Examination of Witnesses (Questions 286-299)
NICOLA STURGEON
MSP
26 FEBRUARY 2008
Q285 Chairman: Deputy First Minister,
welcome. We are very glad that you have given some time to this
sitting of the House of Commons Justice Committee. We very much
look forward to hearing your evidence. One of our witnesses, Professor
Keating, said that: "devolution is about allowing policy
divergence and a healthy competition among governments to innovate
and respond to challenges". Is that how the process is able
to work?
Nicola Sturgeon: I certainly agree
with Michael Keating that devolution and the new constitutional
arrangements we have allow for policy divergence where that is
appropriate and in the interests of, in our case, Scotland. What
I would not want to leave Members with the impression of though
is that the Scottish Government is out to be different for the
sake of being different. We will judge every issue against a measurement
of what is in the Scottish interests, what is best for the people
of Scotland, and if that requires a different policy response
then we will certainly not hesitate to give that response and
there have been numerous examples of that over the years. Yes,
that is what the devolution settlement allows. Because of the
limitations of the devolution settlement there are other areas
where policy divergence may be in the interests of the Scottish
people but because of the particular constitutional settlement
we do not have that freedom as yet. Most people would recognise
that is a positive of the settlement, that we are able to do things
in our own interests, and that is as it should be.
Q286 Chairman: If we have a look
at the mechanisms for dealing with those cases where there are
either differences or some engagement between the Scottish Government
and the UK Government is necessary, one of the main mechanisms
that was first put in place, the Joint Ministerial Committee,
has actually not met in plenary format since 2002. I understand
the First Minister wanted to see it operating. How do you see
that process working?
Nicola Sturgeon: The fact that
the Joint Ministerial Committee set-up does not really function
and, as you say, the JMC in plenary session has not met since,
I think, 2002 and, with one exception, none of the sub-committees
have met since at least that time either, that is a huge missed
opportunity. The working relationship between the Scottish Government
and the Government at Westminster would be strengthened on a day-to-day
basis if that machinery worked better than it does. That said,
there are very good bilateral relationships at official level
and increasingly at ministerial level on a range of issues and
they work well most of the time on a day-to-day basis. I would
hope very much we see progress on re-establishing the JMC structure
sooner rather than later. The Secretary of State for Wales has
now been given the responsibility of overseeing the JMC and the
British-Irish Council, so that is probably the strongest sign
we have had to date that that machinery may be reactivated, and
we certainly hope to hear confirmation of that very soon.
Q287 Chairman: Do you see any dangers
if it is not reactivated?
Nicola Sturgeon: First, to be
positive, there are now signs that it will be. You mentioned the
First Minister's approach to the Prime Minister in August last
year, to which there has not yet been any official response, we
do take the additional responsibilities given to Paul Murphy as
a good sign and, therefore, we are very positive about the prospects.
I think it is important that the JMC does become active again
because it would provide a real opportunity to discuss reserved
issues that impact on devolved areas or, vice versa, to discuss
issues where there is difference to perhaps avoid disputes escalating
more than they have to. I would rather see it as the positives
we can get from the JMC being reactivated than dwell on the negatives.
There is no doubt in my mind that there would be an enormous missed
opportunity not to have the JMC working properly. We would like
to have seen that being the case before now but let us hope it
happens before too long.
Q288 Chairman: Under devolved government,
does Scotland need a voice in the UK Cabinet in the form of a
Secretary of State?
Nicola Sturgeon: You have just
heard from Bruce Crawford. I did not hear Mr Crawford's evidence,
but no doubt he will have told you of the day-to-day working relationships
that he principally has with David Cairns. I think the Secretary
of State for Scotland and, indeed, the Scotland Office is of a
past era. Perhaps in 1999 the role was more obvious and more necessary.
Although some of the functions of the Scotland Office would continue
to be carried out, it is important that a reserved government
knows what devolved government is doing and vice versa.
It is important that there is co-ordination, but I think that
co-ordination could be carried out in different ways through the
co-ordination role of the UK Government, through the Cabinet Office
perhaps, and through the JMC working more effectively than it
does at the moment. I do not think there is a case for retaining
the Scotland Office and the Secretary of State for Scotland as
separate entities. On policy areas, while sometimes the Scotland
Office appears as if it is presenting itself as Scotland's reserved
government, in fact in policy areas it has next to no direct responsibility
and the policy areas and relationships that count are the bilateral
direct relationships between Scottish ministers or officials and
UK ministers or officials. Almost 10 years on, I think it is time
to look again at the role of the Scotland Office and the Secretary
of State. A critical examination would probably lead everybody
to the view that its time has been and gone.
Q289 Chairman: Are you confident
that you are not cutting off your nose to spite your face, you
are not getting rid of something which, although it does not reflect
your long-term aspirations, is thought by some people to benefit
Scotland because of the presence of that voice in the Cabinet?
Nicola Sturgeon: Obviously it
is no secret that the Scottish Government thinks that Scotland
should be independent and that is the best constitutional settlement
for Scotland, but while we remain within a devolved set-up there
is a real need to have good, constructive working relationships
on a day-to-day. We have good day-to-day working relationships,
but the question is does the Scotland Office add any value to
that. On policy issues, Scotland's voice is the Scottish Government
working directly in devolved areas on reserved areas, particularly
where there is a crossover and an impact one on the other, and
then the real voice of Scotland is the Scottish Government working
with the UK Government directly. In terms of the day-to-day machinery
I just question whether we need to have a Scotland Office and
a Secretary of State for Scotland with all of the expense and
bureaucracy that surrounds that or whether those co-ordination
arrangements could just as easily and effectively be carried out
elsewhere. Increasingly, I think they could be carried out just
as effectively in other ways. I have mentioned the Cabinet Office
and the Joint Ministerial Committees which if they were working
properly, which they are not at the moment, could do a lot of
that work.
Q290 Alun Michael: Could we have
a look at one of those areas where obviously there is a need for
good liaison, which is on European issues, European negotiations
and so on. Is that working well in terms of Scottish interests
being taken into account?
Nicola Sturgeon: I think you are
absolutely right to say it is one of the areas that have to work
well. One of the frustrations the Scottish Government has is that
the UK Government tend to see European affairs as being a branch
of international relations when in reality the decisions taken
by the various arms of the European Union impact directly on areas
of devolved responsibility. We have some good relationships, if
I can run through the different aspects of the European dimension.
We have got good relationships with the European Commission at
official level and Scottish Government ministers have had a range
of very constructive meetings and ongoing dialogue with individual
Commissioners. We have got a good relationship with our Members
of the European Parliament and as the European Parliament takes
more of a role in European policy-making that becomes increasingly
important. I suppose where I think there is most room for improvement
and where the frustration of the Scottish Government would be
greatest is in terms of our dealings via the UK Government with
the Council of Ministers because the constitutional arrangement
dictates that we have to operate through the UK Government. Scottish
ministers do on occasion attend Council meetings, participate
directly in Council meetings, and there have been occasions when
Scottish ministers have led for the UK in Council meetings. There
are areas of policy, if we take fisheries, which is probably the
best example, where I would be very confident that the expertise
that we have in the Scottish Government on fisheries is far greater
than anything that exists within the UK Government. Clearly our
interest is much greater and I think we should be able to work
an arrangement where on areas like that it is the Scottish Government
minister who leads routinely for the UK Government. Another area
where we do think there is real room for improvement, and it may
be a bit unfair to say this since it is the only arm of the Joint
Ministerial Committee that is functioning, is the European Sub-Committee.
While it is good that it has continued to meet regularly, I think
there is a real sense that it is not working as effectively as
it should be. The Minister for Europe, Linda Fabiani, in the Scottish
Government has raised this directly with the Foreign Secretary.
It is very often a forum at which different departments of Whitehall
sort out their differences rather than a forum at which the UK
Government can properly consult the devolved administrations,
and the European Scrutiny Committee of the House of Commons, I
believe, has raised real concerns about the lack of involvement
of the devolved administrations in policy formulation.
Q291 Alun Michael: Forgive me, there
are two elements. You have made clear the policy position of the
Scottish Government but in terms of practicalities—I am
a little out of date but I have seen the way that works between
the UK Government departments and Scottish Government representatives
and the other devolved administrations—what would you see
as the areas where it is working well in terms of delivering on
Scottish needs at the present time?
Nicola Sturgeon: There are some
examples. In the recent Treaty negotiations I think there was
a good relationship between the Scottish Government and the UK
Government on some aspects of it, the Justice and Home Affairs
aspects for example. In other areas of that there was a real frustration
that our concerns over fisheries provisions were simply not listened
to by the UK Government and, therefore, were not reflected in
the UK's negotiating position. My view is while there will be
cases where things work better than in others, in answering the
generality of your question there is a real need, and it is not
just the Scottish Government that thinks this, as I mentioned
earlier on the European Scrutiny Committee has made similar points,
where the UK Government does not work hard enough to make sure
that the devolved administrations are involved in policy formulation.
You know my view and you know the Scottish Government's view that
we would be better being directly represented in Europe. While
we have the situation we have where so much of Europe directly
impacts on our devolved responsibilities it is not good enough
for us to be constantly knocking on the door and not always getting
an answer when we should be integrally involved in these discussions
at every stage, and in some cases we should routinely lead at
the Council for the UK Government because it makes sense.
Q292 Mrs James: I want to turn now
to Choosing Scotland's Future. We are aware that there
is a national conversation going on based on the document Choosing
Scotland's Future. How is that different from the Constitutional
Commission that Wendy Alexander has announced?
Nicola Sturgeon: The working party,
or review as it is now called by the Prime Minister, I believe,
the national conversation, is a wide-ranging inclusive process.
It was kicked off last August by the First Minister with the publication
of the White Paper, Choosing Scotland's Future. In that
White Paper, and I have no doubt you have looked at it, we, as
the Scottish Government, very clearly set out our preferred option
of independence for Scotland but we recognise that others have
a different view; others want more powers for the Scottish Parliament
short of independence; others want financial independence for
the Scottish Parliament but not full independence. We have very
deliberately set out to have a conversation that allows all of
these views to be expressed. That is going very well, it has generated
a lot of interest, and I think the conversation is alive and kicking
and generating a lot of enthusiasm in Scotland. It is interesting
that when we started off just after the election we had parties
like the Labour Party, for example, being implacably opposed to
any more powers for the Scottish Parliament and now we have all
parties arguing for some form of further constitutional change,
and perhaps that is the biggest sign of the success of the national
conversation so far. How it differs from the Commission/review/working
party, whatever we want to call it, is very clear. I should say
first of all that I do not think anybody in Scotland is particularly
clear yet, not least some of the participants in the Commission,
what form exactly it is going to take or what exactly its remit
is going to be, how exactly it is going to go about its business.
I have seen in the papers this morning some emerging signs of
disquiet within the Commission about its future direction. I suppose
the key difference is that whereas the national conversation is
inclusive and invites all strands of opinion, the Commission expressly
excludes consideration of one of the key options for Scotland,
and that is independence. The Commission is not a substitute for
the national conversation. At some point it may be able to formulate
an independent view to independence that it can then feed into
the national conversation but it remains to be seen whether or
not it will ever get quite that far.
Q293 Mrs James: You have already
mentioned the Prime Minister's comments on this. How do you respond
to his comment that the review was not a "one-way street"
and that some powers could be returned to Westminster?
Nicola Sturgeon: I suppose to
be charitable, constructive and positive, first of all, it was
good to hear the Prime Minister at long last acknowledge the fact
that the debate about the Constitution is ongoing, alive and dynamic
in Scotland. Sometimes over the past few months it has been reminiscent
of the dark days of the 1980s when the UK Government appeared
to want to just stick its head in the sand and pretend there was
no debate about constitutional change. That was not sustainable
then and it is not sustainable now. That was the positive. It
is certainly regrettable that the Prime Minister's first serious
contribution to this debate seemed to focus more on taking powers
away from Scotland than on doing what the vast majority of people
in Scotland want to see done and that is have more powers devolved
to the Scottish Parliament. I would suggest that demonstrates
either that the Prime Minister is slightly more out of touch with
public opinion in Scotland than even I would have said he was,
or there is that, I suppose, I was going to say Westminster but
that would include this Committee which is unfair given you are
here showing this interest, old Whitehall tendency to try and
get control of a process so that you can try and contain it. I
suspect that is what the Prime Minister was trying to do by downgrading
Wendy Alexander's Scottish Commission to a Westminster review.
I do not think that is sustainable and I do not think that is
what people want to see this debate taking the shape of.
Q294 Mrs James: It is interesting
that the debate is going on, but clearly what is coming through
in many of the pieces of evidence we have taken is that people
are interested in powers and want to proceed but they are not
interested in independence.
Nicola Sturgeon: I do not think
I am grabbing any front pages by saying this, but I do not agree
with you on that. I think there is very strong support for independence
in Scotland. I am not saying there is not very strong support
for other constitutional options as well. That is the interesting
feature of the debate just now and it is what makes the national
conversation so dynamic and inclusive because we want all of these
strands of opinion to be openly discussed. We can trade any two
politicians of any two parties, and we do this a lot in Scotland,
we can trade opinion polls and say one option is more favoured
than another but, ultimately, one of the big questions we have
to face up to in Scotland is how do we ultimately settle the question
of whether we favour independence or more powers short of independence.
The view of the Scottish Government is very clear, we think there
should be a referendum that allows the Scottish people to settle
that question. I am more than happy to take my chances in a referendum,
I am pretty confident the people of Scotland would choose independence.
For parties who do not support a referendum, the real question
is how else do we settle the question because I believe passionately
that this should not be a debate that is confined to politicians
and the odd academic, since I suspect there is still one or two
sitting behind me here, or to parliaments even. This is a debate
that should involve the Scottish people and be ultimately settled
and decided on by the Scottish people.
Q295 Julie Morgan: Our previous witness,
an academic, said that the SNP Government had to put independence
on the backburner. What is your view on that?
Nicola Sturgeon: I will have a
chat with him later, once I find out who it was! I do not think
that bears scrutiny. All along, what the SNP said before we were
elected into Government is we believe in independence, we campaigned
for independence and we seek at every opportunity to advance the
case for independence. Ultimately, it will not be the SNP that
decides the question, it will be the people of Scotland in a referendum.
Of course, we have also always said that we wanted to get elected
to government in the Scottish Parliament so we could show what
we were capable of by using the powers of the Scottish Parliament
as they are better than they have been before, build confidence
in the ability of Scotland and the Scottish people to govern ourselves
and do things better when we have our own interests up front and
centre. I think we are doing an extremely good job around that
just now. I would say that, but I think that is a view reflected
across the country. As we have seen through the national conversation
and the White Paper, we continue to make the case for independence
and use the success of the Government using the powers that we
have now as a further argument for independence. As people see
what can be achieved with limited powers, the appetite for greater
powers and more autonomy up to and including independence becomes
very strong.
Q296 Julie Morgan: As a party, have
you moderated your views as a result of the reality of government?
Nicola Sturgeon: On what particular
topic?
Q297 Julie Morgan: Independence.
Nicola Sturgeon: No, we continue
to believe that independence is the best constitutional settlement
for Scotland. I noticed one of the questions you posed in your
remit was whether the asymmetric nature of devolution within the
UK is appropriate and sustainable. I think emphatically not. Although
we are keen to debate some of the other options, federalism, fiscal
autonomy, they all throw up their own anomalies. All of the rational
arguments point to independence as being the best outcome for
Scotland. I should stress that independence is about giving Scotland
political and economic power over the whole range of issues that
other normal independent countries have. I also think it would
strengthen the relationship we have with the rest of the UK as
well because it would be a relationship of equals. We will continue
to make that case as passionately and as powerfully as we have
always done before and all of the evidence is it is a case that
is gaining ground and winning converts by the day.
Q298 Julie Morgan: In the present
situation that we are in, what is your view about the English
Question?
Nicola Sturgeon: First of all,
it is not for me or any member of the Scottish Government to try
and answer the English Question. Just like the future constitutional
shape of Scotland should be determined by the Scottish people,
the future constitutional arrangements of England should be determined
by the English Question. It is of course too tempting for me not
to say that independence at a stroke would solve the English Question.
I see Andrew Turner shaking his head and to some extent he is
right to shake his head, it would get rid of the English Question
at a top level but clearly there are issues in terms of the governance
of England as well which are for the people of England to determine.
What it would get rid of is this rather bizarre and anomalous
situation where you have the Westminster Parliament operating
simultaneously as a Parliament for the UK and also a Parliament
for England which I think does throw up a great deal of frustration
in England and is a situation that is unsustainable.
Q299 Mr Turner: I would like to pursue
this matter of asymmetric devolution. So far we have been giving
your views the benefit, but let us give ourselves an alternative
where people are enthusiastic about the current level of devolution
but not terribly enthusiastic about the last jump, and that is
equally likely. Do you not think then it will be necessary to
have a pause and for England to get the opportunity to come up-to-date?
Nicola Sturgeon: What I do not
think is that Scotland determining the best constitutional settlement
for Scotland cannot somehow be put on hold for matters elsewhere
in the UK to—to use your terminology—catch up. I think
there is an opportunity already for people in England to determine
what arrangements they want that best suit their interests. That
is a process that is not constrained by anything that is happening
in Scotland. It is a process that is ongoing, at least in terms
of growing public debate in England. I hesitate to say too much
about what I think the outcome of that should be because fundamentally
it is for people in England to determine the best outcome for
them.
|
