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