Oral evidence: Inter-institutional relations in the UK, HC 525Tuesday 2 February 2016
Oral evidence, 2 February 2016.
Witness
Lord Steel of Aikwood, former Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament, gave evidence.
Chair
My Lord, welcome to our Committee. If you could just identify yourself for the record, please.
Lord Steel of Aikwood
Yes. I am David Steel. I was the first Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament. May I say, Chairman, I am very hard of hearing and I found it difficult to hear some of your questions to the Secretaries of State, so I hope you will all speak up and take that into account?
Chair
We will make our voices heard. Can I ask the first question? What is your assessment of the level of co-operation and collaboration between the four UK legislatures?
Lord Steel of Aikwood
I am sorry to say that there is no formal mechanism to secure that co-operation. It has all been pretty good and informal, but I always felt that despite the fact that the three Presiding Officers, for example, met quite frequently, simply because we happened all to be members of the House of Lords and therefore had a chance to meet—we did have one or two meetings in Northern Ireland and in Wales—there is no formal mechanism for co-operation between the Parliaments, and I think that is a mistake.
Chair
Moving on, Dame Rosemary Butler, the Presiding Officer of the Welsh Assembly, mentioned that there is a surprising amount of contact that goes on between parliamentarians in the four UK legislatures. How many opportunities are you aware of to meet and co-operate with members of other UK legislatures?
Lord Steel of Aikwood
As I have said, there is plenty of informal contact. But I do think one clear omission in the way that devolution has grown over the years is the failure to create any kind of formal mechanism for the different bodies to meet regularly, or to have representatives meeting regularly. That is something that your Committee might want to chew over.
Mr David Jones
One of the few formal forums that exist between the various Parliaments and Assemblies of the United Kingdom is the quarterly meeting between the Speaker and the Presiding Officers of the devolved Assemblies and Parliaments. What contact did you have with your Speakers in these forums during your time as Presiding Officer?
Lord Steel of Aikwood
It was fairly ad hoc. We happened to know each other and, therefore, we did meet from time to time. But there was no formal mechanism, and there was no set timetable or anything like that.
Mr David Jones
So the quarterly meetings had not been instituted during your time as Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament?
Lord Steel of Aikwood
They just happened as and when we felt like it, which is not really a satisfactory arrangement.
Mr David Jones
What sort of issues did you discuss when you were having your meetings?
Lord Steel of Aikwood
If I can give you an example from Wales, I think I am right in saying that in the Welsh Assembly, you changed the electoral arrangements after the Assembly came into being in terms of people standing or not standing on the list for the constituencies. That was something that we should have considered, I think, collectively, because you now have a different system from the one in Scotland, and it would have been better if we had all been able to march in step on these issues.
Mr David Jones
Did you take the opportunity of discussing issues such as that with your fellow Presiding Officers?
Lord Steel of Aikwood
Yes. Of course, as you know, my successor as Presiding Officer, George Reid, was very active in working with the Welsh Assembly after he ceased to be Presiding Officer. There has been a lot of that sort of informal contact, but as I keep saying, nothing set down on paper.
Mr David Jones
I think that Lord Alderdice arranged a meeting of Speakers and Presiding Officers in 2002. Did you find that a useful meeting, and how unusual was that meeting?
Lord Steel of Aikwood
It is so long ago I cannot remember all we discussed, but yes, it was useful. You have to remember that these institutions were all fairly new and, therefore, we were all feeling our way, and it was quite useful to have some discussion. I think the conclusion we came to was that there lacked any kind of structural tie-in to the UK Parliament. When you look back on it, I would have thought there was quite a case from time to time for having some joint committees, but that has never happened, and there is no specific way to enable it to happen. It would require, I suppose, a new kind of resolution of the devolved Assemblies and the UK Parliament.
Mr David Jones
Was there any suggestion that the 2002 meeting should be repeated?
Lord Steel of Aikwood
I am sure it has been repeated. I do not know, but I am sure it has been, yes.
Mr David Jones
A number of commentators have mentioned the desirability of stronger inter-parliamentary relations. How important would you say stronger inter-parliamentary links are in the United Kingdom?
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
When we first started there were a lot of initial difficulties, if you like, territorial difficulties—I can only speak about Scotland, but I guess the same may have happened elsewhere—between the elected representatives in the territories represented in the Scottish Parliament and those in the United Kingdom Parliament. I had quite a lot of complaints from Scottish MPs about the activities of, not so much the constituency MSPs, but the regional list MSPs in their constituencies. I spent quite a lot of time soothing ruffled feathers. I think that has settled down now, but certainly in the early days it was a bit of a problem.
Mr David Jones
How do you think that better inter-parliamentary relations could be fostered—informally, or through more formal arrangements?
Lord Steel of Aikwood
I would have thought you could have ad hoc joint committees on particular subjects; let’s say the NHS, which is under strain in both England and in Scotland, so why not a joint committee looking at the problems of the NHS? Why keep them in separate compartments? I think if that sort of thing was encouraged it would improve the relations between the Parliaments.
Mr David Jones
Do you think that formal structures should be put in place to achieve this?
Lord Steel of Aikwood
I am just surprised that it has never happened. I suppose it could happen simply by resolution of the UK Parliament and the Scottish Parliament, but it has never happened. I do not think it needs new legislation to happen, it just needs the will of the Parliaments to make it work.
Chair
The intergovernmental relations machinery is currently under review as part of the Memorandum of Understanding being agreed by the four administrations. How do you think that parliamentary scrutiny of intergovernmental relations in both Westminster and the devolved legislatures can be improved?
Lord Steel of Aikwood
One of my hobby horses—you may say this is outside your remit—is that I do believe the upper house of our Parliament, the House of Lords, could be reformed in a way that would make it much more of a quasi-federal institution, bringing together the different component parts. I go back to the Constitutional Commission that was set up by Mr Asquith after the Parliament Act in 1914. It reported in 1918 and was a huge commission. It recruited everybody from the Archbishop of Canterbury downwards. It came up with a quite interesting proposal for what the House of Lords should be—Asquith set it up because he was committed, after the Parliament Act, to replacing the hereditary Chamber with something based on a popular basis. The word used was “popular”, not elected. Unfortunately some people, including people in my own party, did not understand their history and had misinterpreted what Asquith said, but he set up that commission under Viscount Bryce. It suggested that the upper house should be indirectly elected by the House of Commons. If you take that germ of an idea and translate it to today’s situation, you could see an upper house elected by, not just the House of Commons, but by the devolved Assemblies as well, and in that case bringing all four together.
Chair
A very interesting proposal. In terms of scrutiny, that reformed House of Lords would mesh inter-parliamentary relations with better scrutiny—certainly of the Westminster Government, the Whitehall Government—but how would you engage UK parliamentary committees in the joint scrutiny of what is happening in devolved administrations? Because that needs to be the reciprocal arrangement.
Lord Steel of Aikwood
I am jumping ahead, but if you did have a reformed House of Lords, say a new senate, on the basis that I have suggested, then their committees—and the House of Lords committees have a very good reputation at the moment—could continue, but the component elements of it would cover all four institutions.
Paul Flynn
It is fascinating to hear that the proposal of 98 years ago is probably the best thing that we have before us now. Things do work out that way. Can I say, you are uniquely placed, in having served in the Scottish Parliament, to assess how things have proceeded? I believe that you mentioned the links between those who were presiding over the various Assemblies—they did meet up in the House of Lords—but the present member who is presiding in the Welsh Assembly is not a member of the House of Lords. As things look in the future, the Scottish National Party is not putting people in the Lords, and I understand that Jeremy Corbyn is not putting people in the Lords. Do you see this as an erosion of what legitimacy the Lords have in the future and its use as a body where the Presiding Officers did meet?
Lord Steel of Aikwood
As I say, it was just chance that all three happened to be members of the House of Lords. That chance is not going to replicate itself, you are quite right. Therefore, we ought to be searching for some more effective mechanism. Mr Jones has mentioned the meeting that we had in Belfast at the invitation of Lord Alderdice, but it really cannot just be up to the Presiding Officers. There needs to some greater co-ordination between the devolved Governments in my view, not just the Presiding Officers.
Paul Flynn
The process of devolution has its own momentum now, and is going into areas that few people expected in the recent past. Do you share the view that EVEL is more likely to lead to the breakup of the United Kingdom than any other path that is in front of us?
Lord Steel of Aikwood
Do I think that—
Paul Flynn
EVEL, English votes for English laws. By accentuating the divisions between the four nations, is it likely to accelerate the process of the breakup of the United Kingdom?
Lord Steel of Aikwood
I think the EVEL proposal, which stemmed from David Cameron’s press statement immediately after the referendum, is yet another piece of lopsided mechanism, if I can call it that. I do not think it is satisfactory. I am sorry to go back to fundamentals, but I think the process of devolution has happened piecemeal. I just came in at the tail end of what the former Secretaries of State were saying, and I agree with them, it has happened bit by bit. There has been no comprehensive view of how devolution should work. I believe that the basic mistake has been to operate from the centre downwards, rather than from outside upwards. In other words, if you allowed the Scots, and the others as well, to decide what they want to have in the way of powers, and then to surrender to the UK foreign affairs, defence and macroeconomic issues, I think that would be far more in tune with public opinion, certainly in Scotland—I cannot speak for Wales and Northern Ireland—than what we have.
Paul Flynn
One of the predecessors to this Committee had the word “reform” in its title, “constitutional reform”. We do not, we have “Constitutional Affairs”. But that Committee was an enthusiast for a constitutional convention, of taking this approach that would take in the whole of the United Kingdom and suggest a formula that would be fair to the big nation, England, and also the smallest nation, Wales. Isn’t that the only way forward, instead of a staggering on in a piecemeal way, as you have suggested, from the Prime Minister’s statement after the referendum took place?
Lord Steel of Aikwood
Yes, I do think that the best solution would be an updated Bryce Commission. I am not, myself, an enthusiast for a convention. I chaired the Scottish Constitutional Convention, and that worked very well, but it was a small country and every local authority was represented. You can imagine what it would be like if every local authority were in a constitutional convention for the UK. It would be unmanageable. That is the reason I prefer a constitutional commission or, if you like, a royal commission or, indeed, a joint committee of all the Assemblies together working out a new settlement, a new Act of Union. I think that is the way forward.
Paul Flynn
Finally, you mentioned the set up in Wales and Scotland, and the attempt to ensure that both those bodies, the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, were not one party in future, which first past the post would have reproduced. Both of them have introduced elements of proportional representation, possibly not the best elements of proportional representation. The likely outcome of that in a few months’ time will be that UKIP is represented, in possibly considerable numbers, in the Welsh Assembly. What is your view on the wisdom of adopting the mechanisms that they had for those two bodies? Or do you think there would be a better one now that you would like to see introduced, as an enthusiast for proportional representation?
Lord Steel of Aikwood
I was a supporter of the proposal that came from the Scottish Constitutional Convention and was written into the Government White Paper in the early days of the Blair Government. But in the light of experience, I am not sure that the regional list system, which was copied from Germany, is in fact the best one, because it creates two categories of members; those who are directly elected and those who are the sort of topping-up members as well. I do not think that is the most effective system you could have. Equally, having represented a very big constituency, a big one territorially—I was the only MP in the House of Commons who covered three counties, Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles—I was always a bit unenthusiastic about my own party’s policy of multi-member seats, because in the rural areas you would have such a huge area it would have been meaningless. I go back to a Speakers’ conference, was it in the 1930s, that suggested you should have the alternative vote in rural areas, but multi-member seats in the cities and in the big towns. There is no system that is perfect, but I think that would have been a better arrangement.
Paul Flynn
We will go back to the wisdom of Lord Asquith to show us the way to the future.
Lord Steel of Aikwood
Sorry?
Paul Flynn
Lord Asquith is the path to our future enlightenment on this. That is the best idea that is now current, the idea of the House of Commons electing the House of Lords.
Lord Steel of Aikwood
I think that that basic idea could now be developed, given that we now have the other institutions as well.
Chair
We have discussed inter-parliamentary relations, but what is your assessment of the intergovernmental relations between Whitehall and the other administrations?
Lord Steel of Aikwood
I think that has worked rather well. Even with the conflict politically that there now is between them I think it has worked pretty well. I think the role of the Advocate General is important in dealing with legislation, and that has been a new office that has worked extremely well under successive Governments. I do not think we can criticise the lack of co-operation or the lack of contact at intergovernmental level. It is the democratic element that is missing.
Chair
What about things like co-operation on health provision, or the splitting up of the British Transport Police?
Lord Steel of Aikwood
That is a current issue that we are debating in the House of Lords at the moment, and some of us are very much opposed to splitting up the British Transport Police. But that is quite a small detail in the whole scheme of things. On the National Health Service, there are important differences between the policy in Scotland and the policy in the UK, but that is what devolution is about. They are entitled to pursue a different policy if they want to and if they can afford it.
Mr Turner
Can I ask: how is England to be represented in your non-convocation?
Lord Steel of Aikwood
Sorry, how is what represented?
Mr Turner
England. When is England to be represented, and how is England to be represented?
Lord Steel of Aikwood
I think that you have to accept that the United Kingdom Parliament will remain the UK Parliament. I have always believed that just as we used to have a Scottish Grand Committee, there is nothing wrong with having an English Grand Committee that deals with the committee stages of purely English legislation. That is quite close to EVEL, but it is not exactly the same thing, and I think it is following on the example that we already had. I served on the Scottish Grand Committee when I was an MP, and it did work perfectly well until the point came where the Conservative Party in Government was losing so many seats that it became unmanageable because it had a small minority on the Scottish Grand Committee so it sort of collapsed under its own structure. But the basic idea of saying that detailed scrutiny of legislation that applies to only part of one part of the UK should be dealt with just by the members of that part, subject to the overriding UK Parliament at the end of the day having a final say, I think is quite sensible, and it did work quite well in Scotland.
Mr Turner
The House of Lords’ Constitution Committee described the joint ministerial council’s plenary as ineffective and domestic sub-committees as not appearing to serve a useful service. Do you agree with that?
Lord Steel of Aikwood
Sorry, I am not hearing you.
Mr Turner
Sorry, the House of Lords’ Constitution Committee—
Lord Steel of Aikwood
Yes, they said what?
Mr Turner
They said the ministerial council’s plenary was ineffective and domestic sub-committees were not appearing to serve a useful purpose.
Lord Steel of Aikwood
You are talking about the ministerial committees?
Mr Turner
Yes.
Lord Steel of Aikwood
No, I have never been involved in those, so I am not able to answer your question.
Mr David Jones
Dame Rosemary Butler of the Welsh Assembly has expressed her concern that changes to the devolution settlements are being rushed. Do you share that concern?
Lord Steel of Aikwood
Yes, I do. With great respect to Lord Smith, who I think did a great job in the Smith Commission, I think the problem with the post-Scottish Referendum changes again are that they are just piling more ad hockery on top of what is an already ad hoc set of arrangements. For that reason it is slightly unsatisfactory.
Mr David Jones
Do you think that the existing UK institutions are sufficiently well equipped to deal with the sorts of changes that are being proposed and legislated for?
Lord Steel of Aikwood
I would much rather have seen, as I have said already, some cross-discussion between the different institutions before proceeding to further changes. I think that the Chairman was putting that to the previous witnesses. I think that is a sound basis on which to proceed, and I hope it might still happen.
Mr David Jones
What are your views as to the scale of the constitutional changes on the future of the Union itself?
Lord Steel of Aikwood
I do not think there should be any limit to the discussion. I think that is what is interesting about the Committee under Lord Salisbury and their proposals, that he is taking a much wider view than any of the conventional mechanisms, looking at a new Act of Union referring to the whole of the UK. I think that is the right approach.
Mr David Jones
Do you think that the existence of the Union is in danger?
Lord Steel of Aikwood
I hope not. In a funny way, I think we had a lucky escape in the Scottish Referendum. As Lord Forsyth was saying when I came into the room, and he is right about this, we were operating at that time on the assumption of an oil price of—I cannot remember. Was it around $170 a barrel? It is now down sometimes below $30. It would have been very difficult if the vote had gone the other way. I think the Scottish Government would have found themselves floundering. I think we have had a lucky escape, but it is not enough just to say, “We have had that escape; therefore, let’s just tinker with the machinery”. I think we should be having a fundamental look at it. I am very glad your Committee is doing that.
Chair
Lord Steel, you were a supporter of devolution, and you are a Scot with a great deal of experience of both Westminster and Holyrood. When Scottish voters, Scottish people, think about the independence of their country, what do you think they really mean in relation to the rest of the United Kingdom?
Lord Steel of Aikwood
As I said right at the beginning, I believe that most Scots feel independent in the sense that we are very proud of being Scots, that we have our own legal system. I remember Malcolm Rifkind a way, way back when he was Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland. I cannot remember what year this was—
Chair
Mid 1970s.
Lord Steel of Aikwood
In the 1970s. He said that Scotland was the only country in the world with its own legal system that had no democratic mechanism for improving or amending it. I think I am quoting him pretty directly. He was right. So in that sense we Scots have always felt that we are a different country. We have our own heritage—we have our own literature, we have our own music, we have things that we feel proud of—but we are very keen to retain the benefits of the United Kingdom. The only question is: can we update the relationship between Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK in a way that meets those aspirations?
Chair
It is a shame that our SNP colleague is not here, because he is a very productive contributor to this Committee. What should we understand from the SNP’s reluctance to be known as “nationalist” rather than the Scottish National Party? To what extent does that suggest that they have an idea of independence that might not be what we assume it is?
Lord Steel of Aikwood
I think it is very interesting that at the last general election the slogan Nicola Sturgeon—for whom I have great regard, I have known her for a long time—adopted was not, “Vote SNP for independence”. The slogan was, “We stand for a stronger Scotland”, and that really resonated with the public. Yes, we wanted a stronger Scotland, and she articulated that extremely well. I still think that the majority of Scots would prefer to keep within the United Kingdom, but would like to see a bit more muscle behind the Scottish Parliament. That is the conundrum that we face.
Chair
Wish us luck in our dialogues that we are going to take part in at Holyrood next month. Can I finally ask this question of whether there should be another constitutional convention? What is your view on this? The First Minister of Wales has long called for it, although he is very much in support of our more informal dialogues. Your party has been committed to it. But how practical is it as a way forward?
Lord Steel of Aikwood
I support the concept of a constitutional convention, the idea, but the problem is the mechanism. It has to be very carefully thought out because if you have a convention on the model of the Scottish one, as I have said already, it would take years. It would be very unwieldy. I just remind you that the Constitutional Convention of Scotland, from the time when the Claim of Right was started, the discussion on that, to the time when we handed over the finished blueprint, which then was converted into a Government White Paper, that time span was nearly 10 years, and that was dealing with a population of 5 million. If you tried to replicate that for the UK it is difficult to see how it would be done in less than 10 years.
Chair
If we are honest, that convention was as much a campaigning body—
Lord Steel of Aikwood
Sorry?
Chair
That convention was as much a campaigning body for a particular outcome as it was just a thinking body. We have a more difficult problem, haven’t we, because we need to get people who have some very, very fundamental disagreements into the same room?
Lord Steel of Aikwood
The Convention had to operate minus the Scottish National Party and the Conservative Party, which made it a bit lopsided.
Chair
Which meant that the two fundamental disagreements were outside the room.
Lord Steel of Aikwood
Yes. It is a fair point, but it started with a consensus, and you are starting now without a consensus.
Chair
Exactly.
Lord Steel of Aikwood
That is why I tend to favour another commission on the lines of the Bryce Commission of 1918. I think if we had something like that, but really authoritative, with representatives from each of the institutions of the UK, then that might get down to work quite quickly and produce something worthwhile.
Chair
Could we constitute that around a joint committee of both Houses of Parliament?
Lord Steel of Aikwood
Yes, that is my suggestion.
Chair
I think we should end on that very happy note. My Lord, thank you very much indeed.
Lord Steel of Aikwood
Thank you all very much. Oral evidence: Inter-institutional relations in the UK, HC 525 30