“The recommendations of the Commission on Scottish Devolution regarding Scottish Parliament procedures”
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-7056, in the name of Gil Paterson, on the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee’s report “The recommendations of the Commission on Scottish Devolution regarding Scottish Parliament procedures”.
We are pressed for time, so I ask Gil Paterson to speak to and move the motion on behalf of the committee in no more than 11 minutes.
15:04
I welcome the opportunity to open this debate on the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee’s fifth report in 2010. The report covers the recommendations of the Commission on Scottish Devolution that relate to Scottish Parliament procedures.
At the start of the year, the Parliamentary Bureau asked the committee to consider 16 of the commission’s 60 recommendations. All the recommendations relate to proposed changes to the Scottish Parliament’s procedures, how the Parliament interacts with the United Kingdom Parliament and how the Scottish Government interacts with the UK Government.
The committee had no remit to consider the larger policy issues that the Calman commission covered, so my remarks will be limited to the procedural issues that we were asked to consider.
When the recommendations were referred to the committee, it was not clear how and when the work of the commission would be taken forward, so the committee was asked to look only at what would need to be done if the recommendations were implemented. Following the UK election, the Scotland Office moved very quickly to instruct a bill, which is to be introduced in the autumn. Because of that, the committee had to change its approach. Instead of producing an initial report and carrying out further consideration if the Parliament so wished, we have reached specific conclusions on what should be taken forward, especially when amendments to the Scotland Act 1998 would be needed.
The accelerated timetable also meant that some recommendations could not be given the careful consideration and consultation that might have been desirable. In particular, the committee had to set aside its intention to review in depth all the provisions of the Scotland Act 1998 that constrain the Parliament’s procedures or working arrangements. Such a review would be desirable and may happen at a future date, but it could not have been completed in time for the introduction of the UK Government’s bill. In any case, our conclusion is that many of the recommendations that were referred to us can better and more easily be progressed through informal mechanisms, without the need for formal procedural change.
I will take members through the committee’s recommendations, beginning with intergovernmental and interparliamentary relations, which a number of Calman’s recommendations addressed. In general, the committee supports those recommendations. Two of them concerned the Secretary of State for Scotland: one said that he should appear annually before a Scottish Parliament committee and the other said that he should appear before the Scottish Parliament to discuss the legislative programme. We concluded that there was no need for the minister’s appearances to be formal parliamentary proceedings. In that way, the arrangements could be kept flexible. We noted that that was how Michael Moore’s successful appearance at the Parliament earlier this year was managed.
We also considered the recommendation that the Scottish and UK Parliaments should be able, when appropriate, to agree to a motion that sought a response from the other jurisdiction’s Government. We concluded that a formal procedure of that sort was unnecessary and that the Scottish Parliament was already well able to make its views known to the UK Parliament when required, whether through debates, correspondence, evidence sessions or Scottish Government ministers.
A number of Calman’s recommendations concerned relations between parliamentary committees. They included proposals on a standing joint liaison committee and subject-specific ad hoc committees, on arrangements whereby members of one Parliament could join a committee meeting of the other Parliament, and on the sharing of information between committees. The committee noted that formal joint committee working would require an amendment to the Scotland Act 1998, that issues of parliamentary privilege and other differing procedural rules would have to be addressed, and that issues around data protection and powers to call for documents would have to be resolved. Given those complexities, the committee concluded that it made sense to develop more informal joint working arrangements in the first instance.
The commission recommended that Scottish MEPs should be invited to attend meetings of the European and External Relations Committee, but we noted that that could be difficult, given the different sitting patterns of the European and Scottish Parliaments. We prefer the model that the European and External Relations Committee suggested for increasing links with MEPs; I will not run through all the detail, which is set out in our report.
The commission made a number of proposals on legislative consent memorandums. First, it called for the establishment of direct channels of communication between the Scottish and UK Parliaments. The Parliament may wish to consider agreeing a protocol with the UK Parliament.
The commission also recommended a procedure whereby the Scottish Parliament could seek permission to legislate in reserved areas in which there was a close connection with the exercise of devolved powers. We noted the example given by the commission in relation to the Somerville case, in which existing Scotland Act 1998 provisions were used to give the Scottish Government power to legislate, with political agreement, and, once the immediate problem had been resolved, to remove the power to legislate. The committee felt that that demonstrated that flexibility already exists in the current powers, and that a specific additional procedure might not be needed.
I turn to the Parliament’s procedures. Eight of the recommendations referred to the committee are about the Parliament’s procedures. On committees, the commission recommended that the level of turnover of committee membership should be minimised. We agreed that that would be valuable but that it is a matter for the political parties and not something than can be set out in standing orders. The commission also proposed that committees should have more freedom to establish sub-committees, but as little use has been made of sub-committees, we saw no evidence of committee demand for sub-committees not being met.
On the Scottish Parliament’s legislative process, the commission made three recommendations. First, it recommended that the three-stage bill process should be changed to a four-stage process. The Parliament can already separate stage 3 amendment proceedings from the stage 3 debate, and there is adequate flexibility in the current rules for a four-stage process to be used if required.
Secondly, the commission recommended that any MSP should be able to propose that parts of a bill be referred back to committee for further consideration. That power is currently restricted to the member in charge of the bill. We felt that the recommendation is too broad but suggest that further consideration be given to extending the power to lead committee members in view of their expertise and interest in a bill.
Thirdly, the commission proposed that the Presiding Officer should identify amendments at stage 3 that raise new issues and should be given further committee scrutiny. There could be a pitfall with that recommendation and we do not recommend pursuing it.
I move to the general review of the Scotland Act 1998. The commission recommended a review of all the provisions in the act that constrain the Parliament’s procedures or working arrangements. First, in relation to the statement on legislative competence that ministers must make when a bill is introduced, it recommended that that should extend to any person who introduces a bill. The second recommendation is to give Parliament the option of providing flexibility over the number of members of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. The third recommendation is to allow greater flexibility about the timing of the Presiding Officer’s appointment at the start of a session and to allow temporary additional deputies to be appointed if necessary.
The commission also saw a case for amendment of the provisions that govern members’ interests. As the committee with lead responsibility for the code of conduct, we agree that some greater discretion over the interests regime is desirable. The committee believes that, after 10 years in existence, the Scottish Parliament could take more responsibility for establishing its own interests regime. Current provisions do not make any distinction between a minor or excusable breach and a serious, intentional breach of a criminal nature. In contrast, parliamentary sanctions can be adjusted more flexibly, but there is no scope under the current regime for the Parliament to consider whether there is a reasonable excuse for a breach. We would like the current provisions to be replaced with a more general power that would allow the Parliament to adapt its interests regime more comprehensively in response to changing circumstances. Such a power would still offer safeguards to ensure that a comprehensive members’ interests regime was in place. However, the first step is to move the governance of members’ interests to the Parliament. Consideration of any changes to the regime would have to take place in the next parliamentary session.
Finally, I thank all the officials and all the members of the committee for their considerable work and effort in compiling the report.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee’s 5th Report 2010 (Session 3), Report on the recommendations of the Commission on Scottish Devolution regarding Scottish Parliament procedures (SP Paper 490) and agrees to its recommendations and conclusions.
I emphasise the point that the committee convener made in his speech: this debate should be confined to the findings of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee report and not expand into the wider recommendations of the Calman commission.
15:15
I thank the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee for its report on the parliamentary proposals put forward by the Commission on Scottish Devolution.
As the report makes clear, much of what the commission proposed can be delivered through better communication and co-operation between the Parliaments and Governments. That is a conclusion that has my support. Improved dialogue and partnership among all four UK legislatures can only be of benefit to us all. Effective communications and mutual respect are good for governance and good for democracy. It is an approach that strengthens this Parliament and builds public confidence.
A number of the commission’s proposals that with minor reservations we support—three to be precise—will require legislation. As we know, the UK Government is currently working to develop its proposed Scotland bill. In that regard, I had constructive discussions with Michael Moore and David Mundell in London earlier this month, and Fiona Hyslop will meet the secretary of state to pursue that dialogue.
As members might expect of someone on this side of the chamber, I remain hopeful that UK ministers will see good sense in the constructive suggestions that the Scottish Government has put forward. There are genuine gains to be made for all concerned. That may mean going beyond the proposals put forward by the commission. It means ensuring that this Parliament gains greater responsibility not simply over its own internal processes but in areas of wider public concern.
The need for such responsibilities is self-evident. The proposals explored in the committee’s report are in a slightly different league from the powers that we know are already being discussed as part of the UK bill, including the potential for additional responsibilities for this Parliament in, for example, fiscal matters. We all know that such powers will be important in protecting the jobs and livelihoods of ordinary people across Scotland and in laying the foundations for future economic growth and success.
As I said, the proposals in the committee report are in a different league, but they are not unimportant. I will deal in brief with some of the key points.
On the options for joint working between Scottish Parliament and Westminster committees, we agree with the committee that the best way to proceed is by means of better informal arrangements. I am also pleased to see in the report recognition of the work of the European and External Relations Committee in facilitating a close and productive working relationship between the Parliament and members of the European Parliament. That is a success story that demonstrates the Parliament’s ability to work flexibly in its procedures and to co-operate in the wider Scottish interest.
On legislation and legislative consent motions, the committee concludes that there is no need for legislative provision in the Scotland bill. That is something that I am sure we can all support, as indeed we can support the commission’s proposal that the Sewel convention should be incorporated into Westminster’s standing orders. Such initiatives underpin and cement a genuine agenda of respect between the two Parliaments.
Mutual respect is also central to the commission’s recommendations on intergovernmental and interparliamentary relations. Like the committee, I believe that there is already a very positive story to tell. Much of what the commission recommended either occurs already or could be readily implemented without the need for formal procedures and mechanisms. There is no requirement for new legislative provisions in this area—I do not know why we would want to legislate when we already have processes in the Parliament that work very well.
Like the Scottish Affairs Committee at Westminster, I take the view that such mechanisms must not become a procedural straightjacket limiting the flexibility of the Parliaments and imposing rigid obligations on ministers in all the Administrations. Invitations should remain at the discretion of committees or the Parliament.
Does the minister nevertheless accept that there is a need to develop liaison arrangements with the UK Government at the parliamentary level as well as at the governmental level, where, as he rightly says, things work reasonably well?
As long as there is flexibility and everybody understands what we are capable of within the rules that we have, there is the prospect for liaison in the areas that Robert Brown identifies.
The recommendations in part 6 of the commission’s report, “Strengthening the Scottish Parliament”, go to the heart of how the Parliament organises and manages its internal business. I am happy to support the committee’s clear recommendation that there is no need for changes in relation to committee membership or the rules governing the establishment of sub-committees. The convener talked about those issues in detail and explained why such changes are not necessary. As he also said, there is already sufficient flexibility to allow a four-stage bill process, if required; however, a fourth stage is currently unnecessary. I agree with the committee that new rules for referring bills back to committee at stage 3 are not needed and that allowing any member to move that a bill be referred back to stage 2 would be going too far.
I was surprised, however, by the committee’s support for a new obligation on members to provide a statement on legislative competence when introducing a non-Government bill. That would create a burden for which there is no real need and which would provide no real benefit. A bill that is outwith legislative competence will normally be identified in the Presiding Officer’s statement. Requiring back benchers to jump through the same hoop seems unnecessarily burdensome on those members who are not members of the Government. Nevertheless, I do not want to fall out with the committee on that point. If members see merit in the proposal, the Scottish Government will not oppose it.
I agree entirely with the proposal to relax the existing limitation in the Scotland Act 1998 on the number of Deputy Presiding Officers. We do not need a plethora of Presiding Officers, but we know from practical experience that the current constraint could cause genuine difficulties should the Presiding Officer or a Deputy Presiding Officer be unfortunate enough—God forbid—to fall ill. It would make a great deal of sense to include a simple provision in the forthcoming Scotland bill to remove that constraint.
The only other recommendation with regard to which the committee makes a case for legislation relates to members’ interests. The Scottish Parliament already has a robust framework for the registration and declaration of members’ interests, and whether we should make changes to that regime is properly a matter for members’ judgment.
The committee has made recommendations in favour of legislative provision in three areas: the number of Deputy Presiding Officers, the requirement for a statement on legislative competence, and members’ interests. In other areas, we must focus our efforts on better communications between Parliaments and Governments across the UK as a whole—a suggestion that has been supported by Robert Brown—a renewed commitment to co-operation and mutual respect, and the flexible adjustments that can be made using the standing orders and informal mechanisms. Those are conclusions that I endorse, and they are the reason why the Scottish Government will support the motion.
The UK Government’s forthcoming Scotland bill needs to deliver real change for Scotland. It will have to address matters of fundamental public concern and the pressing economic and employment challenges that we face as a nation. However, there is no need for it to become bogged down in minor points of detail for which flexible solutions already exist.
I commend the committee’s report to the Parliament and invite members to support the motion.
15:24
Today represents another important step in moving the Commission on Scottish Devolution’s proposals further forward. Labour believes that stronger devolution is best for Scotland; that is also the overwhelming view of Scots. The Calman commission’s recommendations have remained the subject of widespread debate but now we must get down to business. The cross-party steering group has been reconvened to implement the commission’s proposals, and we believe that it is essential that parties work together to make the group workable and to take the recommendations forward. We are pleased that the coalition Government will take the Calman proposals forward and that it has plans for a new Scotland bill to make the proposals a reality. However, we have to get down to the nitty-gritty.
I commend the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee for producing a well-considered and thoughtful report. It was not an easy task to consider parliamentary procedures and relate them to the work of the commission. I note that in many areas mentioned by Gil Paterson, the committee opted for marginal change of parliamentary, including committee, procedure, preferring informal structures and protocols. That is a move in the right direction. How we interact with other legislatures is important in taking the proposals forward.
However, while I welcome almost the whole report, it strikes me that some formality is needed, too. The UK Government has decided to legislate for a referendum on a different voting system that is to be held on the same day as the Scottish Parliament election. While we will continue to have a political debate about that, I have in the past called for the use of formal mechanisms, such as the joint ministerial committee, where I believe that a dispute can be registered. I raise that point to demonstrate that we need formal mechanisms to resolve disagreements with decisions of the UK Government. At the heart of the Calman proposals is how the two Parliaments can work together at every level.
Our relationship with the European Union is probably one of the most critical aspects of our work. I support the European and External Relations Committee’s excellent suggestions for how the work of MEPs and the European Parliament should be incorporated into the work of that committee. It is probably the most important interparliamentary issue. As we have discussed in previous debates, the role of Europe is so fundamental to this Parliament’s powers that we must find ways of ensuring that we properly and adequately scrutinise decisions that are made there. If we follow the European and External Relations Committee’s recommendations on that, the Parliament will be more informed and will have a better say, and there will be better outcomes from European decisions that affect Scotland.
We know where there are areas of mutual interest. Given the powers of this Parliament and those of the Westminster Parliament, joint working should be possible. The Calman commission’s views on that area were clear, and the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee is right to say that joint working can be taken forward.
The committee addresses complications relating to the different procedures for taking evidence, differences in data protection, and even differences in parliamentary privilege at Westminster. Of course, it would have been preferable for this Parliament to have the same level of parliamentary privilege, rather than our existing league position. However, we can see the complications, and the best way forward will be for us to work together with Westminster without completely formalising the set-up. If that is the path that we choose to take, we must make it work. For example, if there is a mutual interest in tackling the issue of poverty, in relation to which both Parliaments have powers, we must be prepared to work with our Westminster colleagues.
I support the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee’s views on legislative consent motions. I remind members that, on the heels of our far-reaching land reform legislation, which every one of us applauded, the UK Government proposed measures in terrorism legislation that would have cut across it by restricting land access. However, the situation was resolved to the Parliament’s satisfaction through some robust political debate behind the scenes and debates in the chamber, so it is possible to resolve large issues in an informal way.
We need to think carefully about the recommendation that we should have a four-stage legislative procedure. It is clear to me just how fast our legislative process can be, particularly if we have not programmed in enough time for debate. Other members have also expressed concern about that. We must get the procedure right.
I support the way in which the committee wants to take forward the recommendations by using the current framework to make things better, but if we cannot do that, we will have to go back to Calman. In some cases, the current framework has been too fast and we must use the Calman proposals to think about how we can make improvements.
15:30
One of the extraordinary features of the devolution settlement that was put in place following the passage of the Scotland Act 1998 and the establishment of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive, which is now the Scottish Government, was the failure to lay a proper foundation for interparliamentary and intergovernmental co-operation and relationships between Scotland’s two Governments and two Parliaments.
It is not like me to be confrontational, but I have to say that the responsibility for that failure rests primarily at the door of the Labour Party and the Labour Government. It seems to me that no sooner had Scottish Labour members at Westminster voted for the Scotland Act 1998 and the establishment of the Parliament than they embarked on the process of rubbishing it and engaging in a huffy competition for attention and pre-eminence with their MSP colleagues, whether they were ministers or back benchers. That is certainly my perception as an outsider to the inner machinations of the Scottish Labour Party. Perhaps some of its members will enlighten us on whether that perception is fair and justified, but I am certainly not alone in holding that view.
We also had a situation where the test of one’s Scottishness became saying how differently we could tackle issues in Scotland from the approach taken in England, almost irrespective of the merits of the particular case. As we approach next month’s 10th anniversary of the death of Donald Dewar, I cannot help but think that, if he had lived to serve longer as our first First Minister, relationships at all levels between the Parliaments and Governments would have been far better than they subsequently turned out to be.
When it came to relationships between Governments and Parliaments, the situation was not much better than the relationship between the Parliaments. In the eight years of his premiership, which coincided with the first eight years of the Scottish Parliament, Mr Blair graced us with his presence on one solitary occasion, but that was one better than his successor, Mr Brown, who did not bother to visit at all. We can contrast that disdain and indifference with the actions of the present Prime Minister, Mr Cameron, who visited the Scottish Parliament within three days of his appointment, accompanied by Mr Danny Alexander, who at the time was in the process of setting a new world record for the shortest tenure of the post of Secretary of State for Scotland.
One might regard visits to the Parliament by Prime Ministers as symbolic rather than substantial, but the same cannot be said of visits by other United Kingdom ministers and meetings between them and MSPs in general or members of our parliamentary committees, where the forum that is created can be a real opportunity for constructive dialogue and interrogation. As we all know, many policy areas straddle the devolved/reserved divide. The subject of how to tackle the problem of alcohol abuse in the United Kingdom frankly cries out for such a co-operative endeavour, and there are many other examples.
Accordingly, it is welcome that we have already had sessions in the Parliament with the new Secretary of State for Scotland and the new Chief Secretary to the Treasury on the coalition Government’s programme and the UK budget. It is against that backcloth that I extend a warm welcome to the Calman recommendations, which focus on improving co-operation between Scotland’s two Parliaments and Scotland’s two Governments.
This Parliament and our Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee are to be commended for their examination of the Calman recommendations in so far as they relate to the Parliament’s procedures and standing orders, and I thank Gil Paterson for his careful and measured summary of the committee’s report.
Turning to the report’s specific recommendations, I was struck by how few changes have to be formally enacted to improve relationships and how much we can rely on good will and a positive desire to engage. However, as Pauline McNeill has already pointed out, it appears that an amendment to the Scotland Act 1998 might be required to facilitate joint working by committees of this Parliament and House of Commons committees and to address differences in rules relating to parliamentary privilege and other aspects of the conduct of our proceedings. In that context, I note that Her Majesty’s Government intends to introduce a Scotland bill in the autumn. I trust that it will address the issues that the committee’s report and the Calman commission identified as requiring legislative amendment if we are to facilitate the objective of effective co-operation underpinning the Calman recommendations.
Of course, the Calman commission focused not only on interparliamentary and intergovernmental relationships but on the question whether any of the Parliament’s own rules and procedures should be amended. I particularly welcome the commission’s recommendation, endorsed by the committee, on tightening up the rules governing whether bills fall within the Parliament’s legislative competence. In particular, I welcome the recommendation that any person introducing a bill, be they a Government minister or an individual MSP, should give an account of the main considerations informing the statement on legislative competence. An account of the present Alcohol etc (Scotland) Bill’s conformity with European Union law would have made very interesting reading indeed, but that is not the only area in the past 10 years where, as far as competence is concerned, some of the measures that the Parliament has passed have in my judgment sailed very close to the wind—never more so, I have to say, than in the various attempts to answer the question “What is a tax?” or the subsidiary question “What is a local tax?”
Will the member give way?
I am sorry—the member is out of time.
I know that you are about to chase me on the matter, Presiding Officer, so I conclude simply by saying that I welcome the committee’s report. I am delighted that the Parliament is making progress in implementing the Calman recommendations, as is the UK Government, and I believe that that should be welcomed by all quarters of the chamber.
15:37
In the UK, political reform usually proceeds by evolution and practical experience rather than by revolution, and I am bound to say that this report by the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, on which I sit, falls squarely into the practical evolution category. I have yet to see a procedures committee report that stirs the soul, but the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee’s fifth report in 2010 is nevertheless an important document marking out the practical steps that have to be taken to give body to the Calman recommendations that relate to the Parliament. Members have already highlighted the importance at the heart of all this of retaining informal connections and the opportunity for debate in relation to the situation here at Holyrood and the situation in London, and we should keep coming back to that important point.
It is worth recalling that like the constitutional convention that presaged the Scottish Parliament, the Calman commission was much derided by the Scottish National Party Government and its supporters. “Independence is the thing,” they said; “We need the power of normal countries,” they told us. Well, Calman is alive and well and will be fully implemented by a Liberal Democrat Secretary of State for Scotland in the coalition Government. It will mean more powers for the Scottish Parliament within the solid and dynamic partnership with the United Kingdom and a further step on the road to a more balanced and federal Britain. Independence, on the other hand, has died in Scotland as a current political project with the mysterious disappearance of even the fig leaf of the independence referendum, which has left behind it, like the Cheshire cat in “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland”—
Mr Brown, I am a wee bit unhappy about what you are saying. Please ensure that you know what we are talking about.
I do indeed.
Well, just be careful what you say. I am paying close attention to you.
Thank you very much indeed.
As it is important to put things in context, I will comment on a number of the Calman proposals that the committee has considered. First, on the important issue of relationships between the Westminster and Scottish Parliaments, I have always found it strange that although we have a committee for European matters we do not have a committee dealing with UK affairs, despite the fact that the areas of interaction and common concern are at least as great. I also find it anomalous and unsatisfactory that, although there are strong intergovernmental links with London, parliamentary links are almost completely absent.
Calman recommends a standing joint liaison committee to oversee relations between the two Parliaments and consider the possibility of subject-specific ad hoc joint committees, and the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee has identified the need for legislative amendment to deal with issues relating to committee membership, parliamentary privilege, committee powers and the like. There should certainly be empowering provisions about those things in the forthcoming Scotland bill.
The new coalition Government has committed to the respect agenda. That agenda is not one-way traffic to extract concessions from London, but a matter of mutual respect and recognition, particularly of the value of close partnership working in its proper place. However, any arrangements must be worth while and workable.
I believe that we need to establish a United Kingdom committee of the Scottish Parliament, which could make up our delegation to the UK joint liaison committee. The Scottish Affairs Committee has rightly commented that the structures are important, but the key thing is the
“political will to work together”.
The debate on that should move from the procedural to the substantive—to the agenda for the liaison committee, and how to focus and harmonise our skills agenda with Westminster powers over benefits, for example. Would there be value in the Scottish Government acting as agent for the UK Government in suitable projects?
The second issue that I want to raise is legislation in reserved areas and LCMs. On the whole, things have worked pretty smoothly since 1999—even the Scottish National Party Government now shares that view. It used to make a terrible fuss about Sewel motions until it found out that most of them gave it additional powers. Nevertheless, potential problems remain. We can agree to a Sewel motion on a UK bill only to find that that bill changes significantly during its progress through the House of Commons or the House of Lords. That would be more likely if there were a minority Government in London in the future or an elected House of Lords, for example. Occasionally, there are bills that are best dealt with at Westminster, such as the Civil Partnership Bill, which needed both status legislation here and tax and pension provisions in Westminster in order to deliver the objective of equality. Things were rightly done in that particular way. The committee has said that that matter can be dealt with by developing the existing protocols. That is true, but a more specific constitutional provision is probably also needed at some stage.
Liberal Democrats similarly support the view that a formal procedure for the Scottish Government to request legislative powers in overlapping areas would be helpful. We do not altogether understand the SNP Government’s view that it does not want such powers. It seems to us that that procedure is in Scotland’s interests and the interests of partnership working.
The Calman commission’s suggestion of having a formal mechanism for one Parliament to submit its views to the other, perhaps by motion, has been somewhat sidestepped in the committee’s report. Such a move should be sparsely used, but it might have been appropriate in the past—for example for the Iraq war issue and reservations about changes in university funding. Indeed, it might have been appropriate for current issues relating to alcohol pricing, which David McLetchie talked about. Those issues have an important and highly relevant UK dimension.
The third issue that I want to raise is UK and Scottish ministers appearing before committees of the other Parliament. It has been mentioned that that agenda has moved forward with Michael Moore’s visit to the Scottish Parliament as Secretary of State for Scotland. There is considerable worth in developing such initiatives at both ends. It is a matter of developing suitable arrangements and protocols, and members should say to the Government that the matter is not primarily for it, but for the Parliament.
I am not too keen on the Calman recommendation that the Secretary of State for Scotland should appear before a committee of conveners, which is what has happened. There is a role for the specific United Kingdom committee to which I referred earlier, or for a specific arrangement that gives all members, perhaps through a ballot, the opportunity to question the Secretary of State for Scotland.
I have not touched on the other, more internal improvements that Calman has recommended or on the need for greater powers over the members’ interests regime.
We are moving into a new phase of our constitutional development as the Parliament matures. The Calman commission offers a practical way forward to equip the Parliament with the powers that it needs in solid partnership with the Westminster Government for today’s world. I commend and support the committee’s recommendations in that regard.
We move to the open debate. Members have a tight six minutes for speeches.
15:43
I am a new member of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. On arriving at my first meeting of that committee, I was greeted by a colleague, who inquired what I had done to deserve a free transfer to it. Colleagues may wish to assume that I have been very bad, but, of course, I could not possibly comment on that.
One might expect the business of standards and procedures to be a tad arid or turgid. However, much to my surprise, the business at hand is rather fascinating, although, admittedly, complex and at times convoluted.
I, too, thank the committee’s clerks, its convener, Gil Paterson, and its deputy convener, Marilyn Livingstone.
The committee report before us is an exploration of how to marry some of the recommendations of the Commission on Scottish Devolution, also known as the Calman commission, with procedures of this Parliament. Like my colleagues, namely the convener, my only regret is that because of matters outwith the committee’s control more time was not available to engage further with this illuminating topic. The committee should be commended for its focus on the practicalities as opposed to the politics of Calman, and there is much to be thankful for that committee members appear to be pragmatists first and ideologues second, although perhaps that has not been reflected in some of the speeches that we have heard today. In essence, the committee’s focus on the Calman recommendations was to examine what works, what could work, what would not work and hopefully to point to where we should leave well alone and not open the proverbial can of worms.
The way in which the European and External Relations Committee engages and works with European colleagues is to be commended and it gave lots of pragmatic examples and sound common sense to our committee, as is detailed in the report.
If parliamentary privilege and data protection issues were resolved, in theory we could have concurrent meetings of Scottish and UK committees. Members of the Scottish Government have appeared at the UK Government committees and a Secretary of State for Scotland has met committee conveners of this Parliament. As long as there is clarity and a commitment not to blur the boundaries of who is accountable to whom, there could be many doable and desirable opportunities.
I was not sold on the benefits of a formal standing joint liaison committee, which was in Calman’s recommendation 4.5, and I am glad that the committee steered away from it. Indeed, the thought of such a committee makes me shudder. If we are really committed to better working relationships across Parliaments, having yet another testosterone-filled committee with MSPs, MPs and MEPs all trying to grandstand, outdo and usurp one another is certainly not the way to go. Let me be blunt: we all know who the main protagonists are in every party and Parliament. Quite simply, it would not work. In my experience of human nature and politicians, if we want them to work well together, we need to keep them focused on the task at hand and limit their numbers.
Does the member not think that there is an anomaly when we have intergovernmental relationships that work reasonably well under various Governments, but no parliamentary equivalent between the UK and Scottish Parliaments?
Committees working with counterpart committees on specific tasks and issues, and ministers working with their ministerial counterparts, is a far better way to achieve collegiate working than having an overarching, broad-ranging committee that—again to be blunt and perhaps unkind—I fear would become a circus for the blokes and the media. That is before we even start to unpick some of the more procedural and legalistic issues. The committee was right to reflect throughout its report that there should be strength and simplicity, flexibility and informality.
My reflection is that we can have all the protocols and procedure that we want—they are a necessary evil—but ultimately either Governments, committees and parliamentarians want to work meaningfully with their counterparts elsewhere or they do not. Procedures are only one side of the coin, with attitude and outlook on the other. A culture and willingness to work together are as important, if not more important, than the rule book. It is people who make relationships work, which is why procedures about legislative consent motions work. They work because of people such as Bruce Crawford. [Laughter.] That was unusually sycophantic for me.
Irrespective of our political and ideological beliefs, parliamentarians and Governments have a daily responsibility to represent and govern. The priority is the day-to-day job and that requires the ability to work with others in Parliaments in and out of Scotland, irrespective of how and when the constitutional issue is settled. It will always be necessary to have better working relationships with the UK Government, irrespective of whether devolution evolves or Scotland becomes independent. Good relationships are about challenge and change as well as co-operation.
I fundamentally believe that as this Parliament grows in maturity, responsibility and power, our willingness to work with other Parliaments such as Westminster, and our effectiveness in doing so, will also grow and flourish.
15:50
I start by apologising to the chamber: I have an engagement this afternoon, which means that I will be unable to stay for the entirety of the debate. [Interruption.] Thank you, Mr McLetchie.
I never said a word. [Interruption.]
I say to Mr Brown that I will move on.
It is almost three years since the Parliament supported the establishment of what has become known as the Calman commission. I can say with certainty that it was Mr McLetchie who recalled Donald Dewar in his remarks, and I will do the same. Even back in 1997, it was apparent that the rules of the game for any Parliament were better when they commanded cross-party support. That was the impulse behind the establishment of the original consultative steering group that drew up the original blueprint for the operation of the standing orders of this place. The standing orders have served us well, but, as with the Calman process itself, it is right to take a fresh look.
The fact that the report has been produced is a tribute to the Calman process. Very few would have predicted at the outset that we would have had a debate today led by an SNP convener of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee supported favourably by an SNP cabinet secretary, and that the committee would have gone about its task so thoroughly.
It was right with the generation before and it is right now to seek agreement on the rules of the game and to command as wide a consensus as possible.
I turn to a couple of the specifics before us—time precludes a wider discussion of all the wider issues. I add a cautionary word. The committee was right to suggest that we should not be complacent with respect to our bill procedures. Although the committee was against a formalised stage 4 process, it made a couple of important recommendations. One recommendation was to recognise that there are cases in which separating the consideration of complex amendments from the final debate on the bill would be particularly helpful in allowing us to clarify the issues and that we should seek to use that procedure more often. In that vein, the committee was right to recommend that we consider whether committee conveners or members should be able to refer back bills for further stage 2 consideration when a particularly complex set of amendments is lodged at the final stage.
One of the other recommendations, which has been touched on already and is potentially more controversial, is that in the future any person who introduces a bill to Parliament should make a statement about whether in their view it lies within the Parliament’s legislative competence. In the same vein, the committee supports a requirement for the Presiding Officer to make a statement that helps ensure that vires issues are thoroughly considered during a bill’s drafting process.
It has been suggested that that would be particularly interesting with respect to some of the issues that we have considered around alcohol. I suggest that it would be particularly interesting in relation to the issues surrounding any forthcoming referendum bill, because people will of course have seen the rather informed speculation in the media that suggested that both Scottish Government lawyers and Parliament lawyers questioned the legislative competence of a referendum bill based on the question that it was thought the Government might have wanted to ask. I simply say how helpful it would have been to have the position on that made transparent. We will have to live in ignorance for some time longer.
I can conclude only that, when the minister suggested—uniquely—that we should not take on that unnecessarily burdensome obligation on members, he envisaged perhaps introducing from a back-bench position in opposition a future referendum bill. We will have to wait and see.
The Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee has gone about its business thoroughly and deserves all our congratulations. The final issue that it raised was the desirability of having a more thorough procedural review of the Scotland Act 1998. The committee might want to consider how such an exercise would be undertaken and progressed.
15:55
I, too, am pleased to participate in the committee debate. It is perhaps not the most meaty debate on the Calman commission, given that it is about the procedures and technicalities for operating recommendations but, as other members have noted, it is important.
It was important that the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee had the chance to scrutinise the commission’s recommendations. That said, it is clear from the committee’s report that the time that the committee was given to scrutinise the proposals was curtailed. I say with a brief nod to Macmillan’s “Events, dear boy, events” that the election of the new coalition Government in May, complete with a renewed effort to implement the Calman commission’s proposals, meant that the committee had to truncate its original timescale for consideration and reflection before producing the report that we are discussing. That was unfortunate, because it means that the committee’s recommendations might not be as full as many of us had hoped. It also means that much work will still have to be done when the proposed bill is introduced this autumn.
The task has been a challenge. I put on record my thanks to the clerks and the committee support team, who have done a wonderful job in pulling together our thoughts, which were often varied and contradictory. They have taken on board our worries and concerns and produced a useful document that will help with implementing the Calman commission’s processes and procedures.
It is fair to say that the thoughts on Calman were wide and varied. It will come as no surprise to my non-SNP colleagues on the committee that we in the SNP want the full restoration of powers to the Parliament and that we want Scotland to be independent. That is not what other parties want to happen. Despite the deep ideological differences that we all have, the process of working together on the committee, having the chance to air our thoughts together and seeking consensus was not too painful—in fact, it was even enjoyable sometimes.
The committee had to set strict parameters for itself and not stray into the Calman commission’s more controversial policy proposals. As other members have said, the committee considered relations between parliamentary committees, relations between the Parliament and MEPs, legislative consent motions, intergovernmental and interparliamentary relations, a procedural review of the Scotland Act 1998 and members’ interests. Fiscal powers, firearms, air-guns and borrowing powers were not discussed if those items had been included, the debate would have been much less congenial.
The tenor of the committee’s response is about how greater understanding and co-operation can be better facilitated and better approached. After personal reflection, I think that Calman’s report perhaps sees some problems where none exists and does not give due recognition to good practice that goes on between Parliaments, parliamentarians and Governments.
For example, Calman’s recommendation 4.10 was:
“Either the Scottish Parliament or either House of the UK Parliament should be able, when it has considered an issue where its responsibilities interact with the other Parliament’s, to pass a motion seeking a response from the UK or Scottish Government”,
because the commission considered that a formal mechanism should be available for occasions when the Scottish Parliament wished to convey views to the UK Government, or the UK Parliament wished to convey views to the Scottish Government. The commission’s report said:
“We would not envisage this mechanism being subject to frequent use, and an appropriate threshold to activate it would need to be developed.”
Our committee and the Scottish Government did not support that recommendation, as is right. No Government should have to justify itself to a Parliament to which it is not accountable. I do not believe that that happens in any other jurisdiction. The proposal fails to note the ways and means for obtaining input from other Parliaments without putting in place formal structures. It also fails to note that a simple letter from an MSP is one way to convey an opinion to the UK Parliament or UK Government and that such letters are sent and have been sent since Scotland’s Parliament was reconvened.
Another recommendation in that vein is recommendation 4.8, which suggested that
“the Secretary of State for Scotland ... should be invited to appear before the Scottish Parliament to discuss the legislative programme”.
Again, our committee felt that a formal procedure was not necessary and, likewise, the Government felt that a formal process such as that would blur boundaries and had the potential to cause confusion.
Recommendation 4.8 seems to stem from a lack of awareness of current good practice. As in many other walks of life, the positive attributes are overlooked and the negatives concentrated on. That said, if things can be improved I am sure that no one will want to do anything other than welcome proposals and engage meaningfully in discussion, debate and co-operation, if that is in the interests of the people who we were all elected to serve. I hope that there will be no unintended consequences of trying to foster, almost artificially, greater dialogue than that which exists already and goes on quietly for the greater good.
The debate on Scotland’s constitutional future is a healthy one to have and I hope that many people will participate in it. If the Scottish Parliament is to get more powers, we will undoubtedly have to examine the ways in which it can cope with those powers. We will need to ensure that the Parliament continues to function efficiently. I make no apology for stating that my preferred option is for all powers to be returned to our Parliament. Given the frank and adult discussion of the issues that we are having, I hope that that position is at least respected and listened to, just as I respect others and their opinions. We do not need to agree, but we should be able, in our democracy, to ensure that all voices and opinions are heard.
Falling short of outright independence, MSPs on the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee have a duty to ensure that we flag up any concerns and potential pitfalls that may arise when changes are made to our Parliament. It is therefore a little disappointing that the committee’s time in looking at the proposals was shortened and that fuller and franker debate and discussion was not allowed to flourish.
I record my thanks to the clerks, convener and deputy convener for their work in producing the report. I look forward to observing how the journey of the Scottish Parliament continues. [Interruption.] Whoops—I have put out a light.
16:02
Scotland has had a remarkable journey over the past few hundred years. At the time of the Act of Union, we were a struggling, impoverished and undemocratic nation and yet, by the end of the 18th century, we had the poetry of Burns, the philosophy of Hume, the economics of Adam Smith and the foundations of modern capitalism, science and democracy. Edinburgh was the Athens of the north and the incomparable new town of Edinburgh was being created. By the end of the following 19th century, Scots had made a profound impression on our planet on a scale that was never dreamed of before that time, in Canada, the United States, India and China.
Through our successes, one place in Scotland, the city of Glasgow, had the highest gross domestic product per capita—the greatest wealth per individual—of anywhere in the world. It was a time, too, of great invention. Here, too, Scotland was world leading: James Watt had invented the modern steam engine; Alexander Graham Bell the telephone; and John Logie Baird the television. The greatest scientist between Isaac Newton in the 17th century and Albert Einstein in the 20th century was undoubtedly James Clerk Maxwell, who was born here in Edinburgh at 14 India Street.
That said, the Scottish identity was increasingly being suppressed. Scotland was often referred to as “North Britain”. In Edinburgh, we had the North British hotel, now the Balmoral hotel. Henry Campbell-Bannerman, that great Liberal Prime Minister who came to power in 1906, and who was the individual who had Churchill, Asquith and Lloyd George in his Cabinet, lived at Belmont castle near Meigle and included the words “North Britain” in his address.
I am very interested in Mr Stephen’s historical lecture, but what do these historical recollections have to do with the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee report that we are debating? I do not remember discussing the Act of Union at committee.
As the member will soon discover, the backdrop is important. If she had read the Calman report, she would have discovered that it contains a significant historical perspective.
Increasingly, at that time, Scots were shaping and influencing all of Britain. For example, Lord Reith—John Reith from Stonehaven—founded the British Broadcasting Corporation. Matters Scottish were less evident. It was left to the Liberals to espouse the cause of home rule in Ireland and Scotland.
The role that Scots played in the world wars when, as British forces, we united with allies from around the world to fight the evils that blighted so much of the 20th century, should never be forgotten.
Somehow, in the latter part of that same century, we lost our way, and it is my firm conviction—
Mr Stephen, I do not wish to interrupt you, but do you know that you are more than halfway through your speech?
I do indeed.
It is my firm conviction that part of the reason for those failures was our failure to modernise—to modernise our economy, our industries, our systems of government and our democracy. We did much to help other nations to develop new, more effective forms of capitalism and better, fairer democracy, but Scotland and Britain stagnated and struggled. That was partly because of our overcentralisation. The lives of tens of millions of people were controlled from the desks of hugely powerful Government ministers in Whitehall. Britain has struggled to decentralise and reform its political institutions.
That is one reason why I have felt so privileged to represent the Scottish Parliament since it was first elected in 1999. It started a process that can once more strengthen Scotland. That process is not complete, however, and it must continue.
In the 21st century, all of us on this planet will become increasingly interdependent. Independence will be less and less of an issue. Effective decentralised democracy—modern democracy—will be crucial to our future success. People in their local communities must be empowered. That is why the Calman commission is so centrally important. It reflects a new democracy that is strengthening and growing, and becoming more effective and more enduring.
The Calman commission’s tax-raising proposals for this Parliament have rightly gained the greatest attention. In my view, they are crucial to the growth of our new Scottish democracy. So, too, are the smaller things—the detail of democracy is also important. Procedures and systems that encourage respect between our Parliaments and Assemblies are vital. Our systems and institutions for supporting our relationship with the European Parliament and the EU were thought about, and they have generally been good, but with the UK Government and the UK Parliament they have been poor. That is why today’s debate, in a wider context, is very important.
The Calman commission was first proposed by me and the other party leaders back in 2007. It was established by this Parliament and the UK Government in 2008. Its proposals will be delivered into law next year, 2011. No commission has moved so quickly and with such important recommendations towards legislation with the support of all the main parties in the House of Commons.
The commission’s chairman and members deserve great credit; so, too, do the members of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee for their role in shaping the future of this Parliament and the development of our Scottish democracy.
16:08
I am grateful to Nicol Stephen for setting the context for my much more mundane, practical comments about the detail of the committee’s report. As Nicol suggested, the report deals with the much less glamorous aspects of the Calman commission’s work. It is not about extending powers, which is the bit that excites so many people and opinions in our country.
The UK Government is now dealing with the commission’s proposals, which will come to this Parliament in due course for scrutiny and debate. Today’s debate, however, deals with much more mundane, procedural aspects falling from the Calman report. It is right that Calman considered those things, 10 years on from devolution, to iron out anomalies, to deal with identified problems, to observe the procedures that we follow and to seek to strengthen the workings of the UK and Scotland. If we believe in a strong UK and in Scotland remaining part of it—I certainly do—that predetermines strong relationships between the Scottish Government and the UK Government, and between the Scottish Parliament and the UK Parliament.
As Donald Dewar said, devolution was not an event but a process, which will develop, mature and change over time. All societies require their Parliaments and Governments to interact strongly and constructively in the interests of citizens. That requires procedures and mechanisms and good will. That is true of any devolved system, as it is of federal systems around the world. Relationships depend on political maturity and on a recognition that circumstances and dynamics change and therefore relationships must change. They also depend on a recognition that Parliaments in devolved settings and federal structures have a dual, shared responsibility to the citizens of the territory that they serve.
In the context of this debate, many of the Calman recommendations are for specific rule or procedural changes. The committee considered all the suggestions seriously but departed a fair bit from Calman on the need for specific changes, new rules or standing orders changes to accommodate what is suggested. Some of Calman’s suggestions would require significant legislative or procedural changes or elaborate rule changes, which the committee did not necessarily regard as vital in the context of what is being proposed.
In general, we are already too rule bound in the Parliament. We cannot define everything in advance or anticipate all circumstances that might arise in future. We need to leave space for people of good will and maturity of judgment to find solutions to problems and challenges as they arise. We should be prepared to be pragmatic and inventive as we meet changing circumstances or particular challenges. The Scottish Parliament and the UK Parliament have shown that they can take such an approach.
Does Mr Peacock agree that there is a big gap, in that there are no substantial parliamentary links between this Parliament and Westminster to echo the governmental links, which I think work quite well?
I accept that there are not institutional arrangements, but my thesis is that, provided that there is good will, relationships will be formed in any circumstance that demands them. It is not necessary to have an apparatus that allows that to happen.
In recent times, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Secretary of State for Scotland have come to the Scottish Parliament. In its report, the committee mentioned the Somerville case, in relation to which a remarkable set of circumstances arose and the two Parliaments and Governments found a way of dealing with the situation.
There is a danger that the committee’s report will be regarded as being unsupportive of the Calman recommendations but, in my view, that is far from the case. We strongly agreed with the direction of travel that Calman set out. However, we acknowledged that we already have powers and flexibility to do what is suggested. As I said, people of maturity and good will will find ways to deal with the situations that arise.
Calman called for better joint working between committees. Where there is a will, there will be a way of making that happen. As we said in our report, there is no impediment to there being concurrent meetings of committees of the UK and Scottish Parliaments. We perhaps do not need to spend more time seeking ways round the significant issues that Pauline McNeill mentioned, such as parliamentary privilege being different in the UK and Scottish Parliaments, contempt of court rules, powers to call witnesses and so on. When we need to make arrangements on such matters, we will do so practically and sensibly.
It is clearly a good idea for committees to share information and evidence, but there is no particular impediment to that happening.
On better working with MEPs, the Parliament’s European and External Relations Committee has come up with practical suggestions. I am a former council leader and minister and I have never found it difficult to relate to our MEPs—quite the reverse, MEPs of all parties have always been extremely open and willing to engage.
On the Scottish Parliament legislating on reserved areas, the Somerville case demonstrated that we can find solutions to problems.
Calman was right to commend the dual role of Scottish Parliament committees in scrutinising bills and conducting broader inquiries into areas of activity of the Scottish Government and society in Scotland. I have found that my experience in inquiries has helped enormously to inform the process when bills were subsequently introduced.
There should be less prescription in relation to members’ interests. Gil Paterson clearly set out the committee’s view on that. Calman was exactly right to say that the Parliament should have more freedom on the matter, in light of the experience that we have gained in practice. I commend that and other parts of the committee’s report to the Parliament.
16:14
I had prepared six minutes on what the Scottish Green Party deems to be the limitations of the Calman commission’s consultation, but I shall be disciplined, return the speech to my inside pocket, address the debate—which has been interesting—and respond to some, at least, of what I have heard. I shall limit myself to two matters: working with other parliamentarians—in particular, Westminster and the European Parliament—and the remarks that I have heard on the legislative process in the Scottish Parliament.
Having been engaged in presenting amendments and in working through proposed legislation in committees as a back bencher over the past 11 and a half years, I remain concerned that we work at too fast a pace. We should give ourselves a little more time to consider at leisure the legislation that we are preparing. It deserves it. Therefore, I was glad to hear that we would have the opportunity to debate the process.
Although concerns have been registered about changing from a three-stage legislative process to a four-stage process, the idea of doing that when required appears to meet with a degree of assent. The possibility of referring difficult legislation back to the lead committee after amendment is a step to be recommended. I would be happy to debate the idea of the Presiding Officer identifying stage 3 amendments that raised new issues because such instances have arisen in the past. If we encounter an important issue that nobody has thought of before, it is not a good idea to steer round it, as we have done on at least one occasion, and not address it when it should be addressed.
Does Robin Harper recognise the counterpoint to that, which is that it would place the Presiding Officer in the difficult and potentially invidious position of having to interpret whether an amendment has raised a new and sufficiently significant issue? The committee seeks to avoid leaving him in that position.
I take seriously the point that Peter Peacock made. However, the idea has been raised and dealt with in the committee’s report and I simply reflect that it is worth debating.
I was glad to hear the level of agreement that there appears to be about the need to improve the way in which we relate to Westminster and the members of the European Parliament. Because of my experience, I would be much more optimistic than Angela Constance is in that respect. I had the honour to serve on the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body. I think that some of the members present may also have been Scottish Parliament representatives on that body. I do not recall ever hearing one person grandstand on it; its members behaved themselves impeccably. Also, during a week with Commonwealth parliamentarians in London, I heard nobody grandstanding.
We should have a level of trust that our parliamentarians can work together, listen and discuss issues. It is well worth discussing whether we should have a formal committee to relate to other Parliaments rather than the informal arrangements that we have at present. Robert Brown will be glad to hear that I support much of what he said.
I look forward to further debate on those two concerns.
16:20
These are always difficult debates. It is interesting that, although parliamentarians are swift to criticise procedures and quick to rise to their feet to make points of order, they rarely refer to the particular rule in standing orders to which their point relates, often because, as further inspection reveals, their point is not contained within standing orders and is, therefore, not a point of order. Nevertheless, that is what they do, because that is the way they feel. However, today—nearly 12 years on—we have an opportunity to reflect on our procedures and on Calman’s suggestions, which have usefully provoked debate in the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee about how we go forward. I should note, of course, that the subject has not exactly captured the imagination of Parliament.
One of the points that have recurred throughout the afternoon is the issue of whether we need everything to be enshrined in rules or whether we can be mature enough to rely on our own personality and our desire to make progress with individuals in this Parliament and in other Parliaments.
Donald Dewar was referred to by Wendy Alexander and Peter Peacock, on the Labour benches, and David McLetchie speculated whether things might have been rather different if he had survived. I will add my own reflection to that. In its early days, the SNP Government made much of the fact that the joint ministerial committee had never met. I can tell members one of the reasons why it never met. It was because Donald Dewar’s injunction to his first Cabinet was that, if the joint ministerial committee had to meet, the individual members of the Cabinet had failed; they had failed to take responsibility for any breakdown in relations between the Parliaments, and it was up to them to get off their backsides and get on the telephone or do whatever they had to do to repair whatever breakdown had occurred. David McLetchie was correct that there has to be a sense of personal responsibility for these relationships. Angela Constance also made that point. We need to be big enough to effect an improvement in our working relationships.
Much that was recommended by Calman and has been reflected on by the committee is to do with common sense. However, critically, it also depends on the attitude of individuals. I hope that, after this Parliament has matured over 12 years, much that is recommended by Calman and is contained in the committee’s report could easily be done with good will and a sense of purpose by those who wish to improve. Relations at an intergovernmental and interparliamentary level are the biggest issue in terms of personalities. Clearly, there are things that can be done, but the notion that we require a panoply of further rules and regulations leaves me cold.
I agree with the committee’s view that, as Robert Brown has said, we need not pretend that we need to create different procedures for our MEPs. However, as Lisbon bites, giving the European Parliament more powers, the Council of Ministers remains an important factor for a number of important matters that affect the Scottish Parliament. I still doubt whether our relationships with that body are yet correct—I say so as the only person in this Parliament who has attended 30 meetings of the Council of Ministers. I do not think that we have properly addressed how that institution works and how the Parliament relates to it, let alone how ministers relate to it. The same issue relates to other European bodies.
The debate has also touched on what we might do about our legislative process. Again, I do not think that it is a case of simply saying that Calman was right or wrong. It is right that we should debate whether to have three or four stages—it is for this Parliament to decide what is most appropriate. My personal view is that there needs to be greater flexibility at stage 2, should issues arise, should more complex matters have to be considered, should more evidence be needed or should we run the risk of postponing a major decision until stage 3. There is a case for looking more closely at our stage 2 procedures. It is right and proper that Calman has articulated a range of issues about which the Parliament ought to be concerned, and we should deal with those matters of concern.
Our party agrees with most of the recommendations and we are pleased that a lot of the commission’s work is to be progressed. I hope that, if we get on with doing that, we can improve the way in which we run the Parliament and, more importantly, can take it upon ourselves to recognise that we can put in place whatever procedures we like and that it is up to us to decide whether we want to have better relationships with other Governments or to determine how we conduct ourselves as a Parliament. When we represent ourselves as the Scottish Parliament, that ought not to be a partisan matter; it ought to be a matter of recognising our responsibilities, which ought to lead us to enjoy better relationships. It is up to individuals to ensure that that is brought about.
16:26
Like other unionist members of this Parliament, I very much welcomed the Calman commission’s recommendations for closer working between Scottish and UK ministers to ensure that the needs of Scotland are properly represented. I also welcomed its encouragement of the UK Government to work with this Parliament to ensure the early implementation of its recommendations.
I therefore applaud the stated intention of the UK coalition Government to produce a draft Scotland bill this year, so early in its term of office. That put pressure on the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, of which I am a member, to produce our report on the procedural implications of the Calman recommendations in time to feed into the UK Parliament’s bill and it limited the time that we could give to consideration of some of the proposals, as others have said. In particular, it precluded our carrying out of an in-depth procedural review of the Scotland Act 1998, as was recommended by the commission.
However, as we have heard, we gave proper consideration to the best means of implementing a number of the Calman proposals, notably those on relations between parliamentary committees and between our Parliament and Scottish MEPs. We looked carefully at the commission’s proposal for the establishment of a joint liaison committee of the UK and Scottish Parliaments to oversee relations and at its recommendation to remove barriers to joint working between the committees of the two Parliaments.
However, because significant amendments to the Scotland Act 1998 would be required to allow those proposals to be adopted, we felt as a committee that the detailed consideration that would be needed to inform legislative change would not be possible within the current timescale and therefore concluded that more informal working arrangements could be looked at, in the first instance at least.
With regard to developing better interaction with Scottish MEPs, the committee felt that the suggestions for forging closer links that the Parliament’s European and External Relations Committee put forward would, in effect, deliver the spirit of the commission’s recommendations. The committee’s proposed open-door policy, whereby MEPs could add agenda items to its meetings, along with a programme of regular videoconferences with MEPs and the holding of an annual meeting of the committee in Brussels with Scottish MEPs to go over the European Commission’s work programme, would allow closer links to develop between the two Parliaments and would avoid the complexities of committee membership for MEPs. For those reasons, we felt that the European and External Relations Committee’s proposals should be accepted as the best way forward.
We also looked at intergovernmental and interparliamentary relations, at legislative consent motions and legislation in reserved areas, at the issue of members’ interests and at recommendations concerning the Scottish Parliament’s procedures. Positive interaction and dialogue between the UK and Scottish Governments and between the two Parliaments are, indeed, important as we look to Scotland’s future development, and recent experience has shown that much of that can be achieved informally by political agreement or protocol rather than by procedural change.
As my colleague David McLetchie indicated, an excellent start was made when David Cameron came to Scotland in his first week as Prime Minister, and the meeting between the Secretary of State for Scotland and committee conveners that followed soon after set a precedent for positive interparliamentary relationships in the future. I am also encouraged by the on-going dialogue between Parliament and Westminster such as in the current co-operation between Scotland’s party leaders in their approach to the Secretary of State for Defence, and this week’s agreement to put Richard Lochhead at the forefront of fisheries talks in the European Parliament.
On the legislative process, as we have heard already, the Calman recommendation for a four-stage bill procedure was not considered to be necessary. There is already enough flexibility in our current rules for a four-stage process to be used when necessary. However, we accepted that section 31 of the Scotland Act 1998 should be amended to take account of recommendations on legislative competence, even if that is at odds with the Government’s opinion.
The Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee’s work was limited to considering procedural issues and so covered only 16 out of 60 of the Calman report’s recommendations. Clearly, there is still to take place the much wider debate on all the commission’s findings. I think that we have given a fair representation of what can be achieved informally, and what will require some changes to the Scotland Act 1998, such as recommendations to give Parliament more discretion over how it regulates members’ interests, and more flexibility in the appointment of our Presiding Officers and their deputies.
The committee has done its best in the limited time that was available to it to give a reasoned and overall positive response to the procedural recommendations in the Calman commission’s report. I hope that Parliament will accept the committee’s report this afternoon.
16:31
When the Calman commission was recommending further devolution of powers, where it might have recommended more devolved powers, I believe that it thought that closer parliamentary working relationships between here and Westminster would have the same effect. That is what the meat of the recommendations that we are considering today is about. The substance of the committee’s report is essential to the Calman commission report in that sense.
Calman was given strong evidence that formal processes are needed in intergovernmental relations because they require some formality. There was a recommendation that Parliament should be freer in areas that are reserved to Westminster but where there is a strong interest through the devolved powers of the Parliament. We can think of many areas in which that is the case. I used the poverty agenda as an example, but David McLetchie talked about alcohol policy, in which there are reserved and devolved powers, so it makes sense for the two Parliaments to work together to get greater effect from that policy. We really must make the mechanism work, whether it is formal or informal. That is what Calman was trying to get to, and there needs to be more debate on how it can happen.
Robert Brown said that this debate will not stir the soul, and I would probably agree with that. However, it is about getting down to the nitty-gritty. Robert Brown also talked about the problems of legislative consent motions when Westminster goes off in a different direction and we do not know that. He is right that we need to fix that for the future. I used the example of the civil partnership legislation, which we Sewelled to Westminster because that was the best way to do it, but it is important to note that our officials here in Scotland were drafting the legislation, and were working with officials down at Westminster. But for that, they would not have got it right, that is for sure, because I know that there were many mistakes in the draft of that legislation. That is an example of how legislative consent motions have worked.
Ross Finnie talked about the joint ministerial committee and how, if we had to use it, there had been a failure. I acknowledge that point, but we still need a nuclear option for those cases in which relationships break down. I do not want to get into the politics of the argument that I might have with Ross Finnie about the alternative vote referendum. That might be an area in which there is consensus in the Parliament that the UK Government is wrong, and I would like there to be some formal mechanism that would allow us to say to the UK Parliament that it is wrong to cut across the principles in which we in the Scottish Parliament believe.
Angela Constance made a very thoughtful contribution. I take her point, but I must say to her that, in my experience, having convened a committee in the Parliament, it is not just the blokes who send press releases before they leave the committee. Plenty of others, in her party I am afraid, have been guilty of that, too. However, we perhaps need to think about the issue further.
Wendy Alexander and others talked about legislative competence, which is an issue that requires a little more debate. She talked about the proposal for the referendum bill, which we never really saw come to fruition. It might have been useful to know before we spent a lot of time and money on it whether the bill would be legally competent because I think that there was a legitimate debate. We should discuss the issue of legislative competence further.
Nicol Stephen made certainly the most interesting contribution, and it was an important one. He talked about the context for my beliefs about Scottish identity—that it is not exclusive to those who support another constitutional settlement. Home rule is concerned with identity, and that provides the backdrop to the debate.
Aileen Campbell said that no Parliament should ever have to justify itself. When she said that, I think that I nodded in agreement, but I caution myself because that works both ways. I can think of examples when I would want to say something about decisions that are made in Westminster that are closely related to the decisions that we make here.
I said in my opening speech that I view our relationship with Europe as a fundamental issue for the Parliament, but it is not simply a matter of the relationship with MEPs. I whole-heartedly support the European and External Relations Committee’s recommendations, which are very good, but the issue is the scrutiny of the EU as an institution. We have not been good enough as a Parliament at scrutinising decisions that are made in Europe. We cannot just stop at ensuring that our relationship with MEPs is right; we must also consider our relationship with the institutions and ensure that they do not legislate in areas in which we have competence and we disagree with the proposals.
In conclusion, in the discussion of whether we should formally have four stages in our legislative process, the most important point is that we should recognise the fact that we do not in the speed at which we go through the stage 3 process. There are ways around the problems and ways to plan better, but I am not the only member who has been told to sum up in a minute the argument on something on which I have been working for more than a year. I have been trying to win my point on the floor of the chamber, and I have had a minute to do that. We cannot allow that to continue. If it means a four-stage process—
I can tell the member that she can have another three minutes if she wishes. [Laughter.]
Now he tells me.
The member is making an important point on how all members feel that they can contribute, particularly in the later stages of the legislative process. It is something the business managers have been looking at to find out how we can make improvements. However, I do not think that we need a fourth stage in the process. Ross Finnie spoke about this in his speech, when he spoke about members contributing at stage 2. We need to consider how we construct the day for stage 3 debates to allow a lot more flexibility to reflect where the heat of the arguments is in the groupings of amendments. I am sure that, if we are all a bit more pragmatic, we can manage that a lot more successfully without needing to introduce another mechanism in the process
I have no difficulty in agreeing with those comments but, until we have resolved the issue, we cannot discount the fourth stage. In a sense, I think that the proposal is there to remind us that we need to resolve the issue in our current framework.
I can give an example. Do not ask me why Phil Gallie came to my mind, but I remember that, in the first session of Parliament, he lodged an amendment on anonymity in rape cases at virtually the last minute. It was a big, controversial issue that could not be excluded from the discussion because it was within the scope of the bill. The sense of the Parliament prevailed in that, whether or not members agreed with the amendment, no one voted for it as it had not had proper scrutiny. We might reach the conclusion that the Parliament will take the sensible view in most cases, but we cannot ignore the fact that such things have happened in the past.
Considering all that Peter Peacock has said about the dangers—or, let us say, the difficulties—for the Presiding Officer in making decisions on whether an amendment deals with a new issue, we should not discount a reference back until we finally resolve the issue.
The member can wind up now.
I will definitely wind up now.
16:39
I, too, thank the committee for its valuable work, which was set out clearly by the convener, Gil Paterson. The committee performs an important and valuable role for the Parliament, which must be recognised. When Angela Constance voiced her concern at the possibility of becoming a member of the committee, all that I could hear from the front bench was, “It could have been the Subordinate Legislation Committee.”
As Bruce Crawford has said, the Government endorses the committee’s conclusions. In particular, we welcome and support the committee’s conclusion that the issues raised by the commission’s report are best dealt with through the Scottish Parliament’s standing orders rather than through Westminster legislation. It is interesting that the committee supported only three proposals that would require amendments to the Scotland Act 1998: the relaxation of the limitation on the number of Deputy Presiding Officers; the move away from overly prescriptive requirements for a members’ interests regime; and the introduction of a requirement for a statement on legislative competence for members’ bills. As Bruce Crawford said, the Government has reservations about the last of those—I will return to that point.
As a general rule, we do not believe that the procedures of the Scottish Parliament should be laid down in the Scotland Act 1998, which we cannot change. We believe that the Scottish Parliament should take responsibility for its own procedures and practices and not be dependent on the UK Parliament or the UK Government to lay out how we should operate. We also agree that further work is required on many of the recommendations. Inevitably, there is greater expertise—or at least a greater range of views—in the Scottish Parliament on its procedures than the commission could draw on in its deliberations. Those who have been members since 1999 might reflect on the fact that, in the Parliament’s first session, there were regular reports and recommendations on improving the standing orders, and a separate committee did just that. The commission has set out proposals, but the Parliament is perfectly capable of forming and owning the solutions. That has come through loud and clear in this debate.
I turn to issues that members have raised. Pauline McNeill talked about the European and External Relations Committee’s recommendations and, latterly, its reflections on the Lisbon treaty and other issues. I reassure her that, without having to make any changes to the standing orders or legislation, we are already making changes in our Government-Parliament relationships and in how we work with Westminster and Europe on some of the subsidiarity issues that she touched on. None of those changes requires changes to the standing orders; they are taking place already. Indeed, I will meet David Lidington at the end of the debate. Those things are happening and the relationships are being built as we go on.
It has been suggested that we have joint UK committees. However, there would be a danger that that would reinvent the problems that the Parliament’s European and External Relations Committee faced for a considerable time until some improvements were made. There would be a danger of creating a bottleneck and reinventing previous problems. It is not impossible for relations to be built between the Scottish Parliament’s committees and the UK Parliament’s committees. Robert Brown might recall that the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee regularly corresponded with the relevant UK committees in relation to common issues.
Does the minister agree that although in the early days of the Scottish Parliament there was some movement of that sort, as things have gone on and become busier, that has become more difficult, and that to some extent we lose a dimension by not having that on-going relationship with the UK Parliament in areas of common interest?
The emphasis is on common interest. Formalising procedures because that seems the right thing to do rather than basing the relationship on issues would be problematic. It is probably more important that we think about our relationships in terms of issues. Angela Constance made the point in an excellent speech that this is about relationships between people, and if people want them to work they will work.
Robert Brown made an interesting comment about whether, in policy terms, the Scottish Parliament should act as an agent of the UK Government. I was interested in his reflection, which might have been an allusion to, for example, Northern Ireland in relation to social security. I was not quite sure of that, but it was an important contribution and, no doubt, we will hear more about it.
I return to a central point that David McLetchie, Wendy Alexander and Pauline McNeill made about legislative competence. It is important to remember that, currently, under the Scotland Act 1998, ministers and the Presiding Officer have a statutory duty to make a statement on legislative competence. Sections 31(1) and 31(2) of the Scotland Act 1998 clearly set that out.
Will the minister acknowledge, however, that a bold statement by a minister that a bill is competent is not the same as a recommendation, and that a minister should inform Parliament about the considerations that led to their conclusion? In other words, they should publish the legal advice. That is what is recommended and it is what the Government is failing to do.
I am sure that David McLetchie recognises—and, as a former minister, Ross Finnie will know—that when law officers’ views are sought, there is a standing convention that their legal advice is not shared. The recommendations in the report from the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee are about members’ bills. The issue is David McLetchie’s lack of faith in the Presiding Officer. I worry, too, about Wendy Alexander, who, as a minister, introduced bills, and who will know that in doing so she had to make statements on legislative competence. The committee’s proposals, as far as I read them, are about members’ bills.
The recommendations refer to all bills, not just members’ bills. The recommendation that there should be a statement of the considerations informing the competence judgment applies to all bills, not just members’ bills. Read the report.
The issue has been raised by various members. Under the Scotland Act 1998, a statement of legislative competence has to be made by the Presiding Officer and by ministers, but not by back benchers when they introduce members’ bills.
I move on to other areas that have been raised in the debate, such as interparliamentary and intergovernmental issues. There are challenges in Parliament-to-Parliament relationships and in Government-to-Government relationships, and we are working hard with the current UK Government, as we did with the previous one, to improve the Government-to-Government relationship. The improvements that have taken place will rely on political will. However, it is still early days.
We have made it clear that we support all the recommendations in the committee’s report. Nicol Stephen referred to history. Perhaps, in considering the Government’s preference for full financial responsibility rather than the flawed proposals in the commission’s report, he will reflect on why the Liberals want to abandon their long-standing commitment to federalism, and why the Steel commission is not part of their thinking. We have reasons for preferring full financial responsibility—
On that point—
The minister is concluding, I am afraid.
Circumstances have changed and, as the committee’s report suggests, time has moved on and there have been changes to procedures, not least with the joint ministerial committee. Those developments mean that we need to be fluid in our thinking. We can take some of the commission’s proposals, own them and shape them for ourselves. The European and External Relations Committee is already making changes. The joint ministerial committee is doing likewise. I will meet the Secretary of State for Scotland shortly to continue our intergovernmental dialogue on policy issues.
It is important that we recognise the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee’s hard work in preparing the report. I sense approval of the committee’s recommendations, and the motion, throughout the chamber.
16:48
I am pleased to close the debate on behalf of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. I thank my fellow committee members; the convener, Gil Paterson; our clerking team; and our legal team, which has given us a great deal of support in our deliberations on this important piece of work.
The Commission on Scottish Devolution began its report by saying that
“devolution has been a ... success”
and that the
“Scottish Parliament ... works well in practice.”
Many of its recommendations were about building on what works rather than fixing something that does not work. That was very much the approach that the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee took to the limited set of Calman recommendations that were referred to us.
One of the central themes of Calman is ensuring that communication between Parliaments and between Governments is co-operative, transparent and to the benefit of the people of Scotland. As this debate has reflected, that is a welcome aspiration. A number of encouraging contributions have reflected the willingness on our part to engage in that process. I picked out words and phrases such as “positive attitudes”, “flexibility”, “communication”, “co-operation”, “common sense” and “goodwill” that represent the spirit of the debate. Indeed, the committee was pleased to learn during the course of its work that, to a degree, such lines of communication have already been established, in a wide variety of ways, to suit the subject matter and the aims of the contact.
For example, the European and External Relations Committee plays an active role in information-sharing forums such as the UK European chairs group, which encourages closer links between the European committees in the House of Commons, the House of Lords, the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly. Our European and External Relations Committee also takes evidence from MEPs on an issue-by-issue basis, such as during its Lisbon treaty inquiry. Many other activities of that kind are taking place across our committees, so it is fair to say that the Parliament’s efforts in advance of the implementation of the Calman recommendations are a solid basis to build upon, and they reflect a willingness on our part to forge further links.
It is encouraging that a number of the Calman recommendations have already been implemented in advance of legislative change. Members mentioned some of the many examples, which include the appearance of the Secretary of State for Scotland before a meeting of the committee conveners and business managers on 17 June, the appearance of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury before the Finance Committee later that month, and various impromptu visits, including those from the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister.
The wide and varied recommendations of the Calman commission seek to establish a network of formal lines of communication that ensure that opportunities for information sharing with each other and, where appropriate, scrutiny of each other are not missed. The Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee accepted the spirit of the Calman recommendations, although we did not always agree that formal procedures were the best way in which to implement them. We consider that, to a great degree, scope to develop strong links already exists in the Parliament’s procedures and working practices. To a large extent, the shift that is required is in attitude; as Angela Constance and others said, it is attitudinal rather than procedural.
It is hoped that the Parliament is now in a position where relevant happenings at UK or European level are taken into account as a matter of course, whatever the nature of the work that is being commenced. Informal information sharing will aid that, and it will also enable Parliaments to pick up on pieces of work that are of interest and are being undertaken elsewhere. In addition, forums for discussions between the Parliaments on constitutional matters will be valuable. Discussions on the practical implementation of elements of the Calman recommendations that do not require changes in law will be vital if the recommendations are to reflect the will of the Parliament and be incorporated smoothly in existing practices.
When the contents of the Scotland Act 1998 were agreed at Westminster, it was felt necessary to provide prescriptive pointers in UK legislation on how the Scottish Parliament should run itself. Twelve years on, it might be time for the established Scottish Parliament to revisit the Scotland Act 1998 provisions and consider whether they are all still necessary and which of them can now be transferred to legislation that it is within the Scottish Parliament’s gift to change. The committee supports those Calman recommendations where we consider that legislative change is clearly required and suggests that a pragmatic and flexible approach is taken to implementing those recommendations that do not necessarily have to be enshrined in law or standing orders.
Holding a debate on the report has been helpful in ensuring that members’ views and thoughts are heard before the UK Government’s legislation is introduced. I hope that members will be actively involved in the scrutiny process—beyond formal involvement through consideration of an LCM—when the bill is introduced. The committee is pleased that its report seems to be receiving cross-party support, and I thank members for their positive comments.
In closing, I highlight to members that the motion on which we will vote at decision time invites the Parliament not just to note the findings of the committee’s report but to agree to its recommendations and conclusions. That will enable the Scotland Office to be clear about what the Parliament wants to see in the Scotland bill in relation to its own procedures and practices. In the time that was available, the committee sought to make pragmatic and positive recommendations on the way forward in implementing the recommendations in parts 4 and 6 of the Calman commission’s report. We hope that the Parliament will support the motion at decision time.