Two kinds of MSP

79. MSPs will reach the parliament by two different routes, directly elected by the constituency and off regional lists. We foresee this leading to difficulties as either they find themselves with different status doing different kinds of work or they tread on each other's toes as voters play one off against the other. Problems may be particularly acute if, as could happen, the constituency and regional MSPs represent different parties. Apparently no distinction of function occurs in Germany between directly-elected and list MPs but the comparison is not particularly helpful because there is in Germany not the same tradition of welfare work on behalf of constituents. Mr McLeish, having first said that he hoped there would not be two tiers of MSP,[100] although it would of course be a matter for the Scottish Parliament to resolve, subsequently suggested that though there was a possibility that list MSPs might get more involved in policy and less in constituency matters.[101] He did agree that there would need to be some 'straight talking ... and straight dialogue' about how the issue of constituency work should be resolved as between MPs and the two kinds of MSPs.

Westminster

80. The establishment of the Scottish Parliament is bound to have an impact on the procedures of the House of Commons, in terms of Question Time, the Scottish Grand and Standing Committees, the Scottish Affairs Select Committee and the rules of debate.

81. The role of MPs elected for Scottish constituencies is also likely to change with the disappearance of opportunities to raise non-reserved matters in the House and the shrinkage of their constituency mail-bags (though see paras 77 and 79). Mr Barnes thought that they would 'increasingly become a lobby for Scotland, rather than sitting tight to their party allegiances'.[102] He suggested that this would be a difficult premise for us to accept; certainly it would be another example of the way in which the previously unthinkable is being thought.

82. It is expected that the House will no longer debate devolved matters.[103] The precedent of Stormont before direct rule is cited. Nonetheless, in a climate where the Scottish Parliament, like its analogues in Spain, debates reserved matters, and where the European Parliament regularly debates matters which are strictly outwith its remit, such a rule might prove neither acceptable nor enforceable.

83. It is clear that Committees of this House will retain the power to summon Scottish Ministers to give evidence[104] while the powers of Scottish parliamentary committees would not extend to summoning (as opposed to inviting) UK ministers responsible for reserved matters. In his evidence, Mr McLeish made it clear that he expected there to be very few occasions on which anyone from either parliament would be asked to participate in the work of the other;[105] nonetheless, the imbalance exists.

84. In Germany and in Spain the power to summon, to the extent that it exists, works in the reverse direction from the UK. In Germany, according to Mr Leonardy 'because we have the second chamber organised on the federal system...it goes without saying that the federal Ministers or in most cases their civil servants are obliged to go to the committee if the committee wants to summon them.... Very often we of the Bundesrat ask questions to the representatives of the Federal Government. There is no right of the Bundestag or any committee of it to summon a Land Minister. But this does not mean it does not happen that committees invite Länder Ministers to participate, either give evidence or debate with the Committee.[106] Professor Heywood told us that 'The situation in Spain is identical. There is a reciprocal right of invitation but not to summon'.[107]

85. As to the future of this Select Committee, various suggestions were made to us, mainly designed to address the lack of a public forum for discussing matters of common concern between the Parliaments. Professor Brown suggested 'that in the absence of anything else' it should continue as a means of establishing a relationship between the Scottish Parliament and this one.[108] She agreed that this Committee 'would have a valuable role to play looking at the Scottish aspect of Westminster policies'.[109] Canon Wright thought that there might be regular joint sittings with MSPs.[110] Mr Leonardy suggested an elaborate scheme whereby it might sit together with Scottish Ministers co-opted to the House of Lords.[111] Douglas Sinclair thought that just as COSLA was likely to argue for a parliamentary committee to oversee the relationship between the Scottish Parliament and local government, so there would be 'merit ...in having a mechanism at the ...UK parliament level, which can review the developing relationship between the Scottish Parliament and the UK Parliament'.[112] Mr McLeish saw the 'Select Committee doing a job just now. It may have a job in the future. There are a lot of liaison issues, for example. There are two parts to this. One is during the immediate setting up of the Parliament, for example, for the first four years. That is going to be a difficult task, because setting up an institution is difficult. Therefore, there is potentially a role there for the Select Committee in establishing positive relations. Secondly, beyond that, when the Parliament has bedded in, there will be a changing role. One of the issues will be, what will be the content of the Committee's deliberations here when matters will have devolved to the Scottish Parliament? How best can the Scottish Affairs Committee look at some of the implications of reserved matters and the way in which they impact on Scotland.'[113]

86. We are sure that this Committee will have a valuable role to play following the coming into existence of the Scottish Parliament and Executive. We see it helping to monitor the process of devolution and acting as a forum in which disputes could be aired publicly in a political context; we see no reason why it should not invite MSPs to sit jointly with it in London or Edinburgh. We also, very importantly, see this Committee having a continuing role in carrying out inquiries into the implications for Scotland of UK policies in respect of non-devolved matters (there might even be two Committees, of which one would scrutinise legislation for possible implications for Scotland); we do not think that other departmental select committees, containing in some cases none or at most one or two Scottish MPs, would be able adequately to carry out these functions. It should not be forgotten, either, that any select committee of this House will continue to have the right to summon any Minister of the Scottish Executive and, while we may agree with Mr McLeish that we would not wish to summon we might wish to invite them to give evidence to us. We recommend that the House should amend its Standing Orders to allow the Scottish Affairs Committee to carry out inquiries into the work of all Departments of State insofar as it affects Scotland. We would expect such a committee to be involved in assisting communications between the two Parliaments.

101  Q376. Back

102  Q288. Back

103  The Consequences of Devolution. The Hansard Society p.18. Back

104  Q354. Back

105  Q301. Back

106  Q144. Back

107  ibid. Back

108  Q73. Back

109  Q74. Back

110  ibid. Back

111  Q127. Back

112  Q248. Back

113  Q308. Back