|
UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC 983-ii House of COMMONS MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE scottish AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
the sewel convention: the westminster perspective
TUESday 14 MARCH 2006 MS MARGARET CURRAN, MR MURRAY SINCLAIR and MR PAUL ALLEN
DAVID CAIRNS MP, DR JIM WILDGOOSE and MR GLENN PRESTON Evidence heard in Public Questions 23 - 116
USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT
Oral Evidence Taken before the Scottish Affairs Committee on Tuesday 14 March 2006 Members present Mr Mohammed Sarwar, in the Chair Danny Alexander Gordon Banks David Mundell Mr Jim McGovern Mr Charles Walker ________________ Witnesses: Ms Margaret Curran, Member of the Scottish Parliament, Minister for Parliamentary Business, Mr Murray Sinclair, Head, Constitution and Parliamentary Secretariat, and Mr Paul Allen, Head, Constitutional Policy Unit, the Scottish Executive, gave evidence. Q23 Chairman: Good afternoon, Minister. Welcome to you and your officials to our meeting today. We are very pleased that you have been able to attend to give evidence to our inquiry on the Sewel Convention, the Westminster perception. Would you like to make an opening statement before we ask questions? Ms Curran: Thank you very much, Chair. This is my first attendance at a House of Commons select committee, and hopefully not my last. I am very grateful to be here. Thank you for agreeing to postponement of my presentation visit last week in Edinburgh; I very much appreciate you assisting me with that. I am Margaret Curran, Minister for Parliamentary Business, and on my left is Murray Sinclair from the Scottish Executive, and on my right Paul Allen from the Scottish Executive. Can I repeat how pleased we are to be here, particularly as you have chosen to hold an inquiry into the Sewel Convention. I am not completely unique, but I am one of the few who are very interested in the Sewel Convention, and it has given me great cause for interest in my time as a minister. Since the beginning of devolution the Convention has been a very important feature of the settlement, and a fairly important part of what has been a fairly smooth operation of devolution in practice. We recognise that while the UK Parliament remains sovereign, the Government recognises the right of the Scottish Parliament to make decisions on matters within its own competence so the Government has agreed not to legislate on devolved matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament. This agreement has helped to underpin the devolution settlement and support the role of the Scottish Parliament and make devolution live and breathe effectively. As you know, I think well, our own Procedures Committee in the Scottish Parliament completed its own inquiry into the Convention, and I know that you were speaking to representatives of that committee last week. I genuinely appreciate the interest you have taken in the matters in the Scottish Parliament, because that shared understanding helps us all. It is my own experience that the Executive and the UK Government have worked well together both at official level and ministerial level to make the Convention work. Through that joint effort we have ensured that the Convention has been respected. We had one breakage of it, and it was inadvertent and very swiftly dealt with, so that is not bad in all this period of time, and that is evidence that we are making this commitment work. It has ensured the devolution settlement and its practices are respected both sides of the border. It gives the Scottish Parliament the right to consider and decide before legislation is passed in devolved areas in the sure knowledge that that will be abided by, and it will ensure that our parliament takes responsibility for its own decisions. At some point, I would like to lay out this afternoon the benefits of the Sewel Convention, and clarify some misunderstanding there has been broadly about its usage because I think it has been a benefit to Scotland and is evidence of the strong partnership we have now. I will do that more in questioning. We are developing the Sewel Convention and our procedures and they have grown and will become more effective, and we would happily answer any questions you have got. We welcome the fact that this Parliament is taking such an interest in the Sewel Convention because it is very important that the parliament appreciates the kinds of issues we are dealing with. Q24 Chairman: What channels of communication between the two parliaments and the two governments that exist now, and perhaps you can indicate who is your point of contact in the British Government? Ms Curran: There are various levels at which you have to deal with that. At one level, obviously the Executive speaks to the British Government on a wide variety of fronts, usually on the policy front, for example the Minister for Justice is in close contact with the Home Office over developing policies, and there are communications at the official and political level. I have responsibility for the overall programme and if possible when the Queen's Speech is announced in the UK Parliament I try to make the Scottish Parliament aware publicly of the likely implications for ourselves in that. That would be a means of doing that as well. It is ongoing communication, as issues emerge that we might wish to take action on, or not, as the case might be. Q25 Chairman: Please can you clarify where the initiative for the Sewel motions has come from: is it from the Government or the Executive? Ms Curran: It could be both perhaps in some ways. Again, the kind of line I have taken is as early intervention as possible. The earlier we know things the better. It could be that legislation has been proposed at Westminster level and officials have been in discussions about that. Sometimes, as I say, it could be more at the political level. Most of the Sewels that have been passed, the vast majority of them, are over technical matters and minor matters, as we would see it, so sometimes it can be later on in the process. Q26 Chairman: As the Executive's Minister for Parliamentary Business, would you automatically be the First Scottish Minister HM Government contacted, if proposed legislation would affect Scotland, or would it depend entirely on which of the Executive's departments had responsibility for the matter? Ms Curran: Normally it would be by portfolio, so it would be the subjects minister, the portfolio minister, and their department. They would probably be the first to contact, but I would have an over-arching interest in it. You may be aware that we have a cabinet sub-committee on legislation, and I take the lead role in that; so before it could be finally signed off it would need to come through my department. Q27 Chairman: If the UK Government wanted to contact any ministry, would they come through you or write .... Ms Curran: Not necessarily. They can do it department to department. Q28 Danny Alexander: I am interested in how you keep the Westminster Parliament and most of the Scottish Parliament up to date with legislation, particularly legislation where a Sewel Convention might apply. Ms Curran: I suppose my interest lies - primarily my responsibilities are to my own parliament, so I am perhaps a bit more knowledgeable about that. I think we have made quite a lot of progress on that because I have been very keen in the time I have been in this job to make sure that the Scottish Parliament is well informed about it, largely because I think we have been misinformed, and always think somehow Sewel Convention is about passing power back to Westminster, and if you look at the details in fact that is not the case. You have to clarify that. It is also about the democratic role of the parliament and the accountability of the parliament in passing good legislation. The key of a Sewel motion is that it needs the consent of the Scottish Parliament, which is what part of the name change is about, so that we emphasise consent, and it needs the consent of the parliament. First of all, we have to have a memorandum that goes to the committee, which is fuller than it has ever been before. We have to give adequate time for the committee to decide whether to take evidence and to make a recommendation about it, and then we have to make sure the parliament has adequate time itself to think through the implications of it; and then it has to go to a vote in the parliament. So we put quite a lot of effort into ensuring that parliament is well briefed, or in Sewel Conventions that the Executive would recommend. Q29 Danny Alexander: Do you then keep the parliament up to date with the progress of any legislation here, once a Sewel motion has been passed and a certain bill therefore is going to apply to Scotland? Ms Curran: Not necessarily. Mr Sinclair: As long as it proceeds to time, but if there is a new issue raised during the parliamentary passage to the Westminster legislation, then we will bring that back to - a new issue that leads to devolved matters and bring it back to the Scottish Parliament. Ms Curran: We would be obliged to bring it back. Q30 Danny Alexander: So once the parliament has given its consent, as far as you are concerned that is the Scottish Parliament's involvement and that is the issue done with unless there is a substantial change. Ms Curran: Yes, because it is only giving consent to that particular aspect of legislation. We are only interested in the devolved aspect. What Westminster does for the rest of its powers is its business. We would be very particular about legislating within our own areas of competence. Q31 Danny Alexander: Presumably, it is at least possible perhaps - and this might be more the case potentially if you had governments of different political hues in Scotland and in Westminster - that the Scottish Parliament might pass a motion to have a certain piece of legislation, and it might apply to Scotland in certain technical respects, or broader respects than they intend to do, but then the Westminster Parliament decides not to pass that legislation for whatever reason. Ms Curran: Yes. Q32 Danny Alexander: I guess that situation has not arisen as yet. Ms Curran: No. Q33 Danny Alexander: It is a situation that could arise. How would that be dealt with? Ms Curran: I suppose theoretically there could be bills that fall at Westminster. They maybe passed a consent motion where we would want part of it, and we would have our own choice then, either to legislate ourselves on the matter, if it was a priority for us; or we would be able to inform the parliament that that was not passed. We would have that choice. I should say that the political colours of the Executive and the Westminster Government are not entirely absolute, as you know; and it is a strength. Some people say it is only working just now because we have got politicians of the same party in power, but it is a bit more complicated than that, as you know. I think that is a strength, that we can work beyond one party to make the Sewel Convention work; and broadly speaking MSPs would see it working - broadly speaking. Q34 David Mundell: Margaret, you would have to accept that if you had significantly different governments then things would be different in terms of the operation; and what I am concerned about is to ensure that the process is robust enough to be able to deal with that. One of those issues around that is timing, because my personal experience for example with the powers that were in the Railways Bill was that the Scottish Parliament very much fitted in with the Westminster timing in order to meet their requirements, and we had one very lengthy committee meeting of seven hours because we went along with that process. How confident are you that these timing issues are independent from political interference so to speak? Ms Curran: Let me try and - and if I am not answering directly I am sure you will come back to me, because I do not think the issue is around timing. I, like you, would absolutely share the proposal that our processes must be robust to withstand any kind of political disagreement. You say "significant" difference between political parties: I take it you mean your own party would have significant differences, which is probably true; but I genuinely believe we should have robust mechanisms that withstand personalities and people of different political persuasions. We have seen some evidence of that; but there have been differences between certain colleagues in the Scottish Parliament and certain proposals that come from Westminster. That is part of the urge to make sure that we always improve the processes. I think the Scottish Parliament and its committee system that really looks at this in depth before bringing it to parliament does need to have adequate time to properly give consideration to the matters before it. I have pushed our system to make sure that that happens and we have come forward with a package of proposals that will be implemented. I would be very sympathetic to any members of any political persuasion who said to me they did not have enough time to give any matter proper scrutiny, and that would include Sewels. The fact that we have very little debate about it now - a lot of the controversy has gone - I have had no representations about more time since we have changed that - it does indicate that people are satisfied broadly. The particular issue with the Railways Bill was not so much us fitting in with the timing to make it easier for people down here - I do not think anyone has alleged that - I think it was the nature of the Sewel itself and the powers we were getting; and the committee were determined that they were going to do what was in the best interests of the Scottish Parliament, and I think we did a thorough and robust job on that, and I think we were right to do that. I cannot remember all the details of the Railways Bill, and maybe we could have done it over two weeks rather than one, and we should have done that if we could. There is an issue of timing about the legislation, but there always is. To get legislation through you have to say to people sometimes, "you need to decide today; you cannot take for ever to decide about this", but that does not just apply to Sewels, it applies to everyone and it applies in our parliament and yours, just to get through the work. We have made quite a lot of effort to try and make sure that people get the time they need to make the proper decision happen. Q35 David Mundell: You are confident the processes you have developed at the Scottish Parliament - that there is not scope for delay to be deliberately brought about so as to bring conflict with the Westminster timescale? Ms Curran: Yes, I think I am confident, and I have certainly had co-operation from all the political parties about that. Some political parties would disagree with the content of the Sewel and some disagree with the principle of the Sewel; but, as I say, that is becoming less and less of an issue on the floor of the chamber and indeed the committees. It is much more now about what we are doing that focuses minds. I do not know of any other examples. Mr Sinclair: The process is quite clear: if the parliament does not consent, then the provisions will not be included in the bill, and timing has been largely resolved, so I do not see a difficulty. Ms Curran: The earlier the warning you get about what the proposals are, the easier it is. Q36 David Mundell: In terms of the actual content of the motions, there has also been a move to make them more specific partly in relation to the issues that Danny was raising, where the parliament would be happy for the Westminster government to legislate but only within certain parameters. Do you think that will be increasingly the case, not just to legislate on the devolved area but for the legislation to be in a specific form? Ms Curran: Yes. I think we are attracted by Sewels, and again I think this is more than just the governing parties in Scotland; I think people can see it more broadly. We are attracted by Sewels because it feels to us as if we get the best of both worlds. We can for example improve Scots law quickly over what is sometimes a small issue. For example, allowing guide dogs into taxis in Scotland. When they proposed that at Westminster and suggested we should do it in a Sewel in Scotland, it seemed to us a perfectly rational thing to do rather than a separate bill about getting guide dogs into taxis in Scotland. That is very specific and that is tight, and we need to be very focused on what it is we are actually legislating on. Broadly speaking, the Sewels are of that nature. We are very clear about what we are legislating on. The committee is very clear about what it is legislating on and what information they need. Most of the detailed work goes on at committee stage. The committee looks at it and makes a representation to the parliament. We have had some debates on Sewel motions on the floor, but not many actually recently. Q37 David Mundell: You set out at the start some detail about how the inter-governmental relationship works. I was interested that you did not mention whether you had any relationship with the Leader of the House here, for example. Ms Curran: He is a very nice man! He has never taken it any further than that, I have to say! Q38 David Mundell: Is there a linkage between your department and his? Ms Curran: Yes, there is a formal link where we are in fairly regular contact with the Leader of the House, both at official and political level. When the Queen's Speech has been prepared for example we would have a formal role - informal role ----- Mr Sinclair: Informal ----- and a very close working relationship. Ms Curran: I think it becomes formal when we would want to inform parliament of any relevant issues for Scotland. That is something we did last year for the first time, just through PQ; we indicated the relevance to Scotland. To that extent, that would be how we would relate to each other. Q39 David Mundell: Does that relationship transcend political persuasion? Ms Curran: I suppose it is difficult for me to honestly answer that because just now we are members of the same party. He is a very fine upstanding Leader of the House. My job requires me to work with other political opponents in the parliament because of the nature of the parliament, and my experience is that we are managing that very effectively. When people see it is commonsense legislation we are about, then people will respect that. Obviously, we have political differences and will promote policies that people will not necessarily agree with, but my interest is to make sure that procedures are proper around that, that people have confidence around procedures and that they get opposition properly to have their place within those procedures to test and oppose appropriately. It is part of my job. I think it is in our interests to do that because you get robust legislation if you have a robust opposition as well. I think you can say they are fairly robust. I suppose the opposition people might take a different view. Q40 David Mundell: Even if you take the political dynamic out of it, is there scope for improvement at the moment? Ms Curran: I am sure there must always be scope for improvement. Again, it is maybe our familiarity with parliamentary procedures. Our parliament is growing in confidence as it grows with legislation and experience. We can refer back to other pieces of legislation, and that is bound to improve. I think it is mostly about time and perspective. Sometimes I think people got Sewels out of perspective a wee bit and thought it was more major pieces of legislation and that we were not properly respecting the Scottish Parliament. I think we have got that back in perspective now. Q41 David Mundell: Specifically, again going back to the concept of robustness in a climate of political differences that would ----- Ms Curran: I do not want to raise your hopes, David, but there does not seem to be much prospect of that at the moment. Q42 David Mundell: I do not want it to be partisan in that way, Margaret, because I would not expect you to concede that there would be a Conservative Government around the corner, but it is in our interests to ensure that the process transcends whatever. Ms Curran: Absolutely. Q43 David Mundell: Do you see anything specifically at the moment that would require to change, or just that the natural evolution would take it that way? Ms Curran: I suppose it is bedding down the parliamentary process at our end, as people are familiar with their responsibilities to the parliament in terms of scrutinising legislation. Again, Sewel is obviously not comparable to the acts of parliament we pass; there is no comparison between them. Properly, members' minds are focused on the acts that the Executive brings to the Chamber. Nevertheless, the Sewels are important and deserve that support. We have put a lot of effort into making sure the civil servants and parliamentary officials are properly briefed about. We have had a lot of exchanges with Whitehall, and I have spoken to a few groups of civil servants down here about life in Scotland - "remember devolution is there" - and I think it is about that; that is where we are. With due respect, I would think Whitehall should never forget there is a devolved Scotland now, if I could politely suggest that. Q44 Danny Alexander: Minister, can I come back to the issue of timing of a Sewel motion in relation to procedures at Westminster. You have described the procedures in so far as ensuring there is proper scrutiny and consent of a Sewel motion in the Scottish Parliament before it is passed and then, as it were we are informed down here. To what extent do you take account of the timing of the Westminster legislation in planning the timing of the debate and passing of the Sewel motion? I would be concerned to ensure that through our own procedures here proper scrutiny can be afforded to a Sewel motion at this end as well. For example, if this place is not aware that a Sewel motion has been passed until, for example, the committee stage has been reached - for example, a committee may be appointed that has no Scottish MPs on it - and there is a great debate going on at the moment about whether Scottish MPs should be able to vote on matters at Westminster, and a Sewel motion is something that can change the terms of that debate from one moment to the other. Do you make every effort to ensure that if there is going to be a Sewel motion, that is passed for example in time for the second reading debate so that the Scots MPs here know the terms in which they are taking part in that debate? Ms Curran: I think the timing is proscribed for us; we have to have it in before the second reading. Mr Sinclair: The aim is always to have the motion dealt with before the last amending stage in the first House so that the Westminster Parliament can react to what the Scottish Parliament has decided. One of the changes that the Minister mentioned earlier was the fact that we now have an obligation in a memorandum, which sets out some detail of what the devolved provisions in the Westminster bill are, and we are under an obligation under standing orders to introduce that to the Scottish Parliament two weeks after introduction of the Westminster bill. We are in a much better position, generally speaking, to enable proper consideration by both the Scottish Parliament and by here, and we certainly do everything we can to ensure that that all works together. Q45 Danny Alexander: So when you say your obligation is to ensure the motion is passed and introduced before the last amending stage in the first House, that would mean then if a bill began its life in the House of Commons that the motion would have to be passed before the report stage because that is when amendments can be debated ----- Ms Curran: That is our aim. Mr Sinclair: That is the aim, for obvious reasons; so that, as I say, this parliament has the opportunity to react to what ----- Q46 Danny Alexander: So the second reading in the committee stage could have taken place in the first part of this place that is debating it before we necessarily know there is a Sewel motion, so it could be a bill starts its journey in the House of Commons; you have second reading in the committee stage; and we know it in time for the report stage, and then it goes to the Lords, and the Lords are fully aware throughout their scrutiny of the Sewel motion. Mr Sinclair: It would be known prior to that that there is to be a Sewel motion because the memorandum will have been introduced within a fortnight after introduction of the bill. Q47 Danny Alexander: Not necessarily whether it has been passed. Mr Sinclair: The decision on that will not be known until it has been through committees and there has been a vote in plenary. The Minister takes a lot of care to ensure that that process is managed efficiently, but also giving sufficient time to the parliament to enable it to consider matters properly. Q48 Mr McGovern: The Scottish Executive, it is fair to say, were fairly positive in their reaction to the Procedures Committee's suggested changes to our procedures here at Westminster. How do you think that inter-parliamentary co-operation could be improved if we at Westminster were to accept and indeed adopted the Procedures Committee's suggested changes? Ms Curran: I suppose I would have to say respectfully that it is not for me to say what the UK Parliament should do. I appreciate that is not what you are asking me, but, assuming that, I make that point. How they would manage the legislation and at what stage they would tell you, I would not be terribly well versed on because I would not be as familiar as you are with all the different procedures. It seemed to me that if you gave early warning about the possibility of a Sewel motion and if it was explained to members, that would help matters. It is essentially a matter for the Scotland Office. Q49 Mr McGovern: Obviously it is up to the UK Parliament to implement or initiate any changes here, but the Scottish Parliament Procedures Committee have made certain suggestions that they feel would constitute an improvement. Are you aware of them? Ms Curran: I am certainly aware of what they are. Some of them at first call might strike me as - I do not know how possible they would be within the procedures of the Westminster Parliament because I am not as au fait with the procedures as you would be. Support would be, again, as much sharing of information as possible and as much early warning as possible. That helps us all in terms of some of the issues we are trying to address. How that is done I would be open-minded about. Q50 Danny Alexander: Alistair Darling last year in November or December said he thought that in general most Scottish MPs were not aware of when a Sewel motion had been agreed, or not. Ms Curran: Yes. Q51 Danny Alexander: Would you agree with that assessment? Ms Curran: I do not know what Scottish MPs would be aware of in terms of the legislation in the Scottish Parliament, but we are always looking for ways to try and make sure that information is exchanged more effectively throughout various mechanisms, and I would always think it would be useful for people to be informed about it, and again open-minded about how that is done. If we could co-operate in facilitating more awareness of it, I would happily do that. Q52 Danny Alexander: Do you think the Procedures Committee recommendations, if they were adopted, would help to rectify the problem that Alistair Darling identified? Ms Curran: It would depend. Again, you have to keep Sewels in perspective. They are usually small technical matters. You can get into an argument about that, I appreciate, but most of us now think they are not a substitute for the major pieces of legislation that we are primarily focused on and you cannot complicate them. You have to have an awareness and share information, but keep it in perspective, I would say. Q53 Danny Alexander: You will probably also be aware that Parliament here is considering something called the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill. Ms Curran: Yes, I have heard about this. Q54 Danny Alexander: Which has otherwise been referred to as the "Abolition of Parliament Bill"! I am not asking you to comment on that! Ms Curran: I am sure it is not true. Q55 Danny Alexander: One of the things that that bill states is this: "A Minister of the Crown may reform (a) any public general Act or local Act or (b) any Order in Council, order, rules .... or other subordinate instrument." In other words, it gives ministers pretty sweeping powers, should they choose to exercise them, to change legislation at their discretion, putting it at its politest. Do you have a view on this Bill and in particular what its possible impact on Scotland might be? Ms Curran: I would not pretend to be an expert on this Bill. My understanding is that it really is the result of a desire to reduce regulation overall, which a number of people on this Committee certainly advocated at some point in another life in another place. That was the main drive behind it, to reduce regulation, which some people, and businesses in particular, say is burdensome. I would have a great deal of sympathy with that, if that is possible. I am aware obviously of some press comment about unintended consequences. I suppose my issue is that if Westminster wants to reform the Scotland Act and abolish the Scotland Act, it can already, from my world. I do not think they are planning to do it by - in Westminster. I think I would be reassured that they have no intention to do that. We have certainly no anticipation of that coming down the track. Q56 Danny Alexander: Within this Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill - I have quoted clause 1(3) but then clause 4 also states: "An order under section 1 may not, except by virtue of section 2(4), make provision which would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament if it were contained in an Act of that Parliament." In other words, it seems to be saying that while ministers here can do what they like, that is not intended to allow them to do what they like in relation to bills that have been passed by the Scottish Parliament. Do you think ----- Ms Curran: So I should be reassured by that - is that what you are telling me? Q57 Danny Alexander: I am asking you if you are reassured or whether you are concerned that while on the one hand provision is made in the Bill to respect the Scottish Parliament, which I am sure you would be reassured by; on the other hand other provisions in the Bill seem to give ministers power to make changes without any consideration. Ms Curran: Obviously, I would be reassured in the first instance that our arrangements would be respected, and it would certainly have been a very strange development if that was the case, and one that I do not think anyone would have anticipated. Secondly, as I understand it - and I would put in a caveat that I am no expert on it - it is primarily to reduce regulation and not to undermine the primary legislative powers of parliament and to reduce the democratic scrutiny of parliamentary powers. That is my understanding of the legislation. I am sure you will test all that! Q58 Danny Alexander: I was going to follow that point up in relation to something David said earlier, that one always has to look at legislation not just with a view to what the intention is at the moment but what other future governments might do with it. In the same way that the question arose earlier about how the Sewel Convention would be managed effectively if there was a change of government either in Scotland or in Westminster, I think the same consideration applies to this legislation as well; so I urge you to look at it and think about it with that in mind as well. Ms Curran: Yes. I suppose there are two principled answers to that. Firstly - and if I was being honest I would think this was around in the early days of devolution - that one government introduced devolution. There was another party very much opposed to it, and we were worried that if another party came into government they could just as easily abolish it. I think we have got a convention or understanding that that would not happen particularly, and we have to respect the fact that devolution, I think will live beyond any possible change in government, because you have to look within that to the kind of commitment that I think people give. Secondly, that could well apply to this legislation where, if people are saying, "this is the intention of this legislation", parliamentary processes will test that out; and I am sure that as this Bill goes through its parliamentary process either through what ministers say in parliament, which is of long standing, or through any amendments to the Bill, it will be clear that it is not meant to be taking a democratic swipe at the powers of the Westminster Parliament. Q59 David Mundell: I think it is inconceivable, Margaret, that any government would legislate on matters devolved to Scotland if it did not have the consent of the Scottish Parliament to do so. I think that is a given. One thing which I do think is of concern in this order process promoted by the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill is that it does allow for other things to be done, not through what would be these normal processes; and whilst in our briefing it speculates that it could be used to require nuclear facilities to be built in Scotland, for example - which I think would be unlikely - you would have a procedure for that. There are various areas in which you could see orders being used which are then - just as you were indicating before -Whitehall departments do not pick up the devolved aspect of it, and therefore this order process surely is not very helpful in the devolved context? Ms Curran: I do not know if I could conclude that from what you have just said. We would always be alert to Whitehall being aware of and properly engaged with the devolved arrangements, however that would take shape - Sewel or whatever or legislation or practice that that had relevance for. As I understand it, it is still about general - and I know you support this because I am sure I have heard you talk about it - a reduction of regulation where appropriate. Any Sewel we would have would be about the reduction in regulation. I am sure that in relation to any unintended consequence of that, the robust Westminster procedures here would make sure that they were thoroughly tested. Q60 Chairman: Margaret, there is a serious possibility here that the British Government makes a decision to have nuclear energy in Scotland. That is a matter for the British Parliament to decide, but as far as planning issues are concerned, that is a matter for the local government and the Scottish Executive. If there is a conflict, how do you see it? Ms Curran: Planning powers in Scotland would have to be properly exercised, and I think would be properly exercised. We are passing new planning legislation, which is modernising planning in Scotland, but the Scottish Executive and First Minister are on record as saying that certainly there are issues that need to be addressed before we could move forward and that we would still want to be addressed, in terms of waste. I think that remains the policy of the Scottish Executive. Q61 David Mundell: In that sense there is not a clarity at the moment of what might be called dispute resolution if there were conflicting policy agendas. Earlier on you said there can be different policy agendas in respect of the respective parliaments, but one of the things at the moment is that there is not clarity in what would happen if there is a conflict in those policy areas, even legitimate conflict. Ms Curran: I think my view would be that if we have powers - we have devolved power within Scotland, and we would exercise it as we saw right. If that led to conflict with somebody else, then we would still exercise our powers. If we had the consent of parliament we would stick with it. Q62 Chairman: The question arises that you could exercise your powers of local government in the Scottish Executive, and the British Parliament wants to exercise its powers because it wants to install nuclear energy, because this is a very important issue in supplying the energy needs for Scotland; so how then do you see this dispute being resolved? It is a very important issue. Ms Curran: Not unless the Westminster Government are suggesting we suspend all planning processes in Scotland in order to pursue a policy. I think we would still have to get proper planning ----- Q63 Chairman: Sewel motions? Ms Curran: I do not think you would use a Sewel motion for planning ----- Q64 Chairman: I do not know - I am asking you this question. Ms Curran: First of all, it makes my point: a Sewel motion would need the consent of the Scottish Parliament and if it did not have the consent of the Scottish Parliament it would not happen, so in the context you have described Sewel would be entirely irrelevant. There is no doubt that the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Executive, may take one view of a policy, and the Westminster Government might take another view. There are two ways to deal with that: one is to have constructive dialogue where you do what is best and in the best interests of the people you represent, and I think that would cover most eventualities. There is a very good argument why you should have parties of equal persuasion - invariably mine - in government - because that is where you get the best decision-making! More seriously, if it came to a real - and it has not done - we have different parties in co-operation with this - it has not come to a great conflict because I think people want devolution to work - then you would have to respect the difference and manage it as best you could. That is life. Q65 Mr McGovern: Members of the Welsh Assembly are able to take part in meetings of the Welsh Affairs Committee, and I believe that arrangement is reciprocal so that members of the Welsh Affairs Committee can take part in committees of the Welsh Assembly. Does the Scottish Executive feel that there might be merit in members of the Scottish Parliament taking part in the Scottish Affairs Committee? Ms Curran: I am not terribly well versed with the Welsh situation. Wales is so different from Scotland that I am not sure it is directly comparable, and I would not see any appetite; I have not heard any suggestion that that is a way forward for us. We have primary legislative powers and are entirely focused on that, and actually are stretched with that to a certain degree, one could argue. Notwithstanding that, I would still think there is an approach of co‑operation in Scotland. We are in a devolved setting but we are not an independent country. We want to work with the UK Government and see it working in the interests of the Scots as well; and we want to get the best of both worlds, as I see it, as we possibly can. Q66 Mr McGovern: Given the previous question, which was obviously hypothetical, do you think there would be some benefit in close-up contact? Ms Curran: There is bound to be better benefit out of closer contact and closer engagement. There always is, if people work closely together. Whether that would resolve some of the big issues that may be looming, I do not know. I think that usually, often with the right approach you can solve a lot of problems, but I do not know if that would be the best way of doing it. Q67 Danny Alexander: Following up David's theoretical example on nuclear energy, I asked earlier what happens if Westminster then rejects the legislation that the Sewel Convention has been attached to it - what happens in a situation where, for example, a Sewel motion has been passed referring to a specific clause in a bill and then the Westminster Parliament decides to amend the clause - in other words, the Sewel motion has been passed to get that clause to apply to Scotland, and then, because of what is happening in the committee here, the effect of that clause is somewhat different to what was initially expected: how then would the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament react to that? Once the motion is passed, does that mean it is done, that whatever happens here applies to Scotland, even if you do not like it? Ms Curran: In the first instance it is unlikely, as I recall Sewel motions, that we refer to a specific clause as such. It tends to be more subject matter, more general than that. We would be very clear that we were only passing what we had said was the subject matter of the Scottish Parliament. If it had changed as a result of its process, its legislative journey down here, we would have to take it back to parliament, and parliament would then decide whether the change was unacceptable or consider whether it was appropriate. I do not think it has ever happened. Mr Allen: Not this session. There were a couple of times in the first session where we had a supplementary motion; on a couple of bills we had a second motion, and one bill we had a third motion, because the bill had changed and there was devolved stuff in, and we had to ask the parliament whether they consented or not, so there have been additional memoranda and additional motions where things have changed. Q68 Danny Alexander: Those additional memoranda can either continue with consent to the new form, or you can withdraw consent or amend or whatever - and in theory there is no end to that process. You could have quite a number of supplementary memoranda as the process goes on down here. Mr Allen: If the Executive and the UK Government had agreed that there were new things they wanted to put into the bill, then obviously it would be right to ask the parliament about that. That is what we have done in the past. Ms Curran: We would need to manage that, and I would insist that parliament had enough time to do that in terms of scrutiny. Mr Sinclair: The key fact in looking at any proposal for a new amendment after the Sewel process has been gone through is the time for the Scottish Parliament to agree to it, and, if not, that would be a very obvious thing; if there is not, then we would not be able to agree to it. Q69 Danny Alexander: The point you were making earlier about the initial timing of a motion having to come in before the last amending stage here in the first chamber when we consider the bill, that would then mean supplementary amendments, as it were, could keep coming down here at further stages, probably quite a long way down through the process of the legislative journey through Westminster. Ms Curran: As I said, that is our aim. There is always a possibility that the bill will only go through the two houses; but in practice the passage of the bill can operate quite differently and you have to take the decision on whether or not you are going to come forward with a further memorandum and go back to the parliament by reference to what is happening at that time and what you know about the parliamentary passage of the bill then. Sometimes there will be, as Paul indicates, time to go back to the parliament with a subsequent memorandum, but it is quite rare, as the Minister says, because we do an awful lot to make sure that the scope for surprises is limited, and we have matters agreed well in advance. Ms Curran: Usually Sewels are very tight. The comparison between a Sewel and a piece of legislation is very difficult; it is usually very focused. Q70 Danny Alexander: I am concerned about the degree to which Westminster MPs are able to scrutinise. Quite rightly from your point of view, you are concerned to ensure that the Scottish Parliament gives its consent to whatever is done. That is quite right and is very much in keeping with the devolution settlement. From our point of view we have to work out whether the processes for scrutinising these motions in the Sewel process at this end is adequate. That was not a question! I had better ask one - stunned silence! Do you think there would be any merit, bearing in mind the question about members attending this Committee or vice versa - you did not like that idea - in any other form of joint Westminster/Holyrood scrutiny of draft legislation down here that might affect Scotland, or that might be asked to affect Scotland - on an ad hoc basis, getting committees of MPs and MSPs together to look in those situations - not the very technical matters that you are referring to but broader? Is that possible? Ms Curran: Awareness of what is going on in Scottish legislative matters, whichever parliament is doing it, is obviously in all our interests because we are all interested in a better legislative process. I think you need to be clear about the decision-making structures and the accountability for those decision-making structures, and ultimately to parliament. So I do not think we could do anything that would cut cross that particularly. If the Executive, which tends to bring forward the Sewel motions - we are very clear that we are responsible to the Scottish Parliament. MSPs would be as well. You could not have a committee of the two parliaments that cut across that, I do not think. I would need to think about it in more depth; that is off the top of my head. Mr Sinclair: As you have indicated, as the Minister said, given the nature of most Sewels, you have to wonder what the - whether it would be worth it. Ms Curran: We need to be proportionate in the kind of work we are doing. Again, that would need more consideration. Q71 David Mundell: What is the role of the Scottish parliamentary officialdom in this whole process? You are not responsible for them. Ms Curran: You are absolutely right, David. Q72 David Mundell: What is their role in it? We spoke to the Procedures Committee and the Scotland Office and yourself, and next week we will speak to Westminster parliamentary officials, but we are not - but one group of people are the Scottish Parliament officials; how are they involved in the process? Ms Curran: Let me chart this, and then if I get this wrong my esteemed colleagues will help me out. First of all, it is the Parliamentary Bureau where we have to take forward any proposal for processing a Sewel or a consent motion, as we now call it. We would take that to the Bureau, which is the supportive secretariat to parliamentary officials who assist us in terms of committee recommendations, which committees things go to and how that committee works. That is the first important in terms of this work, and that is the first stage of it. The second stage would be the committee itself, where the clerk of the committee plays a very significant role in terms of advising the committee about how to deal with the Sewel, and they are quite independent of the Executive. They need to decide first how much time they will give in evidence-gathering. Some of our experience was that some of the committees were saying they did not get enough time to check out what the Executive was saying and wanted independent analysis of that. It is proportionate; sometimes it is worth that and sometimes it is not worth it and most people accept that. So you would look to the clerk for that kind of advice. Then it would be what kind of information, evidence, the Committee needs, and then whether to recommend a debate around the Sewel and managing the timing and voting of the Sewel. As Parliament Business Manager, I am the one that comes forward with the business response to that about how we would do it in parliament, and I would take that very seriously. At committee stage - notwithstanding some people play a few tricks from time to time - but putting that to one side, if at committee stage they wanted time to debate it, I would do my best to ensure that that happens. That is important, and the whole parliamentary officialdom and the processes around that are important. Then it is the vote itself in parliament. Q73 David Mundell: Would that officialdom be in direct contact with the officialdom in Westminster, other than through government channels? Ms Curran: No, we would have our own government communications, but, no, I do not think the clerks would go through government. Mr Sinclair: Not as far as I am aware. Q74 David Mundell: There would not be direct contact between the Scottish Parliament officials and Westminster officials. Ms Curran: Can I check that out and come back to the Committee, or write? I need to make a check with the parliamentary officials and ask them. Mr Sinclair: Obviously there has to be close communications between the two governments, and that happens. I am not aware of any formal communications between departments. We can ask. Mr Allen: There is no protocol as far as I am aware. There is nothing to stop them phoning up the clerk of the relevant committee in Westminster and asking, but as far as I am aware there is no regular process or protocol governing that. Ms Curran: I do not know about the Procedures Committee either. Mr Sinclair: The inference I drew from some of the recommendations in some of the evidence that has been given by the members of the Procedures Committee is that there is not an awful lot of that happening. We can ask. We can write. Ms Curran: We will come back on that, if that is okay. Q75 Chairman: Margaret, you will know that the Scottish Parliament has now agreed that the official name of Sewel motions should be changed to "Legislative Consent Motions". Why is there a need for a change of name? Ms Curran: I actually think that was a quite sensible recommendation from the committee. We certainly agreed to it and support it, and we have now changed all our jargon, as you can see. I think it was influenced by two things: Sewel in the popular media certainly is misnamed because people just associate Sewel with giving powers back to Westminster. Every time it comes up in the media - Newsnight or Glen Campbell does it all the time - "oh, they have passed a Sewel motion; that means they are giving powers back to Westminster" - even when 75 per cent of the time it does not in fact. A good number of Sewels have given us more powers - railways and gambling being the best examples of that; so there is that argument. I think that when Lord Sewel himself gave evidence to the Procedures Committee he said that giving powers back to us is not a Sewel motion and it is inappropriate to be named a Sewel motion; it has gone beyond the original Convention, so I think it was appropriate to broaden the term. I particularly like it because it emphasises consent and makes it clear to people who hadn't a clue who Lord Sewel was that it is about consent. That is why I like it. Q76 Chairman: Have you contacted HM Government, and what is their response? Ms Curran: That is a good question! Mr Sinclair: The Scotland Office are following us ----- Ms Curran: You can ask them. Mr Sinclair: They were fully aware of the Procedures Committee's proposals to change the name. The question was whether we have suggested any change in the name in the Convention itself; we have not. Q77 Chairman: You are saying that they were not really desperate to jump on this conclusion and agree with you in being willing to change the name. Ms Curran: They are more familiar with the House of Lords than we are, I suppose. Mr Sinclair: It is ultimately a convention of the Westminster Parliament. Q78 Chairman: Would you be lobbying the Westminster Government about this change of name? Ms Curran: Possibly. We will persuade them! Q79 Chairman: Minister, thank you for your evidence, and your team. Do you wish to say anything in conclusion, perhaps on areas we have not covered during our questions, particularly Mr Sinclair and Mr Allen? Ms Curran: I think you have covered all the areas quite thoroughly. It was remiss of me not to have said earlier that I hope you enjoyed your visit to the Scottish Parliament. I hope you all managed to see round it and that it was intact. Chairman: Yes, we have just sent a letter to Tricia and others, thanking them for their kind hospitality. Please give them our best wishes and thanks. Thank you very much. Witnesses: David Cairns, a Member of the House, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Scotland), Dr Jim Wildgoose, Head of Scotland Office, and Mr Glenn Preston, Head of Constitutional Branch, gave evidence. Q80 Chairman: Good afternoon. Minister, can I welcome you and your officials to the Scottish Affairs Select Committee meeting. We are very pleased that you have been able to attend today to give evidence on our inquiry into The Sewel Convention: the Westminster perspective. For the record, would you like to introduce your team? David Cairns: Thank you very much, Chairman. I am very pleased to be here this afternoon to have the opportunity to contribute to what I am sure will be an important and significant report. I am accompanied by two officials. On my left is Dr Jim Wildgoose who is the head of office at the Scotland Office. You may remember him from previous appearances before the Select Committee, such as your investigation into our Annual Report. On my right is Glenn Preston, the Head of our Constitutional Policy Department at the Scotland Office and who knows more about Sewel motions than is altogether healthy for a young man! I will make a very brief opening statement, with your permission, Chairman. I have said I am very pleased to be here, and I genuinely am, to have an opportunity to discuss some of these important issues. I know that you have already received our memorandum on those. As you have seen in the memorandum, we have gone deliberately into some detail about the machinery of government issues, since I know the Committee is especially interested not in the Sewel Convention per se but obviously on how the mechanisms work here from a Westminster perspective. Some of the possible changes are rightly a matter for Parliament itself but others, such as the improved explanatory notes to bills, are for the Government to consider. You will already know, Chairman, that we do believe there is room for improvement in our drafting of explanatory notes. Devolution is one of this Government's proudest achievements. The Sewel Convention is an integral part of the devolution settlement. It recognises and caters for the fundamental principle of the British constitution, that the UK Parliament is sovereign, and adapts it to allow for the reality of devolution. Finally, as my predecessor said to the Scottish Parliament Procedures Committee, "The Convention is not in any way a derogation of the competence of the Scottish Parliament. The Government that created devolution is not about to undermine it". Q81 Chairman: Minister, can you tell us what kinds of channels of communication are there between the two Governments and the two Parliaments? Is it department to department or does the Leader of the House contact our minister for parliamentary business? David Cairns: I think there are many channels of communication between the Government and the Executive. There are department to department communications, there are communications obviously involving the Scotland Office and Margaret Curran, whom you have just spoken to, and there are communications between the Leader of the House and Margaret Curran also. The primary channels of communication are obviously department to department because that is where the subject expertise is on any piece of legislation that is coming up. Our focus, as a Government, is on policy outcome and on what we are trying to achieve for real people, communities and families and, therefore, it is where the policy expertise resides that we must have that discussion. The publishing of a Sewel motion or a memorandum is the beginning of one process, but in some ways it is the end of another process of a lot of discussion that takes place on the formation of policy at official levels. I came into this job less than a year ago and, speaking as somebody who had been a backbencher paying reasonably close attention to this, I have been very impressed by the degree of co-operation and interaction that takes place at official level. At ministerial level, clearly there are also discussions on a very regular basis and a very close working together as well. Q82 Gordon Banks: Minister, you have already mentioned some of the inter-governmental relationships that go on. Are you of the opinion that they are working well? Do you think there is some more scope for improvement? Have we got Utopia? David Cairns: We certainly do not have Utopia, but I think we have got a mechanism that if it did not exist, you would have to invent it. What was interesting in reading the Scottish Parliament Procedure's Committee report was at the beginning of that process there was some misunderstanding and apprehension about what the Sewel Convention was, how it worked and what it was used for. As they went through their inquiry they understood that fundamentally we got it right, but that there was room for improvement in terms of transparency, timing and nomenclature. I think there was a sense the phrase, from their point of view, "the Sewel motion" was perhaps imprecise and so now they are referring to a "legislative consent motion". From our point of view - we may come on to speak about this - I certainly think there is room for greater awareness and understanding among MPs, members of this House, as to what has triggered Sewel and the extent to which Sewel applies. Obviously we will look with interest on the recommendations of this Committee and this report, but certainly we are not in Utopia. If it did not exist, we would have to invent something quite like this. Q83 Gordon Banks: We touched on inter-governmental relationships but what about inter-parliamentary relationships? Would you be happier with a greater deal of co-operation between the Westminster and Holyrood Parliaments? David Cairns: Ultimately how the Parliaments relate to one another is an issue for the Parliaments. It is not really for the Government to tell the Parliaments as such how they should relate to one another, but in the process of greater awareness and transparency there are some recommendations in the Clerk to the House of Commons' memorandum to your investigation which talks about the way in which this might happen between Presiding Officer, Speaker and Lord Chancellor, not that that is an issue for them but anything that would, from that point of view, increase transparency and awareness would obviously be welcome. Q84 Mr Walker: Minister, can you spice this session up for us? There has been a bit of a love-in for the last couple of weeks looking into Sewel motions. What we are looking for is friction and stories of blood on the carpet between this Parliament and the Scottish Parliament, perhaps when Scotland has felt that England has, once again, been over-reaching itself and sticking its nose into parts of their business it should not. Are there any examples of that where you have had fevered telephone conversations with your MSP compatriots? David Cairns: I will tell you if you promise not to tell anyone! Within Government - and by that, I mean within the UK Government - and within Whitehall and the formulation of any policy, there is clearly going to be interaction between government departments. They have set different priorities and want to achieve different aims and objectives. There is always a creative discussion and dialogue, and the fact is that the Scottish Executive ministers, in so far as issues relate to Scotland, take part in that. In all seriousness, you would not expect me to sit here and disclose that, but Scottish Executive ministers play a full part in discussions on these issues, whilst respecting the devolution divide which is a very important point. As I said in my opening statement, we created devolution. We believe it is for the Scottish Executive and Scottish Parliament to legislate, as it sees fit, on the issues that have been devolved to it and they are accountable to the people of Scotland in their own elections for that; it is for us to legislate elsewhere. Where there is clearly a commonality of interest and looking at the issues where Sewel is inappropriate, if you are looking to get a common approach to something throughout the UK or - I do not know whether this is something that Ms Curran went into - where it is a question of an understanding the policy objective is the same, the bill we happen to have here prepared and ready to go at Westminster is a good vehicle for that, but Scottish Executive ministers obviously play a role in those types of discussions. Q85 David Mundell: Yes, can I ask ---- David Cairns: Is this about Moffat Pond, because I have no views on Moffatt Pond, David. Q86 David Mundell: You should be for it, I am! What I want to ask you about, Minister, is the suggestion that the procedures currently work because you have governments of substantially the same political persuasion at both Holyrood and Westminster. How robust do you feel current procedures are if, without requiring to draw you into speculation, you do have governments of a different political hue in each Parliament, and how procedures would stand up to that? David Cairns: I am aware that this is a question that is often aired. I think it is important to say that the Sewel Convention does not just exist on a nod and a wink. There is a memorandum of understanding which is a publicly available document. There are devolution guidance notes which are there and which are adhered to. There is custom and precedent about how we go about these things, and we respect that. It is not all done in some sort of informal way which is a suggestion that is sometimes made. Ultimately, I think that either Parliament would have to respect the will of the people in the result of a particular election. Unless the will of the people was to lurch violently in one direction or the other, and given that parties which were hitherto opposed to devolution now accept devolution and want to make it work, I think that a common understanding of how these things would work in the best interests of the people of Scotland would quickly become apparent. I do not think the Scottish people would forgive people playing politics on important policy issues because, as I say, we are talking about the Sewel motions and mechanisms here but I am interested, as I am sure you are too, more in the policy outcomes of these things and what we are trying to achieve for people. As you say, it is difficult to speculate entirely on what is going to happen in the future but there is a memorandum of understanding and there are devolution guidance notes, I think they are robust but I cannot predict what the future will hold any more than you can. Q87 David Mundell: No. You are satisfied that the process is more than what might be called internal party channels? David Cairns: It is clearly not internal party channels because many of the ministers who are involved in these discussions are not in the same party. We have regular discussions with ministers who are involved in these discussions from other parties in the coalition in Scotland and the fact that the devolution settlement and the Sewel motion are working, and I believe working well in the context of a coalition in the Scottish Executive, demonstrates that it is not all done through backdoor channels within the parties. Q88 Danny Alexander: You said then what you are primarily concerned about is the outcome of policy, of course that is right. What we are looking into here is not the end but the means of the process and how we ensure proper democratic scrutiny throughout the process. I am interested to know your views about whether or not you think that the scrutiny of Sewel motions at this end, at Westminster, is effective. We heard a lot from Margaret Curran earlier about the way that Sewel motions are dealt with and the Scottish Parliament was very full of it, but in their report the Procedures Committee made a number of recommendations about how our procedure might be changed at Westminster to improve scrutiny. For example they suggested tagging relevant bills in parliamentary documents, mentioning any Sewel implications in explanatory notes and the need for the Scottish Parliament's Presiding Officer to send copies of any legislative consent resolution - as they call it now - to the Speaker and to the Lord Chancellor. I suppose there are two questions: are you satisfied the scrutiny process at this end is working well at the moment, and what is your reaction to the various suggestions made by the Procedure Committee? David Cairns: If I can take them in reverse order. I am very content with the second question. I think that having an Explanatory Memorandum published at the same time as a Bill is published, which clearly indicates the areas where Sewel will apply, is a good thing. It helps transparency and it helps to focus people's attention on that. The difficulty with publishing the legislative consent memorandum at that time is it might not have been passed yet, because obviously there is a process and we would want the Sewel motion in the Scottish Parliament passed at some stage during the first House passage of the Bill here. There is some thinking, maybe, to be done about what appears on the Order Paper, for example at the Second Reading of a Bill which we know are triggers. I think that is something we can very constructively continue to have a think about and I would be genuinely interested to see what the Committee's views on that are. On the first question, it is not really for this House to scrutinise Sewel motions as such, because what this House does is scrutinise the legislation. The Sewel motion is whether or not the Scottish Parliament is consenting for legislation here which covers devolved issues which should apply across the UK. It is up to us to get the legislation right. I would not favour a parallel process where we are scrutinising the Sewel bit of it, if for no other reason than very often the bit that has been Sewel-ed is often very small and very technical, sometimes it is not but very often very small and technical. I think our job at Westminster, as a government, is to get the legislation right. The job of backbenchers is to hold the Government to account and make sure the legislation is right. The job of the Scottish Executive is to decide whether or not it is going to allow Westminster to legislate on a devolved area on this particular occasion. It is the job of MSPs, as part of their procedures, to scrutinise whether or not that is the right thing to do. I think we have got different roles here. I do not favour blurring the lines of accountability in all of this. Q89 Danny Alexander: Except that there are clearly different responsibilities, of course there are. May I ask the question this way round then: you say it is not for us to scrutinise the Sewel motion, it should be scrutinising the legislation. Surely the application of a Sewel motion changes, no matter in how small a way, the application of legislation. Is there not an issue about when the Sewel motion applies? Margaret Curran was saying to us earlier that they try to work towards a basis of ensuring that the Sewel motion is passed by the Scottish Parliament before the last amending stage in the first House in which the Bill is proceeding. David Cairns: Yes. Q90 Danny Alexander: That would imply that if a Bill starts in the Commons, the Sewel motion might not come through until the report stage. David Cairns: Yes. Q91 Danny Alexander: Then it could be scrutinised at report stage and then it would be left to the Lords to give it full scrutiny. Do you think that is adequate in terms of the role of backbenchers to scrutinise the legislation and hold the Executive to account? David Cairns: I come back to the point I made earlier, it is the role of this Parliament to scrutinise the legislation that the Government puts before this Parliament. In a sense that applies irrespective of whether or not there is a Sewel motion. The reason why it has to be given specific scrutiny in the Scottish Parliament is because they are not scrutinising the legislation in the round, they are only trying to work out whether or not this particular bit of the legislation should apply in Scotland and, if so, are there no other ways of doing it. They will specifically look at the Sewel motion which covers the extent to which any particular measure is going to apply in Scotland. I do not think it changes my fundamental point that it is our job as government to get the legislation right and the job of the backbenchers here to make sure that we are held accountable and we have the legislation right as well. The knowledge that a part of this will be applicable in Scotland is something which certainly does affect how, as an MP, you feel about this legislation. I do not think there is any additional procedural mechanism for reflecting that. Danny Alexander: As a Scottish MP, it might well influence the extent to which a Scottish MP --- I am thinking for example of MPs in the Scottish National Party who, as a rule, do not take part in debates on matters which only apply to England and Wales, that is a matter for their party policy. Mr McGovern: It is not true. Q92 Danny Alexander: Sometimes they do. In terms of the role of Scottish MPs, scrutinising this legislation, possibly perhaps being involved in a committee appointed through various channels and the knowledge that a Sewel motion applies to a piece of legislation and therefore applies to Scotland - when it initially started this process it was not clear it was going to apply to Scotland - does that not have implications about when it is in the best interest of backbenchers to know about the Sewel motion so that they can give appropriate scrutiny throughout the process in this House? David Cairns: Yes, and that is why I think it is important to get right the Explanatory Memorandum published at the time the Bill is published, which would indicate the area that would be covered by a Sewel motion. I would concede here we do not always get that right. There are some very good examples: the Equality Act, which has just gone through, is a very good example of where it was listed and how it would apply; in others there has just been either inadequate information or inconsistent information. I think one of the things we have given an undertaking of in our memorandum is to at that early stage, so that when any MP (Scottish or otherwise) says, "Here is a piece of legislation, I wonder what it is about?", flicks through the Explanatory Memorandum and sees a chunk of things about Sewel, what I am saying is at that stage it is not possible to say "This has been agreed by the Scottish Parliament", because they are working to their own timetable and I do not think it could be made any tighter really than it is, although that is a matter for Ms Curran. We want to give out the most information that we can give out at the earliest possible stage - I agree with you to that extent - but what I do not think it is possible to do at that stage is to say these things have been agreed because it is not impossible that the Scottish Parliament might withhold its consent, and then the measures would have to be withdrawn from the bill during its passage. I understand the spirit of what you are saying; I am not entirely sure there is a foolproof mechanism for delivering it. Q93 Gordon Banks: A very quick point to try and tie this up. Minister, would you not agree that if a Sewel motion was notified at the appropriate point in time, early on in the process, it would not give single scrutiny or double scrutiny because of the other place, it would give triple scrutiny to that piece of legislation because of the scrutiny that happens in the House of Commons and House of Lords and also the discussion of the relevant part of Sewel in Holyrood? David Cairns: Yes, I think that is true. I come back to the point I made earlier - I think it is important - it is our job, as Government, to get the legislation right, irrespective of the Territorial Extent of it, and to make sure that if there are issues of devolution that they have been resolved. If there are issues, even where the policy is reserved, but there is a different application because of Scots law in a particular area is different, we have to get all of that right. I do not think the question is one of inadequate scrutiny but of transparency and awareness, and I concede that there is an inconsistency at the moment in making people aware of where Sewel applies and the extent to which it applies. That is something we need to work at. Gordon Banks: I mentioned the scrutiny because that was specifically the avenue that Danny was going down. I just feel that there is a way at an early stage to increase the scrutiny of the legislation and be a positive sign at that stage. Q94 Mr McGovern: Danny just pointed out that the SNP vote when they choose to vote or choose not to vote. Recently they voted on changing the name of the Welsh Assembly; what that had to do with Scotland, I am not entirely sure. Minister, are you satisfied that adequate procedures and measures are in place to alert the Scottish Parliament and Executive when a Private Member's Bill here touches on devolved matters? David Cairns: I read with interest the Clerk of the House's view on that; he has quite a long passage in his memorandum to you on Private Member's Bills. Essentially, the Government's position is quite clear on this: it is up to private Members to bring forward whatever they want to in a Private Member's Bill, it is not up to the Government to tell them what they should do. The Government is very clear that we will not support any Private Member's Bill which triggers Sewel unless all of the other stages have been gone through in relation to getting the consent of the Scottish Parliament. It is not up to the Government to tell private Members how they should go about introducing their own legislation. I was fortunate to come number two in the private Member's ballot a few years ago and I introduced a Bill, which applied only in Scotland; although it was entirely reserved, it was to do with employment. At that stage, I had to make sure that there were not any devolution aspects to this, and I did, and I was quite clear; it was a very clear-cut case. It is up to any Member who wishes to bring forward legislation to take those steps, but the view of the Government is clear and, to the extent that it is a matter for the Government, the Government will not support legislation that involves this House legislating in private legislation like that on a devolved subject which does not have the consent of the Scottish Parliament. Q95 David Mundell: In your memorandum, you say that the Government "requires Bill teams to include in the Territorial Extent section of a Bill's Explanatory Notes a description of how a Bill applies to Scotland and whether or not it triggers the Sewel Convention". Are you willing to impose a standard form of wording for Territorial Extent in the Explanatory Notes, as it has been suggested they do tend to vary in quality? David Cairns: I think that is the point I have been making, Mr Mundell. I think there is an inconsistency there. Certainly I think that we need to look at not necessarily a standard form of wording but certain bases it needs to cover. I think we need to look at where it has been done very well in something like the Equality Bill and say what are the elements here that allow people to understand where Sewel applies and the extent to which it applies. We are very open to improving that aspect of things, yes. Q96 David Mundell: Should the Committee decide to recommend the full recommendations of the Scottish Parliament Procedures Committee be implemented here at Westminster, would that give you any specific concerns? David Cairns: There is an interesting mix in the Scottish Parliament Procedures Committee's report of their own recommendations where they say, "We think this should be done" but they also report on other people's recommendations. I would not give any blanket assertion that would allow somebody to slip in a recommendation that came from an academic or someone that was not one of their recommendations. As far as I am aware, they have got a two or three specific recommendations. This business about trying to put something on the Order Paper saying that this triggers Sewel, I am very attracted to that principle although I think there are timing issues. The issues on the Explanatory Notes that you just mentioned and getting copies of the legislative consent resolutions put into our process somewhere or other in the Library of the House of Commons, I think they are all very sensible recommendations and I would not have any problem with any of those. There are other recommendations in that report which we made and you may wish to go on to that I would have more reservations about. I have already addressed one in comments to Mr Alexander about joint sitting of committees looking at different things, I am not sure that adds an awful lot to anything. On those core recommendations, I think we can certainly make those work. Q97 David Mundell: Last week in our evidence in Edinburgh one thing that was raised was alerting Scottish MPs to Sewel motions or legislative consent motions having been passed, although there was a recognition that Scottish MPs are not always on the relevant committees, but clearly they have colleagues who are. If that was a view, whose responsibility would you think that was, in the sense of the Scotland Office or Scottish Parliament or parliamentary authorities? David Cairns: I have to be honest with you, I am not particularly attracted to the notion that we have to treat Scottish MPs differently to anybody else on this issue. My view is that legislation before this House is considered by every Member of this House on an equal footing and they should have access to the same information as everybody else. I would rather we did this through means that were universally available to all Members of Parliament. I know that different parties take different views on this issue, but my view is that getting it right in the Explanatory Memorandum, finding some way of getting on to the Order Paper at the earliest stage with the caveats that I have mentioned, so everybody can see this, is the best way of doing it. I am not generally in favour of having another layer that only applies to Scottish MPs particularly. As you say they might not be the ones on the standing committee stage of the Bill where there was a Sewel motion on it. Q98 Mr McGovern: Minister, presumably though you would agree that ultimately it is a matter for the House rather than the Government to decide? David Cairns: All legislation is ultimately a matter for the House because the Government puts its legislative proposals to the House and hopes to win, and more often than not does, occasionally does not. Ultimately, it is a matter for the House to decide whether or not any legislation is going to apply anywhere to anyone. That is as true of the bits which will apply in Scotland. Just as the Scottish Parliament has a vote on whether or not something will be Sewel-ed, and they have got the final backstop on it, so the House has got the final backstop on any legislation. The House can decide to pass or not pass any legislation or amend it through its parliamentary process. Ultimately, yes, you are right, it is a matter for the House. Q99 Gordon Banks: Minister, you have already answered a large chunk of the question I was going to ask in answer to Mr Mundell's question about recommendations from the Committee and from witnesses. Can I put a supplementary to you? Can we assume that you would not be in favour of Holyrood parliamentary committees attending and participating in the Scottish Affairs Committee in Westminster? David Cairns: I need to tease out your question. If you are talking about joint investigations between select committees and things, that is not really a matter for the Government. If you are talking about MSPs involvement in standing committees and scrutinising legislation, I think that is a separate issue which I have views on. I think there are lines of accountability, as I said in answer to an earlier question. MSPs are accountable to the Executive of the Scottish Parliament, MSPs are accountable to the electorate and that way we are accountable as well here. I am accountable to Parliament and I must account for our actions before committees such as this. I am not greatly in favour of blurring these lines of accountability. For what purpose? I am not really sure what the end purpose would be given, as I have said, that it is the job of this House to scrutinise legislation before this House, the job of the Scottish Parliament to scrutinise Executive legislation and legislation that is emanating from here which is the subject of the Sewel motion. I think there are clear lines of accountability and I would not be in favour of blurring them. Q100 Gordon Banks: Certainly it was nothing to do with bill committees et cetera, it was related to select committees in Holyrood and a Scottish Select Committee if it was doing an investigation into something which the Holyrood Committee could work closely with this Committee on. David Cairns: Ultimately, I think that is a matter for your Committee, Chairman. I do not think it is a matter for the Government to tell select committees how they should conduct their inquiries. Q101 Gordon Banks: You do not have an opinion? David Cairns: I do not have an opinion on how select committees should conduct their inquiries, that is a matter for the select committee. On the other one I was talking about, yes, because that involves Government legislation. Q102 Danny Alexander: Would you agree with Alistair Darling's point that most Scottish MPs in the past have not necessarily known when a Bill has been subjected to a Sewel motion? David Cairns: I have to be honest, most of my time as a Scottish MP has been spent as a backbencher and for most of that time I was not aware of many of the issues which were Sewel-ed. Extrapolating from me to everybody else I think is probably right. That is not because we are all exceptionally tardy in our duties, it is partly because most Sewel motions are relatively technical, relatively minor, only applying to relatively small parts of Bills. We are all doing many other things; we serve on select committees; we are on different standing committees. We are dealing with issues which are before us. I think he is right, that is the reality. It does not cause me sleepless nights, to be honest with you. I do not think that it is the end of the world provided people have got the opportunity to know that, and this is where it comes back to consistent information. If we can say to the Scottish MPs, as anybody else, "The information is all there, it is on the Explanatory Memorandum that was published in the bundle that came out with the Bill, we found some mechanism, all the caveats I mentioned about tagging this on the order paper, the information is there for you to explore", I think that is the way we should approach this. Q103 Danny Alexander: You make the point, quite rightly, that many Sewel motions are technical matters, they are not a major issue of policy. That is not necessarily always the case, and it has not necessarily always been the case. There have been some which have applied which have had significant implications. I would have thought in those cases that having Scottish MPs being aware of the risk is quite important. I wonder if you think there might be a role for the Scottish Grand Committee in that in ensuring that Scottish MPs are aware of the risk? David Cairns: To be honest, I am not attracted to the idea of parallel scrutiny of the same piece of legislation. The big Sewel motions that you are speaking about on the big policy areas, essentially what they are doing is they are taking legislation that is being brought in to apply to England and Wales and making that applicable in this instance to Scotland. The job is to get the legislation right and I think that is the job of the scrutiny process at Westminster. The reason why MSPs specifically have to scrutinise the Sewel bit of it is because that is their only interaction with the legislation. The rest of the legislation is not for them to scrutinise because it is not before their House. I would be weary about setting up duplicate scrutiny of the same piece of legislation, I just do not think that it adds anything. Q104 Danny Alexander: Even in the case where a piece of legislation starts its journey in the Commons and a Sewel motion, which is not purely technical, comes in quite late in the Commons process - so, for example, there may be no Scottish MP on the committee considering it - do you not think in those sorts of cases there may be scope for some additional level of scrutiny? David Cairns: I do not think there is any place for duplication of scrutiny of the same piece of legislation. It is the job of all backbenchers to make sure that the legislation is right. We do that through the process of this House, the Second Reading of the committee stage, report stage and all the rest of it. Of course at Second Reading and at report stage it is perfectly possible for any MP, Scottish or otherwise, to come in and speak and move amendments on the legislation. I think there is an opportunity for Scottish MPs if they wish to take a particular interest on a particular bit of a particular bill that is the subject of the Sewel motion. I simply do not see any merit in setting up parallel or secondary bits of scrutiny. Q105 Mr Walker: How do you get involved in a piece of legislation where a Sewel motion is attached, bearing in mind that it is relevant to Scotland? Does that create any additional burden for yourselves in your role with the Scottish Office? David Cairns: I think this is a good point to bring in some of the officials because they are the ones who engage in these discussions. As I have said, the Sewel motion is a point in a process, it is not the beginning of the process. Discussions take place prior to, first of all, an understanding that Sewel is triggered by this. Some of these things are very technical. Everybody has to agree this does trigger Sewel and there is a process involved there where lawyers will look at a particular issue. That is separate from the policy discussion about the desirability of it. Maybe I can bring Glenn in at this point because that is particularly what his job entails. Mr Preston: It does happen on a regular basis where there is contact between officials in Whitehall departments and the Scotland Office. The Whitehall department will be seeking the Scotland Office's view on whether or not policy development or indeed provisions and instructions to bills, for example, will trigger the Sewel Convention. We will be asked to offer a view on that. With the help of our lawyers we will often give them that view. At the same time, we will put them in touch with the Scottish Executive which will want to come to a view itself on whether or not the provisions will trigger a Convention. That is a process that happens regularly on virtually every bill and indeed on specific bits of bills too. Mr Wildgoose: The other point which follows on from what Glenn mentioned is that we have an important role in making sure that all UK bill teams are aware of these issues and that happens well in advance of introduction of the bills. That is part and parcel of the process of making sure that enough time is available to take account of the procedures which have to occur in the Scottish Parliament if a Sewel motion is laid. There is quite an important education facilitation type process which goes on at quite an early stage, well before any bill is introduced, in fact. That is quite an important element in this process as well. David Cairns: There is another layer of that as well which is, as well as the day in, day out interaction at official level, we also have seminars in the Scotland Office where we bring together both ministerial colleagues from the Scottish Executive and here as well as officials from our office, their counterparts in the Executive and Whitehall Bill Teams, people who will be preparing legislation in the coming year. We say to them right off the bat, "Devolution is not something to be bolted on at the end of your considerations of whatever your bill happens to be. It must cut all the way through it". This may be slightly daunting to one who has either come into the Civil Service after devolution, and therefore has no understanding of Scots law, even of how to go about it, or issues where there are fine legal points about whether something does trigger Sewel or not. What we want to say to colleagues across Whitehall is, "Look, help is at hand. We have a great deal of expertise here and we will help and advise you, but the best thing is for you to try and speak to one another as much as you can". Then there is a ministerial overlay at the end of the process. As part of the legislative process of clearing any bill before it comes in, I must signal that I am content that the devolution aspects of this particular bill have been resolved or understood and are in the process of being resolved. There is interaction and checks and balances really at every stage in this. Q106 Danny Alexander: You gave, just then, a very interesting answer. David Cairns: Oh, dear! Q107 Danny Alexander: You said that everybody has to agree that the Sewel Convention does apply. You talked about that being a discussion between officials, that you are involved in signing off that you were satisfied that devolution aspects have been properly dealt with. Indeed, that will then potentially trigger a Sewel motion coming in at some point, and obviously a Sewel motion has to be debated by the Scottish Parliament, and there is a democratic process there. One level of agreement that is not sought is any sort of parliamentary approval at this end that the devolution aspects have been properly looked into or that a Sewel motion properly applies; there is no parliamentary scrutiny at the Westminster end on that point. Do you think that is a gap in the legislature at the moment? David Cairns: No, I do not; we need to step back to first principles here. The Scotland Act is very clear the UK Parliament reserves the right to legislate across the UK on any issue, whether it is devolved or not. The Sewel Convention says we will not normally do this, and we have not done apart from one mistake, without the consent of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Parliament has its own mechanisms in place for granting that consent. Once that consent has been granted, it is then for this Parliament to legislate. I do not think we need to second-guess that. If the Scottish Parliament is content to allow us to legislate for that then we will legislate for that, and then it is for this House to scrutinise that legislation, as I have said repeatedly, through the normal channels that we scrutinise any legislation. I think, again, we have to understand by and large Sewel motions are about extending into devolved areas legislation that is being passed here and the agreement being sought is to allow us to do that. In all of this process all power resides, ultimately, not ultimately but in terms of respect under the Sewel Convention, with the Scottish Parliament, if they do not want us to legislate on something, we will not legislate; if they do want us to legislate on it, then we will legislate. I do not think us having to second-guess their consent adds anything to the process. Q108 Mr McGovern: Minister, I think in terms of awareness of the subject of the Sewel motion, I am pretty much the same as you, largely unaware. I must admit there is a degree because I am an outsider. If people did do that, it is a problem, would you not accept the recommendations of the Procedures Committee would rectify that? David Cairns: I think it goes some way towards it. Incidentally, I would have thought the prospect of having a statue of a 90ft naked woman in Dundee might give you more sleepless nights than the Sewel motion! Q109 Mr McGovern: Definitely. David Cairns: I think they would. I think it is about being able to say to everybody, "Should you wish to find this information, this is where you will find it". We give a guarantee in the Explanatory Notes that is where to look for it and you will get it there. The problem at the moment is it is inconsistent, sometimes it will be there, good as gold, and other times it will not be, and people have got to have the confidence to know in the specifics of a bill where to look for it. I would also add another point, at the time of the Queen's Speech in general terms - because obviously the bills announced in the Queen's Speech are not published as bills so we cannot go into too many particulars - we produce a note saying where Sewel is likely to be sought on any particular measure, which I think is the House of Commons Library, is it not? Mr Preston: That is right, yes. David Cairns: At that stage you can get a broad indication of the issues where a Sewel motion is likely to be sought and, therefore, where it is not likely to be sought. This could trigger in your mind the things to look out for, so when the Explanatory Memoranda of the particular bills then come through at the time the bill is published, which is some time after the Queen's Speech, you could then go and see exactly how it applies. There are various ways in which the information can be sought. I have to say, until the last Queen's Speech I did not realise that the Scotland Office did this either, so I am as guilty as anybody of not being aware that this happened, but it does happen. At a very early stage, as soon as the bills are announced in the Queen's Speech, there is a broadly indicative indication, if you can have an indicative indication, as to which bills are likely to attract Sewel or not. Q110 Mr McGovern: That almost pre-empts the next question, Minister. Referring to that, the Secretary of State put it in a written statement for an opening speech, I think it is informal at the moment, do you think that arrangement should be formalised or is it sufficient as it currently applies? David Cairns: I am not sure what we mean by formal and informal in this. We give an undertaking to do it, and we do it, and providing we continue to do it, I think that is sufficient. Of course, the point about the Queen's Speech is that it is an announcement of a programme for Parliament and, therefore, many of the bills announced in the Queen's Speech do not exist for bills, they will be published during the course of that year. It is not always possible to give chapter and verse of the details exactly. What we do is at the very first opportunity we can give information we give it, and then we give out the most amount of information we can as the process goes on. Maybe we need to think about ways of drawing this to people's attention, the fact a lot of work goes into doing it by a lot of people and then nobody knows about it. We might have to think about ways to draw it to people's attention. Q111 Mr Walker: Minister, what reassurance can you give the Committee that the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act will not be used by HM Government to take the final decision on controversial, but devolved, matters away from the Scottish Parliament? David Cairns: I think there has been some fairly lurid press speculation about this particular measure. I think I want to take a little bit of a step back and just say exactly what this measure is about and what it is not about. It is about furthering the Government's Better Regulation agenda. It is about reducing the administrative burden on the public and private sector. It is about allowing a speedier introduction of non-controversial Law Commission reports which are brought in at the moment, although I believe there is an average seven and a half year wait before they are brought in. There is recognition across all sides of the House that we need to be able to introduce regulatory reform orders in a better and more systematic way. Since the current Act was put into place in 2001, there have been 27 regulatory reform orders. I think most people accept that we really should be able to do better than that, not least of all your own party, Mr Walker, which bangs this drum as well. I think that is the broad principle about what we are trying to do. However, it is important that we build in some very significant safeguards into this. There are four or five quite significant safeguards that are being built into this. There has to be a statutory public consultation on any particular measure that is approved. The orders have got to be considered by the committees of both Houses, the Regulatory Reform Committee here and the Delegated Powers Committee (as it is called) in the other place and then they have to be considered by the relevant subject committee on the subject area that their role is covering with a power of veto by those committees. The Government has given an understanding that we will not seek to do anything that is highly controversial through this means. All of this is subject to judicial review. I think with those safeguards in place some of the more lurid headlines that we have seen about this will simply prove to be inaccurate. Q112 Chairman: Minister, you will be aware that the Scottish Parliament has agreed that officially the Sewel motion should be changed to Legislative Consent Motions. Are you in agreement with the Committee recommendations? David Cairns: I think they have done that for a very good and sensible reason in that the whole concept of the Sewel motion had become controversial over and above the substance of it. There was an extent to which when they boiled this down to its essence they realised, as I said in my first answer, I think, that this was a very sensible mechanism, and that if it did not exist you would have to invent it. They felt that the term "Sewel motion" obviously had connotations which had been, I assume they believe, tainted. The reason why I think we would have to be a little bit careful about stopping referring to the Sewel motion here is it has taken a wee bit of time to get people here to understand what they are, what they are doing and what they are about and so when we talk to our English colleagues about Sewel motions, I think most of them understand what we are on about in so far as it impinges upon what we are doing. I think there was a very good reason why they made the change that they made. I am not sure the same pressure is on here to make that same change, but I am not ruling it out. I think in common parlance we know what we mean by a Sewel motion. It does not attract the same negative connotations that the phraseology attracted in Scotland, in a quite unfounded way, I have to say, but sometimes you have to accept the fact that the new name more accurately reflects what it does and that is what they have decided to do. I would not rule it out but we know what we mean by it here. Q113 Mr Walker: Will the hostility from the press transfer to the new name, do you think? David Cairns: It seems to me, and you will be as aware of this from your reading of the Scottish press as I am, a lot of the concerns have evaporated about this. There is now an understanding that Sewel motions are not about handing power back to Westminster, that the Scottish Parliament retains the right to legislate in devolved areas, even in this particular instance it has given its explicit consent for Westminster to legislate on that. I think there were some misunderstandings about that. Legislative Consent Motion actually does what it says on the tin, so to that extent I can understand why they have made that change. It seems to me that the interest has waned and moved on to other matters. Q114 Chairman: Minister, as you know, we are conducting an inquiry on potential energy needs for Scotland also. There might be a possibility that in the future the UK Government will decide that they want to have nuclear power stations in Scotland. Let us say the Scottish Parliament's view is that they do not want to grant permission for nuclear power stations, what will be the mechanism to address that issue? David Cairns: There is no mechanism to address the issue in the sense that we are very clear on this, Chairman. It is within the devolved competence of Scottish Executive ministers under the Electricity Act to give their consent to any large generating plant capacity, nuclear or otherwise. That is their decision, and the Prime Minister has given an assurance that will remain their decision. I have given an assurance that remains their decision. Q115 Chairman: Minister, could I thank you and your officials. That concludes our questions on the Sewel Convention. Did you wish to say anything in conclusion, perhaps on areas not covered already during our questioning? David Cairns: No. I would like to thank you, Chairman, for the invitation today. We genuinely look forward to your report on this issue because I do not think there are enormous issues of principle here, it is an issue about transparency, making sure that people have the information that they need, when they need it. Any recommendations you can make will help facilitate that, certainly ones the Government will give very close consideration to. Q116 Chairman: Before I declare the meeting closed, could I just ask if you are able to tell the Committee yet when the Government expects to publish its response to the report from the Arbuthnot Commission? David Cairns: Our response will be forthcoming in due course. I would not expect this to happen before the Easter recess, however. Chairman: Thank you very much, Minister. This has been a useful evidence session. Once again, thank you to you and your officials. |