Justice 2 Committee, 25 Jan 2005

Meeting date: Tuesday, January 25, 2005

Official Report 312KB pdf

---

Inquiries Bill

Agenda item 2 is the Inquiries Bill, which is currently before the Westminster Parliament. I welcome to the meeting the Deputy Minister for Justice, Hugh Henry, who is a familiar face, and Mr Hamish Goodall and Barbara Brown, who are colleagues from his department. We are pleased to have the minister with us.

Members should have seen in their papers a letter from the Executive that includes a policy paper that outlines potential rules on evidence and procedure for inquiries that will be set up under the bill. The bill will be the subject of a Sewel motion, the terms of which have been published and are available to members.

Minister, do you want to say anything by way of initial comment?

Yes. I thank the committee for giving me the opportunity to give evidence. I feel that I am almost a seconded member of the committee at the moment, because I am seeing so much of its members—I saw you last week and am seeing you again today.

The purpose of the Inquiries Bill is to establish a new framework for ministers to set up formal inquiries into matters of public concern. The bill proposes a new statutory basis for inquiries, with the aim of enabling them to work more effectively, more flexibly, more quickly and at lower cost than has sometimes been the case. The Executive has maintained close contact with the Department for Constitutional Affairs as the proposals have been developed, and it was closely involved in drawing up clauses that will cover Scottish circumstances.

A variety of events that cannot easily be categorised as reserved or devolved matters may cause public concern and result in calls for an inquiry. We and the United Kingdom Government have a shared interest in creating a modern statutory framework that recognises that reality and provides for inquiries to be set up jointly by ministers in the Scottish and UK Administrations. The Sewel process will allow the bill to make provision for joint inquiries, which I believe would benefit Scotland and which we could not obtain by way of a Scottish bill alone. Of course, we could create a new framework for inquiries into wholly devolved matters in Scotland by means of a Scottish Parliament bill but, unfortunately, there is currently no space for such a bill in our legislative programme.

The UK bill offers us an opportunity to create a new statutory framework for inquiries on devolved matters in Scotland at an early date by working in partnership with our colleagues in the UK Government. It gives us the chance to put in place a structure for ensuring a consistent approach and flexibility to respond to differing circumstances for all types of inquiry into matters of public concern in Scotland.

Thank you. Members may now ask questions.

A question strikes me: if the bill is passed, will it give inquiries powers of compulsion such as could have been used, for example, by the Fraser inquiry to make the BBC hand over tapes?

As members know, the ad hoc nature of Lord Fraser's inquiry meant that it had no powers either to require witnesses to appear or to make people produce evidence. As a result, he could not compel the BBC or others to submit the interviews that he requested. However, we believe that the BBC and IWC Media would, if the bill had been in force at that time, have been obliged to release the tapes. Any future inquiry would have a power of compulsion that was not available to Lord Fraser.

I am grateful for that clarification. Do you find it as interesting as I do, convener?

It has come too late. [Laughter.] However, that point highlights an interesting dimension. If the bill were passed, would inquiries in Scotland lose some of their current flexibility?

I do not believe that any flexibility would be lost. Instead, as I explained, the bill would give an inquiry added powers. It would allow inquiries to address only Scottish matters, if we so wished, and it would retain the ability to allow UK-wide inquiries. Moreover, with the bill's added powers, we will be able to have inquiries that cross jurisdictions. Some aspects of the tragic circumstances at Dunblane—for example, firearms—had a very clear impact on UK legislation, but if the incident had occurred after the creation of the Scottish Parliament, it would also have impacted on some clearly devolved matters, such as safety and protection of children. I believe that the bill will provide scope for flexibility and co-operation and that it will enable us to give consistency where it is needed.

The purpose of having the item on the agenda is to allow members to comment on the Sewel motion, either through a formal report or—if we are so minded—through a briefer minute. Are members content that the matter be dealt with through a Sewel motion?

No.

Do you want to explain your position further?

We have had so many Sewel motions that I think the point has been well made and understood. Parliament was set up to find—as Executive members often say—Scottish solutions to Scottish problems. The idea that we should sit here week in, week out debating and passing motions that allow Westminster to rule on Scottish matters that come within the Parliament's devolved competence seems to be rather bizarre and is, to be frank, at odds with the purpose of the Scottish Parliament.

As a result, I think that using the Sewel procedure for the Inquiries Bill is incorrect; we could and should deal with the matter here. Indeed, the excuse that there are timetabling problems does not explain sufficiently why we should not do so. I have heard that reason used a number of times, but simply to say, "We have a timetabling issue with this particular bill", does not address the fundamental question of why the Scottish Parliament is not fully debating matters that, at the end of the day, become part of Scots law. I am opposed to the use of a Sewel motion.

As I said, there is not a great deal of substance to discuss in connection with the bill, unlike with some of the other Sewel motions that the committee has had to consider. If the committee is agreed, the matter might be dealt with by a simple minute based on a vote, which would enable Stewart Maxwell to record his dissent.

Convener, with your permission I will clarify the specific point that Stewart Maxwell raised, concerning what he understood from my comments. He suggested that one of my arguments for agreeing to the Sewel motion was the fact that there is not sufficient time for a purely Scottish bill. What I said was in the context of a bill that would deal only with powers and issues for which we are responsible. My comments pertained only to that. The beauty of the current bill is that it does not deal purely with Scottish matters. If we went down the route that is suggested by Stewart Maxwell and legislated only for Scotland, that would not enable us to co-operate across the UK in inquiries that need to consider devolved and reserved matters. The bill is necessary to reflect the complexity of the UK Administration and UK working on a range of subjects.

I understand that Stewart Maxwell believes that there should be no common cause between Scotland and England as far as legislation is concerned. He does not believe in the United Kingdom: that is an acceptable political view for him. However, while we operate within a UK framework, the bill will give us a significant advantage in enabling us to bring a Scottish dimension and to offer Scottish input to and have Scottish control of a wide range of issues. I do not want my comment about Scottish legislation to be taken out of context.

Thank you for that explanation. The question is, that the committee agrees to recommend to Parliament that the provisions of the Inquiries Bill be considered by the UK Parliament. Are we agreed?

No.

There will be a division.

For

Jackie Baillie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Bill Butler (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Miss Annabel Goldie (West of Scotland) (Con)
Maureen Macmillan (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Mike Pringle (Edinburgh South) (LD)

Against

Colin Fox (Lothians) (SSP)
Mr Stewart Maxwell (West of Scotland) (SNP)

The result of the division is: For 5, Against 2, Abstentions 0.

The committee's recommendation will take the form of a brief minute that will be made available to Parliament.