Sewel Motions
Item 5 on the agenda is consideration of a paper on Sewel motions. I do not want members to debate the content of the individual items, which will be discussed at future meetings of the committee. Instead, I propose that we discuss how we will consider the Sewel motions at those meetings.
The first is the Sewel motion on the Gambling Bill. It is proposed that at next week's meeting, on 14 December, we take evidence from the Deputy Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform. I propose that at the meeting the minister should be given an opportunity to set out the content of the Sewel motion and the Executive's reasons for lodging it. There would then be a question-and-answer session with the minister, similar to those that take place during consideration of statutory instruments. I also propose that members have an opportunity to debate in committee the appropriateness of the Sewel motion. That debate would not necessarily have formal status under the Parliament's procedures, but it would be appropriate for both the minister and members to set out their views on the Sewel motion and for there to be a vote on the issue if there were no agreement. Such a debate would provide to Parliament guidance on the committee's views when it considered the Sewel motion.
We have more time to consider the Sewel motion on the Railways Bill, because the timetable for that bill at Westminster is less pressing. I suggest a similar format for our consideration of that motion in due course, so that we are able to consider the reasons for the motion and members have an opportunity to comment on it.
Given the timetable for consideration of the Sewel motion on the Gambling Bill, I do not think that we will be able to produce a formal committee report on it. However, it is possible for us to produce a report that records the decision that we take on whether to recommend that the Sewel motion be approved. The Official Report of the meeting could be appended to that report, so that views that are expressed by members during the debate may be taken into account by colleagues when Parliament considers the motion.
I have set out the actions that I propose we take when considering the Sewel motions. I invite members' comments on that proposed course of action.
I welcome the convener's statement on the course that he intends to pursue. I recognise that there is no set format for consideration of Sewel motions. The proposed timescales were not decided by the committee and we should go about our job properly.
Today I will address the Sewel motion on the Gambling Bill in particular. The convener said that we should not debate the motion today, and I will try not to do so. However, the motion deals with important powers relating to casinos. I refer in particular to the power to establish permitted areas for casinos, which Scottish ministers will lose as a result of the motion. Ministers will lose the ability to determine the number and location of casinos. The motion also deals with the restrictions that are currently applied to casinos regarding general entertainment.
Those are big issues for Scotland to consider. I would have thought that it was the committee's role to hold a wider evidence-taking session involving the trade unions, the churches, the police and the licensing boards. The Executive's consultation on the draft bill indicated that the licensing boards were not enthusiastic about the removal of restrictions on live entertainment. Under the Sewel motion, we will pass that issue back to Westminster for consideration.
There is a role for the voluntary organisations that deal with people who become addicted to gambling. We should also have the chance to ask the United Kingdom Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what she thinks, especially about the changes that will be required under the Sewel motion. I know that that will take time, but this is an important issue that will affect legislation in Scotland. It is appropriate that we deal with it in the proper fashion, so that Parliament has democratic oversight of any decisions that are taken under the motion. We cannot do that properly without holding proper evidence-taking sessions. This is a fundamental issue of democracy for Parliament.
My understanding is that the power is being taken from Scottish ministers and given to local licensing boards, which does not strike me as being necessarily a bad thing, although I obviously want confirmation from the minister on that when we take evidence from him. It is not a matter of powers being taken away from Scotland, but of their being transferred from one body in Scotland to another, where it might be more appropriate for the decisions to be taken.
I do not believe that the matter is appropriate for a Sewel motion, because it is not urgent and the motion would be for Westminster to legislate on licensing, which has traditionally been distinct in Scotland. If we are to consider the proposals, we should consider them as if they had been introduced by the Executive, therefore I am sympathetic to the approach that Bruce Crawford outlined.
I would like to address only the Gambling Bill and deal with the Railways Bill later. When I raised the Gambling Bill with the First Minister at First Minister's question time, my understanding was that he was at least reported as being opposed to supercasinos in Scotland and that he was worried about the possibility of slot machines with unlimited prizes being introduced. In particular, the First Minister is quoted as saying that we would use planning and licensing law to ensure that there was no place for them in Scotland. If that is the case, we must be able to debate the impact on planning and licensing here.
As an illustration, I will mention a facet of the debate that Westminster has not even touched on as far as I can see, which is the effect that the reforms might have on the bingo industry and bingo players in Scotland. As it happens, Carlton Clubs plc, which has 14 bingo halls in Scotland and four in the north of England, is based in my constituency. It is one of the three largest bingo companies along with Gala Bingo Ltd and the Rank Group plc. I mention that because many tens of thousands of people in Scotland play bingo, which is a mild form of gambling and a form of social activity in safe surroundings, which we have never debated. I know for a fact that the people who run bingo in Scotland are extremely concerned that—as has happened in Australia and New York state—bingo customers will be attracted to forms of harder gambling if supercasinos and slot machines with huge prizes are introduced.
In addition to all the evidence that Bruce Crawford rightly suggested we take, there are areas on which we in this Parliament need to do our job in scrutinising the impact that the Gambling Bill would have on our people and communities. I mention bingo only as an example—it is an important one, but it has not even been given the time of day in Westminster. It has been completely overlooked and all the signs are that it would continue to be overlooked if we were foolish enough to allow Westminster to legislate for us in the Gambling Bill through a Sewel motion.
I hope that I will be able to come back to discuss the Railways Bill, because there is a series of issues related to that.
I will respond to members who have spoken. I do not want to get into a debate on the Gambling Bill today because we will in due course, and irrespective of whether the committee agrees the proposals that I have suggested, have the opportunity to debate the merits of the Sewel motion on the Gambling Bill.
On the timeframe, the final stage of consideration at Westminster will be concluded before 12 January, so there is a pressing time constraint if Parliament wishes to pass a Sewel motion and allow Westminster to legislate and pass some powers to the Scottish ministers.
On that basis, it would not be practicable to give wider consideration to the views of various bodies as some members suggested. I propose that we take the action that I outlined: at next week's meeting we can take evidence from and have a question-and-answer session with the minister and we can take the opportunity to have a debate in the committee. We can then consider whether a Sewel motion would be the right approach and, if necessary, vote on the matter. As I said, under Parliament's procedures the committee does not have a formal role in the process, but we can certainly convey our view to Parliament and recommend an appropriate way forward.
If a Sewel motion were agreed to and concerns remained that some issues would not be appropriately scrutinised, it would be open to Parliament, ministers and individual MSPs to make recommendations to colleagues at Westminster to ensure that those issues were discussed—of course, that is a hypothetical situation. We should scrutinise the Gambling Bill through consideration of the Sewel motion, as I outlined.
In that case, is the appropriate procedure to suggest an amendment to your proposal at this stage?
If you want to do that, that is fine.
I heard the convener's words clearly. It is not the fault of the Local Government and Transport Committee that we are in this situation. The Leader of the House of Commons and the Minister for Parliamentary Business in the Scottish Executive should perhaps have got their heads together to ensure that we would not be faced with such a time constraint. If 12 January is a problem for Westminster, so be it; we might have to ask Westminster to wait so that we have a chance to hold a wider evidence-taking meeting that includes the churches, the police, the licensing boards, the voluntary organisations that deal with people who have a gambling habit, and the UK minister. It is important that the committee put its stamp on the issue. If we are to agree to a Sewel motion, we should do so with full knowledge of all the facts. We did not even know about some of the facts until Fergus Ewing brought them to our attention today and I am sure that other issues could be considered in our evidence-taking session. I move that the committee hold a wider evidence-taking session.
We have already debated the matter, but do members want to comment?
Bruce Crawford's proposal and the comments from David Mundell and Fergus Ewing demonstrate a lack of understanding of the Sewel motion. We are not giving Westminster permission to legislate on a matter in Scotland; we are giving Westminster permission to give Scottish ministers powers that they do not have. Westminster can legislate on the issue irrespective of whether a Sewel motion is agreed to in the Scottish Parliament, but if the Sewel motion is not agreed to Scottish ministers will not have the powers to regulate what is being proposed in Scotland.
If we agree to the Sewel motion we will increase our influence in relation to the Gambling Bill, which can be passed at Westminster irrespective of anything that we do in Scotland. If we do not agree to the Sewel motion, UK ministers will determine how the bill's provisions are implemented and Scottish ministers will have no powers to do so. That is what the Sewel motion is about. Sewel motions are not just about asking Westminster to legislate on devolved matters; they can enable Westminster to give Scottish ministers powers to deal with reserved matters, on which we do not have the power to legislate. Bruce Crawford's proposal is fundamentally mistaken, so I support the course of action that the convener suggested.
Will the members who are indicating that they want to speak try to address the issue about the process that we follow, rather than the Gambling Bill itself?
I will reply briefly to Iain Smith's comments. With respect, that was not the point that I was making, which was that there is a strong body of opinion in Scotland that the Westminster Gambling Bill will pave the way for supercasinos and unlimited cash-prize slot machines, which are not wanted and will have undesirable consequences. Iain Smith said that the Sewel motion would enable Westminster to give Scotland more powers, but Scotland does not want powers to be created that would pave the way for that new virus to enter our society.
Are you not moving towards a debate on the motion, Fergus?
Iain Smith made an invalid point. It is because of the impact of what is happening at Westminster that we should not be passing a Sewel motion on the powers that we have. The other point that Iain Smith has not taken into account is that there are already planning powers to designate under the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Scotland) Order 1997 whether planning should be granted for bingo halls and for casinos. We already have powers, but Iain is saying that the UK bill will create powers. We already have them; perhaps he has misunderstood that point.
On the process, I support the convener's position and oppose Bruce Crawford's suggestion that we make up our minds to delay consideration of the issue before we have the debate, but I want to have the debate. The best time to arrive at a conclusion is after the debate, not prior to it.
We have a proposal and an amendment to that proposal. The question is, that we consider the Sewel motion as I have outlined. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Against
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 3, Abstentions 0. We will consider the Sewel motion in the manner that I outlined earlier in the meeting.
Fergus, do you want to make further comment on the Railways Bill?
Thank you for remembering that, convener.
I draw members' attention to the minister's remarks on 2 November about the rail industry. He was asked—by me—about the proposed transfer of powers to the Scottish Parliament that is being envisaged by the UK Railways Bill. I asked whether the cash will be allocated according to population, the Barnett formula or need. Will it be based on the length of track and the number of stations, and will it reflect the historic over-investment on capital projects down south such as the chunnel, the west-coast main line and the jubilee line extension? Will it take the London underground into account? The question of how the cash will be allocated is extremely important if there is any question that Scotland's share is going to be inadequate.
We could be receiving more powers but locking ourselves into serious financial problems if we do not get a proper share. When I asked the question, the minister was not able to clarify the criteria and we are today no further forward. I have had various meetings with interested parties, such as Network Rail, who seem to indicate that the allocation will be on the basis of historic and planned spend. If that is the case, the change will be an absolute catastrophe for the rail network in Scotland.
We cannot pass a Sewel motion on the bill without taking full evidence from Network Rail, FirstGroup plc, the Rail Passengers Committee Scotland, the Strategic Rail Authority, the minister and civil servants. The idea is ridiculous that we could give away powers over Scotland's share of the cash that is currently spent by the UK bodies and how that share will be calculated.
I was, however, comforted by the convener's approach to the question on the Sewel motion on the UK Gambling Bill. The only reason why the convener advocated that we pass a Sewel motion on the gambling proposals was time. Obviously there is no time pressure on the Sewel motion on the Railways Bill, so I assume that the convener will apply the same argument and agree that because we have time, we can take the evidence, and that our approach should be to plan now what evidence we should take to ensure that we can tackle the important question of securing a fair and proper share for Scotland in relation to the new powers of monitoring and managing the rail network.
First of all, it is not the case that there are no constraints on time. I believe that the matter is quite pressing, although I do not have a specific date. I could make further inquiries about that and advise the committee at our next meeting. However, I understand that the bill will be progressing fairly swiftly. I would not necessarily jump to the conclusion that the news is bad because the minister has not concluded discussions with the UK Government. As I understand it, Network Rail in Scotland gets a substantial share of the resources that are being invested in the railways so, based on existing and planned spend, there might not be the catastrophe that Fergus envisages.
At this stage, the UK Government and the Scottish Executive are in discussion about the financial arrangements that would work alongside the transfer to the Scottish Parliament of powers that I thought would have been welcomed by SNP members. I do not necessarily believe that the outcome will be as negative as Fergus Ewing suggests.
However, I am more than happy to make further inquiries about the timing of the bill and to update the committee next week. I am not proposing to timetable a debate on the Sewel motion because we do not yet have clarity on the timing of the bill.
I agreed with much of what Fergus Ewing said in the first part of his comments, but I am not sure that I agreed with very much of what he said in the second part. The key is that we have to get the Executive's memorandum and clarification from the minister about what transfer of powers is going to happen. At that stage, the committee can decide whether it is satisfied that it has all the answers it needs or whether it needs to take more evidence.
Yes.
Will we revisit the issue next week when the convener comes back with a clear indication of the timetable for the UK bill?
I am not proposing to timetable that specific debate at this moment.
Will we consider the matter next week when you report back?
Absolutely.
Do you agree in principle that if we have the time, we can take the evidence and have the debate?
I prefer to give my view on the situation as I know it, rather than on any hypothetical situation that you might want to postulate.
In your previous comments on the Gambling Bill—
That is quite clear, convener. I follow you; I hope that Fergus Ewing does.
Convener, in your comments on the Gambling Bill, the argument for proceeding was that we had no time. If we have time for the Railways Bill, surely we should take evidence. Can we not agree on that in principle today?
We can consider the issue once the position is clarified next week.
We cannot agree to take evidence until we know what evidence we need and we will get that when we have spoken to the minister.
Convener, you have put the matter succinctly. I follow what you said, even though I am a substitute member. I hope that Fergus Ewing can follow it; he is a permanent member.
We will note the position at this stage.
I think that the convener's answer makes sense.
That concludes the public part of the agenda. We have one more item to consider in private.
Meeting continued in private until 17:35