Scotland Bill Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, June 28, 2011

Official Report 468KB pdf

---

Call for Evidence

We move to agenda item 3. At the previous meeting, the committee agreed to issue an open call for written evidence and the clerk has now produced a draft, which members will have read, based on what we discussed and the outline work programme. I ask for comments.

My question is mainly about timescales. I assume that one group that will respond to our call will be councils, which are about to go into recess until around the middle of August. I know that our time is limited, but are we satisfied that we are giving people enough time to respond?

We discussed that very issue when we were putting the paper together. The fact is that you can never have a timescale that suits everyone and we felt that, because of recess and so on, the suggested September deadline was actually quite generous. If members agree, however, there is nothing to stop us taking late submissions if doing so makes sense under the terms of our work programme. As I say, I think that the timescale is pretty generous; it is just unfortunate that, for some organisations, it is all happening over recess.

I have a couple of comments about the work programme. At our previous meeting, we said that we did not want to reinvent the wheel by going over all the ground that the previous committee covered. However, given Mr Swinney’s comments about the financial provisions that are likely to come into play as a result of the bill, it is clear that some very serious questions have arisen that we should make time to look at again. Indeed, given that there has been a general election and that the result of that election has changed the committee’s complexion, we should consider giving time to those questions as well as to the Scottish Government’s new proposals.

I suggest that we discuss that as part of the next item, which relates to our work programme, rather than as part of this item. That said, we might follow the suggestion in the paper and, in our call for written evidence, be a bit more specific about some of what we ask those giving written evidence to address. For example, key questions 1 and, in particular, 2 on page 4 of the paper could be beefed up a wee bit—

I am just not sure that the key questions really cover the big questions about the financial provisions in the bill.

Well, the paper is up for discussion. I will take some more comments and let you have a wee think about how we might expand the key questions to address things better. We also should bear it in mind that this is a call for written evidence.

The bullet points under question 4 on page 4 cover a number of questions related to the financial provisions, but they do not mention the aggregates levy or the air passenger duty. Is there a reason for that and, if not, can those subjects be included? After all, there are solid arguments for doing so. In fact, the previous committee made a recommendation on the aggregates levy and we should certainly get more information about it. Assuming that there is no problem with it, I do not see why it should be excluded from the bill just because we are waiting for an EU decision. It could be in the bill but not enacted until the issue is resolved.

I will take that on board.

Question 5 on page 5 begins:

“What further views do you have”,

which is a kind of catch-all question. I wonder whether it asks whether there are any other issues that have not even been talked about yet, and I wonder whether it should, because there might be issues that people want to bring to our attention. I hope that they will not be long in doing so, but people might want to point out issues that they think we have not looked at yet.

With other opinions on that particular question, David McLetchie.

That is quite dangerous. We must decide what we are here to do. Irrespective of one’s views on Scotland’s long-term constitutional future, we are looking at the Scotland Bill, which contains a specific set of proposals, and the Government has tabled a specific set of propositions for consideration. The Government is entitled to do that and it wants those propositions to be incorporated in the bill. We must be careful. We are here to consider things that can be or are likely to be incorporated in the bill. We could waste an enormous amount of time discussing issues that have not the slightest chance of being incorporated in the bill. We must focus our inquiry on what is in the bill and on what I would call proper or real amendments that are tabled for consideration, not broader views about Scotland’s constitutional future. If we did that, frankly, we would be here forever and we would make no progress at all. That is a debate for another day and in another environment. We should focus on the relatively narrow agenda that is set for us by the previous committee’s recommendations, what is going on at Westminster and the proposals that the Scottish Government has tabled.

Before I go back to the other members, David, you have said a few times that we should discuss only specific amendments. The committee’s remit is really a matter for the Parliamentary Bureau, so if you feel that that is what the remit says, perhaps it should go back to the bureau for clarification.

That is what the remit says. The remit contains the words:

“proposed amendments to the Bill.”

That is a wee bit different from people coming forward with ideas for proposed amendments to go in the bill. As I say, if you want that to be clarified, perhaps the remit should go back to the bureau for clarification.

Convener, I was well aware of the remit when the bureau discussed it, and I made it clear to the Government and to the Cabinet Secretary for Parliament and Government Strategy that the motion should be framed so that proposed amendments were proposed amendments and not generalised views. As far as I am concerned, the wording for the committee’s remit, which was agreed by the Parliament, is

“proposed amendments to the Bill”.

A proposed amendment to the bill is quite clear. It is not a white paper or an aspiration. It is an amendment that has been legally drafted and that sets out a proposal to change the law of the country.

I think that you will find that some members are reading that differently. Perhaps we can get clarification of that from the bureau for the benefit of the committee. Nigel, is your point on this issue?

Yes. David McLetchie is making mischief, and he knows he is, but I want to be clear that I agree with his answer to my question whether we should be asking for other issues; I do not believe that we should be. What I said had absolutely nothing to do with independence and other stuff; I was just trying to see whether we can improve the bill.

I endorse Stewart Maxwell’s proposal on the aggregates levy and air passenger duty. Those issues have been discussed before, so they are perfectly valid. I also take on board David McLetchie’s point about sticking to our remit in what has been proposed and what we discuss, given the time constraints that we are under. We could open the debate significantly and take on a range of new issues, and we do not have time to do that within the bill’s timescale.

I know when David McLetchie is making mischief and when he is not, and this time he is not. The session with the ministers that we had today was useful but, at the same time, we are in danger of discussing topics, issues and proposals on which we have almost nothing at the moment. It would be most desirable to see amendments at least and at some point we will have to see the clear detail of the proposals. The committee needs to take that on board. People can put in submissions that are not amendments, but we will have to look pretty quickly at the Scottish Government’s suggestions if those are not amendments. I would prefer amendments, or at the very least detailed proposals.

Much as I would love to open up the whole thing from the beginning, that is not technically feasible, nor is it in our remit, nor do we have enough time to do it. I accept David McLetchie’s general point, but I do not think that our choices lie at the two extremes. It is not the case that we can discuss either everything or only very specific and detailed technical amendments to the bill.

As Richard Baker said, if solid proposals are brought forward it is only reasonable, right and fair that we discuss them. Although I accept that we cannot open up the whole thing again, there are a lot of specific proposals that are not yet detailed amendments but which are being discussed in that way. They were put forward by the previous Scotland Bill Committee—which David McLetchie was on—or were suggestions from the Steel commission or the Calman commission.

There is a lot of stuff in there that it is reasonable to discuss without going far too wide, because we just do not have the time to do that. There is a halfway house.

I will defend the wording of question 5 on page 5 of the paper. It is reasonable and quite wide. It asks:

“What further views do you have”,

so anyone could say anything if they wanted. However, it then asks for suggestions that

“help to achieve the purposes of the Bill”.

I am not quite sure to whose purposes that refers, but I assume that it is the coalition Government in London, whose purpose is to give us a tiny little bit more power. There is a balance in that question.

I agree with what John Mason said about the key questions. Question 5 offers enough opportunity for those who want to engage in the process.

To sum up what we are saying, am I right that we want the paper—which members should remember will be requesting written evidence—to contain a bit more information on what the previous Scotland Bill Committee discussed in relation to finance and taxation, some of which we discussed today?

Members indicated agreement.

People have clear views on what the bill currently proposes and on the Scottish Government’s additional demands, so we should ask for evidence on that. The call for evidence can be finessed by the clerks. Bearing it in mind that this is the last meeting of the session, do members wish the paper to be e-mailed to them for agreement, so that it can go out and so that we can collect evidence over the summer recess?

Members indicated agreement.

Does that mean that we will ask an additional question about the financial powers in the bill, rather than only about the amendments and the previous committee’s recommendations?

I suggest that we allow the clerks to consider the best way of drawing that out, because they will have a good idea of the committee’s views by now—after all, I am told that they are the experts on this type of thing. I ask them to come back with the paper so that the committee can look at it. Members can then pass their comments on whether it is not strong enough or too strong to Stephen Imrie or to James Kelly and me, so that by the end of this week we will have a definitive call for evidence. All views will be taken into account.

I am sure that you agree that it would be perfectly in order for Joan McAlpine to draft a third question and submit it to the clerks.

Anyone who wishes may do that if they feel strongly about something.

I understand that, but as Joan is a new member I thought that it might be helpful specifically to say that, if she wanted, she could draft a third key question to submit to the clerks.

You mentioned including other provisions that were in the original committee report. For clarification, are we talking about the things that I mentioned, such as aggregates and air passenger duty?

Yes. It might be worthwhile to specify them formally in the paper to jog people’s memory, because there was a lot in the report.

It is just that there are three bullet points under question 4, on the financial provisions, but they do not seem to cover the financial provisions that were in that report.

Would you like to draft something, Stewart?

I am sure that the clerks are more than able.

I think that Stephen Imrie is quite aware of the committee’s views on that.

I hesitate to ask, but is everybody happy?

Members indicated agreement.

We agreed previously that we would go into private session for the final two items because of the subject of the discussions.

15:30 Meeting continued in private until 16:50.