3 Inquiries
9. The Committee's first inquiry during the year
was into Meeting Scotland's Future Energy Needs: the Westfield
Development Centre, which followed up the Committee's inquiry
in the previous Parliament into Meeting Scotland's Future Energy
Needs.
10. For this inquiry, we did not take formal evidence,
but instead drew on an informal meeting held at the Westfield
Development Centre in Fife, where we were given presentations
by Mr Joe Noble, Chief Executive of Scottish Enterprise Fife,
Mr Chris Parr, Managing Director of Tullis Russell, Mr Dacre Purchase,
Managing Director of Scottish Coal, Mr Peter Dobson of Scottish
and Southern Energy's Generation Division, and Mr Harry Graves,
Managing Director, and Mr David McDougall, Finance Director,
of Fife Energy Limited.
11. We considered the Westfield site could make a
valuable contribution to Scotland's energy supply, and we shared
their management's disappointment that the Minister for Energy
had, so far, been unable to visit the site or to invite the Westfield
personnel to London. As stated in paragraph 6 above, however,
we understand that our Report obtained its objective by persuading
the Department of Trade and Industry to speak to the Centre.
12. The inquiry into Putting Citizens First: the
Report from the Commission on Boundary Differences and Voting
Systems arose from the Report from Commission on Boundary
Differences and Voting Systems ("the Arbuthnott Commission"),
which was published on 19 January. The Commission had been established
by the Secretary of State for Scotland in May 2004 to consider
the consequences of having four separate voting systems for elections
in Scotland and having different constituency boundaries for elections
to Westminster and to Holyrood.
13. The Committee took evidence from Professor Sir
John Arbuthnott and Dr Nicola McEwen of the Arbuthnott Commission,
and our Report highlighted several matters which we considered
needing clarifying before the Government responded to the Commission's
report.
14. The Committee's other inquiry completed during
the year was into The Sewel Convention: the Westminster perspective.
Sewel motions, now officially called "legislative consent
motions", express the consent of the Scottish Parliament
to Westminster legislating for the UK on matters which might be
legislated at Holyrood, although as section 28(7) of the Scotland
Act makes clear, such consent is not a statutory requirement.[7]
Towards the end of 2005, we announced that we would be holding
an inquiry, not into Sewel motions per se, but rather how
Members of Parliament could be better made aware that a particular
Bill before the House of Commons had been subject to a Sewel motion
in the Scottish Parliament, and other possible changes to Westminster
procedures suggested by the Procedures Committee of the Scottish
Parliament in its own report.
15. In March, we held four evidence sessions. In
Edinburgh, we took evidence from Mr Donald Gorrie MSP, the Convener,
Ms Karen Gillon MSP, the Deputy Convener, Mr Alex Johnstone MSP,
and Mr Andrew Mylne, the Committee Clerk, of the Procedures Committee
of the Scottish Parliament; at Westminster, we took evidence from
Ms Margaret Curran MSP, Minister for Parliamentary Business, Mr
Murray Sinclair, Head, Constitution and Parliamentary Secretariat,
and Mr Paul Allen, Head, Constitutional Policy Unit, the Scottish
Executive and from Mr David Cairns MP, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary
of State for Scotland, Dr Jim Wildgoose, the Head of Scotland
Office, and Mr Glenn Preston, Head of the Scotland Office's Constitutional
Branch; from Mr Roger Sands, the (then) Clerk of the House of
Commons, and Mr Frank Cranmer, the (then) Clerk of Bills, House
of Commons; and from Mr Barry K Winetrobe, Reader in Law, Napier
University.
16. The Committee published its Report on 19 June,[8]
and launched it at a press conference held in Edinburgh. We were
delighted that the Convener of the Scottish Parliament's Procedures
Committee, Donald Gorrie MSP, was able to accept our invitation
to participate actively in the press conference. This was the
first time an MSP had taken part—and we believe it was the
first time a Member of any devolved legislature had taken part
in any select committee's press conference. The Government replied
positively to the recommendations contained in the Report. We
set out the Government's responses to those recommendations below.
17. The Government welcomed the Committee's recommendation
that the Clerk of the Scottish Parliament should formally communicate
the outcome of that Parliament's consideration of Sewel motions
to the Clerks of the two Houses of Parliament, saying that, "combined
with the recommendation to "tag" relevant Bills, [it]
should serve to increase the awareness at Westminster of those
Bills that include provisions that trigger the Sewel Convention
and therefore require the consent of the Scottish Parliament."[9]
18. The Government welcomed our recommendation to
"tag" the Order Paper in the relevant House to alert
Members that the Scottish Parliament had agreed a legislative
consent motion in respect of provisions in a UK Bill. The Government
also welcomed the recommendation that the text of the resolution
be made available in the Vote Office.[10]
19. In response to our recommendation on improving
a Bill's Explanatory Notes, the Government said it intended "to
introduce a new section in Explanatory Notes that will state explicitly
if the Scottish Parliament's consent is required for provisions
in a Bill, when this is known at the time of Introduction. The
relevant provisions will also be identified. This will supplement
the existing Territorial Extent statement to be included in Explanatory
Notes, by explaining which provisions, will trigger the Sewel
Convention. The addition to Explanatory Notes should provide a
greater degree of clarity to readers." [11]
20. The Government was also "happy to accept
the Committee's recommendation to include a list of Bills with
the Secretary of State for Scotland's Written Ministerial Statement
that are identified at the time of the Queen's Speech as including
provisions which trigger the Sewel Convention". However,
it pointed out that "such a list will not necessarily be
exhaustive [since] … the Legislative Programme needs to retain
flexibility and additional measures can be brought in to meet
emerging priorities."[12]
21. As we considered current procedures were working
well, the Committee recommended no change to how the House dealt
with those Private Members' Bills (PMBs) which might apply to
devolved matters. The Government welcomed "the Committee's
acknowledgement of the of the success of the procedures in place
for PMBs."[13]
22. The Government response was less positive, however,
about the Committee's comments less directly related to the workings
of the Sewel Convention. In particular, the Government was unconvinced
of the merits of a "Super" Scottish Grand Committee
(comprising MPs, MSPs and Scottish MEPs), saying it "could
put at risk the distinction between legislatures' responsibilities
and would potentially blur lines of accountability".[14]
In response to the Committee's comments on the West Lothian Question,
the Government reiterated its commitment to devolution and to
retaining a single class of MP in the House of Commons.[15]
23. The Committee's first recommendation was one
to which the Scottish Parliament had to respond favourably; this
they have now done, and we understand, at the time of agreeing
this Report, that the Clerk of the Scottish Parliament and the
Clerk of Bills have almost finalised the arrangements to introduce
these new arrangements. We believe, however, that it would be
appropriate for the House of Commons to have an opportunity formally
to endorse these arrangements, which represent a significant step
in inter-institutional arrangements between the legislatures,
rather than the executives, and we hope that the Leader of the
House finds time to provide an opportunity for this to be done.
24. It is highly unusual for a departmental select
committee to propose new working procedures for the House—it
must be almost unique to have them accepted—so we wish to
record our appreciation to both the Government and to the Scottish
Parliament for their constructive responses to our Report.
25. The Committee has also taken evidence on The
effects of tax increases on the oil industry, from Mr Malcolm
Webb, Chief Executive, and Mr Mike Tholen, Economics and Commercial
Director, UK Offshore Operators Association (at a session held
in Aberdeen), from Mr Dave Blackwood, Director, BP North Sea and
Dr Rebecca Brown, Finance Manager, Apache North Sea Ltd and from
Ms Judith Knott, Head of Corporate Taxation Team, HM Treasury,
Ms Jo Wakeman, Head of North Sea Branch, Corporate Taxation Team,
HM Treasury, and Mr Edward Zamboni, Assistant Director and Head
of Large Business and International Analysis, HM Revenue &
Customs.
26. In May, we announced that we would be undertaking
a major inquiry into Poverty in Scotland. We stated that
the inquiry would address issues such as:
- What is poverty?
- The extent of poverty
- Contributing factors
- Impact of Government policy on poverty.
27. The inquiry would cover poverty in both urban
and rural areas of Scotland and would also include the availability
of affordable money and the activities of loan sharks, as well
as major Government programmes, such as Welfare to Work.[16]
28. In December, we started the inquiry off by visiting
the Highland Region and taking formal evidence in Inverness from
Mr Cameron Stark, honorary clinical senior lecturer, Centre for
Rural Health, Mr Fraser Parr, Chairperson, Inverness Trades Council,
and Mr Sandy Brady, Highlands & Islands Enterprise and from
Ms Carron McDiarmid, Head of Policy and Performance, Highland
Council, Ms Carol Greer, Advisory Officer, Citizens Advice Scotland,
and Ms Philomena de Lima, Development Officer, UHI Policy Web.
7 See section 28(7) of the Scotland Act which states
"This section does not affect the power of the Parliament
of the United Kingdom to make laws for Scotland". Back
8
Scottish Affairs Committee, Fourth Report, Session 2005-06, The
Sewel Convention: the Westminster perspective, HC (2005-06)
883. Back
9
Scottish Affairs Committee, Second Special Report, Session 2005-06,
The Sewel Convention: the Westminster perspective: Government
Response to the Committee's Fourth Report of Session 2005-06,
HC (2005-06) 1634, para 2. Back
10
Ibid, para 3. Back
11
Ibid, para. 6. Back
12
Ibid, paras 7-8. Back
13
Ibid, para 9. Back
14
Ibid, para 12. Back
15
Ibid, para 14. Back
16
See Press Notice No. 16, 22 May 2006. Back
|
