Finance Committee, 05 Sep 2000

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 5, 2000

Official Report 128KB pdf

---

European Structural Funds

Item 4 has turned into a bit of a saga. Members will note the letter from Gordon Brown, in response to my second letter on 7 June, which is also attached. It is fairly short and sharp and not very sweet. None the less, it makes the official position clear.

The attached letter from the Secretary of State for Scotland to the Minister for Parliament clarifies the position, particularly in the second paragraph on page 2, which says:

"I did not rule out giving evidence orally to Committees of the Scottish Parliament. I accepted the principle that UK Ministers should be able to attend the devolved legislatures, but I explained that I thought it should be exceptional for them to do so."

In a sense, the door is not closed; it is certainly not locked. However, the exceptional circumstances would have to be established.

The presumption is that ministers would not give evidence to Scottish Parliament committees. That is not what the committee sought. We must evaluate the situation in the light of the responses that we have received and take it from there.

Members will be aware that, although it is not seen as appropriate on this occasion for officials to give evidence, the committee is due to receive written evidence at the end of this week.

The way that the issue has unfurled is a matter of extreme regret. It would have been handy to see the memorandum to Tom McCabe in advance of our initial inquiries to the Treasury. In particular, I would be interested to find out whether—

Let me stop you. In fairness, the letter is dated 22 June, so it could not have been seen in advance of our—

I am referring specifically to the guidelines that affect whether ministers attend devolved legislatures. I wish to know, in particular, whether we made the request for ministers to attend in advance of the House of Commons Scottish Affairs Select Committee making the same request on the same topic.

What it boils down to is that we cannot proceed until we receive the information that we seek. Of course it is a reserved matter, but Mr McConnell has said that he is unable to give the committee the information. We cannot proceed until we receive it. If the information comes in written form, that will be better than nothing. However, this approach—to what should be quite a good and informative inquiry—is regrettable.

I hope that the committee will take some exception to the second last paragraph, where the secretary of state implies that the mechanisms would be used for narrow exploitation. That is absurd, given that this is a serious inquiry from a cross-party committee. A minister of the Crown should not resort to such language in official correspondence—that is unacceptable.

I have some sympathy with Mr Wilson, but perhaps I would not use the same language as he did. We ought to write to Dr Reid to ask him to define exactly what he thinks an exceptional case would be, so that we have something upon which to base some form of negotiation.

If our ministers and we are available to the Westminster Parliament and as the UK is, in theory, still a union, there should, within reason, be reciprocal arrangements. The committee's position has not altered. I agree with Andrew Wilson—it is unlikely that anybody will misuse his or her position when someone gives evidence. Many people have given evidence during the past year and that has not happened. The evidence taking has not been partisan. We have listened and have asked sensible cross-party questions. The Finance Committee has a reputation for being reasonable in the way in which it pursues its inquiries. We should ask Dr Reid to explain what he means, and when he or other ministers might come to give evidence.

We could agree to do that. John Reid is meeting the Presiding Officer today to discuss the issue of officials, rather than ministers, attending. The meeting should have taken place yesterday, which would have enabled the report to be before the committee today. Unfortunately, the meeting had to be postponed until lunch time today. The matter is being addressed, but I take the point that David Davidson and Andrew Wilson made about the letter.

The letter from the secretary of state is unfortunate. However, a mountain is being made out of the proverbial molehill. As I understand it, our ministers—Wendy Alexander, for example—have appeared before House of Commons select committees. There is no great hoo-ha or debate about that—it just happens. The way to deal with the matter is for ministers to consider each invitation on its merits. The more coming and going there is between Holyrood and Westminster, the better.

Andrew Wilson mentioned the second last paragraph of the letter. I would have thought that political interests might seek to misuse the absence of ministers, rather than their presence. It can work both ways. Not that Andrew Wilson or David Davidson would do so, but people can exploit the absence of ministers and their unwillingness to let their officials give evidence to committees as much as they can exploit the opposite happening.

You made a point about considering issues on their merits—which is mentioned in the third paragraph of the letter.

But the secretary of state goes on to use the word "exceptional".

On Scottish Executive ministers giving evidence to the Scottish Affairs Select Committee, I am aware only that the Minister for Communities has done so. I accept the point that we were seeking to establish that there should be a two-way process as and when appropriate and not, by any means, during every inquiry by every committee. That is our recommendation, provided it is handled sensitively.

David Davidson has suggested that we should write to the secretary of state regarding the letter. Can you repeat the points that you think should be highlighted?

The Secretary of State for Scotland's letter says:

"I explained that I thought it should be exceptional for them to do so."

I would like him to clarify what he considers would be the exceptional circumstances in which it would be correct for ministers to attend.

Is it possible to define exceptional circumstances? By definition they are not capable of being defined.

In which case, do we accept the letter as evidence that the secretary of state will never come before the committee? We have agreed that he is leaving himself open to that argument.

I am sure that other conveners would agree that when a committee felt that it was appropriate to invite a minister, that would be the same as saying, "These are exceptional circumstances." It might be that the conveners liaison group—which is about to become a fully fledged committee—could be the conduit for such requests, as it is for travel, research assistance and so on.

I accept that.

It could be that the conveners liaison committee would decide whether a situation represents exceptional circumstances. It might, on occasion, decide that it does not. That is a possible route. The suggestion was off the top of my head, but it might be a means of getting out of this.

Are you offering to do that, Convener?

I am more than happy to take the suggestion to the conveners liaison group, if that might be a way out of this. The Finance Committee and the European Committee are in this situation now, but it could happen to any other committee.

The general tenor of the letter confuses two issues. The issue of accountability is not in dispute. The secretary of state is clearly accountable to the UK Parliament and not to the Scottish Parliament, but the idea that he should be assisting the Scottish Parliament in its relationship with the Westminster Parliament is one which, by his actions, he seems to refute. We should continue to press the matter and we should not stand down on this issue.

If devolution is to work and the relationships between the two Parliaments are to be smooth, we should have a clearer explanation of why UK ministers should not attend when the Scottish Parliament requires the input of a minister to understand an issue, which will clearly not happen every day. I do not see that in this letter.

Given that the letter was from the secretary of state to the Minister for Parliament, does the committee agree that I should have a discussion with the Minister for Parliament? I have no record that there has been any response from him on his view of how the position might be clarified.

That would be helpful. We should make it clear that there is a difference between accountability and assisting this Parliament in its functions. There is no question of the UK minister being held accountable; we should make that clear.

I agree with Dr Simpson.

On the Minister for Parliament, the issue might be for the Presiding Officer, rather than the Government's minister for handling the Executive's programme in Parliament. I am sure that both would be helpful.

On specific circumstances, this is an area in which there is not a clear division between reserved matters and matters that are within our competence. Surely we can make the case that we require co-operation and nothing more than that; that is all that we are after.

I should clarify that I am going to have a meeting with the Presiding Officer at which I will be briefed on his discussions with the Secretary of State for Scotland. I hope that that meeting will take place this afternoon—I will raise that point with him.

Richard Simpson is right about the difference between accountability and the Parliaments assisting each other. The presumption should be that the Parliaments will assist each other beneficially and positively.

Am I correct in thinking that, as far as the European inquiry is concerned, not even an official is willing or able to appear before the committee?

That is my understanding. The European Committee has had written evidence as well and its report is near to completion.

We have seen the expansion and extension of the work of the joint ministerial committees of the Executive and UK Government ministers. That is not at party level, but at ministerial level. It is a means of co-operation, of assisting each other and of knowing what is going on in both Parliaments. As that is happening at Executive level, I do not see why ministers cannot give the same assistance at parliamentary level. That assistance is important in the early years of Parliament and I hope that ministers would be willing to provide it. Members would not abuse it. As Andrew Wilson said, that assistance is required on issues where there is an element of shared responsibility.

In your discussion with David Davidson, you said that you were going to take an issue to the conveners liaison group. Can you clarify what that is?

It was a suggestion off the top of my head. The conveners liaison group receives requests from committees to travel and for funding for that and for research assistance, such as special advisers and so on. It is already a conduit for such requests and I thought that it might do the same in relation to committees that want to invite a UK Government minister to give evidence. It would, in effect, act as a sieve; a committee would have to establish for the conveners liaison group that a matter was exceptional and that it was necessary for a minister to be there. That is an idea that I have had; I will have to discuss it with other conveners. We meet next week and I will seek to have that matter put on the agenda.

The other issue is on the point that Dr Simpson made. John Reid, the secretary of state, says explicitly that he is not ruling out ministers or even himself coming to give evidence. The guidance that exists, which he quotes in the letter, does not include a way of resolving the matter when his interpretation of the facts relating to why he should come is different from ours. Perhaps we could clarify that. If ministers are invited to appear and do not wish to do so, they should have to state their reasons explicitly. I do not think that there should be any force involved as this is about partnership working, but reasons should be given why ministers do not want to appear in a specific case and why it is more appropriate for written evidence to be given or for civil servants to give evidence in their stead.

That was part of our concern. We had Treasury officials at a previous inquiry, so there is no presumption that they will not appear. It seems odd that we could not at least hear from civil servants on this occasion, so I take your point.

It is equally incumbent on us to demonstrate that we do not want a minister to appear merely because we would like to have them at a meeting. We must be clear about why we have asked them and we must be precise about the terms on which we are asking them to attend. If one wishes to use the current situation as an example, the reason why we want the minister to appear is on the bottom of page 2 of the note by the Scotland Office. It is that the legal requirement with respect to expenditure plans

"does not apply to regions/nations within Member States."

Therefore we have no legal protection in that regard. That is one of the issues that we must consider. If the same rules applied to the UK Parliament as to the Scottish Parliament, the understanding of the additionality problem would be a lot easier. However, the rules do not apply to us legally and are, therefore, subject to interpretation by the UK Parliament. There is a precise reason why we want the secretary of state to come: in order to explore that matter with him.

I accept what Dr Simpson said. The conveners liaison group is the correct vehicle for the committee structure of the Parliament to deal with such issues. It might be that other committee conveners hold a view on behalf of their committees. The conveners liaison group would be a good forum at which to discuss the problem. I am not suggesting that you, convener, go to the meeting with a letter of complaint. I want you to raise this issue so that we can get it aired and come to a reasonable, balanced view across the parliamentary committee system about how to deal with the problem. As has been said rightly by other committee members, the matter will not arise on every issue—it might be more useful to the committee on occasion to have a civil servant come and talk to us about the background to an issue.

If there is a need for clarification on the grey areas where there is an overlap, Dr Reid ought to have a rethink about the way in which he has, in a sense, put us down with his letter. Perhaps he should have an opportunity to explain his case by letter to the conveners liaison group.

I will take the principle, not this specific case, to the conveners liaison group. If members agree, I will do that and in the interim speak to the Minister for Parliament and the Presiding Officer. I will be in a position to report back to the committee in two weeks.

Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.