Select Committee on Scottish Affairs Minutes of Evidence


Examination of Witness (Questions 160-161)

28 MARCH 2006  MR BARRY K WINETROBE

  Q160  Chairman: The committee members are very pleased that you have taken a great deal of interest in our inquiry. Would you like to comment on any of the views expressed by previous witnesses?

  Mr Winetrobe: I do not think so. You have had a very good range of witnesses for the purposes of your inquiry, up to today, and that like perhaps people here and in Scotland when we first read the Scotland Office's submissions, we thought "this is a bit negative". Maybe it was not quite so negative. I tend not so much to agree with the people from the Scottish Parliament that actually they were more supportive of these proposed changes than appeared at first glance. I think it was possibly just that Westminster/Whitehall mindset and that there was a fear, whether within the Scotland Office or perhaps from other parts of the government machine of: do not have any hostages to fortune; do not make any promises on process or practice that might in any way potentially compromise the Government's complete freedom to run its legislative programme as it sees fit and feels is necessary. From their point of view, that is perfectly understandable. Therefore, issues of a second stage at the Scottish Parliament or things that might kick in at the very end of process down here, close to Royal Assent, obviously are matters that everybody recognised right from the very beginning were not going to be very sympathetically looked at because that is just not a real option. I look forward to reading your report. I think there is great potential and optimism for some small steps to be undertaken that will not shake the rafters of this place. As I say, to some extent my interest in it is in what it says for the whole issue of co-operation between Scotland and the United Kingdom, both at government and at parliament level, that shows that when both parliaments and both governments are all willing to look at something objectively, there are ways in which things can be improved without anybody winning or losing or giving ground or losing face, and so on. To that extent, although it has been a horrible five years in some respects about Sewel, it has been a very good learning process for everybody in both places. I think the whole system of governance in the UK has come out of it better. Depending on what you suggest, the most important thing then is what the Government and Parliament here decides to do with that. I think that gives great hope for the future.

  Q161  Chairman: Mr Winetrobe, thank you very much for your evidence. That concludes our questions. Before I declare the meeting closed, do you wish to say anything in conclusion perhaps on areas not covered by our questioning?

  Mr Winetrobe: No. I think we have had a very interesting discussion, at least from my point of view.

  Chairman: Thank you very much for your evidence. That will be extremely useful when we compile our report.




 
previous page contents

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2006
Prepared 19 June 2006