The Minister for Parliamentary Business
Patricia Ferguson MSP
The Scottish Parliament
Edinburgh EH99 1SP
Telephone: 0131-556-8400
scottish.ministers@scotland.gsi.gov.uk
http://www.scotland.gov.uk
22 January 2003
Murray Tosh MSP
Convener
Procedures Committee
The Scottish Parliament
The Mound
EDINBURGH
EH99 1SP
__________
THE SEWEL CONVENTION AND SEWEL MOTIONS
I am writing in response to a letter of 28 June from the Clerk to the Committee which attached a paper prepared by the Clerking and Reporting Directorate on procedural and practical issues relating to the operation of the Sewel convention. I enclose a memorandum setting out the Executive's detailed response to the points raised in the Committee paper, and I am sorry not to have been able to do so sooner.
I will, of course, be happy to respond to any further questions the Committee may have once it has had the opportunity to consider the attached memorandum. It might also be useful, by way of setting the scene, if I say something about the nature and use of the Sewel convention in broad terms.
Since devolution in July 1999, the Scottish Parliament has passed 45 Bills across virtually the whole spectrum of devolved responsibilities - including health, education, justice, transport and housing. This substantial and ambitious legislative programme reflects distinctively Scottish policies and priorities, as set out in the Programme for Government, and our determination to bring about real change on the issues that matter to the people of Scotland.
However it was always anticipated that there would be circumstances where the Executive, with the Parliament's consent, would want to ask Westminster to legislate for Scotland on devolved matters - for example, where a single UK-wide regime would be more effective.
From the Executive's perspective, it would be wrong if we allowed our own legislative programme to be blown off course because of what is happening at Westminster - but it would be equally wrong if we ignored the opportunity to have Scottish provisions in a suitable Westminster Bill if the Scottish Parliament agrees that such provisions would be of benefit to the people of Scotland. It follows that if the Sewel Convention did not exist, we would be faced with rather a stark choice. Either we would have to forego the opportunity of using a Westminster Bill to introduce provisions which everyone agrees should be brought forward in Scotland, or we would have to bring forward separate Scottish legislation at the expense of our own legislative priorities.
I should however emphasise that although the Parliament has so far approved 38 Sewel motions, most of them relate only to a small number of specific provisions in Westminster Bills - not large chunks of legislation. If for whatever reason the Scottish Parliament does not want Westminster to legislate for Scotland on a particular issue, then it can simply withhold its consent. And the fact that a Sewel motion has been passed does not prevent the Scottish Parliament from returning to the same issue in future - Sewel motions have no bearing on the boundaries between reserved and devolved matters.
The great bulk of legislation on devolved matters has been passed by the Scottish Parliament, not by Westminster, and that will continue to be the case. But where we believe that it would be right to include Scottish provisions in a Westminster Bill, with the agreement of the Scottish Parliament, then that is exactly what we will do.
Perhaps I could turn to some specific points which the Clerk to the Committee raised in his covering letter of 28 June. Mr Patterson asked, first of all, in what circumstances is UK legislation on devolved matters initiated by the Executive. The answer, put shortly, is that it is impossible to generalise. The UK Government will always consult the Executive about the implications of its own proposals for legislation on matters which are devolved. The possibility of a UK Bill including provisions on devolved matters may be raised either by Scottish Ministers or UK Ministers, or emerge following discussions between officials in the first instance. By whatever means the proposal emerges, it must be agreed by both Scottish Ministers and UK Ministers, which will involve an exchange of correspondence at Ministerial level.
Mr Patterson also asked how much time has been made available to Members between the date of lodging of each Sewel motion and the debate on that motion. As you will know, Sewel motions are lodged at least 2 days in advance of a Sewel debate, in accordance with guidance issued by the Presiding Officer. However an Executive memorandum which explains the purpose and effect of the relevant provisions in the UK Bill which relate to devolved matters is placed in the Scottish Parliament Information Centre ( SPICe) when the Bill is introduced or as soon as possible thereafter. Usually that is about a week before the Sewel debate. As indicated in the attached paper we would, however, be prepared to establish a practice of tabling Sewel motions for consideration by the Parliament after Introduction but before the last amending Stage in the first House which considers it at Westminster, if the Procedures Committee thought it would be helpful to do so. The intention would be to allow more time for the Parliament to consider the Executive's proposals for a Sewel motion while still ensuring that the relevant provisions could be removed from the UK Bill while it was still before the first House in the event that the Parliament withheld its consent.
Finally, Mr Patterson asked what notice the Presiding Officer is given of the intention to lodge Sewel motions for debate. The decision to schedule a debate on a Sewel motion is taken by the Parliamentary Bureau, which is chaired by the Presiding Officer. The Presiding Officer is, therefore, made aware of a Sewel motion at the point at which the Parliamentary Bureau is invited to schedule it. However, I would be happy to send a copy of the Executive's memorandum to the Presiding Officer at the same time as it is provided to the other Business Managers and deposited in SPICe, which as indicated above is normally at the time the UK Bill is introduced or very shortly afterwards.
I hope that this is helpful and, as I have already indicated, I will of course be happy to respond to any further enquiries which the Committee may have.
PATRICIA FERGUSON