Examination of Witnesses (Questions 23-39)
MS MARGARET
CURRAN, MR
MURRAY SINCLAIR
AND MR
PAUL ALLEN
14 MARCH 2006
Q23 Chairman: Good afternoon, Minister.
Welcome to you and your officials to our meeting today. We are
very pleased that you have been able to attend to give evidence
to our inquiry on The Sewel Convention, the Westminster perspective.
Would you like to make an opening statement before we ask questions?
Ms Curran: Thank you very much,
Chair. This is my first attendance at a House of Commons select
committee, and hopefully not my last. I am very grateful to be
here. Thank you for agreeing to postponement of my presentation
visit last week in Edinburgh; I very much appreciate you assisting
me with that. I am Margaret Curran, Minister for Parliamentary
Business, and on my left is Murray Sinclair from the Scottish
Executive, and on my right Paul Allen from the Scottish Executive.
Can I repeat how pleased we are to be here, particularly as you
have chosen to hold an inquiry into the Sewel Convention. I am
not completely unique, but I am one of the few who are very interested
in the Sewel Convention, and it has given me great cause for interest
in my time as a minister. Since the beginning of devolution the
Convention has been a very important feature of the settlement,
and a fairly important part of what has been a fairly smooth operation
of devolution in practice. We recognise that while the UK Parliament
remains sovereign, the Government recognises the right of the
Scottish Parliament to make decisions on matters within its own
competence so the Government has agreed not to legislate on devolved
matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament. This agreement
has helped to underpin the devolution settlement and support the
role of the Scottish Parliament and make devolution live and breathe
effectively. As you know, I think well, our own Procedures Committee
in the Scottish Parliament completed its own inquiry into the
Convention, and I know that you were speaking to representatives
of that committee last week. I genuinely appreciate the interest
you have taken in the matters in the Scottish Parliament, because
that shared understanding helps us all. It is my own experience
that the Executive and the UK Government have worked well together
both at official level and ministerial level to make the Convention
work. Through that joint effort we have ensured that the Convention
has been respected. We had one breakage of it, and it was inadvertent
and very swiftly dealt with, so that is not bad in all this period
of time, and that is evidence that we are making this commitment
work. It has ensured the devolution settlement and its practices
are respected both sides of the border. It gives the Scottish
Parliament the right to consider and decide before legislation
is passed in devolved areas in the sure knowledge that that will
be abided by, and it will ensure that our parliament takes responsibility
for its own decisions. At some point, I would like to lay out
this afternoon the benefits of the Sewel Convention, and clarify
some misunderstanding there has been broadly about its usage because
I think it has been a benefit to Scotland and is evidence of the
strong partnership we have now. I will do that more in questioning.
We are developing the Sewel Convention and our procedures and
they have grown and will become more effective, and we would happily
answer any questions you have got. We welcome the fact that this
Parliament is taking such an interest in the Sewel Convention
because it is very important that the parliament appreciates the
kinds of issues we are dealing with.
Q24 Chairman: What channels of communication
between the two parliaments and the two governments that exist
now, and perhaps you can indicate who is your point of contact
in the British Government?
Ms Curran: There are various levels
at which you have to deal with that. At one level, obviously the
Executive speaks to the British Government on a wide variety of
fronts, usually on the policy front, for example the Minister
for Justice is in close contact with the Home Office over developing
policies, and there are communications at the official and political
level. I have responsibility for the overall programme and if
possible when the Queen's Speech is announced in the UK Parliament
I try to make the Scottish Parliament aware publicly of the likely
implications for ourselves in that. That would be a means of doing
that as well. It is ongoing communication, as issues emerge that
we might wish to take action on, or not, as the case might be.
Q25 Chairman: Please can you clarify
where the initiative for the Sewel motions has come from: is it
from the Government or the Executive?
Ms Curran: It could be both perhaps
in some ways. Again, the kind of line I have taken is as early
intervention as possible. The earlier we know things the better.
It could be that legislation has been proposed at Westminster
level and officials have been in discussions about that. Sometimes,
as I say, it could be more at the political level. Most of the
Sewels that have been passed, the vast majority of them, are over
technical matters and minor matters, as we would see it, so sometimes
it can be later on in the process.
Q26 Chairman: As the Executive's
Minister for Parliamentary Business, would you automatically be
the First Scottish Minister HM Government contacted, if proposed
legislation would affect Scotland, or would it depend entirely
on which of the Executive's departments had responsibility for
the matter?
Ms Curran: Normally it would be
by portfolio, so it would be the subjects minister, the portfolio
minister, and their department. They would probably be the first
to contact, but I would have an over-arching interest in it. You
may be aware that we have a cabinet sub-committee on legislation,
and I take the lead role in that; so before it could be finally
signed off it would need to come through my department.
Q27 Chairman: If the UK Government
wanted to contact any ministry, would they come through you or
write . . .
Ms Curran: Not necessarily. They
can do it department to department.
Q28 Danny Alexander: I am interested
in how you keep the Westminster Parliament and most of the Scottish
Parliament up to date with legislation, particularly legislation
where a Sewel Convention might apply.
Ms Curran: I suppose my interest
lies—primarily my responsibilities are to my own parliament,
so I am perhaps a bit more knowledgeable about that. I think we
have made quite a lot of progress on that because I have been
very keen in the time I have been in this job to make sure that
the Scottish Parliament is well informed about it, largely because
I think we have been misinformed, and always think somehow Sewel
Convention is about passing power back to Westminster, and if
you look at the details in fact that is not the case. You have
to clarify that. It is also about the democratic role of the parliament
and the accountability of the parliament in passing good legislation.
The key of a Sewel motion is that it needs the consent of the
Scottish Parliament, which is what part of the name change is
about, so that we emphasise consent, and it needs the consent
of the parliament. First of all, we have to have a memorandum
that goes to the committee, which is fuller than it has ever been
before. We have to give adequate time for the committee to decide
whether to take evidence and to make a recommendation about it,
and then we have to make sure the parliament has adequate time
itself to think through the implications of it; and then it has
to go to a vote in the parliament. So we put quite a lot of effort
into ensuring that parliament is well briefed, or in Sewel Conventions
that the Executive would recommend.
Q29 Danny Alexander: Do you then
keep the parliament up to date with the progress of any legislation
here, once a Sewel motion has been passed and a certain bill therefore
is going to apply to Scotland?
Ms Curran: Not necessarily.
Mr Sinclair: As long as it proceeds
to time, but if there is a new issue raised during the parliamentary
passage to the Westminster legislation, then we will bring that
back to—a new issue that leads to devolved matters and bring
it back to the Scottish Parliament.
Ms Curran: We would be obliged
to bring it back.
Q30 Danny Alexander: So once the
parliament has given its consent, as far as you are concerned
that is the Scottish Parliament's involvement and that is the
issue done with unless there is a substantial change.
Ms Curran: Yes, because it is
only giving consent to that particular aspect of legislation.
We are only interested in the devolved aspect. What Westminster
does for the rest of its powers is its business. We would be very
particular about legislating within our own areas of competence.
Q31 Danny Alexander: Presumably,
it is at least possible perhaps—and this might be more the
case potentially if you had governments of different political
hues in Scotland and in Westminster—that the Scottish Parliament
might pass a motion to have a certain piece of legislation, and
it might apply to Scotland in certain technical respects, or broader
respects than they intend to do, but then the Westminster Parliament
decides not to pass that legislation for whatever reason. [1]
Ms Curran: Yes.
Q32 Danny Alexander: I guess that
situation has not arisen as yet. [2]
Ms Curran: No.
Q33 Danny Alexander: It is a situation
that could arise. How would that be dealt with?
Ms Curran: I suppose theoretically
there could be bills that fall at Westminster. They maybe passed
a consent motion where we would want part of it, and we would
have our own choice then, either to legislate ourselves on the
matter, if it was a priority for us; or we would be able to inform
the parliament that that was not passed. We would have that choice.
I should say that the political colours of the Executive and the
Westminster Government are not entirely absolute, as you know;
and it is a strength. Some people say it is only working just
now because we have got politicians of the same party in power,
but it is a bit more complicated than that, as you know. I think
that is a strength, that we can work beyond one party to make
the Sewel Convention work; and broadly speaking MSPs would see
it working—broadly speaking.
Q34 David Mundell: Margaret, you
would have to accept that if you had significantly different governments
then things would be different in terms of the operation; and
what I am concerned about is to ensure that the process is robust
enough to be able to deal with that. One of those issues around
that is timing, because my personal experience for example with
the powers that were in the Railways Bill was that the Scottish
Parliament very much fitted in with the Westminster timing in
order to meet their requirements, and we had one very lengthy
committee meeting of seven hours because we went along with that
process. How confident are you that these timing issues are independent
from political interference so to speak?p[3]
Ms Curran: Let me try and—and
if I am not answering directly I am sure you will come back to
me, because I do not think the issue is around timing. I, like
you, would absolutely share the proposal that our processes must
be robust to withstand any kind of political disagreement. You
say "significant" difference between political parties:
I take it you mean your own party would have significant differences,
which is probably true; but I genuinely believe we should have
robust mechanisms that withstand personalities and people of different
political persuasions. We have seen some evidence of that; but
there have been differences between certain colleagues in the
Scottish Parliament and certain proposals that come from Westminster.
That is part of the urge to make sure that we always improve the
processes. I think the Scottish Parliament and its committee system
that really looks at this in depth before bringing it to parliament
does need to have adequate time to properly give consideration
to the matters before it. I have pushed our system to make sure
that that happens and we have come forward with a package of proposals
that will be implemented. I would be very sympathetic to any members
of any political persuasion who said to me they did not have enough
time to give any matter proper scrutiny, and that would include
Sewels. The fact that we have very little debate about it now—a
lot of the controversy has gone—I have had no representations
about more time since we have changed that—it does indicate
that people are satisfied broadly. The particular issue with the
Railways Bill was not so much us fitting in with the timing to
make it easier for people down here—I do not think anyone
has alleged that—I think it was the nature of the Sewel
itself and the powers we were getting; and the committee were
determined that they were going to do what was in the best interests
of the Scottish Parliament, and I think we did a thorough and
robust job on that, and I think we were right to do that. I cannot
remember all the details of the Railways Bill, and maybe we could
have done it over two weeks rather than one, and we should have
done that if we could. There is an issue of timing about the legislation,
but there always is. To get legislation through you have to say
to people sometimes, "you need to decide today; you cannot
take for ever to decide about this", but that does not just
apply to Sewels, it applies to everyone and it applies in our
parliament and yours, just to get through the work. We have made
quite a lot of effort to try and make sure that people get the
time they need to make the proper decision happen.
Q35 David Mundell: You are confident
the processes you have developed at the Scottish Parliament—that
there is not scope for delay to be deliberately brought about
so as to bring conflict with the Westminster timescale?
Ms Curran: Yes, I think I am confident,
and I have certainly had co-operation from all the political parties
about that. Some political parties would disagree with the content
of the Sewel and some disagree with the principle of the Sewel;
but, as I say, that is becoming less and less of an issue on the
floor of the chamber and indeed the committees. It is much more
now about what we are doing that focuses minds. I do not know
of any other examples.
Mr Sinclair: The process is quite
clear: if the parliament does not consent, then the provisions
will not be included in the bill, and timing has been largely
resolved, so I do not see a difficulty.
Ms Curran: The earlier the warning
you get about what the proposals are, the easier it is.
Q36 David Mundell: In terms of the
actual content of the motions, there has also been a move to make
them more specific partly in relation to the issues that Danny
was raising, where the parliament would be happy for the Westminster
government to legislate but only within certain parameters. Do
you think that will be increasingly the case, not just to legislate
on the devolved area but for the legislation to be in a specific
form?
Ms Curran: Yes. I think we are
attracted by Sewels, and again I think this is more than just
the governing parties in Scotland; I think people can see it more
broadly. We are attracted by Sewels because it feels to us as
if we get the best of both worlds. We can for example improve
Scots law quickly over what is sometimes a small issue. For example,
allowing guide dogs into taxis in Scotland. When they proposed
that at Westminster and suggested we should do it in a Sewel in
Scotland, it seemed to us a perfectly rational thing to do rather
than a separate bill about getting guide dogs into taxis in Scotland.
That is very specific and that is tight, and we need to be very
focused on what it is we are actually legislating on. Broadly
speaking, the Sewels are of that nature. We are very clear about
what we are legislating on. The committee is very clear about
what it is legislating on and what information they need. Most
of the detailed work goes on at committee stage. The committee
looks at it and makes a representation to the parliament. We have
had some debates on Sewel motions on the floor, but not many actually
recently.
Q37 David Mundell: You set out at
the start some detail about how the inter-governmental relationship
works. I was interested that you did not mention whether you had
any relationship with the Leader of the House here, for example.
Ms Curran: He is a very nice man!
He has never taken it any further than that, I have to say!
Q38 David Mundell: Is there a linkage
between your department and his?
Ms Curran: Yes, there is a formal
link where we are in fairly regular contact with the Leader of
the House, both at official and political level. When the Queen's
Speech has been prepared for example we would have a formal role—informal
role—
Mr Sinclair: Informal— and
a very close working relationship.
Ms Curran: I think it becomes
formal when we would want to inform parliament of any relevant
issues for Scotland. That is something we did last year for the
first time[4],
just through PQ; we indicated the relevance to Scotland. To that
extent, that would be how we would relate to each other.
Q39 David Mundell: Does that relationship
transcend political persuasion?
Ms Curran: I suppose it is difficult
for me to honestly answer that because just now we are members
of the same party. He is a very fine upstanding Leader of the
House. My job requires me to work with other political opponents
in the parliament because of the nature of the parliament, and
my experience is that we are managing that very effectively. When
people see it is commonsense legislation we are about, then people
will respect that. Obviously, we have political differences and
will promote policies that people will not necessarily agree with,
but my interest is to make sure that procedures are proper around
that, that people have confidence around procedures and that they
get opposition properly to have their place within those procedures
to test and oppose appropriately. It is part of my job. I think
it is in our interests to do that because you get robust legislation
if you have a robust opposition as well. I think you can say they
are fairly robust. I suppose the opposition people might take
a different view.
1 See Ev 22. Back
2
See Ev 22. Back
3
See Ev 22. Back
4
4 See Ev 23. Back
| 
