FAX
THE SCOTTISH OFFICE
! <..
/t1,
t~
- ~.L~J~xJ
\.
(,.
.
~
l,J'-AIj.--J
l, ~~AF
)/3
DATE:
/~4
roM
For Operator use only
Number of pages includLg
cover sheet:
~'} Location/Serial No.,
/6 II
TO:
WILL
~C- ..O\\
FROM:
NAME
NAME:
ADDRESS
ROOM No.
Executive Secretariat
BUILDING
Victoria Quay
EXTENSION
0131 244
~
5T] y..
Ii'
: _AX No.
FAX No.
0131 244 5599
ADDITIONAL ADDRESSEESIFAX NUMBERS:
Use additional sheet if required
SUPPLEMENTARY MESSAGE
Kt~ ~
Tte-~~I~~
J;'
t~~~~~,
~
1
I
,
l·
I
i
I
,
t
\
Ut- ~V~~
~
~-Q.r~~·}
~
~~
)81),~.
L ~~
'flU ~
~~
D
~f'-<- {f-vJr :>l.e ~!
G"'- ""e..,j~ ~l
t
~~
,jJ~
LJ~~~·t£-/
(~~-\~~
C'
(,~t
"~
4;
O>U M1-
~
"'f.
/,-k ttvt- t
t-~~
I1Il. A,.,~'J~"
~
~~.~~
r ~
~~
t:.J.',
~(~k~
~""yr
111...14: r
..
~\L.
~
r ,..:'./1,....,
."'-'A __
~ ~ ,.,
.'.
Notes
,-
~.)
:
~ ~J ~ ~ •..••••..•..
~
•
Please prmt clearly and supply full information required
..
•
Ensure that all pages for facsimile transmission are single sided and that all staples are removed
'~
--------------.---------_._---.-~
Scot
eep
their say on
the affairs
of En land
,'-er~ j) 3() l'h
BENEDICT BROGAN
Political Editor
SCOTIISH
MPs will not lose
resist demand
for change
trom
under the new dispensation might
their rights to yote 011 purely Eng-
Labour back-benchers
and even
well be decided on votes of mem-
lish matters as a consequence
of
English Ministers.
bers of the UK parliament elected
devolution. Mrs Margaret Beckett
~frs Beckett told the Commons
trom areas outside England?"
insisted last night.
-
Select Committee
on Procedure
She replied: "You may wish to
But the Leader of the Commons
yesterday
that the Government
see it as a choice of two evils.
admitted
leaving
the
system
hoped an "evolutionary" approach
There are members who feel Ibis
unchanged was the "lesser of two
to change would be adopted, and
question should be considered and
evils", and said there would be
that
good
relations
with
the
reflected on.
demands for reform.
devolved assemblies in Scotland,
"But if you sought to make such
Her public pledge to protect the
Wales,
and
Northern
Ireland
a change then you \'/ould incur the
interests of the 72 MPs represent-
would be maintained.
alternative, Which is the notion of
ing Scottish seats was the first by
"It's a rather 'suck it and see'
having
members
with different
a member of the Cabinet, amid
process in \\'hich we are engaged
rules
and
responsibilities
and
growing resentment among some
and I suspect we wiJl continue to
rights in this Parliament. To my
c
. English lVIPsover the implications
be engaged in," she told the com-
mind that is even Jess desirable."
of home rule.
mittee, which is considering
the
She warned against sweeping
(
Although
the over-representa-
procedural consequences of devo-
away too quickly the current sys-
Italian job:
Tony Blairtold fellow E
tion of Scotland at Westminster is
lution.
tem of Scottish, Welsh, and North-
a frequent
subject of complaint.
She was pressed
by MPs to
ern
Irish
Select
and
Grand
THE Prime Minister
yesterday
most want to see a reduction in
address the West Lothian Ques-
Committees
at
Westminster.
challenged
fellow European
.
Scotland's
£14bn
annual
block
tion. and specifically the discrep-
although
she could
see
some
leaders to follow the American
grant
to reflect
less
generous
ancy between Scottish MPs voting
might favour the idea for the sake
economic
model in a bid to
spending per head in England.
on purely English matters when
of-"administrative
tidiness"
and
make the euro a success and
As the Minister in charge of the
En!!Jish MPs wiH have no sav in
reducing MPs' heavy workloads.
keep left of -centre parties
in
\vay the Commons operates, and
puiely Scottish affairs ..
She damped down expectations
power, crushing
the
chair of the powerful Modernisa-
Some English MPs have called
of an early "devolution dividend"
conservative
right.
tion Committee which is examin-
on their Scottish
colleagues
to
in time treed up at Westminster by
Tonv Blair refused
to use the
ing reform
of the House,
Mrs
exercise a self-denying ordinance
devolution.
word ;'socialist"
to describe
Beckett
is under pressure
from
by abstaining trom votes on Eng-
She "hoped
and anticipated"
what he called the social
English
colleagues
to limit the
lish isues.
that members at Westminster arid
democratic
leaders
in power
role of Scottish MPs once the
Mrs Beckett made clear that she
at the new assemblies would dis-
across 1] oftbe
15 EU nations.
)
Holyrood parliament
is open for
was not in favour of curtailing the
play courtesy and respect towards
The premier
urged his
business ..
activities
of Scottish
Members.
each other
colleagues
to follow his lead in
1
I
The Government has refused to
I
"We ace all members here. We are
"Irrespective
of what
is the
borrowing
from the Democrats
countenance
the creation of sec-
all elected on the same basis and
political
complexion
of those
in the USA to bolster their own
o'nd-tier MPs, which would mean
must have the same rules and free-
elected, it can only make for bet-
electoral
position at home.
placing
blocks
on the subjects
doms. That would be my view."
ter governance
if those charged
Mr Blair's
message,
.
Scots would be allowed to speak
Committee chairman
Nicholas
with-different responsibilities seek
designed
to hammer
home bl~
'.~
and vote on in the Commons.
to
work
together
rather
than
belief in the "third
waY"
.
Winterton, Tory MP for Maccles-
between old-style
sOci_lisIJI
•
But, privately, some Ministers
against each other," she said.
field, asked: "Do you think
it's fair
and the free market eConomlc~
concede it wiII be impossible to
Leader comment
Page 16
that matters relating to England
.
~,,:.-
... ~
SNP goes on offensive ove
• '
__ ."
RITCHIE
Scottish Politic.
F'roviejino '.
Hec~,s:et~
standard
lighting, i
soft ?nd ~
defends
an unobt,
TO warm·
only It co
Commons ,
;} Hole I~
tel: 0171
rights of ,(conNliW
all MPs >'/;)1ci
SEVERIN
CARRELL
Political Correspondent
A SENIOR Cabinet minister has
rejected moves to ban Scottish
MPs from voting on English leg-
islation, cJaiming that to do so
would be the /,rreater of two
evils.
l\!argaret Beckett. the Leader
of the House of Commons..said
the Government would resist
proposals
that
Scottish :>'IPs
should be aJlowed to vote onlv
on l1K legislation at 'v\Jcstmin'-
ster after devolution.
;\·frs Beckett. who oversces
the activities of the Commons,
admitted. howe\·er, that thr so-
called "West LlJthian Question"
was It rea] problem raised by
the Government's
c!eyo]ution
Be
plans. But she told the C0111-
mons' select committee on pro-
br
ceuure, whieh is looking into
the consequences of dc\·o]ution
lOIN
for Westminster. that this WllS
~:ftie.
"a choice of two cyils".
Avaii
The greater eYil. she said.
(810,
would be to creDte a two-tier
abst!:
syst.emwhere some MPselected
(irel '
on the same terms. for the same
on9'
body, had fewer rights than oth-
clas
ers. [t would effectively make
arc
:!my's anti-bullying badge as she launches the national initiative. Picture: Colin Garvie
Scottish MPs into secOlld-dass
eno
members.
cee
~~rive
"Ifvou did seek to makE'such
ha~
to beat bullies achangethenyouwiJIincurthe
:ele
alternate evil of having mem-
[he
bers with different roles. dif-
ferent responsibilities and dif-
e network will be headed
it can cdst them their lives.
reported and unsung. Today's
ferent rights in this parliament.
'oressor Pamela l\lunn at
"Sadly, for some it is a time of
initiative gives the opportunity
To mv mind. that is ewn less
F
y ~ouse
Institution
of
torment where their develop-
to learn about best practice
desirable," she said.
ation. \, hich is now part of
ment falters because of the
and to build on that so that all
But
l\lrs
Bech·tt
hinted
IT'
Durgh lIniversity, and will
treatment
they receive from
schools and youngsters
can
strongly. however, that minis-
a
contact with parents and
bullies ..
benefit."
ters might have an open mind
jac
Is as weU as teachers.
"All the good work of teach-
Mrs Liddell said Hermitage
on the issue in future. by te1ling
sh
th,
will be operating by the
ers can be undermined if a
Academy's
own
"friends
the committee: "We do recog-
bel
of next month, with the
pupil is terrified of going to
against bullying" system was a
nise that this issue is bound to
I
workshop scheduled
to
school because· their life is
good example of the work that
be a feature ofdiscussions in the
sh·
place in June.
Project
being made a misery. This is
could be done. Surveys since
aftermath of the devolution set-
I
wrs will also produce sup- ..why we must do all we can help
1992
show
the
number
of
tlement. "
materials for local anti-
teachers with this problem."
pupils afraid of' bullying at tlIe
But her answer wi1l fail to
I
\ ing schemes.
The
campaign
was
wel-
school has fallen from almost
satisfy the committee. increas-
nnouncing the launch of
comed by Ronnie Smith, the
80 per cent to 30 per cent.
ing numbers of Labour back-
network yesterday on a
general
secretary
of
the
Donald
Matheson,
Her-
benclwrs
or the
oppo·sition.
. 1.0 Hermitage Academy in
Educational Institute of Scot-
mitage
Academy's
head-
which has alread\' called for.
~nsburgh, ~Irs Liddell said:
land.
the
largest
teaching
teacher, said: "We may not be
restrictions on the \'oting rights
.\\'e a particular interest in
union.
solving the problem entirely.
of non-English MPs.
ng" to address this issue. It is
He said: "All too orten in the
and we probably never wiIJ.but
Thnre appears to be a grow-
lL'thing that., at its best, dis-
past, excellent initiatives by in-
we
are
getting
it
under
ing consensus at \,Vcstmiilster
:,,, \~hildfl!n.and at its worst
dividual schools have gone un-
rontroI. "
that English bills a.nd policy de-
bates should be ring-fenc[!dand
the c:nmmittec'sTor.· ,:hnirm;ln.
l
Nieholas Winterton', has mad(1
V10demist enters battle Vel'\'dear his r.omtnittepcould
stn;ngly support thesl' calls.
His committC'P.supporwd by
senior Seots \1]'5 like John \1<1;';-
ton and Hay \Iirhil'. is already
•• ••
,.
n_ ..." ......,rn •.•nd ('tire; in
,I
.\lrS lJl·!.'~"l ... I'll"
"'.L.
__ .
. I Ihe acth'llif's of 11](' Cflmn1' ;;15 .
.
1
(1c!1nittt cl.
}1(I\\"pypr.
that thfl
l
5£"1-
calh;d "\\'CSI Lothian (JUl.'slion"
was iI real prob1t'm raisl'd b~'
tl1l' Gowrnment's
dovolmion
plans. But she told tho Com-
mons' select commit.top on pro-
cedure. which is looking into
the eonsoquencos of dovolution
for' Wostminster,
that this was
"a choice of two e,yils".
The greater
twil. she said,
would be to create a 1\\'o-tier
system where some MPs elected
on the same terms. for the same
t
body, had fevvcr rights thall oth-
ers. It would effectivel\' make
Scottish MPs into secmld-class
E
b'--
·-····---··
....------- 1
.-
1members.
"Ifyoudictseek
to make-sucb..- __. __
s drive to beat
a change then you will incur the
alternate
e\il of ha\'ing mem-
U les bers with different roles, dif-
ferent. responsibilities
and dif-
The network will be headed
it can cost them their lives.
reported
and unsung. Today's
ferent rights in this parliament.
'y Professor
Pamela Munn at
"Sadly. for some it is a time of
initiative gives the opportmlity
To my mind, that is ewn less
.loray ,'House
Institution
of
torment
whert' their devclop-
to learn
about
best practice
desinible." she said.
~ducation, which is now part of
ment
falters
because
of the
and to build on that so that all
But
1I1rs Beckett
hinted
~di!" -'rgh University. and will
treatment
the\' receive
from
schools
and
youngsters
can
strongly,
however, that minis-
.ee.
ntact with parents and
bullies ..
benefit."
ters might have an open mind
)Upil~as well as teachers.
"All the good work ol'teach-
Mrs Liddell said Hermitage
on the issue in future. by telling
1
:ll be operating
hy thE'
ers can be undermined
if a
Academy's
own
"friends
the committee:
"We do recog-
md of next month, with the
pupil is terrified
of going to
against bullying" system was a
nise that this issue is bound to
.irst workshop
scheduled
to
school
because
their
life is
good example of the work that
be a feature of discussions in the
Lake place
in June.
ProjE'ct
being mad!' a misery. This is
could be done. Survevs since
aftel111ath of the devolution set-
i\'orkers will also produce sup-
wh~' we must do all we can help
1992
show
the
number
of
tlement," .
port materials
for local anti-
teachers \\ith this problem."
pupils afraid of bullying at the
But her answer
will fail to
bullying schemes.
The
campaign
was
wel-
school has Callen Crom almost
satisfy the committee,
increas-
Announcing
the launch
of
comed bv Ronnie Smith. the
80 per cent to 30 per cent.
ing n'umbers of Labour. back-
the network
yesterdCl~' on a
general
. secretar~'
of
the
Donald
J\latheson,
Her-
benchers
or the
opposition,
visit to Hermitage Academy in
Educational
Institute
of Scot-
mitage
Academy's
head-
which has alreadv
called for
Helensburgb,
Mrs Liddell said:
land.
the
largest
teaching-
teacher, said: "We mar not be
restrictions on the ,'oting lights
"I have a particular
interest in.
union.
sohing
the problem
'entirely,
of non- English MPs.
trying to address this issue. It is
He said: "All too often in the
and we probablJ- never will. but
There appears to be a gr()\\,-
something that, at its best, dis-
past. excellent initiatives by in-
we
are
getting
it
under
ing consensus
at Wcsm1inSIer
turbs childrpn. and at its worst
dhidual schools have gone un-
control. "
that English bills and policy de-
bates should be ring-fenced and
the committee's Tory chairman,
Nicholas Winterton', has made
Modernist enters battle very clear his committee could
strongly support these calls.
His committee, supported by
senior Scot<;MPs like John !llax-
ton and Ray Michie, is already
expected to recommend
cuts in
~I)r
Lib Dem leadership
the number
of Scottish com-
mittees at Wesm1inster after de-
volution in July.
SEVERIN
CARRELL
who is seeking the leadership.
lenge for the "pro-project" vote,
It is considering proposals to
Mr Ashdown, who shocked his
placing him in direct competi-
drop the Scottish Grand Com-
and DAVID
SCOTT
party when he announced
in
tion with Mr Campbell and Mr
mittee and the Scottish affairs
SCOTTISH Liberal
Democrat
January that he was to quit as
Bruce.
select committee,
and 10 cut
MPs seeking to succeed Paddy
leader, will speak at a party rally
Mr Foster maintains
he is a
back or abandon
the monthly
Ashqown face a challenge frOln
on Friday night and address the
pragmatist
and
is willing to
40-minute
Scottish
Question
a right-winger
close to senior
final session of the conference
abandon the party's insistence
Time in the chamber, claiming
figures in the party.
on Sunday.
that
proportional
repr~senta-
they are no longer necessary.
Sources at Westminster have
Mr Foster is planning to por-
tion for UK elections is a pre-
He
asked
Mrs
Beckett
co~firmed that the party's edu-
tray himself as the natural suc-
condition
for a coalition with
whether it was fair that English
cation spokesman,
Don Foster,
cessor to Mr Ashdown and will
Labour. But he has said pri-
policies and laws could be de-
regarded as an ambitious, agg-
support much closer policy co-
vately he will resist any moves
cided on tne votes of Scottish
ressive moderniser, has decided
operation with the Government
to merge the Lib Deins with
MPs, and alleged this problem
to stand as a candidate to suc-
and could back moves to form a
Labour. "If they want to join us,
was
a
direct
result
of the
ceed Mr Ashdown when he re-
coalition ,vith Labour.
so bo it, but it ain't going to bo
Government's
"haste" in intro-
tires in June,
Little known in Scotland, 'he
the oth('.r way round," he said
ducing devolution.
Mr Foster, the !I·1Pfor Bath
claims priva.tely that his deci-
recently ..
He also urged her to cut the
and a former Lib Dem COUIl- sion to stand is a direct eha]-
Although he is privately crit-
numbers of'Scots 1111's,who are
CilloI',last year lost a ba ule a1
lenge to Mr Kenned\'.
ical of Mr Ashdown~'s success in
ovor-represented
in Westmin-
the Lib Dems' federal confer-'
Mr
Kennedy
lias
quickly.
porsuading the party to support
ster, moro quickly than min-
ence over plans to take schools
emerged
as the candidate
to
his close links with
Labour.
isters plan. Mrs Beckett said it
fr~m councils' control, despite
beat. and Mr Foster's allies and
most observers
remain
seep-
was already being carried out
bemg publicly baeked
bv the
supporters
are already seoking
tieal about MI' Foste!"s chances
quickly, and suggested the pro-
party leader ..
to portray the Highlands !lIP as
of staying the course.
cess could start in 2002.
His intervention eom()s as tlw
"anti-projc<:t",
and
someono
Jim Wallace, the loader ol'the
His c0r11plaints were baekf'd
party prepares
for ilS UK con-
hostiJe to 1\11'Ashdown's
at-
Scottish
Lib Doms, said \,()S-
by tho Tory MP, Robort Syms.
forenee in Edinburgh this week-
tempts to modernise
the pany
1Orda\' 11{'.
was confident that tho
who sBid th1lt Northt)rn
Irish
end. One of tho top contenders
and
so ok
<:Iosor tit,S with
main' foclIs al the Edinburgh
MPs lwd introduced
a "solt~
•
,~
I
1
._L:.~
•••.•
~.f\
("h!1)'ln~
I "hl111I'
('fil1foreJ1c(~\\'ould be on tho
denying ordinnnee"
not to \'Ote
r-
" •••••
'~"'1h(\I~ th:H1
on Enl!lish bills ll!'tpr homo rule
08-MAR-1888
WED
08:48
ID:CABINET
OFFICE
TEL:0171
270
0086
P:02
..
ORAL EVIDENCE BY THE LEADER OF THE HOUSE TO THE PROCEDURE
COMMITTEE: TUESDAY 2 MARCH 1999
Q & A ON PROCEDURAL CONSEQUENCES OF DEVOLUTION
INTRODUCTION
Are there any opening points you wish 10 make?
Only to re"iterate the main themes of the government's written evidence:
• we want devolution to be a success and will encourage measures to ensure smooth
functioning of that process; and
• we believes that, althopgh some procedural change at \¥egtrninster may become
necessary, this should evolve in the light of experience and not be made before the
devolved a.c;sembliesstart to work.
<II am concerned that we have driven ahead with legislation relating to devolution withou.t
giving adequate thought a.r;
to how it would impact upon the procedure. 01llhority and role
of this place ••/. Is there any over-arching strategy for the effects of devolution on
Parliament ?
The implications of devolution were debated during the passage of the three bills in the last
session. Some of the consequences for this place will only becoffil~clear when the new
bodies are up and running. The devolution settlements are different for each of the three
devolved administrations.
Of course it is right to consider procedural consequences but we must not let these
determine the process of devolution. So it is about balance and we think that our approach
achieves that.
(,
Background:
The Chairman of the Scottish Affairs Committee (David Marshall MP) gave strong
support for the "wait and see rather than change for change's sake" approach in his
oral evidence on 23 February.
A re there any We~·tmin:~terprocedures which have 10 be change(} to give effect to
devolution?
Not that I am aware of, but we will have to address the question rota fairly soon.
I Chairman
(N Winlerton MP) Q5 26 January 1999
25102199 draft
]
08-MAR-1888
WED
08:48
ID:CABINET
OFFICE
TEL:0171
270 0088
P:08
Should there be an English grand committee?
No. I have recently submitted a memorandum [0 the ModernisatiolJ Conunittee suggesting
the revival and adaptation of the standing committee on regional affairs to debate issues
affecting the regions. Thi~ will, I hope, have the added weight of developing expertise in
regional affairs amongst its members.
In practice I expect that the chamber of the House, when discussing matters like health and
education in England, wil1 usually only engage the attention of Mf:mbers sitting for English
seats.
Will there eventually be a reduction in the number of MPs repre.re.'1lingScotland, Wales
alld Northern !reland?
Our plans for a reduction in the number of Scottish MPs were set out in the White Paper in
July 1997 and were approved in the passage of the· Scotland Act. If Scotland had the same
number of voters for each constituency as England. the number of Scottish MPs would he
about 58. We have no plans to reduce the Westminster representation of any other parts of
the UK.
Background:
Section 86 of
the Scotland Act 1998 provides for the minimum of 71 seats for
Scotland to be removed. The effect wiJ) be that when the Buundary Commi~sioD
next reports, the quota of voters for Scottish seats will be raised to the English
quota (currently 69,578). This will reduce the number of Westminster seats. The
next Boundary Commission reports is due between Decem1ber 2002 and December
2006.
Northern Ireland was previously under-represented at Westminster during the
Stormont era, but now is at the same level as England - Lt:. the level to which
c
Scotland will be reduced after the next Boundary Commission: Wales is over-
represented in relation to England, but Welsh primary legi~Jation will continue to be
the responsibility of Westminster.
1.
08-MAR-1SS8
WED
08:48
ID:CABINET
OFFICE
TEL:0171
270
0086
P:04
QUESTIONS
What changes do you envi.r;agefor oral queslions?
The Secretary of State for Scotland currently has 40 minutes for answers; the Northern
Ireland and Welsh Office8 have
2S minutes each. All three departments will retain some
responsibilities following devolution to different degrees. The committee may want to
consider whether there is a case for a reduction in the time of Scottish questions. It would
be less easy to reduce the Welsh and Northern Ireland slots on Wednesdays from 2.3Spm
lO 3.00 pm. For the time being it would probably make sense to retain those periods and
see if the demand for questions to those ministers reduces. The House's procedures will
have to be responsive to the needs and demands of Members.
Back2round:
The Scottish Affdirs committee witne.,qseson 23 February f;lvoured the retention of
questions on the grounds that if there was still a Secretary of State
s/he should be
accountable, but a period of 15 minutes was mentioned.
The White Paper.
Scotland's Parliament. stated that the fQ(:usof post-devolution
responsibilities for the Secretary of State for Scotland will be on promoting
communications between Edinburgh and Whitehall/Westminster and on representing
Scottish interests in reserved areas.
Slhe will have very few executive functions
(e.g. determination of judicial remuneration).
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland wiD remain responsible for criminal
law, public order, policing.
The Secretary of State for Wales will continue to participate fully in the
Government's policy formulation, legislative and resource decisions and to
represent the needs of Wales in Whitehall and Westm~ster.
(
There may be a variety of bidders for any extra time for oral questions - e.g.
constitutional reform, London, Church Commissioners etc
TEL:0171
270
0086
P:05
0S-MAR-1888
WED
08:50
ID:CABINET
OFFICE
What about the rules for questions ?
I am grateful for the Committee's endorsement in it') interim repon for the idea that, in
their answers,
Ministers should stan to indicate subjects for whic:h they will not be
responsible after devolution. That has already begun
in Welsh and Scottish questions.
While I fully expect that Members from all parts of the UK will retain a keen interest in the
affairs of ScotIand, Wales and Northern Ireland, it will be important that. Members
recognise and respect the boundaries of the devolution settlement.
In future, if Ministers are asked about matters for which they have no respunsibility, they
will say so. I understand that the Speaker and the Table Office take such anSWers into
account when deciding which questions are in order.
Background: .
One of the earlier witnesses said that Ministers might answer on devolved matters in
a similar way as for nationalised industries, when day to day matters were a matter
for the board but the principles could be raised with the Ministers2• The difficulty
with this analogy is that Ministers were ultimately responsible for the nationalised
industries. while they will not be responsible for devolved maters.
Ray Michie MP. chairman of the Scottish grand committee, said that
there should
be no Scottish questions because aU reserved matters will re~llJyfan within the
responsibility of other UK ministers. J
Will Scottish etc MPs be prevented from Q$kingquestions 10 UK ministers about devolved
matters like health and educazion?
No. There will always be implications for hea1thand education in St:Otland of policies
pursued by ministers in the rest of the country. It wiIl be recaIled that Members sitting for
constituencies in England have often asked oral questions of the Secretary of State for
(
Scotland about Scottish matters.
Background:
When asked a similar question on 23 February onc' of the members of the Scottish
Affairs committee said that he would not want to ask questions about English
matters.4
2 Q 54 10 Feh 99 (Mr BIIITY Jones)
.)Q 103 10 Peb 99
4
Michael Moore MP. Lib Dem, Tweddale. Etterick & Uluderdale
"CO,,..., Inft ..•.•.•.A
TEL:0171
270
00S6
PI06
09-MAR-1SSS
WED
0S150
IDICABINET
OFFICE
GRAND COMMITTEES
Do you foresee a r.ontinu;ng role for the three grand committees?
Each grand committee has a variety of procedures. Let us wait and see which are needed,
which are not and which need to be adapted. It is possible that they wHl mcet less often
hecause some of the subject~ they have dealt
with in the past will be the responsibility of
the devolved administrations.
Background:
The Committee ha.~had mixed evidence on this - Peter Atlcinson MP, chairman of
the NI grand committee advocated their retentionj, but Mrs F~y Michie MP,
chairman of the Scottish grand, saw no future role for that cc.mmittee6• Barry Jones
MP, chairman of the Welsh grand said that not
all its existing procedures had
actually been used.1 David Marshall MP, chairman of the Scottish Affairs select
committee said that the Scottish grand should be left in limbo, but might be useful
for debates on
the Scottish dimension of reserved mattersH•
The Government's
written evidence said: "There will certainJy be a continuing need
for some Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland business to be tiken in the grand
committees. They may, for instance, be the appropriate forum for debate on the block
grants made each year to the devolved administrations."
(para 6)9
It should also be noted that the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement
envisages a
continuing role for the Northern Ireland Grand ~ommittee (and select committee)JO
The powers of the three grand committees vary slightly
Procedure
SCOTLAND
I WALES
NORTHERN IRELAND
Questions for oral
tabled as for orals in House
answer
Short cfubates
series of debates, without specific motion; advance notice of subject by MP: max
(.
35 mins (MP and minister for 5 mins each, others fOr ;. nuns each)
Ministerial statements
aK on floor of House
BiUs
like second reading - opportunity lor vote - but men taken fottnally without
debate in the liouse
Delegated legislation
a.qin standing committees
no
as in standing committees
on doleRsted leiisIation
on dele2sted Iee.isJation
General debates
on substanlive motions
matters relating
on legishltive proposals
for tl1c adjournment -
exclusively to Wales on
or other matters relating
with allocation of
motion that it has been
exclusively tn N IreLand
subjects between
considered
on motion that it has
oDoosition Danica
considered it
Back-bench MP debates
half-hour. as in House
S QI26Jan99
fi Q89 10 Feb 99
7 Q 160 on 16 February
8 23 February
!I First Report 1998-99 HC t 48 P v
10 Strand One para 33 CI
2SIrr.l199 draft
08-MAR-1888
WED 08:51
ID:CABINET OFFICE
TEL:0171 270 0086
P:07
In your memorandum you said the grand committees might "be the approprime forum for
debOlt on the block grants made each year to the devolved administrations"
(para 6).
Should
the annual block grant statement not be debated on the floor of the Hou.••e?
This is one of the matters which we wilJ have to deal with as this process develops. The
overall UK public expenditure settlements will he announced to the House as at pre~ent;
but the details for individual departments may later be debated - as at present - in select or
grand committees~ I expect debate would concentrate on the overall size of the block grant
and the basis of calculation. lts distribution will, of course, be a matter for the devolved
hodies.
,
Will Northern Ireland Ordeh. in Council be examined in the NI grand committee?
That is possible under the current standing orders. We wiIJ have to look at the best way of
parliamentary scrutiny of such orders, which will after devolution I,e the main legislative
route for provisions in the reserved category.
Back~round:
NIO have suggested a special procedure involving possible amendments to be
moved in the grand committee, but this was not agreed by Ministers. It has been
agreed to draw up a procedure for such orders and this might involve either the
select committee or the grand committee depending on the drcumsLances.
(.
0S-MAR-1999
WED
09:51
ID:CABINET
OFFICE
TEL:0171
270
0096
P:08
SELECT COMMITfEES
Will tile .reJect commitlee.f; for Scotland. Wales and Northern Irelan.d have a continuing
role?
There will srill be Secretaries of State for these areas and it makes sense to retain select
committees monitoring their activities. Although the range of thosc~activities will be
reduced, the Govermnent memorandum suggests that rhere could be a role for the select
committees in liaison with the devolved legislatures. There is muc:h to be said for going
into this process of devolution with the two existing committees - one for debates and the
other for inquiries - for each of the three devolved area.c;.
Background:
Academic witnesses have suggested to the committee that both the select and the
grand conunittees be replaced with a territorial committee for each of the three
territorieslJ •
The Sconish Affairs Committee ha.c;said •• we are sure that this conunittee will have
a valuable role to play following the coming into force of the Scoui!::h Parliament ...
helping to monitor the process of devolution and acting as a forum in which
disputes can be aired publicly .,. we see no rea.~onwhy it should not invite MSPs to
sit jointly with it in London or Edinburgh ... carrying out inquiries into the
implications for Scotland of UK policies in respect of non-devolved matters". 12
The chairman of the Scottish Affairs conunittee listed the following possible future
subjectc; of inquiry for his committee: administration and operation of the Scottish
Office; air-sea rescue; air cargo Hberalisation; impact on Scotland of ending of duty
free goods; lottery funding; oil & gas.
Should there he 4
new combined select committee dealing with all devolved rerritories and
matters or a general "constitutional qfJairs" commillee?
(
J know that suggestion has been put by some of your earlier witnessesl~. I doubt the value
of a single "devolution» committee. but I would not rule out a "constitutional affairs"
committee" if it was apparent in the long tenn that the House needf:d one.
I would he surprised if MPs representing constituencies in Wales would WeiDtto spend
much time on matters concerning Scotland or Northern Ireland but Dot Wales. Although
there may be some common devolution issues, the forms of devolution vary significantly
between the three .
. I believe it makes sense to have a select committee looking at the affairs of each of the
" three devolved areas and to monitor what changes may be necessary as -time goes by.
II QQ 55-5610
Fcb 1999
12 Second Report
1997-98 HC
460-1 The Operarioll ofMulli-Layer Democracy para 86
n Q 60 10 Feb 99 (Mr BIIITY Jones)
",«lIvunn
.I__Jeo.
03-MAR-1SSS
WED08: S2
ID: CABINET OFFICE
TEL:0171
27000S6
P:0S
RELATIONS BETWEEN WESTMINSTER
ANS THE DEVOLVED LEGIS LA TURES
How will the devolved legislatures be able to make an input to Westmim;ter procedure.1; on
mailers which concern them?
I expect there will be a whole range of contacts, many of them informal - both at a local
level and in the legislatures. For instance there should be close Jinks between the European
Scrutiny Committee and its equivalents in tbe devolved legislature:;. Other committees will
develop contacts. The territorial select conunittees will be an obvious channel of
communication.
Whal can be done te>avoid friction between Westminster and the devolved legb;latures?
,
I hope a wide range of formal and informal contacts will ensure good communication and
minimise the risk of misunderstanding
Jeading to disputes. As I have already mentioned,
respecting the allocation of responsibilities between Westminster and the devolved bodies
will undoubtedly be important.
BaCkground:
Some infonnal contacts have already begun at official leveJl, including the
secondment of staff. It would be possible for the House of Commons Conunission
to have some infonnallink with the administration of the Scottish Parliament.
Do you think it would be possible for MPs and MSPs, for instance, to take pan in.
proceedings of ~'ome combined committee 01 Westminster or in Edinburgh?
I am inclined to think that informal - and frequent - meetings would be more productive.
We all know how many such meetings take place already in this building.
(
0S-MAR-1888
WED
08:52
ID:CABINET
OFFICE
TEL:0l7l
270 0086
P:10
Tn your memorandum you 5'aid thaI .•a spirit of tolerance between rhe different chambers
might bef~stered if/he House permitted criticism o/members of other fegi,rla/ures only on
a subj'tantlve motion n. What did you have in mind?
There are two aspects: first, reference to the other. legislatures and, secondly, remarks
about other elected representatives. I envisage a similar practice to how we treat the House
of Lords,
The effect of our current rules is to deter offensive remarks on the floor of the
House rather than to encourage the tabling of critical EDMs.
I would be interested to know what the Corrunittee th.i.nksof this su;~gested approach.
Background:
On relations between Houc;es. Erskine May says, at page 382, "Offensive
expressions ... against the other House _, would appear to implicate one House in
discourtesy to the other though criticism of the role and fun(:rions of the other
House is in order .. , the use of offensive words should be innnediately reproved in
order to avoid complaints and dissension between the two Houses"_
On individual legislators, Erskine May says, at page 386. "rcference in debate to
either House of Parliament must be couneous ... any reflection on [theJ conduct [of
a Member of the other House) must be based on a substantive motion" .
In previous evidence the committee has been concerned that such a rule might
encourage BDMs critical of specific MSPs etcl'; the rule realJy gives the chair the
power to caU a Member to order in the heat of the moment in the House.
How will devolution affect the participation 0/ Member.f of the devolved legislatures in
international parliamentary
bodies?
(
Our participation in such bodies is more the subject of international agreements and the
(
rules of such assemblies than of the procedure of this House. I understand that
participation in some is a matter only for Members of national parli.aments but that others
involve elected representatives from devolved bodies and regional parliaments. 1 expect in
particular that elected representatives from this House and the devolved legislatures wiIJ
take part in the British-Irish Council.
Background:
MPs take part in the Council of Europe, W~stern European Union, North Atlantic
Assembly.
Inter·Parliamenrary Union, Commonwealth Parliamentary Assocciation,
Organisation fur Security and Co.operation in Europe, Britil;h-Irish Parliamentary
Body.
Of these. the CPA has a British Islands sub·group which already includes
the Channel Islands etc. The COE holds gatherings of local government and
regional representatives.
The Belfdst/Good Friday Agreement says "Membership fo tb.e British-Irish Council
will comprise representatives of the British and Irish Govermnebts, devolved
institutions in Northern Ireland. Scotland and Wales. ," (Strand Three para 2)
14 Q 186 on
16 Ji't:bruary (Me Winterton)
-----.-.- ...
TEL:0171
270
0096
P:ll
08-MAR-1999
WED
09:58
ID:CABINET
OFFICE
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BILLS
Should there be any restriction an the ability afprivate Members 10 introduce bills' on
devolved or transferred maners?
Since devolution does not affect the ability of the House [0 pass legislation on any matter, I
do not see the need to erect any new barriers to private Members' bills. Having said that
the Government is unlikely to support any such bill which seeks to alter tbe Jaw on
devolved matters, unless it is clear that the proposal has the support of the Scottish
parliament or Northern Ireland Assembly.
Background:
Ministers are being advised that the Energy Conservation bill (Clive Efford) -
which made good progress but did not pass last session - should be amended this
session to limit
its effect to England and Wales.
The Govenunent announced in July 1998 that it would "expect a convention to be
established thal Westminster would not normally legislate with regard to devolved
maucrs in Scotland without the consent of the Scottish Parliament" .
IS Ministers are
currently deciding how to give effect to this.
(
., Lord Sewel .iu the House of Lords on 21 Julv 1998 col 791
08-MAR-1988
WED
08:54
ID:CABINET
OFFICE
TEL:0171
270
0086
P:14
Do you plan 10propose amendments to We$'tminster proc.1ice in linf~ with new procedures in
Edinburgh. Cardiff and Belfast?
These new procedures have been published by the Consultative Stel~ring Group and are
interesting. I am always happy to take on board good practice and once we have seen the
new bodies operating we will be able to judge whether there are lessons to be learned and
applied here.
Background:
Proposed Scottish arrangements which would differ from Westminster include
sitting hours, addressing MSPs by name, regular voting times, sittings in
September, a Delegated Powers committee (as in the Lords) and business
determined by a Business Committee.
The draft Standing Order for the National Assembly of Wales have been published
and also envisage "family-friendly hours". The most signifi(:ant difference with
Westminster - which arises from the very nature of the As~wmbJy - will be the
power to make amendments to statutory instruments.
Will Member.r of the Ihree devolved legislatures be given access to this place? What about
the Sinn Fein MPs?
Access to the precincts is a matter dealt with by the Domestic Coaunittees, but the
Govenunent's memorandum did suggest that they might have the same degree of access as
MEPs. I do not see that the position of the Sinn Fein MPs who haVt:not taken their seats
would be affected either way.
Back2[ound:
The Speaker has ruled that since the two Sinn Fein MPs hav,e not taken the oath,
they should not he able to m:e the facilities of the House which are available to
(
\
other Members. There is nothing to prevent them attending meetings in the House
in the same way as other Members of the Nl Assembly who are not MPs.
What ministerial arrangements have been ,'leIup 10 manage post-devolution
business? How
wililhey be accountable?
The first point of contact at ministerial level beLween the UK Government and the devolved
administrations will be the UK minister with responsibility for ihe subject area under
discussion. In thc case of Wales this will usually be the Secretary of State for Wales. There
will also be a consultative body comprising UK ministers and repre:ientatives of the
devolved administrations. The UK ministers concerned will be responsible to the House in
the normal way for their actions.
BackJtround:
Bilateral concordats between UK depanments and the Scotti:;h Executive a.re heing
prepared but will not be finalised before devolution because mey will need to be
agreed hy the Scottish Executive. rather than the Scottish Office.
Document Outline
