Supplementary memorandum submitted by
the Clerk of the Procedures Committee, Scottish Parliament
THE SEWEL
CONVENTION: THE
WESTMINSTER PERSPECTIVE
I have been approached by Paul Allen from the
Scottish Executive, who has suggested that I might provide additional
information on questions asked by David Mundell MP on 14 March,
when Mr Allen was giving evidence as part of a Scottish Executive
team led by the Minister for Parliamentary Business.
The questions (QQ71-74 in the uncorrected transcript)
were about the role of "Scottish parliamentary officialdom",
particularly in relation to their channels of communication with
Westminster.
I should begin by explaining that each Scottish
Parliament committee, like those at Westminster, is supported
by a small team of clerking staff. Other clerks support the Parliamentary
Bureau, which has responsibility (amongst other things) for referring
legislative consent memorandums to committees and for recommending
to the Parliament (in a business programme motion) when legislative
consent motions are to be taken.
Under the Parliament's new procedures, each
legislative consent memorandum is referred to a committee to "consider
and report", and it would therefore fall to the clerks to
that committee to provide relevant advice to the committee members
(and to draft the committee's report). Under current administrative
arrangements, it is also for those clerks to prepare any memorandum
lodged for publication as a Parliamentary document.
Committee clerks are routinely in contact with
Executive officials on matters of committee business in which
the Executive has an interest. In this context, this might include
liaison with Departmental officials about the terms of the memorandum
or about arranging oral evidence from the Minister. They might
also discuss timing issues with officials in the Minister for
Parliamentary Business's office, who would be responsible later
in the process for preparing any Executive motion.
In addition, committee clerks might on occasion
contact their Westminster counterparts to discuss the likely timing
of Bill stages that have not yet been publicly announced. Such
communication would be direct with the relevant Bill Office, and
not through Government/Executive channels.
There is one final point that may be worth making
in this connection. The memorandums submitted by the Clerks of
the two Houses refers to a long-standing administrative arrangement
between the Commons and Lords Bill Offices and Chamber Office
clerks here. The purpose of that arrangement was to alert us to
developments in Westminster, particularly in relation to private
Members" Bills, likely to give rise to Sewel motions. This
was a useful early warning mechanism at a time when Sewel procedure
was largely informal and in the hands of the Executive. However,
it has now been largely superseded by the Parliament's new Rules
requiring the Executive to give formal notice of relevant developments
in Westminster through published memorandums. Although informal
notification from Westminster clerks might still give additional
advance notice in some cases, the new Rules should greatly reduce
our reliance on such an arrangement in future.
I hope the above clarifies the points raised.
Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance in relation
to your inquiry.
Andrew Mylne
Clerk to the Committee
30 March 2006
| 
