Examination of Witnesses (Questions 229-239)
BRUCE CRAWFORD
MSP
26 FEBRUARY 2008
Q229 Chairman: We are a few minutes early
but it seems a good idea to start as Mr Crawford is with us. We
are very grateful to him for coming to give evidence to this sitting
of the Justice Committee of the House of Commons. I thought I
would start by asking you, Mr Crawford, whether you think that
the processes which the Westminster and Holyrood Parliaments have
in place for dealing with legislation where there is an overlap
between the two systems are actually effective.
Bruce Crawford: Thank you. Thank
you very much for inviting me along this morning, it is very kind
of you to do that. I know you are only here in Edinburgh for a
short time but I hope you enjoy your visit. In terms of the process
that you have explained, Chairman, in regard to the differences,
I guess you are talking about the Legislative Consent Motion process
and how we resolve issues around that. Helpfully, before the Queen's
Speech was made to the House of Commons last year, we had a reasonable
heads-up from the UK Government about what legislation would be
coming forward and what material in that regard might have an
impact on a Legislative Consent Motion. So we were pretty well
prepared for any areas where the UK Parliament might want to legislate
in areas which were of competence in the Scottish Parliament.
Obviously, as time rolls on other material will come out of the
woodwork in terms of other legislation that is being formulated
at Westminster and we get information in due course and as time
goes by in that regard. I think I have got a pretty reasonable
relationship with the Scotland Office, particularly the Minister,
David Cairns, in terms of managing the process of LCMs. We are
almost a decade on from devolution and inevitably we feel that
things could be done in a different way and a more appropriate
way in terms of the Scotland Office, but in terms of the relationship
that is there just now, in terms of the structure that is there
just now, I think that works pretty well.
Q230 Chairman: Has it been tested
by your refusing a Legislative Consent Motion yet or saying that
you would do if one was brought forward?
Bruce Crawford: It has been tested
as such in that there is always discussion that goes on between
officials bilaterally and between ministers bilaterally in regard
to an LCM as it progresses and the need for it and discussion
around it progresses. There is a recognition, I think, by the
UK Government that if we do not intend to pass an LCM in a particular
area then they will not necessarily prosecute that to the level
that you might expect. There is an acceptance that Scotland sometimes
might have a different perspective. It has not been tested yet
because we have not had an LCM which we have had to put before
the Parliament where the Government would not have supported it.
Of course, it is always possible in the Scottish Parliament for
the opposition to put forward an LCM, and they could choose to
do that at some stage, although that has not happened yet. In
fact, the only point of conflict that I am aware of came about
as a result of a gentleman we were talking about earlier in the
shape of Jeremy Purvis, a Liberal who put forward an amendment
to the dormant bank accounts Legislative Consent Motion that caused
a bit of a ripple but, nevertheless, at the end of the day we
had a conjoined position with the Labour Party on that occasion
and the Tories to make sure the LCM was passed in the way we thought
was fit.
Q231 Chairman: In an earlier session
this morning I referred to an example which had come up, partly
to establish where the red lights flash in this system. It was
an example of what is not covered by the Queen's Speech discussions.
It was the Westminster Government's publicly announced intention
in its Counter-Terrorism Bill to include provisions which enable
cases involving terrorism to be taken out of the Scottish judicial
system and tried in England, not necessarily with the consent
of the Lord Advocate. Presumably there is some system where red
lights flash and you say, "If we are going to do this we
would have to agree to an LCM".
Bruce Crawford: Yes. That system
is about a process of continual dialogue from the minute we know
about a bill that exists from the UK perspective. That dialogue
happens between officials on an ongoing basis and then between
ministers and between departments in a bilateral way. Every second
week I have a discussion with David Cairns at the Scotland Office
about where the pinch points are, about where the issues are,
and to date these have been resolved amicably. I do think, however,
the need for that particular office to sit in the Scotland Office
is not as strong as it was in 1999 and there could be better co-ordinated
and strengthened arrangements bilaterally between ministers and,
indeed, a role for a government minister much more at the centre
of government to help with the trouble-shooting that is currently
done between myself and David Cairns. I am effectively saying
that probably time has run out for the Scotland Office as far
as that is concerned.
Q232 Chairman: If that did not exist
you would be talking to the leader of the House at Westminster
and the Minister in the particular example I quoted, the Justice
Minister, would be talking to the Justice Minister and the relevant
officials on the same lines?
Bruce Crawford: Correct. On the
issue you raised, that discussion is already going on between
the Justice Minister and the relevant counterpart at UK level.
I think the Leader of the House still chairs the L Committee and
that would be an appropriate place in terms of the legislative
process for me to be engaged and a lot more effectively in terms
of discharging business. Actually, it would remove a bit of the
communication line that exists and allow a lot more discussion
directly to the heart of Government. That is no disrespect to
David Cairns, who has to work within the current system, and that
works as well as it can for where we are.
Q233 Alun Michael: I am tempted to
think there is a comparison with communication between government
departments in Whitehall here. I remember inheriting one bit of
a government department that came over which was able to do away
with the bit that spent all its time working out what the other
department was doing. Is there not a stage before legislation
which very often comes at the end of an internal process which
can be driven by an election commitment or it can be driven by
a ministerial leadership, or it can be delivered by departmental
ownership, if you know what I mean, so that there is a need for
contact much earlier down the line? You referred to yourself and
David, for instance, trouble-shooting and that is where something
has reached the stage of development where it needs that last
minute intervention to almost rescue a situation.
Bruce Crawford: There has not
been much that has needed to be rescued yet but that relationship
allows for that rescue job to be done if required. There is earlier
discussion between officials on an ongoing, day-to-day basis and
between ministers in a bilateral sense and an ongoing day-to-day
basis. You would hope, and it normally does, that process would
allow for the issues to be aired long before we get to the process
of legislation being brought to the floor of the House of Commons
but inevitably, because that is what government is like, it does
not always work as smoothly as you would like and, therefore,
there is always a bit of turbulence and bumpiness around as far
as that is concerned.
Q234 Alun Michael: Do you feel that
it is developing in a positive direction in terms of, if you like,
rescues being less frequently needed at the last minute?
Bruce Crawford: I think it is
because of the attitude we take to Legislative Consent Motions.
We are not predisposed to being against Legislative Consent Motions
because we have got the settlement we have got. We might like
to see Scotland as an independent country but we have got a system
that has got to work within the confines of the current constitutional
settlement and, therefore, inevitably people who have got the
best will of the Scottish people or, indeed, the UK at heart will
do their best to make the system work and that is what goes on
on a general basis.
Q235 Alun Michael: You said in a
recent article for BBC News Online that: "This is
a new Scotland and it's a new politics". What did you mean
by that? What is new about the politics?
Bruce Crawford: Part of my role
is not only being, in effect, the equivalent of Leader of the
House as far as Westminster is concerned, but I also happen to
be Chief Whip for the Government in Scotland. Certainly one thing
that has changed is that you can no longer rely on the number
of votes that you have to secure your majority. Managing a minority
government on a day-to-day basis is an interesting challenge.
Q236 Alun Michael: Tell me about
it!
Bruce Crawford: It means since
you can no longer rely on the number of votes that you have got,
you have got to rely on the quality of the argument that you can
put forward to build an alliance on a coalition with different
partners on the issue on a day-to-day basis depending on the merits.
That has been good for Scotland. Perhaps by default we have got
to the position that the Scottish people wanted in 1999 in terms
of the Scottish Parliament election result by delivering something
that is a lot more open and accountable because it has to be by
the nature of it. For instance, on the budget, which I am sure
some of you certainly, if not all of you, are aware of, the Conservatives
voted for a budget in the Scottish Parliament and others abstained.
That was three weeks ago now. Last week we had a debate on the
future of the Scottish water utility where Labour and ourselves
conjoined to have a majority in opposition to the Conservatives.
On that same day we had a position jointly with the Liberals and
the Greens on penal policy and how effectively we can use prisons.
It is a lot more mixed up here than you might imagine in terms
of finding the right solutions, but that is because things are
being argued through on their merits. I guess the most important
thing of the lot is the issue of how we engage with wider Scotland,
particularly in the longer term. Obviously when you come into
government you have got your manifesto to put into place and you
have got to try to deliver as much of that as you humanly can,
but there will be a requirement upon any government in the minority
position we find ourselves in, and it is already beginning, to
build alliances across civic Scotland in a way that other governments
have not been required to do. That is a good thing, not just because
it happens to be the arithmetic of the Scottish Parliament but
it is what we should be doing anyway. If you look at some of the
experiences of other minority governments, Denmark, for instance,
and they have had a minority similar to what is happening in Scotland
there for a number of decades, they have had a process inbuilt
for a longer period in terms of consulting with the stakeholders
in their communities probably going past consultation into participation,
which is really what we have to be about, how we involve people
in the future. It is interesting that they get an 85% turnout
in their electorate and there are 65,000 members of the largest
party in Denmark with a population the same size of Scotland.
There are probably some lessons for us all to learn there.
Q237 Alun Michael: It is very interesting
that you are talking about participation but you started on the
point of communication. Does the new politics that you have described
require new journalism as well? In other words, how does the type
of approach that you have described as having to take get communicated
by the media?
Bruce Crawford: I think the media
found the advent of a Scottish Parliament/Government being in
the SNP an exciting, new refreshing process for them because there
is lots to report, as you might imagine, in the circumstances
I have just described in terms of the way we have got to build
majorities. I guess it is equally true of the media as it is of
the politicians that it has taken a wee while for people to get
to grips with the new reality of where we are. Some parties have
been quicker at getting to grips with the new politics of Scotland
than others and I guess that is the same for the media and understanding
the processes. We have got a pretty forensic bunch up here in
terms of the way they examine Scottish politics and the way they
get into the detail and the majority are beginning to get there
in terms of understanding the subtleties that are required to
build majorities and keep a minority government on track. It has
certainly given them lots to write about.
Q238 Julie Morgan: I wanted to go
back to the relationship with the Scottish Office and to ask you
do you think Scotland does need a voice at the Cabinet level in
the UK Government?
Bruce Crawford: It certainly needs
a voice at the centre of government in terms of the way it discharges
business. This is one of the areas that the JMC, for instance,
could be having a good look at, the JMC which obviously involves
all governments from Wales, Ireland, Scotland the UK. There is
a different view from Wales and Ireland in terms of where they
see the future. Certainly the JMC mechanism, all of that mechanism,
has to be looked at in the whole, whether it is the JMC, the Concordats,
the Memorandums of Understanding or the issue of what standing
an individual representing Scotland would have at a UK level.
Q239 Chairman: It has not met since
2002, has it?
Bruce Crawford: The JMC has not
met since 2002. There was an expectation from the Memorandums
of Understanding that it would meet on a yearly basis. I certainly
think it could have met following the terrorist attack on Glasgow
Airport. It could have usefully met to have discussed financial
and Treasury matters. I think it could usefully have met to discuss
issues around the foot and mouth disease outbreak that happened
and some of the conflicts that existed between the UK and Scottish
Government at that time. I think there is a real role for the
JMC. The First Minister did write to the Prime Minister in August
and to date we have had no response, but we have also had the
recent appointment of Paul Murphy to be not only the Secretary
of State for Wales but he also has got some responsibilities around
the British-Irish Council and the JMC. There is other work that
I think the JMC could usefully review at this stage. It could
undertake a review of the Memorandums of Understanding and the
Concordats. We think that there is an opportunity for a JMC Domestic
to develop, for instance, where there would be an opportunity
for wide-ranging issues to be discussed before any plenary session.
I am aware that the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong
Learning has suggested that there needs to be a JMC for families,
benefits and employment. There is an opportunity for the JMC in
a plenary organisation to review that sort of activity. There
is also the UK Statistics Bill, which is a bit deep here, folks,
forgive me, which I understand will have an impact on the Concordat
that is being drawn up for the JMC Europe and, therefore, that
will need to be reviewed anyway. So there is a bit of work that
could be done by the JMC in that regard as well as looking at
the general issue of overarching agreements of the Memorandums
of Understanding and the Concordats after almost a decade of devolution.
It can only be right that after that length of time we begin to
look at them and review them. The whole thing needs to be done
as a package to look at everything properly.
|
