Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20-22)
MR DONALD
GORRIE, MS
KAREN GILLON,
MR ALEX
JOHNSTONE AND
MR ANDREW
MYLNE
7 MARCH 2006
Q20 David Mundell: I want to ask
about the issue of timetabling, because again my own experience
in Parliament, having taken part in the longest ever committee
meeting of the Transport Committee when the railway powers were
transferred, there was an element of the Parliament at very short
notice having to fit in with the Westminster Parliament, which
again on this occasion people were willing to do. What are the
arrangements in relation to timetabling Scottish Parliament activity
relative to Westminster activity, and where does that sit between
the Executive and the Parliament, because again that is relying
very heavily on individual co-operation and I wonder what dialogue
and processes exist to make that happen?
Ms Gillon: Andrew will be able
to outline the time frames that we would normally expect, but
we all understand that towards the end of a government's term
of office there is legislation that they are seeking to get through
before their term of office comes to an end. There are things
that we are trying to get through in the next 18 months because
we have elections in May. There were particular issues at the
end of the last Government's session where there was not a flood
but a fairly regular stream of Sewel motions because there was
a lot of legislation backed up and trying to get through the process.
We all understand that that has happened. What we have done is
put in time frames that we would normally expect, so although
we understand that there will be occasions where that is not going
to happen we now have time frames that allow us to do our work
effectively.
Mr Mylne: When the committee was
engaged in this work we were very conscious that the context in
which the Scottish Parliament has to conduct this sort of work
has a time frame which is largely set by external factors, namely,
what is happening at Westminster, and this adds a significant
set of additional challenges in devising procedures that would
work effectively within the Parliament. The new rules that we
have put in place, which I outlined at the beginning, say very
little about timescale as such, simply because the context is
so variable, but what they are aiming to do is maximise whatever
time is available in any particular instance, in particular by
ensuring that Parliament is formally notified of a relevant development
at Westminster at the earliest possible stage. The aim, in other
words, is to ensure that Parliament's scrutiny process can begin
very early in the Westminster process. When it needs to be concluded
by is set as part of the terms of the Sewel Convention itself,
as currently agreed between the Executive and the UK Government,
and that is at the last amending stage in the first House of Westminster,
so for a Bill introduced in the Commons that will be the report
stage in the Commons. My understanding is that with Bills going
through the normal process in Westminster there is around four
months between introduction and that last amending stage in the
first House, so if the Scottish Parliament gets the memorandum
introduced to trigger the process within the two weeks of introduction
that should allow plenty of time for reasonable process of committee
scrutiny, including, perhaps, some evidence taking from witnesses
and so on, the production of a report and the scheduling of a
debate in the chamber with reasonable notice if you want to read
the report. All that should be possible but it is early days with
this new procedure and we are not yet in a position to say how
much time is actually available. Ultimately the timetabling of
a debate in the chamber, for example, is up to the Parliamentary
Bureau through the political channels and in the normal way for
Scottish Parliament business.
Mr Gorrie: One issue is the way
that Westminster deals with the Bills, that there is not committee
consultation about the Bill, but it would be helpful if we could
devise perhaps some informal system whereby those MPs interested
in the issue and MSPs could discuss it together early enough to
have some influence on the outcome of the legislation through
some sort of informal joint meetings because once a thing is into
a committee at Westminster there is not an opportunity for consultation.
Q21 Chairman: Convener, do you think
that since the establishment of the Scottish Parliament the role
of the UK Government has been fair, responsible and supportive
of the Scottish Parliament?
Mr Gorrie: Yes, I think so. We
have our party political disagreements. We have to accept the
fact that Scotland is quite small in population, though not in
area, and quite a small part of the United Kingdom and therefore
a lot of people working hard at Westminster do not give very much
thought to Scotland. I think we live with that but I would have
thought that the government machine works reasonably well with
regard to Scotland at Westminster and I do not think we have any
complaints on that score as opposed to particular political battles
on political issues.
Ms Gillon: There are also those
who would say that, while civil partnerships is probably one of
the most political decisions that was taken, the actual mechanism
and communication between the Minister at the time, who was a
Scotland Office Minister, Anne McGuire, and the relevant parliamentary
committee, was a very positive relationship. Where there is a
relevant Scotland Office minister it does enhance the dialogue
and debate and communication between the two Parliaments. With
civil partnerships I think it was a very productive relationship.
There was good dialogue, regular dialogue between the committee
and the minister, making changes where they were required, keeping
the committee up to date and I think when that happens it is very
productive.
Q22 Chairman: Convener, I believe
that you have a Procedures Committee meeting very shortly and
so could I thank you and your colleagues for your attendance.
Before I declare the meeting closed would you like to say anything
in conclusion, perhaps on areas which we have not covered during
our questioning?
Mr Gorrie: We very much welcome
the meeting and hope that there may be other, perhaps not identical,
types of meetings and that we can work together to improve the
system under which Scotland is governed at Westminster and here.
I think there is good opportunity for improving the way we do
things.
Chairman: I want to put on the record
that we were going to take evidence from Margaret Curran after
the break but unfortunately, as she has to represent the First
Minister at a funeral service in Glasgow, she is unable to be
here, so we will be taking evidence from her next week. [5]
5 6 See Ev 13. Back
|
