From: John Ewing
Constitution Group - Policy
12 June 1998
Mr Walford
oS 5$ / ~
L.
Copy to: .
Mr Gordon
Mr Jamieson
Mr Hampson, Env
j..~.,~~
Mr Baird, Env
~~
Mr Calder, Env/WSU
Mrs Fraser, Bnv/APU
~~~
Mr Cameron, EnvlTCU
Mr Ferguson, Liaison Division
~/3/~
Ms McDougall
SCOTLAND BILL: SCOTTISH LEGISLATION AT WESTMINSTER IN 1998/99
AND BEYOND
1..
I refer to your minute of 5 June which we discussed and to Mr Baird's minute of
10 June commenting on the mechanisms which might be used to allow the Scottish
Parliament to be consulted on GB/UK Bills. I have also seen Mr Jamieson's comments on
your draft.
2.
As you know Ido not think it is realistic to develop an elaborate consultation process
that would involve inserting different stages into the consideration of GB legislation enacted
at Westminster which will apply in Scotland.
What we need to aim for is adequate
consultation between the Scottish Executive and the UK Government prior to the bringing
( (0 forward of a GB Bill and appropriate mechanIsms thereafter to keep the Scottish Parliament
informed and obtain its con~ent to the approach being taken as circumstances may require. I
therefore agree with Mr Jamieson that it would be difficult to lay down any rules in advance
as to how the arrangements should be made to keep the Scottish Parliament informed of what
is proposed. Like him I do not believe we should make any changes in the Scotland Bill on
this matter.
3.
Scottish Ministers may want to take advantage of the establishment of committees in
the Scottish PaiIiament to inform them or the Parliament itself of the plans for legislation to
be enacted at Westminster.
Provision could be made for a short debate on the Scottish
Administration's proposal but that would not have direct impact on the legislation itself.
Rather it would be an opportunity for the Parliament to express its views on the a.pproachthat
the Scottish Administration had negotiated with the UK Government.
.
TCR05506.068
1.
4.
In some cases where it is appropriate to give the Parliament more involvement then
provision could be included in the GB Bill requiring the commencement order applying the
provisions in Scotland and any other subordinate legislation to be subject to approval by the
Scottish Parliament.
These precise arrangements could be looked at on a case by case basis.
JOHN EWING
Constitution Group
Room I-F76
Victoria Quay
Ext 0357
c 12 June 1998
dC
(
.....
)
TCR05506.068
2.
I
"~
Mr Walford
Copy to:
Mr Hampson, Env
Mr Calder, Env/WSU
Mrs Fraser, Env/EPU
Mr Cameron, Env/DCU
.Mr R Gordon
Mr Jamieson
Mr Ewing
'Mr Ferguson
Ms McDougall
SCOTLAND BILL: SCOTTISH LEGISLATION AT WESTMINSTER
IN 1998/99 AND
BEYOND
......... 1.
Thank you for your minute of 5 June to Stephen Hampson.
I am generally content with the
Cl)vay
in which you propose to proceed, however it would be helpful if you could elaborate on how
you propose the Scottish Parliament should be consulted on GBIUK Bills that impinge on devolved
matters.
I think at the very minimum there should be a two-stage process: seeking the Parliament's
approval on the Bill (effectively a Second Reading) and on the eventual look of the Bill (a new
stage before Royal Assent). While it would remain open to the Scottish Parliament to repeal/amend
provisions in respect of devolved matters about which it was unhappy, the process I propose should
ensure maximum co-operation between Westminster and Holyrood to minimise the risk of such an
eventuality.
That said, I am unsure how easy it would be too accommodate
such an approach,
particularly for next session's Bills.
2.
Moreover, we should explain to Ministers that problems have arisen because the start date
for the Scottish Parliament has been brought forward; and that the bids we made for next session
were put forward at a time when it was reasonable to expect their legislative passage to have been
completed before the Scottish Parliament assumed its powers.
c 1. Turning to the two Bills for which Environment Group have the lead interest, I offer the
J.bllowing comments.
Water Charges Bill
4.
We are happy that the Scottish interest in the DETR Water Charges Bill should be included
among the "irreducible minimum" of measures at paragraph 7 because of Ministers' public
commitment to it, but we think it should be made clear that the Bill is a DETR measure, which will
include small additional provisions to reform water regulation in Scotland and to wind up the
Consumers Council. The rest of the Bill's provisions on water charging relating will not apply to
Scotland. This should be m~de clearer in the main text of the submission by amending the reference
to the Bill at paragraph 7 on the lines:
"Reform of Water Regulation in Scotland (within DETR Water Charges Bill)"
5.
The contribution to the cumex should read:
"The Deputy Prime Minister has agreed that DETR's Water Charges Bill should
include brief Scottish provisions to wind up the Water and Sewerage Customers
Council, and establish a unified and professional regulatory system for water in
Scotland. The functions of the new regulator will be devolved.
This will fulfil a
commitment made by Ministers to Parliament in December 1997 following the
review of the water industry in Scotland. The Bill, which is classified b¥ DETR as
"essential", may be introduced in October; there is no target date for Royal Assent.
Its water charging provisions will not apply to Scotland."
EC Pollution Directive
6.
The Bill should be referred to in paragraph 7 as "The Integrated Pollution Prevention
and
..
©
.•.•......
_,Control (IPPC) Bill", and the following descriptive section can then go into the Annex-
. ".:!.)
)
,
-L-
•
..•,'
.... ""~,,,'
.
"The IPPC Bill will incorporate into GB legislation the requirements
of the IPPC
Directive (96/61) which will apply to some 5000 installations in Great Britain. The
Directive has to be implemented by 3 November 1999. In addition to implementing
the Directive, the Bill will allow us to include within the IPPC regime the rump of
the existing Integrated Pollution Control processes which do not fall within IPPC,
thus producing a more rational system of regulation.
The IPPC Bill will be a GB Bill, but its implementation
in Scotland will be through
Scottish Regulations.
The Bill is likely to be introduced early in 1999, and receive
Royal Assent by July 1999."
t1'"""
- _~ ' .. _1
'i
COLIN J BAIRD
AEFD: Env-Devolution Co-ordination Unit
IH, Victoria Quay
Ext 0241
10 June 1998
Tearruirail
Unfinished
Mail
Sender
: Ferguson
EW
(Eric)#
Recipient
: Hampson
SF
(Stephen)
(PS)#
Baxter
CM
(Colin)
(PS)#
Brannan
ME
(Micheline)
(PS)#
Aldridge
JS
(John)
(PS)#
Dav,ison EC· (Ted)
(PS)#
."
Fraser
AW
·(Alan) (PS)#
McNaughton
AW
(Andrew)
Wildgoose
JR
(Jim)
(PS)#
Gordon
RSB
(Robert)
#
Jamieson
JL
(Iain)
(PS) #
Ewing
J
(John)
(PS)#
McDougall
JE
(Joanne)
Walford
I
(Ian) #
Subject
: Scotland
Bill:
Westminster
legislation
Sen t
: -
A'
,cbments
: REV1.DOC
k ~ ';..
-:Requested
: No
Folder
:
In Reply
To
: R
Reply
Requested
by
:
Priority
: Normal
Sensitivity
: None
Status
:
Importance
: Normal
Conversion
Prohibited:
No
Ian,
Your
e-mail
of today
refers.
It seeks
comments
on your
draft
submission.
~
:;-~n comment
is that
Ministers
should
be asked
to decide
what
is the
i~L~u~cible
minimum
of Scottish
legislation
for Westminster
in 1998/99
on
the basis
of the
details
of the Bills
which
have
a provisional
place
in
the
legislative
programme
(included
in the Annexes
to your
draf~)
or,
if
necessary,
on the
basis
of
further
departmental
advice.
They
have
longer
to decide
on the
final
selection
of Bills
than
they
have
to decide
on
the
mechanism
for handling
such
Bills
in 1998/99
and beyond,
since
final
decisions
on .the legislative
programme
are unlikely
to be
taken
until
July.
I am attaching
a revised
version
of your
draft
to
illustrate
the
sort
of
changes
in your
draft
which
would
flow
from my proposed
approach.
Eric
Ferguson
Liaison
Division
5 June
1998
Ext
6800
From: Robert Gordon
Constitution Group
2 June 1998
..,.
Mr Jamieson
..-'~."
Copy to:
PS/Permanent Secretary
Mr Rennie
PS/DD
Dr Wildgoose
PS/EID
Mr Ewing
PSI AEFD
Mr Grice
PS/HD
Mr Walford
PS/DoH
Splicitor
Mr T Cameron
Divisional Solicitors
Mr Ferguson
Mr Sinclair
Mr Hampson
Mr Ferrie
Mr Calder
Mrs Nelson
Mrs Mellon
Mr Irvine
SCOTLAND BILL: SCOTTISH LEGISLATION IN 1998/99
1.
Thank you for your minute of 21 May. We discussed it and subsequent minuting
briefly at the Constitution Group meeting yesterday morning.
2.
We agreed that it would be impracticable to have no Westminster legislation next
session covering matters which would come within the competence of the Scottish Parliament
once it was established.
We needed, however, a much better understanding of what
colleagues proposed and as a
fust step Mr Walford, in consultation with Mr Eric Ferguson,
(i\
will identify the relevant legislative proposals and set up, as necessary, bilateral meetings
.!;.
with the Bill Managers/lead policy officials in the Scottish Office (a meeting among you,
Dr Wildgoose and Mr Walford has already been arranged).
3.
These discussions will need to address the political, operational and other
considerations for and against legislating at Westminster in
1998/99.
For instance, while
there is a policy objective to leave matters to the Scottish Parliament wherever possible,
failure to take action in high priority areas in parallel with action south of the border
(particularly where the Government is already committed to act) could expose Ministers to
criticism - especially when there is no guarantee that the Scottish Parliament would fmd an
early opportunity to legislate for Scotland in these areas. The aim is that we should identify
the irreducible minimum of legislation relating to devolved matters which will need to be
passed at Westminster next session. The. process will also provide an opportunity to test
whether including provisions in the Bills deeming them for the purposes of the Scotland Bill
to be pre-commencement enactments would be sufficient to overcome the risk of
undermining the constitutional convention our Bill seeks to establish.
ELF00402.068
4.
In parallel with this we will consider
further within
Constitution
Group what
procedure would be appropriate in 1999/2000 and subsequent sessions where - as the White
Paper envisaged - the Parliaments agree that Westminster should legislate on a GBIUK basis
in respect of a devolved matter.
5.
We will circulate further guidance to colleagues in the light of the discussions; and
will clear with all interested colleagues a note to Ministers in due course.
Robert Gordon
I
02 June 1998
"
-: ..' ')
Constitution Group
Room I-F99
Victoria Quay
Ext 7937
ELF00402.068
From:
Stephen Hampson
AEFD.Env
1 June 1998
Robert Gordon
Copy to:
PS/Perm Sec
PS/DD
PS/EID
PS/AEFD
PS/HD
PS/DoH
Mr Rennie
Mr Calder
Mr S Cameron
Mr Ferguson
Mrs Mellon
Mr J Irvine
Dr Wildgoose
Mr Ewing
Mr Grice
Mr Walford
Mr Ferne
Mr M Sinclair
Solicitor
Mr 1.Jamieson
Divisional Solicitors,
I
Mrs Nelson
SCOTLAND BILL: SCOTTISH LEGISLATION IN 1998/99
1.
I have seen Mr Jamieson's minute to you of21 May on the above.
2.
Two of the three Bills to which Mr Jamieson refers are in my area of responsibility
(water industry and IPPC).
Mr Simons' minute of 21 May sets out the background to the
IPPC Bill. I have also seen Dr Wildgoose's minute of28 May.
3.
I am grateful to Mr Jamieson for pointing out what could be a significant
presentational difficulty. However, I was surprised at the issue surfacing only now. This
issue was not considered at the time of bidding for a place in the legislation as we were then
expecting a date in 2000 for the Parliament to begin legislating. You may recall that, at the
Top Management Seminar which discussed the plans for the Parliament, I pointed out that
problems could arise if we went for a 1 July 1999 starting date. I therefore suggested that the
best time for the transfer of legislative powers to the Scottish Parliament might be between
Westminster Parliamentary sessions.
4.
I do recognise the possible presentational difficulties if the Westminster Bills have not
received Royal Assent by I July. However, (2a of Mr Jamieson's minute), if the Scottish
Executive comes into being with the. legislation not having completed all its stages, then,
providing new Ministers are not opposed to the legislation, it can be carried to conclusion as a
transitional measure. If they are opposed to it, then no doubt the relevant clauses can be
dropped (or new legislation later introduced) - the Parliament's powers are not pre-empted.
The opposite approach, that no legislative action could be taken on any issue until a new
administration had formulated its programme for the new Parliament, implies a prolonged
hiatus in the business of government. On 2b, like Dr Wildgoose I doubt if the development
of the constitutional convention favoured by Mr Jamieson will be much influenced by what
would clearly be a one-off transitional arrangement.
On ·2c, I am sure that our .legal
colleagues can resolve any'technical legal difficulties that Inight arise. As I understand it, the
start date of 1 May remains a proposal rather than a firm decision. Is it possible for the
McLeish Group to come to an:understanding about these specific transitional points?
JCJOO101.068
5.
The Scottish bids for the 1998-99 legislation programme were made many months
ago, with, of course, the full backing of Ministers. In the case of the water provisions, which
follow through a manifesto commitment, both Lord Sewel and the Secretary of State were
particularly anxious that the provisions should be in place early. The investment needs of the
industry are a priority that cannot be delayed, and the cur:rent arrangements are not providing
a stable structure for this action. Moreover,· Ministers wanted to avoid giving the Customers
Council more scope to make political mischief by having an additional year's charges round
under their control, which would be the case if the legislation were delayed to the Scottish
Parliament.
The Secretary of State went to significant efforts to persuade his colleagues of
the case for 1998/99 legislation on water.
Similarly, delaying IPPC implementation
could
bring infraction proceedings against Scotland, which no Ministers would welcome. Indeed as
Mr Simons pointed out in his minute of 21 May the Secretary of State already agreed in his
letter of 7 May to Mr Meacher that there should be UK legislation to implement the EC
Directive.
(
6.
I therefore trust no-one at this late stage will suggest postponing my two pieces of
legislation.
7.
Finally, I should be grateful if other minuting on this subject could be copied to me
and to Mr Calder (for the water industry interest).
STEPHEN HAMPSON
1 June 1998
AEFD.Env
I-H06
Victoria Quay
•
0779
JIll
7705
JCJOOlO1.068
/\s)
/"
Mr Gordon
Copy to:
PS/Perm Sec
Solicitor
PS/AEFD
Divisional Solicitors
PS/DoH
Mr Sinclair
Mr Cameron
Mr Ferrie
Dr Wildgoose
Mrs Nelson
Mr Ferguson
Mrs Mellon
Mr Irvine
Mr Rennie
Mr Ewing
Mr Grice
Mr Walford
SCOTLAND
BILL:
SCOTTISH
LEGISLATION
IN 1998/99
1.
I am very grateful to Dr Wildgoose for his minute of 28 May explaining the position
with regard to the Food Standards Agency Bill.
2.
I understand that Parliamentary
Counsel on our Bill and on the Food Standards
Agency Bill share my concerns.
They are still giving further consideration to this matter but
I understand that they may be suggesting that the only way in which the Food Standards
Agency Bill could be enacted next session without causing irreparable damage to either the
provisions
of our Bill or to the proposed constitutional convention would be for the Food
Standards Agency Bill to contain a provision which would deem it, for the purposes of our
Bill, to be a pre-commencement
enactment ie to be enacted this session. On this basis, the
Food Standards Agency Bill may not have any other express provisions in it reflecting
devolution.
3.
Parliamentary
Counsel
will require to devise a solution which can be applied
consistently
for all GBIUK Bills containing Scottish provisions next session and in future
sessions.
4.
Furthermore,
in future such sessions, where it may be desired, for similar policy
reasons as are advanced by Dr Wildgoose, to permit the Westminster Parliament to set up a
GBIUK body to deal with a matter which is a devolved matter in Scotland, it may be
necessary to devise some additional procedure for having such a Bill subject to some joint
procedure
in both the Westminster· and the Edinburgh
Parliaments
so as to avoid the
Westminster
Parliament
pre-empting
the Scottish
Parliament's
powers
and to ensure
consistency
with the proposed
constitutional
convention.
We will be considering
with
Parliamentary
Counsel what that procedure should be. Clearly we must do so as a matter of
urgency if we are to have amendments ready and cleared in time to be tabled for Lords
Committee.
lain Jamieson
J L JAMIESON
29 May 1998
ConstitUtion Group
Solicitor's Office
J -D25
Victoria Quay
Ext 0575
Fax 7804
H:\JOINT\E-MAIL\SMC00229.DOC
From: J R Wildgoose
AEFD Division A
28 May 1998
By E.mail
Mr Gordon
Copy to:
PS/Perm Sec
PSI AEFD.
PS/DoH
Mr Cameron (with copy ofMr Jamieson's minute)
Mr Ferguson
Mrs Mellon
Mr Irvine
Mr Rennie
Mr Ewing
Mr Grice
Mr Walford
Solicitor
Divisional Solicitors
Mr Jamieson
Mr Sinclair
Mr Ferry
Mrs Nelson
SCOTLAND
BILL:
SCOTTISH
LEGISLATION
IN
1998/99
1.
I have seen Mr Jamieson's minute of 21 May and write to offer my views specifically
in relation to the Food Standards Agency Bill.
2.
By way of background, the FSA Bill, as Mr Jamieson correctly reports, is intended to
c establish the FSA. However, it is also intended to provide a new approach in food safety and
standards issues - designed to re-establish consumer confidence in the safety of food. Part of
this involves
setting a framework of decision making which is "at arms length"
from
Mini~ters - an infinitely elastic term which nonetheless has importance
in the consumer
confidence
context.
To achieve these aims, the FSA is proposed as a Non Ministerial
Department headed by a Commission, although reporting through Health Ministers (plural ie
including successors under Devolution) for Parliamentary business.
A set of key guiding
principles
will be inscribed in the legislation as to the FSA's
method of operation
and
decision making, and it will also have the power to make its advice to Ministers public .
. 3.
The FSA is proposed as a UK. body - for consistency of implementation of food safety
policy and legislation (very largely ED driven) and to avoid unnecessary duplication in the
provision of (extensive) scientific advice over a range of issues - some 15 special scientific
advisory
committees
currently
supply advice on food safety issues - amongst
others.
However, we have been careful to ensure that in the arrangements for Scotland, the interests
of the Scottish Parliament and Executive are fully taken into account. For example, the FSA
ie the full UK. body, will be accountable to the Scottish Parliament, there will be joint
appointment arrangements (Health Ministers) for all the key positions and also joint decision
AGA10205
1.
making arrangements on all other issues where Ministerial decisions are required. There will
also be specific arrangements to ensure Scottish interests in food safety are fully taken into
account in the decision-making.
These are fully laid out in the White Paper.
(The
consultation en the White Paper ended on 15 March - and there was very general (almost
universal) acceptance (indeed welcoming) of the proposals at least as far as the structure of
the new body is concerned).
4.
"Decisions on all these issues, particularly in relation to construction of the White
Paper had t6 be made at a time when policy on the Scotland Bill, and in particular"the key
clauses on cross border bodies (83-85), was still being formulated. Indeed, I understand from
numerous conversations (and minuting) with Mr Crawley at the time, some of the issues
r~sed in the FSA debate influenced thinking on Clauses 83-85 ie possibility for joint
appointments (as distinct from merely Scottish consultation) and also the possibility of
having these Clauses apply to cross border bodies set up after the Scotland Bill became law.
Nonetheless, at the time I agreed with Constitution Group that the best policy was for the
/
~
FSA Bill to "wash its own face" with all the neces.saryaccountability arrangements in respect
"
"~') of the Scottish Parliament and Executive to be inscribed in the Bill. This is the policy we
have pursued.
5.
Currently the position is that the White Paper Provisions have been turned into
instructions to Parliamentary Counsel with the first few Clauses now beginning to filter back
from Counsel. I expect the bulk of these to appear in the next 2-3 weeks. Copies are going
direct to Solicitor's Office - Mrs Macdonald. The aim is to publish the Bill for consultation
end June/early July with pre-legislative scrutiny by an ad hoc committee drawn from
members of the Health and AgricultUreSelect Committees. The Bill will then be introduced
early in the new session with MAFF and DH Ministers aiming for second reading before
Christmas 1998.
6.
Against this background, I would offer the following comments on the points at
paragraph 2 ofMr Jamieson's minute:-
Point 2(a): I cannot see that there is any pre-emption of the Scottish Parliament's
powers.
The aim in proceeding with the FSA is to ensure that all the necessary
powers and accountability arrangements are built into the Bill. But we have always
worked on the assumption that the Scottish Parllament/Executive could walk away
from whatever arrangements are fmally set up and legislate to set up separate Scottish
arrangements. Indeed, this has been a powerful argument to use with MAFF and DH
to establish the kind of flexibility we require in light of Devolution. (I might·add that
I would not advise Ministers of the new Scottish Executive to set up separate
arrangements for food safety - given the consistency and duplication arguments
mentioned above - but this is a separate issue).
Point 2(b):
I am not clear exactly how the constitutional convention applies,
particularly in the transition year ·1998/99. Inevitably there will be a delay before the
Scottish legislative programme can proceed - whereas there is no delay in the
Westminster programme.
But given the circumstances, there must be some
transitional arrangements which do not contravene the spirit of the constitutional
convention. What we cannot have, for the FSA, is a limbo period when the rest of the
AGA10205
2.
UK marches ahead and we are left behind in an uncertain position.
Given the political
significance of food safety, Ministers of the Scottish Executive - of whatever political
hue - could not defend this against criticism, and would not thank us for such
uncertainty .
Point 2(c):
I agree absolutely with Mr Jamieson's
comments - and, as the above
indicates, reflect what we are striving to achieve.
As also indicated above, the draft
Clauses are beginning to issue from Parliamentary Counsel and are being copied to .
Solicitor's office - relevant Clauses will of course be copied to Mr Jamieson.
No
doubt inconsistencies with concepts currently used in the Scotland Bill can be picked
up now.
7.
I hope these comments in respect of the FSA Bill, and how I see the position, are
helpful.
J R WILDGOOSE
28 May 1998
AEFD Division Al
Room 352
Pentland House
Ext 6159
AGA10205
3.
/-
@
Mr Gordon
Copy to:
PS/Perm Sec
Mr Wildgoose
PS/DD
Mr Ewing
PS/EID
Mr Grice
PSI AEFD
Mr Walford
PS/HD
. Solicitor
PSDoH
Divisional Solicitors
Mr Ferguson
Mr Sinclair
Mrs Mellon
Mr Ferrie
Mr Irvine
Mrs Nelson
Mr Rennie
(
-\
)
SCOTLAND BILL: SCOTTISH LEGISLATION IN
1998/99
1.
I understand that it is proposed that there should be certain Bills next session in the
Westminster Parliament which will deal with devolved matters in Scotland. The examples of
which I am aware are the Food Standards Agency Bill, a Pollution Bill and a Water Bill but
there may be others.
2.
I am concerned about the implications of these Bills for devolution and the Scotland
Bill for the following main reasons
(a)
these Bills will pre-empt what the Scottish Parliament will be able to do about
those devolved matters when it assumes its full powers in June or July next year and
will be making provision about devolved matters at a time when the Scottish
Parliament has such competence;
(b)
it is inconsistent with the constitutional convention which it is thought would
otherwise have developed that, although the Westminster Parliament would, of
coursej retain ultimate sovereignty, it would not legislate with regard to devolved
matters as long as the Scotland Act remains unrepealed because it would have
devolved legislative responsibility to deal with these matters to the Scottish
Parliament. Early breaches of this convention might prevent it developing at all; and
(c)
while it will be essential for these Bills to take full and proper account of
devolution, Parliamentary Counsel are concerned that they could be inconsistent with
certain of the concepts currently used in the Scotland Bill which may therefore require
to be amended as a result eg the concept of devolved competence..
3.
I really know nothing about the content of these Bills but I understand in very general
terms
H:\JOIN1\E-MAIL\SMC00321.DOC
(a)
that the Food Standards Agency Bill is intended to establish the Food
Standards Agency which, if it had been established this ~ession, would have been
dealt with as a cross-border public authority. Indeed the kind of provision which will
be required to be made in this Bill to achieve the separate ~xercise of functions in
Scotland will be very similar to the kind of provision which it is envisaged will have
to be made in the case of the Forestry Commission by an order under clause 84 of the
Scotland Bill;
(b)
that the Pollution Bill is intended to give effect to an EC Directive which is
due to be implemented by end October 1999. It might therefore have been the first
EC Directive implemented by the Scottish Parliament. I am not certain whether this
Directive gives rise to questions regarding the split of UKlGB quotas on pollution
output; and
(c)
that the Water Bill will contain purely Scottish provisions which are unrelated
./
,
to any English provisions about the establishment of a Commissioner.
)
4.
It seems to me that, in these circumstances, there should be some clarification as to
what are the implication of these Bills for devolution in general and the Scotland Bill in
particular, having regard to the considerationsmentioned in paragraph 2 above. We also need
details of what provision will be made in each of these Bills about devolution ie, amongst
other things, the functions they will confer on the Scottish Ministers and how their tenns will
inter-relate with the provisions of the Scotland Bill.
lain Jamieson
J L JAMIESON
21 May 1998
Co~stitution Group
Solicitor's Office
1-D25
Victoria Quay
Ext 0575
Fax 7804
H:\JOIN1\E-MAIL\SMC00321.DOC
Document Outline
