,!!2pers
DA (David)
From:
Campbell I (lan)(Exec Sec)
Sent:
16 June 199912:44
To:
First Minister; Brannan MH (Micheline) .
I
Cc:
PS/Executive Secretariat; Gordon RSB (Robert); Rogers DA (David); Ewing JA (~ohn);
Minister for Parliament
'
Subject:
RE: Devolved legislation at Westmln!)ter
'
Paul
I think that it is important t1~atwe inf0:m the Tories but I also think it is better to know what reac~i04 we ~et
ftom the SNP before arrangIng a m~tmg.
If the SNP are adamant that we should not debate the Issue until
they see Bills, we can assume that the Tories will react likewise and our handling may have to be ditlrerent.
David Rogers is trying to agree a meeting with FM in advance of the SNP meeting to discuss Micheline's
memorandum.
We can take his mind then if we are not able to beforehand.
('
-Original
Message-
,.-
.
From:
Allen PC (Paul) On Behalf Of First Minister
Sent:
16 June 1999 12:03
To:
Campbell I (lan)(Exec See); Brannan MH (Micheline)
Cc:
PS/Executive Secretariat; Gordon RSB (Robert); Rogers DA (David); Ewing JA (John); First Minister; Minister for p~r1iament
Subject:·
RE: Devolved legislation at Westminster
Ian
What about the Tories? Did FM want them briefed too?
Paul
-----Original Message-----
[
!5!!!:'
_
To all as above
Further to my earlier e-mail I have now spoken to the SNP Business Manager (Mike Russ¢ll) and
,~
agreed that he and his front bench spokespersons will be briefed tomorrow afternoon and ~ven
written information in advance. I would be grateful if the written information on the Bills ban be
cleared in time for me to pass it on before the meeting.
Can Micheline let me know who .w.ill
I
attend and if there is a timing preference.
For ~ormation
you s~ould be a~are th~t Mr R~ss~ll expressed concern ~hat we appeared ~able
to stick to the convention ofhavmg published bIlls m advance of the parliament bemg ask~d to
give its consent. He also expressed concern that there were other bills in addition to the F~A Bill
and that. this siinply confirmed the fears put forward by Alasdair Morgan in response to th<1First
Ministers statement.
If we are to consider a motion on these bills it will have to be taken on the same day as the I
debate on FSA i.e. 23 June ...
~
Ian
1
~ers
DA (David)
From:
RogersDA (David)
Sent:
16 June 199911:56
To:
CampbellI (lan){ExecSee);BrannanMH (Micheline)
Cc:
PS/ExecutiveSecretariat;GordonRSB (Robert);EwingJA (John);First Minister;
--------
__
---'J.••.•
,amieson.JL{Jain)
Subject:
RE: Devolvedlegislationat Westminster
Importance:
High
Follow Up Flag:
Reply
Flag Status:
Flagged
~
v\ck
1m,
.~
7.~
I have spoken to Micheline, Robert Gordon, I~
Jamieson
Ewing and we have concluded tl/at:
lOuld be useful if possible to have a quick meeting this pm with the FM to discuss the paper which I
Micheline is preparing to go to the SNP and particularly to decide whether the Treasury Financial se~ices
{-_ Bill needs to.be dealt ~ith.
Its .m:p~ct on ~he Sco1?sh Parliament's area of~ompetence
is in the gr~at I
scheme ofthtngs margmal, but It IS m our mterest In the long term to establIsh a precedent that Whitel}all
should not promote such Bills without consent;
that John Ewing and 1 should go with you and Micheline to the meeting at 5.15 pm with the SNP.
Can you phone me to discuss urgently please?
DAVID ROGERS
ES
45534
-Original
Message-
From:
Campbell I (lan)(Exec Sec)
Sent:
15 June 199920:43
To:
Brannan MH (Micheline)
...
,
Cc:
PS/Executive Secretariat; Gordon RSB (Robert); Rogers DA (David); Ewing JA (John); First Minister; Minister for Parliament
S~bJect:
Devolved legislation at Westminster
I
To all as above
Further to my earlier e-mail 1 have now spoken to the SNP Business Manager (Mike Russell) and agreed
that he and his front bench spok-espersons will be briefed tomorrow afternoon and given written
I· .
information in advance. 1 would be grateful if the written information on the Bills can be cleared ¢. time
for me to pass it on before the meeting. Can Micheline let me know who will attend and if there isl a
timing preference.
I
For information 'you should be aware that Mr Russell expressed concern that,we appeared unable tIDstick
to the convention of having published bills in advance of the parliament being asked to give its corlsent.
He also expressed concern that there were other bills in addition to the FSA Bill and that this simply .
confirmed the fears put forward by AlasdairMorgan
in response to the First Ministers statement.
:.
If we are to consider a motion on these bills it will have to be taken on the same day as the debate 0n
FSA i.e. 23 June.
'
Ian
1
Rogers DA (David)
From:
Jamieson JL (lain)
Sent:
16 June 1999 08:41
To:
PS/Executive Secretariat; Rogers DA (David); Burgess WG (George); Campbel~ I (Ian)
(Exec Sec)
Subject:
FW:. \1YestrTlinsterJegi~~C!ti~oon__
IT1C3~~r~~i!hiO,EgrTlP~!:~~~
,~fd~ •••
oJY~~c~~rT1i_n~~t~~i~~~
__
"
Were you aware of this? I assume that the FM is asking about what ~xact
the convention is intended to be
and how it should operate - a matter about which, as you are aware, I am concerned because of th~ various
administrative
proposals which would have the effect of destroying it beD re it is established. It maf be that
he is also concerned as to whether the motion is debatable. I will do a
.
te later this morning to dpable
Patrick to inform Sol Gen but any assistance would be welcome. lain
-----Original Message-----
F
•.
=
=-
!
Nfl-- t, LJ'~
'
P)hard
/
/
;;J:'
r:- The Solicitor General attended Cabinet this morning. The First Ministfr asked for legal advice on J-hether
"\,,-' it was obligatory to have a debate in,the Scottish Parliament wheneveI1the UK. Parliament was legisl~ting on
a matter within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament.
The answer is probably straightforward, but since the matter was rai ed at Cabinet, the Solicitor woU)d be
grateful if the Law Officers could be instructed on it.
Patrick
PJLAYDEN
Legal Secretary
15th June 1999
~l
']:U~)
y~
" ~~,J1.);A~
r(
~~~
{~\....~
.....
1
•..----
"'1',
"'.
®
,M
RogersDA (David)
From:
Gordon RSB (Robert)
Sent:
15 June 1999 22:39
To:
Henderson RM (Richard)
Cc:
Jamieson JL (lain); Rogers DA (David)
...Richard
Mearittonavea worn williyoutodaybutran outOf.time:j'?')--.-'
--.
U
U
Sorry to hear about Steve Lindsay. What's the prognosis?
Sol Gen se.emed to have been briefed by Patrick for Cabinet on Incapable Adults legislation. Therd is some
intricate ,further thinking to be done on definition of therapeutic research. General authority to treat was
agreed; living wills, non therapeutic research and legislating on withdrawal of treatment were not a~eed.
Plan w~ to involve Sol Gen in further thinking. I hope Patrick tipped you off in advance. I think ~s
is one
)ere Sols and poss Draftsmen could have been involved in briefing Law Officers and Exec See cliaps at
,fi':i :Cabinet. I realise that at the moment w~ are trying to do too much in no time at all but as (if) thing~ settle
''\i:i.>d.ownw~ 91:ightto be able to make the linkages better ...
Micheline's advice about the latest raft of Westminster Bills which .trespass into devolved areas fo~d
the
FM in slightly scratchy mode. I persuaded him.thatthe issue was t6 get th~ SfJQagreeJh~prinQiple
of .....
t·
Westminster legislating in these areas but after discussion he was concerned that the effect of the F
cia!
\. Services andMark~ts Bill as proposed seemed to be to legislate to transfer ~evolved matter~ intoth
.
reserved arena. This was unlikely to be acceptable to the SNP. He would like to have a fuller expl.
tion-
which Ian Campbell will be commissioning
:ITom Micheline. I presume (I apologise for not fono~g
the
.
earlier minuting closely enqugh) it would be possible for the Bill to be drafted in a way which better'
.
respected devolved matters and did not have the effect of taking a bite out· of devolved competenc~.
I am copying also to David Rogers to whom I was unable to speak tonight and with whom I would
word in the morning ..
~
I ~A%,J(,JJ, 51rl-
I
tu. ~
"
.V)
1
~ers
DA (David)
From:
Campbell'
(/an)(Exec Sec)
Sent:
15 June 1999 20:43
To:
Brannan MH (Micheline)
Cc:
PS/Executive Secretariat; Gordon RSB (Robert); Rogers DA (David); Ewing J~ (John);
First Minister; Minister for ParlialT1E!l"Jt
--Subject:.
..Devolved legislationatWestminster_
m
••
_
•
._
•
'_~
••
m
~_.
_
To all as above ..-·-----
-r---'-----'-~-
.__
u~
__
--------------------.-
----------
--
• __
n
Further to my earlier e-mail I have now spoken to the SNP Business Manager (Mike Russell) and ~greed
that he and his front bench spokespersons will be briefed tomorrow afternoon and given written infpnnation
in advance. I would be grateful if the written infonnation on the Bills can be cleared in time for me to pass
it on before the meeting. Can Micheline let me know who will attend and if there is a timing prefetence .
.
.
,
For infonnation you should be aware that Mr Russell expressed concern that we appeared unable td stick tp
) convention ofhavin-U'ublished
bills in advance of the parliament being asked to give its conse4t. He
. alSOexpressed concern thar there were oiller bills in addition to the FSA Bill and that this simply c9nfirmed
-the fears put forward by Alasdair Morgan in response to the First Ministers statement.
If we are to consider a motion on these bills it will have to be taken on the same day as the debate o~ FSA
Le. 23 June.
-
-
Ian
1
Rogers DA (David)
From:
Campbell I (lan)(Exec Sec)
Sent:
15 June 1999 19:21
To:
Brannan MH (Micheline)
Cc:
Rogers DA (David); PS/Executive Secretariat; Ewing JA (John); Gordon RSB (R~bert);
First Minister
.
Subject:
LEGISLATION AT WESTMINSTERON
QEYOLVED MATTERS
Importance:
High
-~_. ~--_._._-~-_._--
-----' ..-.'--.-- .~-------.---.--- ------- ---,---------.- --------_._----------------------~----
Micheline
Copy as above
Progress report on where we are on the 3 Bills. First Minister does not wish to write to the Party Le*ders
without draft Bills to enclose. He feels that the non-Executive parties would be likely to withhold
-reement on taking the motion without having details of the Bills that they are being asked to grant Itheir "
,,~b.sent to. I am planning to speak to the SNP Business Manager either tonight or tomorrow morning to
cI offer him and others in his party the opportunity of a paper based on your memorandum outlining details of
.., the Bills and a briefing session with officials explaining what the extent of the devolved matter is on leach
Bill. A point which is exercising the First Minister is that relating to the Financial Services and Markets
•
I
Bill. He feels that we are not on strong ground asking the parliament to consent to elements of a Bi~
- --~-relating toadeVblvedmatterwhen-iIrfuture-itwouldTIot-havethe-power-to-amend-the--elem~-that
it 'l.'as---
17 presentlybemg
asked to consent to. Can we clear this point up before I speak to the SNP? Ifnot I ~ll
make reference to only 2 Bills at present with the possibility of a third to follow.
I
There are also some textual changes that the First Minister wishes to make to the document at Annexl B. In
the penultimate sentence of the last paragraph he woU)d like to delete after "sector" as he feels that this will
give fuel to the SNP fire. Can we discuss this asap in order that I can make arrangements fora brieflbg'
?
session as soon as possible ...
'
..
:
Ian Campbell
1
Rogers DA (David)
From:
Rogers DA (David)
Sent:
15 June 1999 10:30
To:
Miller CR (Colin)
Cc:
Coull AJ (Alison); Carmichael DB (Donald); Walford IN (Ian)
Subject:
RE: international criminal court ..
Colin
Thanks. I quite take your point about resources. 1 take it though that by "the centretl you mean deivolution!
My
point was merely that FM got some very bad press last week for implying that Westminster w~Il quite
routine.ly legislate for devolved matters, and the issue looks .likebeing a running sore, so I personapy doubt
that Ministers will be keen for there to be a Westminster Bill when there is no po.licy/technical reaSon why
there shou.ld not be a separate Bill.
But of course that is for them to decide.
Yes" we'd be keen to comment on the draft submission. For the moment I am your man though thi~ bit of the
c
je's resources is going to dry up soon and its not cIear yet who wilJ take over this particular iss·~e.
DAR
--Original Message-
From:
MillerCR(Colin)
Sent:
15June199909:43
To:
RogersDA(David)
Cc:
CoullAJ (Alison);Carmichael
DB(Donald)
Subject:
RE:international
criminalcourt
David
I understand the politics, but taking a Bill of our own through the Scottish Parliament would invplve
considerably more work - by an order of magnitude - than riding on the back of a Whitehall Billl The
end result would, of course, be identical.
; I take it that there will be no difficulty about assigning .additional resources to cm to cope with this -
and all the other new demands that the ever burgeoning centre is constantly placing on the poor bloody
infantry in policy Divisions?
Or will I tell Owen Kelly that we won't be able to devote resource~ that
we haven't got to waving the Scottish flag on iliA, to no discernible purpose either?
Excuse my grumpiness, but we are being swamped already. At some point there is going to hav~ be·~
degree of realism about what can and can't be done before the shoestring finally snaps.
I was thinking about putting up a submission setting out the options of a separate Scottish Bill or !going
along with a UK Bill, and recommending the latter. Should this be cleared with the ES before it $oes
forward, and if so whom? The Bill won't be introduced this Session, but Home Office/ FCO want to
publish it in draft later this year, hence the urgency.
Colin
-----Original Message-----
E
~-
Alison,
Given the major hassles - political and handling - which the present tranche ofWestminst~t
Bills
1
is throwing up, I think Ministers are going to have very good reasons for adopting this Iapproach
in future. Is there any reason why there should not be a separate Scottish ~ill?
DAVID ROGERS
. --Original Message--
From:
CoullAJ (Alison)
Sent:
14June 199918:12
To:
MillerCR (Colin)
Cc:
RogersDA (David);McCollS (Susan)
Subject:
internationalcriminalcourt
« File: Mr Miller.doc »
minute discussed - just to confirm our telephone conversation today.
Alison
)
2
Document Outline
