Examination of Witness (Questions 457-459)
RT HON
LORD STEEL
OF AIKWOOD
22 APRIL 2008
Chairman: Lord Steel, welcome. We have
some interests to declare first of all.
Julie Morgan: I am married
to the First Minister in Wales.
Q457 Chairman: We are very glad that
you have agreed to come along this afternoon and give us the benefit
of your experience presiding over and being a Member of the Scottish
Parliament and observing the Scottish Executive, now calling itself
the Scottish Government, in action. May I start with a rather
specific point which is about Sewel motions? It has been suggested
that this whole process needs clarifying and tidying up and that
there need to be some clear principles setting out when the British
Government will invoke the Convention. Given that a number of
issues have come up even at the moment, for example over terrorist
trials being moved between Scotland and England, do you think
there is a framework that could be created to tidy this up?
Lord Steel of Aikwood: I probably
cannot help you very much on that one because in my four years,
we did not have any problem with it. It may be that there have
been problems more recently, but certainly during the four years
that I was presiding over the Parliament, there was general agreement
when a Sewel motion was in operation and we did not have any problems.
I have not lived through a time when there has been some argument
about whether it was or not appropriate to use them.
Q458 Julie Morgan: As part of this
inquiry we interviewed the Secretary of State for Scotland and
I wondered what your view was about whether Scotland needs a voice
at the Cabinet level, post devolution?
Lord Steel of Aikwood: I always
thought at the time when we were putting the Scotland Act through
that it would have been sensible at that stage to have had a Cabinet
minister for the UK with a junior minister under him for each
of the entities: Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That would
have been a tidy arrangement. Technically that person would have
had to have been Secretary of State for Scotland, Secretary of
State for Wales, Secretary of State for Northern Ireland because
of all the legislation, but it would have been a tidy arrangement
and it would have avoided the criticism that there has been several
times and is again currently about somebody holding a major Cabinet
post and being Secretary of State for Scotland at the same time.
I do not quite know why that did not happen. It would seem to
me to have been the logical consequence of creating devolution
all round.
Q459 Julie Morgan: Is this something
you anticipated would have happened by now?
Lord Steel of Aikwood: Yes, I
thought it would have happened by now. It still should happen.
| 
