
Mr Mylne: Chairman, I think you
are referring to paragraph 29(e) in the Scotland Office paper.
This is one of the points where the Scotland Office is responding,
as I understand it, to points that were made in evidence to the
Procedures Committee by some of our witnesses. This is not actually
a response to a conclusion given by the committee itself, so I
do not think that the committee would necessarily disagree with
the point being made.
Ms Gillon: Our view when we considered
this was that ultimately, if we give our consent to legislate
and it is within a framework within that motion, we have to trust
you as the MPs with an interest in Scotland to legislate in the
best interests of Scotland. We do not have a monopoly on acting
in the interests of Scotland. We send MPs to Westminster to do
exactly that and we have to trust you to get on with the job and
represent your constituents in the same way as we do. A positive
relationship and dialogue is important to us but ultimately you
are the guys with the job to legislate in the Westminster context
and once we have passed over that consent it is up to you to make
the amendments that you think are appropriate to Scotland.
Mr Gorrie: The Clerk has pointed
out to me that in paragraph 201 of the report by the committee
it says, "We do not therefore support the suggestion made
by some witnesses of a second opportunity to consider the Westminster
Bill . . .", so I think that clarifies the position and the
Scotland Office paper is not relevant to what we were suggesting.
Q11 Mr Walker: When Alistair Darling
appeared before us last year[3]
he made the comment that most Scottish MPs did not know when a
Bill had been the subject of a Sewel motion. How do you think
that such a situation could be rectified? Would it be by Westminster
introducing some of your suggestions?
Ms Gillon: We have made a number
of suggestions that I think help in that process. I can phone
up my MP and say, "By the way, we have passed a legislative
consent motion on this issue and you should be aware of it and
the issues within it", but ultimately MPs should be aware
that there is a legislative consent provision within the Bill.
With regard to how that is done, there are some helpful suggestions
in the Scotland Office paper about putting it in territorial notes
within the explanatory notes. I am not as familiar with the Westminster
process as you are. I think there needs to be some way of communicating
that consent better to MPs. It is ultimately for you to decide
how best that is done but I think it would help us all if that
were done more effectively than it is at the moment.
Q12 David Mundell: In the current
arrangements for Wales, which are somewhat different, members
of the National Assembly for Wales are able to take part in the
proceedings of the Welsh Affairs Committee of the House of Commons,
which is an example to some extent of joint working, although
the framework of the Welsh Assembly is quite different. Could
you anticipate that there would be a role for Scottish Parliamentarians
at some aspect of Westminster, either the Scottish Affairs Committee
or the Grand Committee or, as was being alluded to, some other
separate procedure whereby perhaps MSPs or the Executive gave
evidence at some part of the Bills select committee process?
Mr Gorrie: I think some arrangement
would be possible. The Scotland Act, in my view wrongly, says
that any Scottish Parliament committee can only consist of MSPs.
We are not allowed to co-opt people or have joint committees and
things like that but coming to give evidence or have informal
gatherings I think would be helpful because it is a question of
improving the conduct of these matters between the two Parliaments
as opposed to between the two Governments. I am sure we might
have matters in common to discuss, so I think any mechanism that
there was would be helpful. As I say, there is a slight problem
of the wording of the Scotland Act.
Q13 David Mundell: In the context
of the Sewel motion or the legislative consent motion, what scope
is there for that to be very specific, such as if you wanted a
clause X to be inserted or a clause Y to be deleted? What scope
are you giving for that to be a very specific consent, that you
are consenting for Westminster to legislate but there are certain
specifics that you would like to see incorporated? I am not convinced,
Karen, that everybody would feel the same if we did have a different
government, for natural political reasons, that they were just
as willing to hand it over on a sort of carte blanche basis.
Ms Gillon: The motion can be as
specific as you want it to be within the Scottish Parliament.
The motions have become far more specific over the last two years.
Rather than just a very bland statement about, "We give our
consent to legislate in this Bill", motions have been far
more specific. I do not think at the moment they would hand over
consent willy-nilly to a Westminster Government to legislate on
their behalf. We have to do that in the best interests of Scotland
and where it is appropriate and I think that is what we do. I
think that our procedures now are robust. It may be, however,
that a future Parliament in Scotland which is not of a Unionist
perspective but of a Nationalist perspective will not give consent
to legislate in any way, shape or form to the UK Government because
it is fundamentally opposed to that, whatever reason there may
be for doing that, and that is something that ultimately we will
have to deal with at the time. It will mean there is far more
legislation, maybe of a much smaller nature, having to be done
here in Scotland than can usefully and appropriately be done through
a UK Bill. That is a decision that the Parliament will ultimately
have to take and will have to pay the political price to the public
for those decisions as well. I cannot talk about this now when
I am not fully aware of what might happen. All I can do from the
procedures point of view within the Scottish Parliament is put
in robust procedures that are clear and transparent so that everybody
knows the rules under which they are operating, everyone knows
what they are consenting to or not consenting to, that then is
either passed or not passed by the Scottish Parliament and then
I trust my colleagues at Westminster, whatever party they are
of, to act in the best interests of Scotland. Ultimately, if you
do not do that and they amend a Bill outwith all recognition,
the Scottish Parliament can legislate anyway in a devolved area.
If you were to pass a Sewel motion or a legislative consent motion
and the Bill that turned up at the end of it was transformed out
of all recognition, not minor, not small but completely changing
the context in which the consent was given, there is nothing that
prevents us from legislating as a Parliament on those particular
devolved provisions. I just do not think it is in anybody's interests
for us to get into that game and so I want us to get the procedures
in Scotland right for us and I hope that through these dialogues
and discussions you can put in a more robust framework at Westminster
to ensure that at your end there are similar robust mechanisms
by which consent can be given and sought in the future. [4]
Q14 David Mundell: What about the point
of MSPs having some role in that process? Do you think that is
a viable option?
Ms Gillon: Forgive me for not
knowing how you take evidence at a committee, but if I am sitting
on a committee in the Scottish Parliament and I think there is
something to be gained from inviting the Scottish Affairs Select
Committee or another committee at Westminster to give evidence
as part of our consideration of a Bill, then I will not hesitate
to recommend that. We have had ministers come to give evidence
and we had in our inquiry MPs from the UK Parliament come to give
evidence. If within the passage of a UK Bill the relevant committee
thinks it is appropriate to invite somebody from the Scottish
Parliament, say, the Convener of the Railway Committee, to come
and give evidence, I am sure that the conveners of our parliamentary
committees would be only too willing to do that. If we could have
constructive dialogue between our two Parliaments and between
ourselves and yourselves then whatever people want to do a mechanism
will be found to do it. I do not think we need a formal arrangement
where we sit on the Scottish Affairs Select Committee or we set
up another committee where we are jointly on it. I do not think
our relationship is at the stage where we need that. We are both
Parliaments and we are both able to deal with each other effectively,
and as long as we have effective dialogue and communication we
can move forward.
Mr Johnstone: It must be based
on trust rather than structure.
Q15 Mr Walker: Can you give any examples
of where a Bill has caused you concern, where there has been some
friction between your agenda and perhaps the UK Parliament's agenda,
but which may not have bubbled forward?
Ms Gillon: I will let my colleagues
from the UK Opposition answer.
Mr Gorrie: There was a political
issue here about civil partnerships, some issue like that, was
there not? There was a UK Bill and it was put through on a Sewel
motion. Quite a lot of people, regardless of party, felt that
this was such an important issue that the Scots should separately
legislate on it rather than having a Sewel motion, so there are
occasions like that, but very often, when you examine a Sewel
motion, Westminster is giving greater powers to Scottish ministers
(I mean ministers up here) and to the Parliament. A lot of Sewel
Bills are not the wicked English invading Scotland. It is a generous
Westminster giving greater powers to the Scottish Parliament.
There are quite a lot of Sewel motions of that order.
Q16 Mr Walker: But how did you convey
your concerns and resolve that issue over that specific piece
of legislation?
Mr Gorrie: I do not think we did
convey the concern in that it was by a majority in the end in
our Parliament to treat it through a Sewel motion, and there were
one or two others. I do not have a great memory for these things.
There have been two or three issues that might have been so important
that we should not go down the Sewel route but there have not
been many occasions I can think of when there was concern about
the substance of the thing, that the policy behind the Sewel motion
was misguided.
Ms Gillon: You would probably
get a good old ding-dong between members of the Procedures Committee
on civil partnerships and whether or not it is appropriate to
have a Sewel motion. I took a different perspective about that.
I think there were significant reserved responsibilities within
the Civil Partnerships Bill that made it entirely the right mechanism
to move forward on a UK basis. We are not good at conveying our
concerns as a Parliament. I think if the Executive have concerns
or the Executive parties have concerns then they will be conveyed
to the relevant government minister and action taken. One of the
issues was around, if I remember rightly, the Terrorism Bill where
we amended the Sewel motion before it was passed in the Parliament
to take out a particular clause, a particular area of consent
around terrorism, which ran contrary to our Land Reform Bill.
I may be giving you absolutely duff information but we did amend
it. It was the Serious and Organised Crime Bill. We had to amend
our motion to take out a line where there was not a majority of
the Parliament.. If there were serious concerns or significant
enough concerns within the Scottish Parliament about the provision,
there would not be a majority in favour of voting for it. We still
live in a government of majority so ultimately those concerns
would be passed on, and I am sure, David, your colleagues would
pass on their concerns to you as Shadow Scottish Secretary about
issues from their particular political perspective, but ultimately
the Governments are very good at sharing concerns. The Parliaments
are perhaps not as good at sharing concerns and any kind of dialogue
that we can develop will help to pass on those concerns to Scottish
MPs. I know ultimately Scottish MPs do not always sit on the relevant
subject committee. That is sometimes an issue: how do you then
pass on the concerns of Scotland to the MPs from your party who
are sitting on the relevant subject committees? You have to have
the information in time for you to have the influence on your
colleagues within the relevant subject committees as well.
Q17 Mr McGovern: To digress slightly,
my colleague, who represents an English constituency, referred
to a Scottish newspaper yesterday as "The Scotsman,
or whatever you call it". On the front of that newspaper
today the main article refers to what I think is called the Steel
Report, which would suggest that if it was followed through the
only thing that was done from Westminster would be the Child Support
Agency. Could I ask your Convener in particular if he has a view
on that?
Mr Gorrie: I have not yet read
the report, which was a report within the Liberal Democrat Party
arrangements. It would be correct to say that a lot of people
in the Scottish Parliament sometimes get frustrated and feel that
there could be some increase in or clarification of the powers
of the Scottish Parliament, setting aside entirely the Nationalists
who wish independence and some of the other parties do as well.
The people who are in favour of the devolution settlement think
that, while the Scotland Act was a very good first shot at the
subject, it has thrown up some anomalies that need to be corrected.
The organisation of taxation, for example, is a frequent subject
of consideration, so, without knowledge of what is in this particular
report, I think there would be quite strong cross-party support
for re-examining the exact way the devolution settlement is working
out, but obviously each party has its own view. The Liberal Party
has for many years had a view of a more federal structure for
Britain and it may be that this report is mirroring that. I do
not know what my colleagues think. I think you could get very
strong, almost unanimous, support for specific measures, relatively
minor perhaps in some cases, to improve the operation of the devolution
settlement.
Q18 Mr MacDougall: There appears
to be an inconsistency in terms of the principles of devolution
when we consider the appropriate level. You could argue on the
one hand about the comment that my colleague has made in relation
to The Scotsman report and the underlying thoughts behind
that, concentration of more power for the Scottish Parliament,
but when you talk to councillors there is a strong belief that
the Scottish Parliament is taking more power from the local authorities.
Is there not almost an argument developing there that all power
comes through the Scottish Parliament? They are all for the best
interests but their actions at the end of the day will produce
that outcome if we do not have very careful consideration of what
appears to be a better practice of consultation but does not really
consider the eventual outcome of where that takes us, and therefore
the whole principles of democracy and devolution and so on could
be more damaged than improved?
Mr Gorrie: Like you, if I remember
correctly, I come from a local government background and I do
think there is a tendency, both at Westminster and at Edinburgh,
for the Government to suck up powers from local government and
I would certainly support giving more authority to local government
and even within a council area having more democracy. One of the
things in my view that the English do better than we do is that
in many areas they have historically very strong parish councils
that can raise taxation and do things whereas our community councils
are much weaker. It depends what view you take. It may be that
in 20 years' time everything will be decided by the European Parliament
and both Westminster and ourselves can go home. There is a tendency
to move the powers to the centre, so you have a good point: it
would be quite wrong for the Scottish Parliament to try to become
the power base of everything in Scotland and those of us who are
not for independence feel there should be a fair division of powers
between Westminster and Edinburgh, but I think there could be
some improvement in the details of the way it is done. If you
take Europe, it may be that the Scottish Parliament could improve
its relationship with the European Parliament and the European
Commission and so on, which we are trying to do, but without subverting
the United Kingdom position we could sometimes have more influence.
It is a very multi-level system of government that we have and
we have to co-operate as well as we can and try and work out the
best level of decision being made. I remember many years ago speaking
at a meeting in Linlithgow and saying that Linlithgow could not
have its own foreign policy, and a chap said, "Why not?".
I did not really have an answer.
Ms Gillon: Mine is a personal
view. I am not speaking on behalf of my party. Coming as I do
from the Borders and representing a Labour constituency, I doubt
that there is much in the Steel report that I will fundamentally
agree with. I think there may be some tinkering at the edges but
the devolution settlement is a new one and I think it still needs
time to bed in. I am not in favour of fundamentally ripping up
the Scotland Act at this point in time. I think we need to get
on with the relationships that we have, the powers that we have
and use them in the best interests of the people that we equally
represent. It does nobody any good if, six years down the line,
we have a fundamental review of the Scotland Act. I do not think
we are there yet. I think there are some changes at the edges
but I do not think we are there on a fundamental review.
Q19 Ms Clark: Picking up on Karen's
point about trying to make these relationships work as well as
they possibly can, has the committee considered what further formal
steps can be taken? We have obviously looked at your report with
interest and the Scottish Members of Parliament and the Scottish
Affairs Select Committee want to do what we can to make sure that
Westminster reacts to ensure that the relationship is improved
as much as it possibly can be. Maybe you could outline what formal
steps you have already taken and what further steps you think
might be taken, perhaps by writing to Mr Speaker or the Lord Chancellor
at Westminster, to try and ensure that something comes from all
of this and that we see real improvements.
Ms Gillon: There are a couple
of things. One of our recommendations is that as a Parliament
the Presiding Officer would send routinely the legislative consent
motion to Mr Speaker and to the Lord Chancellor, and it is for
them to determine what they do with it and I suppose ultimately
it is for you to offer advice to them as to what you think they
should do with it, how it can best be disseminated to Members.
We recommend that it is sent to them formally so that it is communicated
from Parliament to Parliament rather than just from Executive
to Executive. That is something that we will be taking forward
and I hope that you will be able to look at how you can influence
Mr Speaker as to how he then disseminates that to Members more
effectively. The Scotland Office have picked up on the issue of
territorial notes within the explanatory notes, and I think that
is important. The issue of dialogue between the two Parliaments
is one that we need to continue to improve. I would be interested
to know from you at a later date if you would find it useful for
our committee reports to be disseminated to the Scottish Affairs
Select Committee routinely rather than to a relevant subject committee
so that you are aware of the issues. Whatever comes out of this
I think will be positive and I think this kind of dialogue is
positive, the opportunity for us to converse with each other formally,
and I hope that we can continue to have a positive dialogue between
the two Parliaments, between your committee and the relevant committees
within the Parliament. Certainly from our perspective I know that
if there are issues we want to raise we will not be shy in doing
it. People are the most important part in all of this. We can
have all the processes in the world that we like, all the standing
orders that we like, but the dialogue between individuals will
be what makes the processes work, so this is a very helpful move
forward.
1 2 David Mundell MP. Back
2
3 Note by Witness: Of the three Procedures Committee recommendations,
the one that the Scotland Office specifically resisted was in
relation to the issue of tagging of Bills, rather than the issue
of a formal mechanism for the Scottish Parliament to communicate
its consent to Westminster: "The Government does not see
any value in the Speaker certifying Bills . . . " (Scotland
Office written evidence, para 29(a)). Back
3
4 Minutes of Evidence, Scotland Office Annual Report HC (2005-06)
580-I Q18. Back
4
See Ev 10. Back
|
