HC Deb 25 October 1999 vol 336 cc761-74
The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping)

I beg to move, That, subject always to the discretion of the Chair, and in addition to the established rules of order on the form and content of questions, questions may not be tabled on matters for which responsibility has been devolved by legislation to the Scottish Parliament or the National Assembly for Wales unless the question:

  1. (a) seeks information which the UK Government is empowered to require of the devolved executive, or
  2. (b) relates to matters which:
    1. (i) are included in legislative proposals introduced or to be introduced in the UK Parliament,
    2. (ii) are concerned with the operation of a concordat or other instrument of liaison between the UK Government and the devolved executive, or
    3. (iii) UK Government ministers have taken an official interest in, or
  3. (c) presses for action by UK ministers in areas in which they retain administrative powers.
This motion and the next two spring directly from the fourth report of the Procedure Committee on the procedural consequences of devolution, and the Government's response to that report. Hon. Members will recall that the issues were extensively discussed as recently as last Thursday.

I want to reinforce two points. First, I am extremely grateful to the Procedure Committee for its thorough examination of the process. Devolution will bring about change. The motions before the House implement changes that will accrue over time. Secondly, I wholly agree with the Procedure Committee and the theme of the debate that took place last week: this is not the first time that we have discussed devolution, and it certainly will not be the last time.

Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Inverclyde)

I have submitted a question to the Home Secretary on the changes that he proposes, by way of the Immigration and Asylum Bill, to the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, the Mental Health (Scotland) 1984 and the Children (Scotland) Act 1995. It is important that our right to continue to ask questions of that nature is stressed. If we are to be given the power of questioning Ministers on the operation of a concordat, or other instrument of liaison, between the UK Government and the devolved Executives, surely it is important that this House holds a debate on the memorandum of understanding and the principles underlying the concordats themselves. I should have thought that that holds for the relationship between Cardiff and this place; the relationship between Stormont and this place, assuming things over in Northern Ireland go well this week; and the relationship between Edinburgh and this place. How can we ask questions on concordats and the memorandum of understanding without the Government first laying down the principles underlying the memorandum and the concordats?

Mr. Tipping

My hon. Friend makes important points. He is right to say that the concordat and the procedures lying behind it give hon. Members an opportunity to look at the processes occurring between the Westminster Parliament and the new Scottish Parliament—it is about the mechanics of the operation. My hon. Friend repeated a request made last week for a debate on the concordat and the memorandum of understanding. He will appreciate that, at this stage of the parliamentary cycle, time is extremely pressing and that I cannot give him a commitment today to hold that debate, but I assure him that his cry has not gone unnoticed. I am sure that we shall return to the issue he raises. My hon. Friend is also right to emphasise a point made in last week's debate—that it is important that UK Ministers here in the Westminster Parliament should continue to be questioned about issues that affect hon. Members and their constituents.

At this point, I shall say only that we had a good, long and helpful debate on these matters last week. The House is being asked to approve three motions this evening: the first on questions to Ministers, the second on changes to Select Committees and the third on amendments to Standing Orders relating to the Advocate General for Scotland. Having made those general points and reserving the opportunity to take specific points relating to individual motions later, I hope that the House will endorse the way forward I have set out.

7.12 pm
Sir George Young (North-West Hampshire)

Mr. Deputy Speaker, will you first clarify whether all the remaining motions are being taken together or whether we are to have three separate debates? I understand that the Minister would like them all to be taken together; is that to be the case?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord)

We are currently debating motion No. 5, on questions to Ministers.

Sir George Young

On that specific motion, I agree with the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) that it would be helpful to have debates on the concordats and the memorandums of understanding.

We had a full debate on Thursday, from which the motion arises. I make no apology for repeating a point I made then. The motion defines, in respect of questions to Ministers, what is in order and what is out of order; with one exception, what one can and cannot ask is relatively clear. If a matter has been devolved by legislation to the Scottish Parliament or the National Assembly for Wales", it is out of order here, whereas if the question seeks information which the UK Government is empowered to require", it is in order. If the question relates to areas in which UK Ministers … retain administrative powers", it is in order; likewise, if it relates to legislative proposals introduced or to be introduced in the UK Parliament", or to "a concordat", it is in order.

The grey area can be found in paragraph (b)(iii) which states that a question is in order if it relates to matters where UK Government Ministers have taken an official interest". On Thursday, I asked whether that posed the threat of the whole issue becoming clouded. I gave an example of a UK Government Minister, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, taking an official interest in whether the beef-on-the-bone ban was lifted in Scotland. The moment he took an official interest, hon. Members could table questions on a devolved matter. It would be helpful if, at some point, someone defined exactly what "an official interest" is. Is it any interest declared by a Minister, or can a Minister declare an official interest only if he has responsibility for the matter under the devolution legislation?

I posed that question on Thursday, but, sadly, the Secretary of State for Scotland did not get around to answering it when he wound up the debate. If the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, can shed any light on the definition of "an official interest", it would help to avoid any confusion at Question Time about whether a question was in or out of order.

7.15 pm
Mr. Gareth Thomas (Clwyd, West)

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was unable to catch your eye during last Thursday's debate on the procedural consequences of devolution, so I am grateful to have the opportunity to address the House this evening.

The point is that there are procedural consequences arising out of devolution. To a large extent, the motion before the House reflects those consequences, but I question whether it is sufficiently robust to provide the degree of clarity that Members of Parliament require to do their job. The procedural consequences of devolution are such that we are entering uncharted waters. Although a pragmatic and evolutionary approach might be more in tune with the general approach and predisposition of this House, I submit that clear guidelines are needed.

Such guidelines are needed, first, to eliminate confusion and, secondly, to assist hon. Members in assessing what is or is not in order when tabling questions—we have had already the unhappy experience of considerable confusion occurring during Welsh questions before the summer recess. Thirdly, there is a need to respect both the spirit and the letter of the devolution settlements for both Wales and Scotland. It seems to me that the motion goes a long way toward implementing that principle, which was enunciated in the Procedure Committee's report.

Because the experience in Wales is so often conflated with and subsumed in that of Scotland, I sometimes wonder whether the penny has dropped that the Welsh model of devolution is significantly different from the Scottish. It differs in two ways: first, primary legislative power in respect of Wales remains in Westminster, even in those areas of responsibility where some measure of power has been devolved to Cardiff; and, secondly, the Welsh method of devolution as set out in the Government of Wales Act 1998 could be characterised as "horizontal" in that, even in devolved matters, some secondary legislative and executive powers remain with the Secretary of State for Wales or other Secretaries of State, or are exercised concurrently.

My view, which is shared by many in the Welsh political scene, is that the role of the Secretary of State for Wales will remain crucial if devolution is to be successful in Wales. However, his remaining responsibilities post-devolution are not clear cut. I agree with the Procedure Committee that the Secretary of State's responsibilities will be open to "varying interpretation", although that is perhaps an understatement.

The Procedure Committee recommended and the Government accepted that rules on the orderliness of questions ought also to govern the question of appropriate subjects for Adjournment debates, so the motion is far from being of solely academic interest to Back Benchers representing Welsh constituencies. I note that there are no rules at all with regard to oral supplementaries. Perhaps it would be rather difficult to prescribe rules in that regard.

The preamble to the motion declares the basic principle that no questions should be tabled on matters for which responsibility has been devolved by legislation to the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly or the Welsh Assembly. That is fine and it is to be expected. It is in accordance with the spirit and the letter of devolution, but the motion refers to certain important exceptions, some of which were mentioned by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young).

The first exception is questions that seek information on subjects on which the UK Government are empowered to require information from the devolved body. That is a rather wide exception; I shall give an illustrative example. Section 123 of the Government of Wales Act 1998 includes a catch-all provision that states: Where it appears to the Treasury that any information in the possession or under the control of the Assembly is required for the exercise of any function by the Treasury, the Treasury may require the Assembly to provide the information to the Treasury in such form as the Treasury may reasonably specify.

In my view, and it may occur to other hon. Members, that raises the question whether, in the light of section 123, Welsh Members of Parliament are entitled to ask questions about how the Welsh block, as it used to be called, or the departmental expenditure limit, as it is now called, is spent. Are we entitled to ask specific questions about how the Assembly determines the Budget, bearing in mind that presumably, those are questions that, under section 123, the UK Treasury is empowered to ask?

I shall deal briefly with the other exceptions. The exception under paragraph (b)(i) relates to matters that are included in legislative proposals introduced or to be introduced in the UK Parliament". That is wide in its ambit and somewhat vague, to say the least. I wonder whether it provides the guidance and clarity that hon. Members seek in order to do their job.

Sub-paragraph (ii) deals with matters that are subject to a concordat or other instrument of liaison between the UK Government and the devolved executive". I endorse the view expressed by others that it would be entirely right and proper for the House to debate the concordat and the memorandum of understanding. That, too, is extremely wide.

Paragraph 23 of the memorandum of understanding refers to the Joint Ministerial Committee that is to be established. The terms of reference of that Committee are described, inter alia, as follows: To consider non-devolved matters which impinge on devolved responsibilities, and devolved matters which impinge on non-devolved responsibilities". The question is obvious. Given that the exception refers to the operation of a concordat"— I note that the wording on the Order Paper differs somewhat from the Procedure Committee's recommendation—this exception again is rather wide and vague.

I endorse the comments of the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire with regard to sub-paragraph (iii). What is "an official interest"? We ought to know, and guidance should be provided to the Table Office.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours (Workington)

May I press my hon. Friend on a minor point? I understand that Welsh and Scottish Members want to maximise their right to ask questions in the House about matters relating to Wales and Scotland. If that is their intention, why does my hon. Friend seek to tie Ministers down and make it more difficult for hon. Members, including himself, to ask questions? I do not understand the process through which he is taking us.

Mr. Thomas

I am seeking clarity and a degree of certainty, to allow us to do our job and adjust our practices appropriately. That is what is important. I speak as someone who for many years has been a strong campaigner for devolution.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

My hon. Friend seeks clarity. If we define the circumstances precisely, my hon. Friend, who is a lawyer, will know that, by the definitions that will have to be laid down, we will effectively be limiting the right of hon. Members to ask questions, as he wishes. I am sorry to press him—

Mr. Thomas

Ultimately, devolution raises some thorny procedural issues. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) is to be congratulated on wrestling with some of those issues. I do not pretend that the Government can give definitive answers, and I expect that the Government will wish to follow the strong recommendation of the Procedure Committee that there should be a thorough review of the issues, in the light of experience. That is my concluding point.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield)

The hon. Gentleman was generous enough to be complimentary about the Committee that I chair, and we are grateful for that. Do we not need to limit the questions that can be asked, so that we avoid antagonising the devolved Assembly in Wales and the devolved Parliament in Scotland? We cannot be seen in this House to be dealing with matters that this House has rightly devolved to Edinburgh and Cardiff.

Mr. Thomas

Precisely. We must be true to the spirit and the letter of devolution. I return to the unhappy experience that we had recently with Welsh oral questions. I am anxious to maintain the good name of the House and avoid such confusion. I simply seek a little more guidance and clarity, realising that it may be unrealistic to expect it. We shall have to revisit the subject in the light of experience. I do not necessarily expect definitive answers to the points that I have raised from my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary when he responds for the Government. Clearly, the matter will need to be reviewed.

7.28 pm
Mr. Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove)

I speak as a member of the Procedure Committee, but I do not want it to be assumed that everything that I say is strictly in accordance with the views expressed in the Committee's report. We should acknowledge straight away that we need to make the changes set out in the motion and that, broadly speaking, they cover the right territory in the right way. I hope that the House will approve the changes.

I shall spend a minute or two on the implications of the remarks of the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas). He was trying to balance the interests of Members in this House and their legitimate desire to hold the Government of the United Kingdom to account, and in the case of Welsh Members, to defend the interests of their constituents, with the legitimate concern to ensure that the Assembly in Wales and the Parliament in Scotland are allowed to hold their Governments to account in their own way. It is fair and proper for the House to have regard to their sensitivities and needs, as well as to its own needs. The motion does that, to a reasonable extent.

I am not persuaded by what the hon. Member for Clwyd, West said about the need for a more precisely regulated framework for questions. I have a number of points to make about that.

Precision may be achieved when cases are made, but trying to achieve it at this stage would constrain Members from asking certain questions. It would be better to have one or two test cases, and to search for ultimate tidiness at stage I would be a mistake. Members of the House are persistent and ingenious—one has only to consider the way in which Prime Minister's Question Time has evolved, if that is the right word. Some might say that it has degenerated, but it has a certain formulaic approach that is designed to bypass any of the rules that the House might otherwise have in place so one asks the Prime Minister about his engagements.

I have a feeling that, before long, certain formulas will be devised by which any Member of the House will ask any question he chooses about anything happening in Scotland or Wales. However undesirable that may be thought to be in theory, Members will find a way of achieving it. Trying to devise at this stage a set of rules or a formula that would prevent that from happening would be to search for the holy grail—or possibly the unholy grail, depending on one's particular point of view.

The hon. Member for Clwyd, West made a further suggestion. He said, with some regret, that he thinks it is probably not possible to devise rules covering oral supplementaries. I should think not, and the possibility of having such rules in place is somewhat dubious to say the least. I also think that the Table Office does rather a good job in the House, although I cannot be the only Member who regards submitting a question to it without at least one word of what I have suggested being changed as a major success. It will be able to interpret the rules in the spirit in which they are being put before the House and, again, undue prescription will not be terribly helpful.

What we have done is about the best job available in the circumstances. It has given us a set of words with which we can defend the House from any charge of interference from our Scottish and Welsh parliamentary colleagues, by saying, "We have rules that prevent our Members in the United Kingdom Parliament from interfering." We have the book of rules to show as our defence and, at the same time, the rules are sufficiently flexible for Members of the House, in practice, to do exactly what they like. To me, that seems to be a good balance.

7.33 pm
Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Inverclyde)

I agree with my hon. Friend the Minister and the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) that we cannot at this moment expect to have hard and fast rules concerning the responsibilities of the Assemblies, the Scottish Parliament and this Parliament or the representatives in those legislatures.

I say to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) that, like my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas), I fell off the edge of the list of speakers last Thursday. The hon. Gentleman's report is very fine. For example, I agree with paragraph 37, which argues for informal contacts between Members of the different Assemblies and Parliaments, and since 1 July I have argued that case to the Convenor of the Local Government Committee in the Edinburgh Parliament. We need "official interest" to he defined because there are responsibilities that, to my mind, are not mutually exclusive—for example, to the Scottish Parliament or this Parliament. By and large, I shall confine my remarks to Northern Ireland and Scotland.

A clearer groove is provided by paragraph (c) of the motion, which refers to a question that presses for action by UK ministers in areas in which they retain administrative powers. The example I gave earlier was prompted by a challenge I made to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary during the passage of the Immigration and Asylum Bill. I suggested that it is not up to this Parliament to amend exclusively Scottish Acts of Parliament through that legislation. We are in a grey area here, and I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that, this week, a Member of the Scottish Parliament has tabled two questions concerning the Home Secretary's decision to amend section 12 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 and sections in other Scottish Acts. Am I right to think that, although my right hon. Friend has administrative powers here, the Scottish Parliament has the power to amend the Immigration and Asylum Bill again, when it becomes an Act, in respect of three Scottish Acts?

When the First Minister addressed the Scottish Parliament on 1 July, he said that it had the right to amend some legislation enacted by this Parliament. My hon. Friend the Minister may not be familiar with section 12 of the 1968 Act, but may I use it to give a brief illustration of the Home Secretary's administrative powers? It allows social work directors to assist financially people in desperate need who face a real domestic emergency, and I have used it several times to help poverty-stricken constituents. I have approached my local social work department to argue that moneys should be given to such people.

We in this Parliament are changing that Scottish Act, but this is a grey area. The Immigration and Asylum Bill is obviously a responsibility of the Home Secretary, but I would have thought that those three Scottish Acts could be re-amended, despite what happens to the asylum legislation in this place. There will be conflicts and stresses between this Parliament, the Scottish Parliament and the two Assemblies, whenever the Northern Ireland Assembly gets off the mark.

The motion refers to questioning Ministers in areas in which they retain administrative powers. I have the right to question the Home Secretary on those matters, but do I have the right to question the Secretary of State for Scotland on the implementation of those clauses in the Immigration and Asylum Bill that are exclusively concerned with Scottish matters? To whom do I go?

I have tabled a question to the Home Secretary for answer next week on that very issue. Four or five months ago, I said to him that I thought he was acting ultra vires in respect of those Scottish Acts. Of course, they were passed by the House. The 1968 Act was put through by the late Willie Ross; it is a brilliant piece of legislation, but it has nothing whatever to do with the rest of the United Kingdom. It is a Scottish Act.

I agree that we have to maintain compatibility and mutuality between those Acts of Parliament, but who am I to question about those elements of the Immigration and Asylum Bill—the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Home Secretary? I think that the Home Secretary is out of order in amending those Acts. If he is not, I sincerely hope that the Scottish Parliament will be able to amend the asylum legislation. This is an important issue, particularly as regards people in need. Whether we are discussing the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 or the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, there are many grey areas. Ultimately, when legal challenges are made, those questions will have to be determined not by the judicial committee of the Privy Council, but by a constitutional court.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley (Caernarfon)

The case that the hon. Gentleman makes in relation to Scotland is a lesser case with regard to Wales, because we are dealing with secondary rather than primary legislation. However, in interpreting ambiguous areas of primary or secondary education, the courts have reference to what has been said in this place, the Welsh Assembly or the Scottish Parliament. To that extent, if a conflict is possible, it is extremely important to know where authority lies.

Dr. Godman

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Before we have a constitutional court, perhaps we need a constitutional committee to deal with those problems, which I believe arise with the Bill that is now in the other place. In addition to the informal contacts, which the hon. Member for Macclesfield mentions in paragraph 37 of his report, contact needs to be made between the Parliaments and Assemblies at a level below ministerial. Back Benchers should be able to discuss those matters with our colleagues in other Assemblies. If things go well in Northern Ireland—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. We cannot discuss Northern Ireland in the context of this motion. Moreover, the hon. Gentleman is going a little wide when he talks about liaison. I have listened carefully, because I know that he is trying to make a case in relation to the last part of the motion, but he should not stray wider than that.

Dr. Godman

I am sincerely grateful for your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for referring to Northern Ireland. I was simply going to say that we shall soon debate a similar motion if Senator Mitchell and those obdurate negotiators come to some agreement this week.

Mr. Alasdair Morgan (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the problems of interpretation, which he has rightly brought up, arise only if this House insists on legislating on matters that are devolved to Scotland and on using its powers under clause 28(7) of the Scotland Act 1998 to do so? The way to avoid interpretation problems is for this House to leave it up to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly to take on any consequential changes—or not, as they wish.

Dr. Godman

I could not agree more. As regards assisting people in need, we should be willing to trust the representatives in Edinburgh and Cardiff if they choose to implement legislation differently. We should accept that there will be differences.

Let me return to the question of concordats and the memorandum of understanding. I have an abiding interest in the fishing industry, which is where conflicts will arise. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) and I have the honour of being honorary presidents of the Clyde Fishermen's Association. No one can challenge the fact that the Scottish fishing industry is far more important to Scotland than the English fishing industry is to England. Paragraph B3.12 on page 20 of the memorandum of understanding says: Ministers and officials of the devolved administrations should have a role to play in relevant Council meetings, and other negotiations with EU partners. I take it that we shall have a concordat on the fishing industry and other devolved matters, which will entail, among many other things, attendance at Fishery Council meetings in Brussels. However, I do not want to see a junior Minister there from the Edinburgh Parliament. Although my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) knows a thing or two about fishing, he will not be Minister for a lifetime. It is therefore important that clear guidelines are given.

The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is the lead Department. What I seek, in terms of concordats, is the right to question Ministers in this House on the implementation of decisions taken in Brussels by Fisheries Ministers. Many people, especially north of the border, wrongly believe that MAFF is an English Department and that Scotland now has a fisheries department that is equal to that English Department. However, that is not the case because Ministers in MAFF negotiate on behalf of our fishermen. That is an administrative power. As regards the operation of what I might call a fisheries concordat, discussions need to take place between Ministers here and in the Edinburgh Parliament, but Back Benchers should also be involved in such discussions on behalf of our fishermen constituents.

Everyone in the fishing industry knows that a concordat on safety is not needed because, traditionally and historically, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is responsible for the occupational safety of our fishermen. It always has been, and I agree that that is where it should stay—until we get an independent Scotland, which is many years away. However, on quotas and total allowable catches, this House is responsible for questioning the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I just wonder where the Secretary of State for Scotland comes into this.

Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield)

I have listened to the hon. Gentleman with fascination. That question has been put to the Secretary of State for Scotland on repeated occasions, including last Thursday night, but he appears unable to clarify what his role will be.

Dr. Godman

I do not accept that for one moment, and the hon. Gentleman would not expect me to do so. He is being provocative in a parliamentary way.

I am raising a serious issue: will Scottish Members question the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or the Secretary of State for Scotland on these matters? If the Ministry is the lead Department, I want to be treated as an equal when I get to my feet to voice the concerns of my fishermen.

There should be a memorandum of understanding on the relevant constituency roles of Members of this place and Members of the Scottish Parliament. Responsibilities have changed. In response to the question put to my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West, I say that responsibilities have changed dramatically—for instance in health and education, which are now the responsibility of MSPs. However, even in health, a Minister might have an official interest in a health matter where the lead is taken by the Department of Health in Westminster. For example, if a decision is taken to abolish the use of electroconvulsive therapy in the treatment of depression, the Scottish Health Minister may take the lead, and we would have something to say in this place.

I welcome the motion. I agree with the Minister and the hon. Member for Hazel Grove that we cannot have hard and fast rules, but it is important that Ministers respect our interest in matters that fall between reserved and devolved powers.

7.50 pm
Mr. Alasdair Morgan (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I want briefly to raise just one matter of interpretation—not nearly as many as the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman). My hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney) raised this issue in the debate last Thursday, and it has been partially alluded to by the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas). The first exception to the rules on questions is that a question can be tabled if it seeks information that the UK Government are empowered to require of the devolved Executive. I accept that that is reasonable in a devolved system—which is not one that I would choose. It is reasonable that if the UK Government are empowered to ask for such information, Members of the House should equally be empowered to ask questions about it.

However, we must consider that rule in conjunction with clause 96 of the Scotland Act 1998. The hon. Member for Clwyd, West referred to the equivalent clause in the Government of Wales Act 1998, which deals with questions that the Treasury can ask of the devolved legislatures. He said that the clause in the Government of Wales Act was fairly broadly drawn, but it is narrowly drawn compared with the clause in the Scotland Act.

The clause in the Government of Wales Act refers to the Treasury asking for information for the purposes of the operation of the Treasury, or some such phrase. Clause 96 in the Scotland Act makes no such stipulation; it simply says: The Treasury may require the Scottish Ministers to provide, within such period as the Treasury may reasonably specify, such information, in such form and prepared in such manner, as the Treasury may reasonably specify. Those qualifications are to do with the period or the form in which the information must be provided. There are no qualifications on the subject matter of the information for which the Treasury can ask.

All hon. Members realise, I am sure, that the Treasury is a reasonable Department and would not possibly ask Scottish Ministers to provide information that was not germane to the running of the Treasury. I suspect that that clause enables the Treasury to ask the Scottish Parliament to provide any information that it wants. That drives a coach and horses through these amendments to Standing Orders. If the Treasury can ask the Scottish Parliament to provide any information, Members of the House should be able to ask questions about any information for which the Treasury might ask—not information for which it has asked, but for which theoretically it might ask in the future.

We need clarification of this issue. Will the Minister reassure me? I do not see how he can, because the problem is not with the amendments to Standing Orders, but with clause 96 of the Scotland Act and the equivalent clause in the Government of Wales Act 1998.

The hon. Member for Hazel Grove argued that hon. Members will always find a way round the prescriptions that we are trying to put into Standing Orders. What on earth are we doing here if we know that, whatever we say, a way will be found to get round the amendments? I would rather waste my time doing something else than debating an issue of purely academic interest. I would welcome the Minister's reassurances on this matter.

7.54 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping)

I am pleased that colleagues who sat through the long debate on Thursday and did not get an opportunity to speak have recycled their speeches tonight, albeit on narrower points. In a sense, the narrower the point becomes, the more difficult it is to answer. There has been a curious tension in this short debate between those who want greater clarity and certainty and those from the grey camp who appreciate the benefit of this field being wide open so that discussions continue and practice develops. I would be foolish to try to resolve all the issues that have been raised.

We should listen to the voices of those who want greater opportunities rather than those who want greater prescriptiveness. There will clearly need to be a balance, and the Procedure Committee considered that balance carefully. The Committee, in its report, made important strides forward. It acknowledged the need to keep this matter under review. That may be the only point of clarity that we can achieve tonight, but it is an important first stake in the ground.

A second important stake in the ground is the recognition that this is a two-way process. Devolution is still in its infancy, and we must develop appropriate relationships with colleagues, whether at ministerial or Assembly level. As my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) said, we also need to go below that and talk to Members of the Assemblies.

It is incumbent on all of us to set a pattern of good behaviour. It is also important to consider any responses we receive. A good relationship is like a good marriage: we may have flaming rows, but we stay together and keep discussing matters. The question of who does what and what belongs to each other is in that area. We should allow the process to develop, discuss the issues, and be honest with each other.

A specific question was asked about the effect of the proposed motion on questions to Ministers. All that can be said at this stage is that it provides the basis for the Chair to decide whether a question is in order. It reflects the current rules of the House, modified to take account of devolution. There will always be grey areas. Our whole proceedings contain grey areas, and we are always trying to define responsibility and to find the right answers.

The Chair uses discretion in these matters. It is important that we protect the integrity of the Chair and preserve that discretion. However, ultimately a pattern will develop over a period that will set precedents in the House.

Mr. Grieve

I may be pre-empting the Minister's comments, but, with particular reference to the issue raised by the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman), I noted from the Order Paper that an answer was supposed to be published today—I do not know whether it has been—to a question about the executive functions of the Secretary of State for Scotland. Will the Minister refer to that when he seeks to answer the questions that have been raised?

Mr. Tipping

I can make no reference to that, because I have not seen the answer to the question, but I will make inquiries.

A number of Members asked why the terms of paragraph (b)(ii) of the motion differ slightly from the wording in the Procedure Committee's report. The straight answer is that time overtook us: the report was agreed before the memorandum of understanding and the concordat were published. All matters, whether devolved or not, are in theory covered by the concordat. The original wording would therefore have enabled questions to be asked about all devolved matters, but the revised wording makes it clear that questions can be asked about the mechanics of liaison with the devolved Administrations. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde earlier, the process rather than the outcome is under examination.

My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) and the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Morgan) raised a number of issues relating to innocent financial matters. Would the House still be able to debate expenditure in Scotland and Wales? Again, I feel that this involves a grey area, which will require testing. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) said that the House contained imaginative characters who would find new devices, but I think that it has been acknowledged, essentially, that the block grant will remain the responsibility of the two Secretaries of State. That means that the Estimates will be approved by the House, and that there will be ample opportunities for Members to discuss them. The real debate—the real area of potential disagreement—will, I think, focus on how the money is subsequently distributed, on a different basis. I should like to be able to give a clear answer now, but I think we shall have to work on this.

My hon. Friend also made an important point, which accorded with what he said about having good working relationships with colleagues in different bodies representing the same area. One point of conflict is likely to be the way in which constituency correspondence is handled. Some hon. Members are smiling. I am aware that this has already given rise to one or two flashpoints, and it is another matter on which we shall need to work, but guidance has already been issued to Departments.

The general expectation is that constituency correspondence on non-devolved matters should be routed through a Westminster Member of Parliament, and that letters about devolved matters should be dealt with through a Member of the devolved legislature. If a Member of the devolved legislature writes to a United Kingdom Minister about a non-devolved matter, a substantive reply will, I think, be sent. I do not think that there is any belief that a substantive reply will have to be sent, but the advice in the letter from Ministers suggests that in future the constituent who has raised an issue relating to a reserved matter ought to raise it through a Westminster Member of Parliament. That will require a good deal of give and take. There will be difficulties, but if we are determined to make the process work it is incumbent on us all to do our best.

Mr. Wigley

It is clearly incumbent on us to do our best, but I think it unfair to expect constituents to know exactly where the demarcation lies. That applies particularly in Wales, where the legislative function may lie in Westminster while the Executive and secondary legislative function may lie in Cardiff. That must be a matter of give and take between members.

Mr. Tipping

That is a strong point. It must be recognised that, while we struggle with the issues here, constituents may have greater problems in resolving them. I have always believed that we are not the fount of all wisdom: occasionally we get things wrong, and a good deal of common sense exists among the electorate. I agree that we shall have to work at it, and that there will have to be a good deal of give and take.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield)

If a United Kingdom Department received a letter from, say, a Member of the Scottish Parliament about a reserved matter, would there be any objection to a substantive reply being sent to the MSP, but a copy being sent automatically to the Member of the United Kingdom Parliament representing the area in which the MSP had his or her constituency?

Mr. Tipping

There might be a good deal of sense in that, but I feel that we must respect confidentiality. Although in principle I would like to support that idea, I think that it involves clear issues of confidentiality and respect. I hope that, as we all become more accustomed to the procedures, we shall make further progress.

Dr. Godman

I do not think that we have publicised sufficiently the responsibilities of MSPs and MPs in Scotland. Constituents, especially elderly constituents, may be confused. I am currently dealing with a health case involving a constituent, who has told me that she has no desire to consult the local MSP. There are four MSPs in my area, so it is a complicated matter, and I think that better publicity would help constituents to knock on the right door.

Mr. Tipping

One answer might be to consult the guidance note that will shortly be placed in the Library. It will set out as clearly as possible the division between reserved and devolved matters under devolution legislation. I know that many of my colleagues use the Library research papers as a way of informing members of the general public. I accept, however, that much work remains to be done.

The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) asked for a definition of official duties and official interests, and I should like to be able to give him a clear example. Let me attempt to explain how I think the system will work.

It seems to me that if Ministers of the Crown are taking an interest in various items and are going around the country making statements and speeches and, in a sense, trying to influence policy-making, Back Benchers will notice that. I feel that such Ministers would be showing an "official interest". Again, this is a grey area, but technically they should not be going beyond their ministerial responsibilities. If they are unwise enough to speak out of turn and take an official interest in matters that are not technically their preserve in terms of a reserved-devolved list, I do not think that it would be unreasonable for Back-Bench Members to use their wits, and the resources of the Table Office, to question them. As I have said, however, it is a grey area, and one to which I am sure we shall return.

That brings me back to where I started, and to where the Procedure Committee left off. These are difficult issues. As I said at the outset, this is not the first occasion on which we have discussed devolution, and I am sure that it will not be the last. Many Members on both sides of the House have anxieties. They appreciate and can identify the conflicts. We need to be honest with each other and to admit that there are difficulties and conflicts. However, we have decided on the current route and we should all use our best endeavours to make the system work.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That, subject always to the discretion of the Chair, and in addition to the established rules of order on the form and content of questions, questions may not be tabled on matters for which responsibility has been devolved by legislation to the Scottish Parliament or the National Assembly for Wales unless the question:

  1. (a) seeks information which the UK Government is empowered to require of the devolved executive, or
  2. (b) relates to matters which:
    1. (i) are included in legislative proposals introduced or to be introduced in the UK Parliament,
    2. (ii) are concerned with the operation of a concordat or other instrument of liaison between the UK Government and the devolved executive, or
    3. (iii) UK Government ministers have taken an official interest in, or
  3. (c) presses for action by UK ministers in areas in which they retain administrative powers.