Examination of Witnesses (Questions 117-119)
MR ROGER
SANDS AND
MR FRANK
CRANMER
21 MARCH 2006
Q117 Chairman: Good afternoon, welcome,
Mr Sands and Mr Cranmer, to our meeting of the Scottish Affairs
Committee this afternoon. We are very pleased that you have been
able to attend to give evidence on our inquiry into the Sewel
Convention: the Westminster perspective. Before we start asking
detailed questions, would you like to make a statement?
Mr Sands: Only, Chairman, just
to clarify for the record the basis on which I am giving evidence.
Your request was originally made to the Leader of the House for
a memorandum giving what I think was described as the view of
the House of Commons on the Sewel Convention, and I was asked
by his office to prepare a paper, and he has sent that to you.
Obviously, I cannot do any more than give you the view on the
Sewel Convention of the House of Commons administration; I cannot
talk on behalf of the House as a whole.
Q118 Chairman: We appreciate that,
but we will ask the questions, and if at any stage you feel that
you are unable to answer them for any reason, please say so. I
do not think that we would be offended or upset by that. We have
heard from Ministers both from the Scottish Executive and the
Scotland Office how inter-governmental arrangements are co-ordinated.
Can you briefly explain how inter-parliamentary arrangements are
co-ordinated now?
Mr Sands: I will largely leave
this question to Frank Cranmer, if I may, Chairman. I should say
in general that relations between officials at Westminster and
officials at the Scottish Parliament are generally cordial and
good, fostered in a number of ways, formal and informal. I do
have occasional discussions with my opposite number, Paul Grice,
[9]but
I cannot say that the issues which are before you at the moment
ever cross my desk; however, they do arise from time to time in
the Public Bill Office, and so I will ask Mr Cranmer to deal with
that.
Mr Cranmer: Chairman, there are
two channels here. One is Government Bills and the other is Private
Members' Bills. Relations on Government Bills are between the
UK Government and the Scottish Executive. Ministers, through their
civil servants, keep in contact with the Scottish Executive so
the Executive knows when a Sewel Convention is required in respect
of a Government Bill. My concern is with Private Members' Bills,
quite a few of which are drafted in my office. When I look at
the bill drafted for the first time, one of the things that I
try and bear in mind always is whether, if it applies to Scotland—though
actually not many of them do—it engages devolved powers.
If it appears to engage devolved powers we draw this to the attention
of the Member concerned. The Bill quite often goes through a long
drafting stage; and when it comes to fruition, and when it is
presented and printed, we let the legislation team in the Scottish
Parliament know so that they can pick it up. It is an entirely
informal arrangement but it is an informal arrangement that is
based on an exchange of letters between myself and Ken Hughes,
who was the Clerk in charge at the time, saying that we would
use our best endeavours to keep them informed. All I can say,
Chairman, is that we have not had any complaints; the system seems
to work well at an informal level.
Q119 Chairman: How often do you have
to liaise with the Clerk of the Scottish Parliament or the parliament's
legislation team over bills to which the Sewel Convention might
apply?
Mr Cranmer: Probably two or three
times a year. When the ballot bills come in we tend to treat those
as a block. Occasionally, in the course of a year either a ten-minute
rule or a presentation bill might engage Scottish devolved powers,
but I cannot give you precise figures. However, I can find out
and write to the Clerk, if that would be helpful. [10]
9 Clerk and Chief Executive, Scottish Parliament. Back
10
See Ev 46. Back
|
