Procedures Committee, 18 Jan 2000

Meeting date: Tuesday, January 18, 2000

Official Report 190KB pdf

---

Correspondence

We now come to item 5 of the agenda. Three issues have been raised, two by Sir David Steel and one by David McLetchie in a letter forwarded by Sir David Steel. We are asked to agree an issues report. I am happy to say that we will do that, although the definition of "exceptionally" raised in Sir David's letter of 14 December appears to be a matter for him. The issue is whether he should be allowed to answer an oral question. If he thinks that it is important to have the question raised in Parliament and to allow a supplementary question and perhaps to draw other members in, that is a matter for his judgment.

Similarly, any member who wishes to raise an oral question with Sir David Steel will be entitled to lodge a question, marked as oral. The member would be best advised to supply an accompanying note, explaining why they think it appropriate that it should be an oral question. That leaves it to Sir David to decide whether he will allocate some time; he does not need us to work that out for him. However, if members wish, we can go into the matter in a full report.

The other matter Sir David raised concerns the way in which the Presiding Officer is re-elected. I am inclined, Iain, to ask whether the Executive could seek legal advice on that. I think that is a matter that would require primary legislation; I do not think that we have any remit on it. It would be helpful if you could clarify that for us, before we take up the time of our clerks in pursuing fictitious constituencies.

Sir David has raised a fair point—it is something that needs to be considered. I think you are right: if any changes are to be made, primary legislation will be required. I will certainly take that point back to the Executive. I welcome the views of all the political parties on whether there is a way round this problem. My party, in particular, has been hit by this, because our strength in the Parliament has effectively been reduced by the fact that the Presiding Officer is a Liberal Democrat. That is an issue of concern.

I suppose that it would be appropriate for the clerks to consult widely on that. The Executive can give us its view of the legislative position.

The Executive and the other parties should be consulted, but it is not a matter about which we should ask the opinion of all members. It is a technical—

No, it is a party matter.

If the clerk would like formally to approach me, I will ensure that my party gives a formal response.

Does anyone wish to pursue the first issue, on the definition of when Sir David can call for an oral question? Personally, I think that it is up to him.

You should send him a letter.

We will send him a letter, as we normally do in such circumstances. I am sure that he will be delighted to have the discretion underlined.

Ultimately, the issue raised by David McLetchie is about the joint committees between ministers in this Parliament and ministers at Westminster. There may be more substantive issues to be explored there, on which the clerks should prepare a paper.

The working group on parliamentary questions could consider that. Would not that come under the group's remit?

We could incorporate it like that.

There is a wider point. In the House of Commons, it is possible to question the Prime Minister about a wider range of matters—Chechnya, for example—than Government policy. The interpretation that the First Minister can be questioned only on matters within his competence flies in the face of a common-sense understanding that the opinion of the First Minister affects his Executive and therefore should be heard on a wider range of issues. I would like that to be considered by the working group, in the context of Westminster.

I remember the Prime Minister famously being asked who he would recommend as the next manager of the England football team, as he had been instrumental in removing the previous one. I would not want us to get to the stage where we were asking for Donald Dewar's opinion about everything under the sun. I have no difficulty with widening the remit a bit—where the topic seems to relate to the genuine business of government—provided that it is not abused.

The question arose in the light of the benefit changes and the Presiding Officer's view that Alex Salmond might have been out of order asking and that Donald Dewar was out of order responding. In reality, the First Minister would be bound to have a view on legislation coming from elsewhere if it affected the people of Scotland. Taken outwith the political context, that is a genuine issue that should be examined in the light of which questions are or are not in order.

Clearly there are areas—such as housing benefit, to stay with your example of benefit changes—that impact on the Scottish block. In terms of joint committees on tackling poverty, you would argue that benefit changes are directly relevant. I can see where you are coming from and I understand the point you are making, which are two entirely different matters. I am in sympathy with the extension of parliamentary scrutiny of legitimate government business, including the formation of policy and the expression of opinion.

The issue is about parliamentary scrutiny. The Parliament exists to hold the Executive to account for its areas of responsibility. It cannot hold the Executive to account for issues for which it is not responsible. There is a fine line between the First Minister having an opinion about something and his being held to account for it. The difficulty relates to the First Minister voting as a Westminster MP, not his role as First Minister.

As a fan of the consultative steering group, you will know that questioning is also about seeking views. That is meant to be the way forward.

The Scottish Executive might not have a view on an issue on which it does not have competence.

There is a feeling in the Parliament that the Scottish Executive is in a position to exercise a lot of influence and that it has an input in broader Government policies. In a sense, it is acting for all of us when it takes part in intergovernmental discussions, joint committees and so on, yet what it does and says in those arenas is not known at the moment, nor is it held to account on that score. I am not certain that we have reached the right point in our consideration of what we should scrutinise.

I am inclined to be sympathetic to the idea that we should consider this issue, without in any way guaranteeing what we will come up with as a consequence. I said earlier that when we begin to consider questions, all sorts of stuff will be teased out. Ultimately, all those things—what changes we think we should make, or not make, as the case may be—will come back to us for decision. Forget the fact that the issue was raised by David McLetchie, as he did not discuss it with me in advance. I see those as joint areas of working, in which our Parliament and the Executive are involved. To some extent, that has to be within our scrutiny remit. There is some agreement that we should consider the issues. John Patterson will be thrilled about that, but there you go.