Welcome to the fourth meeting in 2005 of the Procedures Committee. We have a fairly heavy agenda today, so we should make a start. I am pleased to welcome our first panel under item 1, which is our inquiry into the Sewel convention. I welcome Alasdair Morgan MSP, the former convener of the Enterprise and Culture Committee, and Pauline McNeill MSP, the convener of the Justice 1 Committee. Both have made submissions to the committee on how the Sewel convention has affected the work of their committees.
First, although it may seem obvious, I want to make it clear that I am speaking on behalf of the Enterprise and Culture Committee—I will not discuss my personal opinion of Sewel motions, which is that they are works of the devil. The Enterprise and Culture Committee addressed what I consider to be proper Sewel motions, which are those that are lodged when Westminster legislates on devolved matters. The other two types are used to remove measures from schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998 and to pass powers to Scotland or to give additional powers to Scottish ministers. We did not consider those two forms at all. I take the point that Mr Winetrobe made in his submission that such matters should be dealt with by way of orders in council, not by Sewel motions.
Thank you.
I welcome the work that the Procedures Committee has embarked upon with its inquiry into the Sewel process. The Justice 1 Committee's experience suggests that it is important to review constantly the conventions and processes that we adopt.
Thank you. I open up the debate for questions.
I thank both witnesses for coming along. First, let us turn to timetabling, which was mentioned in Alasdair Morgan's letter and Pauline McNeill's comments. You both seem to say that, although it would be nice for the Scottish Parliament to have a fixed timetable, that probably will not be practical, because it would be somebody else's timetable. I am not sure how a fixed timetable could be established, or whether to ask for one is the way ahead. Perhaps there should be a general procedure, part of which would have to be earlier indication that a Sewel motion was likely. Is that a fair summation?
The timetabling issue will be difficult to resolve. From what I recall from Westminster, timetabling there is not as clear as it is up here. For example, for stage 2 consideration of a bill, we set a deadline by which a committee must report back to Parliament. At Westminster, although committee consideration is subject to a timetabling motion, the timetable is not necessarily known far in advance, and neither are the arrangements for third reading and the House of Lords procedures. It is difficult for us to set a timetable for something that we do not really know about.
I accept that it is impossible to set a fixed timetable, but improvements could probably be made. Because of the way in which the justice committees deal with business, the first indication that we have of Sewel motions is when the clerks tell us at one of our regular meetings with them that there are, for example, three Sewel motions forthcoming and ask us which the committee will be able to consider. Consideration of which justice committee will consider a Sewel motion focuses primarily on which committee has the time to look at it. We have some flexibility in that regard.
If the Administration at Westminster was benevolently disposed to the relationship between the two Parliaments, there would be no barrier to our getting advance information about the timetabling of a bill that was likely to legislate on devolved issues, even before the bill was published. Unless the legislation on devolved issues is inadvertent and has happened by mistake, the minister at Westminster must know that such issues are going to be in a bill before it is published. There would be nothing to stop their tipping the wink to us up here so that a committee could at least mark the bill in its schedule.
I could be wrong, but I understand that there is an inspired parliamentary question in Scotland on the day of the Queen's speech, the answer to which indicates the bills that the Westminster Parliament believes will require to be Sewelled. I suppose that that is tipping the wink to us. Perhaps MSPs and committees need to be a wee bit smarter in looking at such bills before the Sewel motions come to the committees. Perhaps we need to develop a process here whereby, when it becomes clear that it is going to happen, committees begin consideration of bills before the Sewel procedure begins. That may be worth considering.
Karen Gillon is right. I do not know whether she has any views on who would do that, but she is part of the way there.
It would be quite difficult for a committee to follow the progress of a bill at Westminster. That would take up a lot of time, given the complexities of that procedure. A standing committee can have lots of meetings—as can the committees of the Scottish Parliament—and a great amount of effort could be involved in our watching every move of a bill at Westminster, especially if it was a controversial bill. For example, the Prevention of Terrorism Bill was recently amended in the House of Lords and then re-amended in the House of Commons. If we had followed every movement of that bill, we would have been meeting on nothing else, and I am not quite sure what the point of that would have been.
I have a question for Pauline McNeill. You mentioned your experience of dealing with Sewel motions as a committee member and as a convener. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, Anne McGuire MP, gave evidence to the committee a fortnight ago and held up as good practice the relationship and the dialogue that were built up between the Justice 1 Committee and Westminster—and probably with her in particular—on the Civil Partnership Bill. You mentioned the letter that you received. Do you agree that an informal practice developed during consideration of that Sewel motion? Would something along those lines be a better way to proceed?
What happened with that bill is worth considering. We pushed the boundaries of what was possible during the Sewel process, which is what we should do. We took evidence for the first time—prior to that, we would not have taken time out. We thought that it was important to do so because there were specific Scottish provisions in the bill on which we thought it important that Parliament comment.
Did the Justice 1 Committee have any contact either at member level or civil servant level with members of the Westminster committee who were dealing with the bill?
I was aware that Scottish Executive officials in the bill team were liaising closely with officials in Westminster, but we did not receive a systematic report about that. It would be good to be aware of the other levels of discussion. Consideration of the detail in provisions that relate to Scottish divorce law or succession law requires expertise, and the interaction between officials in Scotland and Westminster probably made a big difference to the bill's Scottish provisions. A more systematic report on such interaction to the relevant committee would be helpful because it would reassure committees that discussions are happening at the levels at which they should happen.
Whatever mechanisms people come up with must be robust enough to stand up under all circumstances. It is okay when the relationships between Westminster and Scotland are quite calm and we have in both places Governments that have roughly the same political complexion. However, if that changes, we will need a procedure that works under different circumstances. Of course, it might well be that under such circumstances the Administration here might not be prepared to lodge Sewel motions at all, but the procedure would still have to cope with the possibility.
The problem appears to be that the liaison on Sewel motions is between Executives but the convention is, technically, between Parliaments. Is there anything we can do to improve the links? Does Pauline McNeill consider that the views of the Justice 1 Committee on the Civil Partnership Bill were adequately expressed to parliamentary committees of the House of Commons and House of Lords that dealt with the bill? My understanding is that Parliament relies on the Executive to do that rather than directly communicating its views.
I can give you only a general answer. I was aware that our detailed report was useful and was taken on board following interaction with officials. However, there is no system to tell me that that is the case, which is what I would argue for. I had a good feeling about what was happening in relation to the bill, but that is all that I was able to judge the situation by. It was possible to read Hansard to see that things were going fine, of course, but I feel that there should be a more systematic approach. Our committee should be informed that our report has been fed into the relevant committee and that Scottish Executive officials are talking to Westminster officials. There should also be a response from the responsible minister at the end of the process.
On timetables of Sewel motions, you both said that you would like the Executive to have a better early-warning system. I would like to find out a bit more about the timescale of committee scrutiny and how that feeds into parliamentary scrutiny. That is more to do with the role of the Parliamentary Bureau than the Executive.
I understand why Alex Neil was unhappy. In the situation to which he referred, the committee was able to take evidence from the minister only on the Tuesday and the motion was debated on Thursday. Clearly, if the concept of committee consultation is to have value and committees are to be able to do their job properly in relation to areas of controversy that might arise, they would want to take evidence from other people and be able to make that available to Parliament in a report. Clearly, that will be difficult if the Sewel motion has to be passed prior to second reading at Westminster, because the bill might be published only a fortnight or less prior to the second reading debate. With the best will in the world, how is a committee of the Scottish Parliament going to be able to examine the bill, summon people to give evidence, prepare a report and deliver it to Parliament in the two weeks between publication of a bill and its second reading? That is a real problem. Perhaps we could decide that the third reading rather than the second reading is the important point. I do not know.
Ideally, in the legislation that we deal with, there should be fixed time periods between stages, but we would not necessarily be able to change that; it would depend on the Westminster timetable. It is important to have a forward look. Karen Gillon has said that the trigger for the process might be an inspired parliamentary question; I have no idea what triggers the process for us. It is worth exploring whether we can have a forward look and try to plan for all the stages—for committee input and for the debate in the Parliament.
Would it be appropriate to have standing orders that deal with Sewel motions as a different beast from regular motions and that set in stone some of the minimums, which we hope would be exceeded?
Until we are sure that we have a process that we are satisfied with, it will be difficult to regulate procedures in the standing orders. We have to see how far we can push what is in essence a convention into a more systematic process so that we are satisfied that there is time to consider the issues. If we make changes and improve the process, perhaps we could consider enshrining what we can within the standing orders. That is something for far into the future. We can change things that do not need to be in the standing orders. We might get them wrong, but we can then reverse the decision and do things in another way. When we are surer about the process and have improved it, perhaps some of those changes could be incorporated into the standing orders.
Before I ask Jamie McGrigor to come in, it is worth noting that the current convention in the Scottish Parliament is that Sewel motions are considered before the last amending stage in the first house, rather than before second reading.
The Justice 1 Committee's seventh report of 2004 states:
I do not think that there should be any barrier to increasing the interaction between the Scottish Parliament and Westminster. For me, that is what this discussion is all about. We have to see what will work. If a committee goes to the bother of producing a report, we should know that something has been done with it—that it has been considered in some way and perhaps appeared on an order paper. If we go to the bother of producing a report, we should know that it is not just lying on a table somewhere.
The Sewel process was originally meant to deal with minor matters. If your suggestion were implemented, committees of this Parliament would meet committees of the Westminster Parliament. As you say, that would take up much time. How could that happen?
It would be up to the committee that was responsible for dealing with the issue raised by the Sewel motion to explore ways of inputting what it wants to say to Westminster. That is what we have tried to do. There are ways in which to communicate other than meeting formally. You are right to suggest that that is impractical.
The only point that I make is that the committee that considers a bill at Westminster—certainly in the House of Commons—is an ephemeral beast that exists only for the duration of the committee stage, after which it disappears. The committee goes through the bill clause by clause, so any interaction with it—which I suspect would have to be informal—would have to take place before it reached the clauses that affected devolved issues; otherwise, there would be no point in meeting the committee.
That point is valid.
I was interested in the point about committees receiving formal notice of what has been enacted at the end of the process in Westminster. Debate has taken place about how commencement orders could play a role in a new convention. Would those always be appropriate? If some provisions had a different commencement date in Scotland, the position could be problematic. Activities could be made illegal south of the border and people might fly north of the border to evade arrest because those activities remained legal in Scotland, as the commencement date was different. Should that be a fixed part of a new convention or should it depend on what the legislation is about? I understand that such arrangements have been used previously.
I do not accept the example of going north of the border to avoid arrest, because if an act was commenced in England and the offence was committed in England, the offence would have been committed, whether the offender was now in Scotland or anywhere else. I do not see that as a problem, because that happens in other areas. We legislate differently on many matters in Scotland and have different legal provisions north and south of the border. What is an offence north of the border may not be an offence south of the border and vice versa.
I will press you a bit further on that. I will be corrected by the committee if I am wrong, but I think that some legislation on cruelty to animals was dealt with through the Sewel convention. Under what you suggest, somebody who commits offences in England would be able to move to Scotland once certain activities were made illegal down south and carry on committing those offences here. Should the use of a commencement order not depend on the type of legislation rather than the fact that the issue has been dealt with through the Sewel convention?
I do not understand why it should be a problem that, north of the border, we make our own judgments about cruelty to animals. During the foot-and-mouth crisis, the regulations in Scotland were different from those south of the border. Farmers were treating their herds differently and the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department was doing different things from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. That was not a major problem; it was just something that was being done differently. You cannot seriously be suggesting that a serial persecutor of animals would flee north of the border so that he could pursue his hobby; that is not a credible argument.
It is possible. That is all that I am saying.
Until recently, the penalties for wildlife crime were different south and north of the border—in fact, I think that the legislation is still different. That has not been an insuperable problem. In fact, many of us argued that the penalties in Scotland should be stronger and, eventually, that came to pass. Nobody said that the constitution was breaking down because those provisions were different.
Pauline, do you have anything to add to that?
Only to repeat that there should be an end process. We should know whether what we thought we had agreed to is what actually results from the process. It is therefore important to explore ways in which that can be determined. The use of commencement orders is one option, although it is quite a dramatic option.
I want to clear up a few things. If we took Richard Baker's point to its ultimate conclusion, we would not have devolved powers unless both Parliaments agreed to pass the same legislation at the same time. I do not think that he would want to take his argument to that conclusion.
I did not mean to take it to that conclusion.
I was listening to what you were saying.
I will address the first point first. Discussions should occur between the Executive and the Executive and the Parliament and the Parliament. Under current circumstances, communication has to happen between both because the bill has its genesis with the Executive south of the border. Unless it happens accidentally, which I suspect it sometimes does, the English Executive will not legislate for Scotland unless it says to Scottish ministers, "Look, we think that it would be sensible for the bill to apply to both countries." Clearly, there must be some communication between the Executives first of all and that obviously leads to the Parliaments communicating with each other. What was the second question?
I asked about the point in Alex Neil's letter about the two types of wording used in Sewel motions—one that says that we agree that the UK Parliament should consider the matter and the second that asks us to approve the principle of the bill. What is the best way of wording the motion and would that affect when we would consider a Sewel motion in Scotland?
The first wording is so broad as to be pretty meaningless. It would give Westminster carte blanche; it would send the message that we are not interested in the details and that we are happy in principle for Westminster to legislate. With that phraseology, it really would not matter when the motion was passed.
Would it be of benefit if the wording of the motion made more specific reference to the memorandum, which outlines what the Sewel motion is about?
Yes, that would be sensible.
In relation to Bruce McFee's first question, we should be looking at an early-warning system, taking a more systematic approach, achieving more of a dynamic where that is possible, pushing at the boundaries, making more time for debate, particularly when there is a shortened timetable, and ensuring that there is an end process.
In its submission, the Justice 2 Committee noted that there is nothing to prevent the Parliament from imposing conditions by way of an amendment to a Sewel motion and that the committee was content with the current procedure in that regard. The committee gave the example of an amendment in relation to the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill. Do you agree with that?
Agree with what?
Are you content with the current procedure, whereby the Scottish Parliament can impose conditions by way of an amendment?
I read the Justice 2 Committee's submission, but I did not have time to check what the amendment that it mentions said. Can you help us with that?
I do not know what the amendment was—I was merely referring to the Justice 2 Committee's submission.
I think that the amendment was about removing a provision.
I am not asking about the amendment or its validity. The Justice 2 Committee's submission states:
To clarify, the amendment related to the issue of trespass. The Sewel motion was amended by the Executive in order to remove provisions on trespass from the bill.
I am not familiar enough with the process of amending a Sewel motion to comment on the issue. However, the option should be available.
If we decide that Sewel motions should be a bit more specific, amendments may well be needed, because members might not agree with some of the specifics therein.
The question that the Justice 2 Committee was answering was:
With due respect to Jamie McGrigor, perhaps I can help. It might have been helpful if he had also read out the Justice 2 Committee's answer, which was that there is nothing to prevent the Parliament from amending a Sewel motion.
I did read out the answer.
It is almost self-explanatory.
I am asking whether the witnesses agree with the Justice 2 Committee's conclusion.
To clarify, the issue that Jamie McGrigor is trying to get at is whether the Parliament should be able to say that Westminster can legislate on some matters, but not on others.
The answer is yes. That is the point of the process. If we can say that Westminster can legislate on a certain matter, surely we should also be able to say that we are not content for Westminster to legislate on another matter.
Clearly, such amendments would have no legislative force, but we are talking about a convention, anyway.
The Procedures Committee members are responsible for the reports that we sign. Both Alasdair Morgan and Pauline McNeill have suggested that more time should be allowed to debate Sewel motions. I do not disagree with that, but how would business managers fit in more time for debate in what is already a cramped schedule, given that the Parliament meets for only a day and a half a week?
That is a fair question. I cannot solve the problem for the business managers. However, in certain debates, such as the debate on the Constitutional Reform Bill and the proposal for a supreme court, which raised big constitutional issues for the Parliament, a bit more time should be found. That does not apply to all motions. In a recent debate on a Sewel motion, an extra 15 minutes was allocated, which perhaps allowed two or three more speeches. The business managers are beginning to accept that, in some cases, we need more time. However, it is difficult for them to weigh up the question of which matters should have priority.
I preface my answer by saying that I am not speaking for the Enterprise and Culture Committee or my party. In my view, we either need to sit for longer on the days that we are here, or we need to sit on other days. We have a nice new building here, so perhaps we should use it more.
Controversial.
Part of the issue, I suppose, is that many members who have not been involved in the committee that considered the Sewel motion first get to grips with the issue only in the chamber. To be perfectly honest, a half-hour debate on a contentious Sewel motion is not long enough when we take into consideration the other issues on which we have two-and-a-half and three-hour debates. There are arguments for having longer debates on particularly contentious Sewels to allow people to get into the guts of the matter. Business managers need to take that on board. That issue has been a pretty common theme in the evidence that we have received.
The danger is that debates on Sewel motions just descend into the usual party bickering, which might be characterised as the Scottish National Party versus the rest.
Does not the one thing come from the other? If the relevant committee has sufficient time to examine the content of the issue that is the subject of the Sewel motion, the debate in the chamber will automatically need to be longer to reflect that. That is almost self-evident.
We are in danger of writing our report before hearing all the evidence.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
I welcome what was initially intended to be our second panel of witnesses. Unfortunately, Peter Wishart has had to send his apologies because he has urgent business at Westminster. I intend to write to him to ask whether he wants to give written evidence, as it is unlikely that his oral evidence can be rescheduled at this stage. If we decide to take further oral evidence, we can reconsider, but our oral evidence sessions for the inquiry are currently fairly full, so I doubt that we will be able to fit him in. In any case, he might be slightly busy in April.
Yes. As well as providing a written submission, I was able to sit in on the evidence that Pauline McNeill and Alasdair Morgan gave. I must say that I thoroughly enjoyed listening to the committee's discussions with them. It was a refreshing change to hear a well-informed debate on an issue such as Sewel motions.
Thank you for your remarks. I open the meeting to questions.
Mr Carmichael offered a solution to part of the problem, although I do not know whether the approach is possible or whether the idea just occurred to him and he would need a chance to consider it further.
In my submission to the convener, I indicated that that is a real concern. Scottish newspapers are readily available in London, so we can read in The Herald or The Scotsman that a Sewel motion has been debated and agreed to, provided that the debate is reported. The informal links between colleagues in Westminster and Edinburgh are of great significance. I sat on the standing committee on the Civil Partnership Bill and had several substantial telephone conversations with Margaret Smith MSP about the bill. However, I am concerned that there is no formal mechanism for telling Scottish MPs that a Sewel motion is coming up. This is an exercise in kite flying, but in my letter I suggest that there might be merit in finding a way of setting up a receiving committee at Westminster. As someone said, the Sewel motion process is a Parliament-to-Parliament process, but in effect what currently happens is an Executive-to-Executive process. There must be a formalised mechanism that creates an interface between the two Parliaments.
I agree. Could the Scottish Affairs Committee act as the receiving committee? Secondly, on a different matter, previous witnesses mentioned qualified commencement provisions. What is your view on such provisions and what is the likelihood of such an approach being given a fair wind at Westminster?
On your first point, the Scottish Affairs Committee could be the receiving committee, as perhaps could the Scottish Grand Committee, which still exists at Westminster, although it has no clear purpose and—I am delighted to say—has not met for some time.
That is helpful. In the second-last paragraph of your submission you talk about the difficulties that you have at Westminster if you do not know about the devolved issues that legislation will contain. Obviously, there are issues for us if we move our decision-making process to earlier in the Westminster timetable. Are there ways in which we can have that earlier dialogue and still have a discussion slightly later in the process?
My preference is for discussion that happens sooner rather than later. It is proper that Westminster should be informed of the views of the Scottish Parliament in respect of a piece of legislation for which a Sewel motion has been lodged, but I cannot think of a constitutional mechanism by which the Scottish Parliament could fetter the discretion of Westminster when it was scrutinising legislation, nor should such a mechanism exist. As was observed earlier, there is a process to be gone through at Westminster. Having committed the legislation to Westminster, it is perhaps then for members of the Scottish Parliament to consider what has been done. I have observed before that Sewel motions are not like puppies. Puppies are for life, not just for Christmas. Sewel motions are very much a gift, and if members of the Scottish Parliament do not like what comes back from Westminster—either a detail or a substantial aspect of the legislation—it remains within their power to pass amending legislation. Obviously they can do that only if they have a formal mechanism for considering what has come back, but that is a matter for members of the Scottish Parliament; it is not for me as a member at Westminster to tell you what you should be doing.
When the Sewel convention was originally envisaged, Lord Sewel himself pointed out that, in his view, its use would be the exception rather than the rule. In fact, there have been 63 Sewel motions. Has the convention been used too often? If so, what should be done to ensure that it is used for the purpose for which it was meant?
I am sure that if the Scottish Parliament has considered it appropriate to lodge a Sewel motion, it is appropriate. It is not for me to gainsay that. Lord Sewel's original comments in the House of Lords were very much in anticipation of a process whose shape we did not really know. More Sewel motions have probably been passed than Lord Sewel originally suggested. That does not mean per se that the passing of those Sewel motions was wrong or in some way bad; it just means that there has been a different application in practice than had perhaps been anticipated in theory. It is appropriate that, six years down the line, we should be considering how the process has worked and asking what has been the practical outcome. Has it worked? Has it produced better legislation? On some occasions, particularly in the case of the Proceeds of Crime Bill and the Civil Partnership Bill, both of which I was intimately involved in, it has produced very good legislation, whose operation is at least as effective as it would have been had the legislation come to the Scottish Parliament.
You mentioned the Proceeds of Crime Bill. There was already a Scottish serious crime squad, but that apart, do you think—
Sorry, I said the Proceeds of Crime Bill. You are thinking of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill.
Sorry. The Sewel convention was used in relation to the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill. Do you think that the Scotland Act 1998 defined properly the respective powers of the two Parliaments or that, in the context, because it appears that the convention is being used more often than it was meant to be, there should be a review of who is responsible for what?
No, I do not think that there is a need for a review. The Sewel motion mechanism was a recognition that there would be grey areas and that, in some areas, as a matter of pragmatism, it would be sensible to allow Westminster to proceed with the consent of the Scottish Parliament.
On the point that Jamie McGrigor made about the frequency of the use of the Sewel convention, your opinion reflects very much what Lord Sewel said at the previous committee meeting, which was that when the convention was put in place, people did not have the "faintest idea" how often it would be used, but the important issue is that the subject matter is correct, not how often we use the convention. You are very much in line with Lord Sewel.
When I was a student, I served on the senate at the University of Aberdeen with Lord Sewel. I do not recall him, in his academic guise, expressing anything that had such doubt about it, so that is a refreshing piece of news.
It seems from your written submission and the evidence that you have given this morning that you are probably a rare breed, as you are an MP who has taken part in much of the legislation that has gone through the Sewel convention. You have highlighted the need to have a mechanism to alert MPs to the fact that there is a Sewel motion, as you do not always want to pick that up in the newspapers and would prefer to have a more formal mechanism. When Anne McGuire gave evidence to the committee a fortnight ago, she hinted to the committee that that issue would be examined. The committee does not have any power over the way in which standing orders or conventions are set up at Westminster, but could you suggest a way to alert MPs, through Westminster processes, that a Sewel motion has been passed by the Parliament?
If it is to be a formal mechanism—I think that it probably should be—it would probably require an amendment to the standing orders of the House of Commons. I do not think that it need necessarily be a particularly cumbersome mechanism, nor should it be. A formal process should make MPs aware of a Sewel motion, so that they can decide what action they want to take as a result. That is why I thought that there might be merit in such matters going to the Scottish Grand Committee, because it consists of all Scottish MPs at Westminster. The Scottish Affairs Committee includes members from all parties from Scotland that are represented at Westminster, so there might also be merit in that option. At this stage I am not going to say that one avenue is preferable, but we should consider the matter. I am a member of the Scottish Affairs Committee and there might be mileage in our having a look from our point of view at how Sewel motions have worked and what could be done differently or better. If we have a May election, that would probably have to happen the other side of the election.
Some bills that are Sewelled obviously commence in the House of Lords, so they are subject to a different process. Can you suggest how such a mechanism might work if a bill is a Lords bill?
To be honest, I cannot. I am not sufficiently familiar with the standing orders of the House of Lords to answer that question properly. However, I know that their lordships are the masters of pragmatism. If there is a mechanism that can be found, they will find it.
That was very diplomatic.
How are MPs alerted to the fact that a Sewel motion has been passed on a bill that Westminster is considering? Does that happen as a result of your membership of a particular committee or do colleagues who are MSPs alert you to such matters?
I am aware of such matters because I keep an eye on what is going on in the Scottish Parliament and on the Scottish papers. I also have contacts within the Scottish Executive as distinct from the Scottish parliamentary group. If members think about which constituency I represent, they might be able to work out who my contacts are.
I was tempted to ask whether you voted for him, but I will not.
I did. I am happy to make that clear.
I am sure that you are, so that you can keep your information flow going.
There are already informal procedures for passing on such information as a matter of courtesy. That process should be more than a matter of courtesy; it should be a matter of formality.
My point is that it would be far easier to establish a formal process here, which could serve both MSPs and MPs, than it would be to ask Westminster to do so.
I feel slightly uneasy about that. I am not sure that contact between the Executive in Edinburgh and parliamentarians in London would be the right mechanism. In view of recent events at Westminster, I have become more convinced that the divisions between Parliament and Executive are important and should be observed.
I am interested in the remarks that you made from your perspective as a member of the Scottish Affairs Committee and as a Westminster MP for Scotland about situations in which the implications of Westminster legislation for Scotland are the responsibility of Scottish ministers. In your submission, you gave the example of people who are subject to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and their eligibility for legal aid. You said that the current situation is unsatisfactory and you mentioned a possible solution. Have you thought of any wider options? Could the mechanism that you suggest link in with some of the other feedback mechanisms between the two Executives and the two Parliaments that we have been discussing?
I do not think that it is a question of feedback, because that is really for the Scottish Parliament. The point that I make in my submission is that there is a beast at Westminster that can take evidence as well as scrutinise a bill—the special standing committee. There would be some merit in Westminster pursuing that option more often than it does. I am not aware that it has ever pursued that option in relation to a Sewelled bill.
Excuse me if I am confusing my committees, but would special standing committees also be an option in ensuring that there is a relationship between a committee at Holyrood that has been scrutinising a Sewel motion and providing information—
If I understand you correctly, I do not think so. The membership of a special standing committee is confined only to members of the House of Commons. When I made my suggestion earlier, I was thinking about a committee that would comprise MPs and MSPs.
I am interested in your remarks about parliamentary drafting in the penultimate paragraph of your submission. We now have a bills unit at Holyrood. Is the occasional "poor quality of drafting" that you mention due to timetable problems or lack of experience?
I have limited experience of the process of drafting legislation. When I was a trainee solicitor a long time ago, I was very peripherally involved in the early stages of what became the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. When I wrote the sentence that you referred to, I had in mind the Scottish bits of the Civil Contingencies Bill which, as a picky lawyer, I felt had been very much bolted on as an afterthought. I might be completely wrong about that, but as I discovered in committee, the act—as it now is—contains four schedules, two of which apply to Scottish agencies and the other two to United Kingdom-wide agencies. The bill as it appeared to us in committee sought to allow organisations to share information among the UK agencies set out in schedules 1 and 3 and among the Scottish agencies set out in schedules 2 and 4, but did not allow the organisations in the Scottish schedules to speak to the organisations in the UK schedules. I hope that committee members are still with me.
It is like trying to put up something from IKEA, and always finding that a funny little bit is missing.
Now that we have learned that Mr Carmichael is a graduate of the University of Aberdeen, we can understand why his evidence is so well informed.
That might well happen if the Sewel convention were to be formalised. I should make it clear that it might not be necessary to form a joint committee to scrutinise every piece of legislation that is subject to a Sewel motion, many of which are highly technical and procedural.
It would be helpful to hear about the progress of the bill as it makes its way through Westminster but, as Pauline McNeill said, it would also be desirable to have a mechanism whereby the Scottish Parliament could review what has happened. That mechanism need not be a commencement order, but it would be useful to be able to examine what has been enacted to ensure that it fulfils what the Scottish Parliament intended. Should notice of what has been enacted be given by Government or could that be done through inter-parliamentary liaison between the committees?
As a matter of principle, the process ought to be Parliament to Parliament but, as a matter of practice, it seems to be Executive to Executive. At the reporting back stage, I am a bit more relaxed about the process being Executive to Executive, as long as there is a mechanism for the Scottish Executive to pass the ball back to Parliament.
So you think that the Parliament-to-Parliament contact should take place before that stage.
Yes.
In your submission, you say:
Who knows? Your question puts me in the same situation as Lord Sewel was in when he made his original remarks in the House of Lords, in that you are asking me to second-guess what would happen in a particular circumstance. I imagine that the Sewel convention would be used differently but I do not know whether it would be a more contentious procedure. It is fair to say that if there were Governments of radically differing political colourings in Westminster and Edinburgh, the importance of some sort of reporting back and reviewing procedure would be increased.
Thank you for attending the meeting and for giving us your helpful and interesting evidence. I know that your attendance has entailed your having to make the ultimate sacrifice and miss Scottish question time.
No, the ultimate sacrifice is missing questions to the Advocate General for Scotland.
Indeed. That concludes this agenda item. I draw members' attention to the additional papers that have been circulated for information.