Procedures Committee, 20 Jun 2006

Meeting date: Tuesday, June 20, 2006

Official Report 221KB pdf

---

House of Commons Committees (Meetings)

We have had two interactions with the House of Commons. The first was a meeting with the House of Commons Procedure Committee on 14 June and the second was a meeting with the Scottish Affairs Committee yesterday. The clerk has produced a paper on the first meeting, which I could not attend. Does anyone who had the pleasure of being present wish to expand on it or raise any points?

The House of Commons Procedure Committee seemed to be far more interested in the Public Petitions Committee than in us. We got quite a grilling on the Public Petitions Committee, focusing on its failings as well as on the failings of the House of Commons system. It is clear that the House of Commons is looking at the Scottish Parliament in considering its own procedures. Richard Baker was also there.

As Robin Harper says, the discussion focused on the Public Petitions Committee. The Procedure Committee gave us a real grilling on it and asked what the holes were in our system. It is looking to beef up the Westminster system and it is deciding how far down the road of our system to go. All of us from the committee made it clear that we feel that our petitions system works well, despite the fact that there could be seen to be pitfalls in the sheer number of petitions that are lodged, the way in which they are put forward and who presents them. However, those factors have not prevented our system from working very well, and that is the message that the Procedure Committee went away with.

Beyond that, we discussed the role of members' business debates and agreed that having more contact between our committee and the Westminster committee in future would be useful, so we should keep the dialogue going. All of that is well represented in the note from the clerks.

Thank you. Your last point, about improving contact between ourselves and Westminster, also emerged at the meeting yesterday, the main cause of which was the launch of the Scottish Affairs Committee report that Andrew Mylne has given to members. From our point of view, the whole thing was highly satisfactory. We produced a report on what we are meant to call legislative consent motions—it will take a while for us to get a grip on that term—which was laid before the Scottish Parliament, in order to improve our procedures. Although the report acknowledged that we cannot tell Westminster what to do, it suggested that Westminster might look into the issue. The Scottish Affairs Committee did look into the issue and took evidence from some of us as well as from the Minister for Parliamentary Business and others. It then produced its report, which agrees to all the things that we suggested. That is helpful. The Scottish Affairs Committee's conclusions and recommendations are on pages 16 and 17.

The Scottish Affairs Committee has agreed that, when we pass a legislative consent motion, our parliamentary clerk should write to the clerks of the House of Commons and the House of Lords, telling them that that has happened. The clerks at Westminster would then tag the bill in question—that makes it sound a bit like an antisocial behaviour order—to alert members at Westminster to the fact that there is a legislative consent motion attached to it. The Westminster clerks would also improve the information that is given to members at Westminster. Instead of a minister telling members that they can read about the issues in the library, there would be a proper written statement summarising the implications of each bill for Scotland. Also, more information would be given after the Queen's speech.

The Scottish Affairs Committee produced those proposals, which I presume will go into the Westminster system. It also touched on two other ideas. The first was the idea of a super Scottish Grand Committee, which would be a venue for discussion—not decisions, votes or anything like that—and would be composed of MSPs, and MPs and MEPs representing Scottish constituencies. I think that it should also contain Scottish peers, as they, too, have some influence. I took it upon myself to say that that was a good idea and that, if Westminster proceeded with it, the Scottish Parliament would be happy to be involved in the discussion.

Finally, the Scottish Affairs Committee dipped its toe in the water of the West Lothian question. It said that it was not up to its members to make a decision, but that it had noted unrest among some people, especially in England, and that it thought that the Parliament should address the issue.

Naturally, the media were more interested in the latter two points than the technicalities of legislative consent motions. However, what happened was encouraging. In fact, I think that I have made my little mark on history, because it was the first time that any of us has been asked to take part in the press conference that accompanies the launch of a Westminster committee's report. That is a step in the right direction.

Is there a suggestion that the Procedures Committee should take up the West Lothian question, or is that for another day?

I think that it is for another Parliament.

I would be happy to contribute to that discussion.

Yes, I am sure.