Examination of Witness (Questions 138-139)
28 MARCH 2006 MR
BARRY K WINETROBE
Q138 Chairman: Good afternoon, Mr Winetrobe.
First, may I welcome you to our meeting today. We are very pleased
that you have been able to attend to give evidence to our inquiry
into the Sewel Convention: the Westminster perspective. Before
we start with detailed questions, do you have any opening remarks
that you would like to make?
Mr Winetrobe: Thank you. I have
a very short opening statement, if that is agreeable to the committee.
I am very grateful for the opportunity to appear before this committee.
I do not wish to repeat the points I made in my full written submission,
but to use this opening statement to provide some wider context
perhaps to my remarks, especially in the light of the interesting
written and oral evidence the committee has already received both
here and in Edinburgh. It is encouraging, not just that the committee
has undertaken this inquiry partly in response to a report from
a fellow committee at Holyrood, but also that there seems to be
general agreement across the two parliaments and two governments
for the principle of some change to parliamentary and executive
practice to improve the operation of the Sewel Convention. It
demonstrates that whatever views there may be across the political
spectrum on wider constitutional questions, there is willingness
to make current arrangements work as effectively as possible.
Much of the evidence you have heard reinforces the important underlying
point that the two parliaments, while similar in many fundamental
ways, have some relevant differences which the whole Sewel issue
has helped to highlight. Apart from procedural variations in the
legislative process and in the parliamentary calendars, and so
on, the two relevant main differences here themselves interlinked
are: the issue of parliamentary culture and ethos, the distinctive
ethos of the new Scottish Parliament, based on its founding principles
of openness, accountability, sharing of power and equal opportunities,
means that Holyrood is explicitly intended to be an inclusive,
interactive working parliament, which has to take as much account
of the public as of government in how it does its business. This
has implications both for public awareness of what is going on
in the Parliament in its name and in opportunities for meaningful
public engagement in that parliamentary business. Westminster
has traditionally been a more inward-looking, "private"
parliament, though it has clearly taken steps in recent years
to enhance its engagement with the public. The second main difference
is the executive-parliamentary relationship: while the UK Government
is clearly dominant in this Parliament, not just in numerical
terms, but in setting the business and the more general powers
of initiative over parliamentary procedures and practices, as
you have heard in the evidence from the Scotland Office, there
is supposed to be a very different relationship in devolved Scotland.
For example, there is no Leader of the House; business is arranged
through a business committee, the Parliamentary Bureau, and proposed
business is subject to approval by the whole Parliament; changes
to Standing Orders are the responsibility of the Procedures Committee,
and perhaps most importantly of all, there is no equivalent of
Standing Order no 14(1) here giving the Government an explicit
monopoly over virtually all business. The early operation of the
Sewel Convention demonstrated that, though it was formally expressed
in terms of the two parliaments, both administrations saw it as
essentially an inter-governmental matter, and there was an impression
then that the Scottish Executive could "handle its parliament"
in ways familiar at Westminster. To conclude, while these differences
may make inter-institutional matters such as the operation of
the Sewel Convention potentially complex, they are not, in my
view, insuperable obstacles, so long as each parliament respects
the other's role, ethos and practices, and is prepared, as far
as possible, to accommodate the genuine interests of the other
where relevant, such as in Sewel business.
Q139 Chairman: We believe, Mr Winetrobe,
that you are in a unique position being a former officer of both
the House of Commons and of the Scottish Parliament, and so know
how both parliaments work from the inside. However, now that you
are in academia, presumably you are able to take a more detached
view of both parliaments. How would you judge the current relations
between the two parliaments? Do you consider them to be satisfactory,
or do you think that there is room for improvement?
Mr Winetrobe: I think on a day-to-day
informal level relations between the two parliaments at all levels
from presiding officers down through officials and to members,
committees and so on there is a very good working relationship.
My concern has always been that that relationship has been essentially
informal and has not been built up to the same degree of intensity
and formality as inter-governmental relations have been. I am
not saying that it should or it requires that degree of formality,
but especially from the point of view of the two governments,
I think they regard intergovernmental relations as the real, important
business of governing, that relations between the two parliaments
are in some senses secondary, and that these have been built up
on an as-and-when basis. There are very good relationships at
all levels between staff, between committees and, as I say, between
presiding officers. I think whenever possible greater co-operation,
co-ordination, greater amity between all the parliaments and assemblies
within the UK is to be welcomed.
|
