Memorandum submitted by the Clerk of the
Parliaments
INTRODUCTION
1. This memorandum is supplementary to the
note submitted by the Clerk of the House of Commons on 15 February.
I agree with Roger Sands' summary of the background and, as he
did, I will comment on the suggestions made by the Scottish Parliament's
Procedures Committee in paragraphs 204 to 207 of their report.
TAGGING OF
RELEVANT BILLS
2. I doubt whether, in the context of a
self-regulating House, the Speaker of the House of Lords would
have the power to certify bills. But it would certainly be possible
for a note to be made in our Minutes and Orders of the Day indicating
that the Scottish Parliament had agreed a Sewel Resolution in
respect of a particular bill. We are currently engaged in a re-design
of our procedural documents, and I will ask the working group
concerned to take this into account in their proposals.
COMMUNICATING THE
SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT'S
VIEW
3. I agree with Roger Sands' suggestion
that a letter from the Clerk of the Scottish Parliament to the
Clerks of the two Houses at Westminster might be the simplest
way to convey the Scottish Parliament's views. The text of the
resolution could be made available to Lords Members through the
Printed Paper Office.
IMPROVED EXPLANATORY
NOTES
4. I fully support the suggestion in Roger
Sands' note that the information in Explanatory Notes could be
improved. The adoption of a consistent standard form of references
to Sewel Resolutions would certainly assist Members of both Houses
here to find this information quickly.
PRIVATE MEMBERS'
BILLS &C
5. The current agreement between the Lords
Public Bill Office and the Scottish Parliament is that we will
attempt, on a "best endeavours" basis, to warn the Legislation
Team in the Scottish Parliament of bills which engage devolved
powers and might require a Sewel Resolution. We also try to keep
the Scottish Parliament informed of significant non-Government
amendments which might have devolution implications. We think
that this arrangement has worked satisfactorily. There are relatively
few Private Members' Bills in the Lords, and very few indeed which
might require a Sewel Resolution.
6. As paragraph 14 of Roger Sands' note
says, it must be for the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish
Executive to judge whether a Sewel Resolution might be appropriate
on a Private Members' Bill, and there appears to be a mechanism
in place for making that judgment.
P D G Hayter
27 February 2006
| 
