|
COMMISSION ON THE POWERS AND ELECTORAL
ARRANGEMENTS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY FOR WALES
|
|
|
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
|
|
of the
|
EVIDENCE OF:
|
LORD JAMES DOUGLAS-HAMILTON QC, MSP
|
|
held at
|
|
The Caledonian Hilton, Edinburgh
|
|
on
|
|
Wednesday, 12th February 2003
|
|
| THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for coming, it is
very good of you to give up the time. We are anxious to
hear what it is you have to tell us. I wonder if, for
the sake of the record, you could just formally identify
yourself so we all know who you are. |
| LORD JAMES DOUGLAS HAMILTON: Yes, James Douglas Hamilton,
I am list MSP for Lothians. David McLetchie gives his
sincere apologies but through inescapable commitments
he can’t be present this morning but I will do my
very best to answer your questions. |
| THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Your experience in
the Assembly and Parliament is really quite great. |
| LORD JAMES DOUGLAS HAMILTON: I have been, for two years,
a business manager for my own Party which is ultimately
a bit like being a Shadow Leader for the House. We fix
the business each week because the four Business Managers
meet each week with the Presiding Officer. I am also Justice
Spokesman so I hope I will be able to give you any information
you require. |
| THE CHAIRMAN: How does that actually work, how do you
fix the programme, is it the usual channels, Scottish
usual channels? |
| LORD JAMES DOUGLAS HAMILTON: Yes. They meet on each
Tuesday about lunch-time or just after for a meeting which
decides exactly what the business will be for the following
week and they choose for example what would have been
Private Members debates and they work through the agenda
and they also for example have to consider whether any
foreign President wishes to come, whether there should
be a meeting before the whole Parliament or whether it
should be a private meeting just before the Parliament
sits. In fact the Queen was the first to give a full address
to the whole Parliament but that kind of issue is decided
by the Parliamentary Bureau. |
| THE CHAIRMAN: Is there a time as such? |
| LORD JAMES DOUGLAS HAMILTON: For the Bureau’s recommendations. |
| THE CHAIRMAN: There are a certain number of days? |
| LORD JAMES DOUGLAS HAMILTON: Yes, there are for opposition
Parties certainly and if they are dissatisfied with any
particular issue, in fact there is opposition time this
morning for the SNP and they are debating education and
economic growth. The debates tend to be very short, the
speeches are time-limited. |
| THE CHAIRMAN: What sort of time? |
| LORD JAMES DOUGLAS HAMILTON: In the middle the speeches
tend to be three minutes or four minutes. |
| THE CHAIRMAN: As short as that? |
| LORD JAMES DOUGLAS HAMILTON: As short as that but the
opening speeches, perhaps it might be best if I give you
a photocopy of how long the opening statements and closing
statements are. For example it is different from one hour
to four hours, for one hour, the Executive would have
ten minutes, for four hours it would be twenty five minutes
and there is a time limit for each of the closing speeches.
The bigger the Party, the longer the speaking time. |
| MR VALERIO: Has that been since the inception of the
Parliament or was that introduced as a result of the Members
talking too long? |
| LORD JAMES DOUGLAS HAMILTON: This was brought in about
a year after, there was considerable debate about it because
it was giving lesser time for the Liberal Democrats and
the Conservatives because they had fewer MSPs but they
worked out a rota. Perhaps it would be best if I gave
you a photocopy.... |
| THE CHAIRMAN: But all debates are time-barred? |
| LORD JAMES DOUGLAS HAMILTON: Perhaps if I might hand
this.... |
| THE CHAIRMAN: But all debates are time limited? |
| LORD JAMES DOUGLAS HAMILTON: All debates are time limited,
the premise being this should be a family friendly Parliament
but the contentious area is stage 2 or what would be the
report stage in the House of Commons and these debates
have had to be extended, sometimes to seven o’clock
at night and maybe they will have to be extended later. |
| SIR MICHAEL WHEELER BOOTH: My understanding of the Business
Committee is that it was based on the old Convention and
then the CSG or whatever it was called plan - it was all
meant to be open and much more like a European Parliament
like a Bureau and the Speaker or Presiding Officer was
to be a Chairman. |
| LORD JAMES DOUGLAS HAMILTON: Yes. |
| SIR MICHAEL WHEELER BOOTH: And it was all to be very
sort of, a Parliament without the politics so to speak
and there wasn’t to be an equivalent figure to the
Private Secretary to the Government Chief Whip. I think
this was the intention back in 1988? |
| LORD JAMES DOUGLAS HAMILTON: Yes. |
| SIR MICHAEL WHEELER BOOTH: And my impression, well let
me ask you, I believe now there is weighted voting in
the Bureau? |
| LORD JAMES DOUGLAS HAMILTON: Yes there is. |
| SIR MICHAEL WHEELER BOOTH: Which means that the Government
can always gets its way? |
| LORD JAMES DOUGLAS HAMILTON: It means that the largest
Party can get its way even if its partner in the coalition
doesn’t vote with it, if say the Conservatives voted
with the Labour Party, as they have on at least several
issues in the past, they have a majority even without
the Liberal Democrats and so the major Party has to have
a working relationship with at least one other Party,
if not the coalition in order to get its legislation. |
| SIR MICHAEL WHEELER BOOTH: So it is not weighted in
the sense that its naturally mathematically skewed. |
| LORD JAMES DOUGLAS HAMILTON: Yes it is but of course
the Conservatives have more, have greater weighted representation
than the Liberal Democrats so if for example a measure
was opposed by the SNP but supported by the Conservatives
- the SNP and Liberals were against it, the Conservatives
and the Labour Party would have a majority. That has happened
on one or two occasions. For example not legislation there
was a recent vote on the Iraq issue and on the floor of
the chamber and Labour and Conservatives had the majority. |
| SIR MICHAEL WHEELER BOOTH: And you are saying to me,
I understand there is now a figure a little like a Private
Secretary to the Government Chief Whip in the House of
Commons, in other words there is an official who does
quite a lot of negotiating and working out of the business
in advance? |
| LORD JAMES DOUGLAS HAMILTON: Yes. I ought to explain
what is quite different from the House of Commons or indeed
the House of Lords is that there is a public service working
for the Parliament and this is particularly noticeable
with Committee Bills which are not known in the House
of Commons because there is the Minister and his Civil
Servants and there is the Parliamentarian promoting the
Bill on behalf of the Committee with the public servants
who have helped for the Parliament, who have helped draft
the Bill and then there are a third group, the Back Benchers
considering it so this is very much a different initiative
which has come in and it has been seen to work very well
to date. |
| THE CHAIRMAN: So that is a group of research people
and advisers and all the rest of it who help opponents
of the Bill not just Civil Servants? |
| LORD JAMES DOUGLAS HAMILTON: They are more than researchers,
they are actually public servants, public servants working
for the Parliament, they are fully qualified lawyers and
assistants who help with the drafting so it is like having
two sets of Civil Servants, one for the administration,
one for the Parliament. |
| MR JONES: Are they accountable to the Permanent Secretary,
those Civil Servants that work for the Parliament? |
| LORD JAMES DOUGLAS HAMILTON: Who? |
| MR JONES: To the Parliament? |
| LORD JAMES DOUGLAS HAMILTON: Yes, yes they work quite
closely together if there is a Committee Bill. There is
obviously liaison between them and in the Committee the
Minister appears and he states his view and then there
is a vote and occasionally the Minister loses but not
all that often. |
| MR PRICE: The non-Executive Bills unit is responsible
to the Parliamentary body and no way to the Executive? |
| LORD JAMES DOUGLAS HAMILTON: That’s right, they
are responsible to the Parliament, that’s right and
to answer your earlier question, the principles of open-ness,
transparency and accountability are the principles which
were stated in the CSG report to which you referred. |
| SIR MICHAEL WHEELER BOOTH: But how far in practice has
that turned out to be the truth or if I may put it rather
crudely, how far is the business of the Parliament stitched
up in advance before the Bureau, the formal body which
lays on hands of approval and sanctification on something
that has been pre-arranged or is it actually as the CSG
want it? |
| LORD JAMES DOUGLAS HAMILTON: I think it is actually
as the CSG want it and it has succeeded because the opposition
Parties have a large amount of their own time to which
they can allocate any subject for which there is Ministerial
responsibility and the Parliament is extremely fast moving,
the obvious example is six votes in the House of Commons
could take an hour and a half, in the Parliament it is
over in seconds and an enormous amount of legislation
is going through. The danger is that because it is going
so fast sooner or later a mistake may be made but I would
defend the Parliament because even if a mistake is made
the matter can be revisited very quickly and put right. |
| THE CHAIRMAN: Can I follow the legislation processes
here. How much, approximately how much of the Parliament’s
time do you reckon is spent on legislation if you are
passing Bills? |
| LORD JAMES DOUGLAS HAMILTON: A great deal, a great deal.
There is a huge amount. What is again different from the
House of Commons is that if a Bill doesn’t succeed
within a year it doesn’t fall, it continues during
the four year span and a great many Bills have gone through
already and there is a rush to get them through before
the elections, they will fall at the end of the four years
fixed term but an enormous amount of legislation, not
all of it contentious, has gone through. |
| THE CHAIRMAN: The process, there’s a First reading
and Second reading? |
| LORD JAMES DOUGLAS HAMILTON: The first Stage and then
Stage 2 with the amendments like the Report Stage and
Stage 3 like the House of Lords. |
| THE CHAIRMAN: There is no Committee stage as such? |
| LORD JAMES DOUGLAS HAMILTON: Yes, very much so, the
Committees, this is again a fundamental difference from
the Commons, the Committees are far more powerful than
in the House of Commons because they combine the powers
of the Select Committee with those of a Standing Committee
and the first task they have after stage 1 is to take
evidence, which they do very thoroughly and then there
are amendments which follow and after that stage 2 and
then eventually there is stage 3. |
| SIR MICHAEL WHEELER BOOTH: Is it your impression that
the Committee system here is a far better procedure than
exists in either House at Westminster? |
| LORD JAMES DOUGLAS HAMILTON: To say whether or not it
is better I think you would have to have a little bit
more experience to judge but what I can say with certainty
is it is infinitely more powerful. If I may give an example,
the abolition of warrant sales, Tommy Sheridan, the Scottish
Socialist Party, wanted to abolish warrant sales as a
degrading practice. This went before three Committees
which had supported his aims, the Minister tried to amend
it and there was a rebellion on the Labour Back Benches
and the Minister withdrew his amendment. This is the Deputy
First Minister, Jim Wallace, and he did what I think was
unheard of in the House of Commons, that was because the
Committees are so much more powerful when they have taken
evidence, considered something and expressed the view
in draft legislation. They then sought to play a part
in what would have been the House of Lords role in the
United Kingdom Parliament because there is no second chamber.
They therefore have to be much more careful they get the
drafting right in the first place, if they have expressed
a view it’s not so easy for the Minister to amend
it. |
| SIR MICHAEL WHEELER BOOTH: Sorry, it’s just, I
asked you earlier, perhaps in a rather different world,
I chose good, better, if we put in the word ‘effective’? |
| LORD JAMES DOUGLAS HAMILTON: It is certainly much faster,
the whole process. |
| SIR MICHAEL WHEELER BOOTH: Is it more effective scrutiny
of legislation? |
| LORD JAMES DOUGLAS HAMILTON: It is more effective in
the sense that much more time is given to it. Whether
it is, because it is so fast moving I think sooner or
later there is a danger of making a mistake and that addresses
the issue whether it is better or not. Over the Land Reform
legislation - that is contentious and for example the
compulsory purchase powers given to crofting communities
with Executive support, now what I would suggest is that
if something goes wrong and investment dries up as a result
with unemployment, then the Parliament will be able to
look again at that issue and change the law if necessary. |
| MR THOMAS: Could I just check, the Committees, are these
the Subject Committees? |
| LORD JAMES DOUGLAS HAMILTON: Yes. |
| MR THOMAS: They are quite small, aren’t they, some
of them in terms of numbers of Members? |
| LORD JAMES DOUGLAS HAMILTON: Yes. |
| MR THOMAS: Does that create a problem in terms of the
weight of legislation that is going through? |
| LORD JAMES DOUGLAS HAMILTON: No. We have 129 MSP’s
so there is a sufficient number to man the Committees
and to deal with the legislation. |
| MR THOMAS: One of the things we are looking at is to
what extent the National Assembly ought to move to primary
legislation, if you had say half the number of MSP’s
do you think you could sustain the same legislation through-put? |
| LORD JAMES DOUGLAS HAMILTON: I think if there is a smaller
number of MSP’s you would have to amalgamate some
of the Committees. You would probably have to have less
legislation which might not necessarily be a bad thing,
because there is a four year term to deal with it and
there shouldn’t necessarily be a great rush to get
the thing through but I think in the first four years
obviously there is some anxiety to prove the effectiveness
of the New Parliament. Therefore, there was a premium
on dealing with matters reasonably expeditiously. |
| THE CHAIRMAN: Can I come back to the Committee. The
Bill, it is introduced, it gets a second reading, it then
goes into Committee, now the Committee, it is a Subject
Committee? |
| LORD JAMES DOUGLAS HAMILTON: Yes. |
| THE CHAIRMAN: And it is the Subject Committee that does
the equivalent of the Committee stage, Standing Committee
in the House of Commons? |
| LORD JAMES DOUGLAS HAMILTON: Yes but before it goes
into that stage it takes evidence from all interested
bodies and that is a lengthy process. |
| THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, then it goes through its Committee
stage and it comes back on the Report stage? |
| LORD JAMES DOUGLAS HAMILTON: Yes. |
| MS McALLISTER: Doesn’t it go to Committees before
a major plenary debate? |
| LORD JAMES DOUGLAS HAMILTON: Yes it does, that’s
right. This is comprised of three stages. At Stage 1,
the lead committee considers the general principles of
the Bill and then reports to a full meeting of the Parliament.
If the Parliament votes in favour, the Bill moves on to
Stage 2. The lead committee undertakes a detailed scrutiny
of the Bill at Stage 2, this involves the taking of evidence
and members of the committee may lodge amendments at this
stage. The amended version of the Bill then proceeds to
Stage 3 when it is debated and voted on at a full meeting
of the Parliament. MR ROWLANDS: Can you give a shot at
what percentage of Committee time is taken up in legislation,
I realise it may vary from Committee to Committee but
something like the Justice and Home Affairs Committee
- would they spend something like half its time legislating,
what percentage are you talking about? |
| LORD JAMES DOUGLAS HAMILTON: Yes, well I would say at
least half, there has been actually so much legislation
before the Justice Committee it had to be split into two
Committees. There was also I think a big review of the
Prison Service and also the Procurator Fiscal Service,
they had to split these responsibilities and there is
a big Justice Bill going through just now which has a
large number of measures within in. |
| MR ROWLANDS: So it is a bit of a Trojan Horse in the
Committee structure in terms of, compared to its other
tasks in trying to think of long term policy or scrutinise
and check the Executive in every respect. |
| LORD JAMES DOUGLAS HAMILTON: Yes. It is up against it,
although there is much more time in the House of Commons
there is still time constraints in order get through the
huge workload because they have set themselves so many
tasks. |
| THE CHAIRMAN: The impression I get is that it is a very
disciplined Parliament if I can put it that way, in the
sense that, people sort of accept restrictions - if you
like, disciplines? |
| LORD JAMES DOUGLAS HAMILTON: Yes. I am also on the Standards
Committee and there are very, very strict rules laid down
by the Code of Conduct. I believe that it is unlikely
that MSP’s will get into serious trouble because
the rules are so strict they are likely to be pulled up
very quickly before they are in danger of transgressing
to any serious extent, at least that is my hope - the
rules are very strict and they are being followed. |
| SIR MICHAEL WHEELER BOOTH: Is that better than the practice
at Westminster? |
| LORD JAMES DOUGLAS HAMILTON: It is different. It is
different, I would say it is more business-like in that
people have more regular hours, they come in early in
the morning. What is also different is that there is much
less correspondence, much more E-mail so it is meant to
be a paper-less Parliament and in fact there is no bound
Hansard. It is all on the computer, on the Internet so
it is readily available but to the best of my knowledge
there are no bound volumes of the records of proceedings
although each day’s proceedings are printed the next
day. |
| MS SUGAR: Can I ask about the role of the Business Committee
in relation to the Sewel amendments and how agreement
is sought as to whether something is going to be treated
in that way? |
| LORD JAMES DOUGLAS HAMILTON: Well I think there are
two points about this, the first is the Executive - my
understanding is the Executive will not propose controversial
subjects as Sewel motions, for example in the Fire Service
strike if there was emergency legislation at Westminster
if the First Minister sought to bring forward emergency
legislation after the main elections as he has indicated
he might that would be a separate Bill. He would not do
that as a Sewel motion because that would be considered
too controversial but there is a second point I should
mention, the SNP on principle oppose all Sewel motions
because their belief is that an independent Scottish Parliament
should consider all legislation and therefore they oppose
that on principle. The Scottish Conservative and Unionists
support Sewel motions in general. For example it may be
in the area of drugs or asylum or home affairs or some
issue which touches on devolved responsibility or cross
Border Policing I think was the subject of a Sewel motion,
we have so far always supported them. |
| MS SUGAR: How does it actually go through, what is the
procedure? |
| LORD JAMES DOUGLAS HAMILTON: There is a vote. There
is usually a 45 minute debate and then there will be a
motion to approve the Sewel motion, whatever the subject
may be, cross Border Policing, Police Forces are entitled
to cross the Border in support of each other or words
to that effect, perhaps more eloquently expressed and
then there is a vote and it goes through with the SNP
voting against. |
| THE CHAIRMAN: But in Westminster it comes back to you
and there has to be another Sewel motion, as I understand
it. |
| LORD JAMES DOUGLAS HAMILTON: Westminster usually passes
it first, it then comes to us in the form of a Sewel motion,
later, to apply the same terms to Scotland but to the
best of my knowledge there has been no case of a Sewel
motion being rejected by the Parliament. |
| MS McALLISTER: Can you just clarify the position of
the Scottish Conservatives. I may be mistaken in this
but maybe the academics have been mistaken but I thought
the Conservatives weren’t entirely happy with the
routinisation of the Sewel motion. Is that correct? |
| LORD JAMES DOUGLAS HAMILTON: Yes that’s right,
that is right because we are a Unionist Party and we think
for example on the issue of Prevention of Terrorism that
policy should apply throughout the United Kingdom. We
have always supported the Sewel motion on a practical
measure and where that was in the public interest, but
the SNP will always vote against it on principle because
they want independence. |
| SIR MICHAEL WHEELER BOOTH: You mentioned that you were
a List Member. |
| LORD JAMES DOUGLAS HAMILTON: Yes. |
| SIR MICHAEL WHEELER BOOTH: What are your views on the
electoral system and membership and how it has worked
to date? |
| LORD JAMES DOUGLAS HAMILTON: I have to say that years
ago in the House of Commons when the Scotland and Wales
Bill was being debated, we had a free vote on proportional
representation and I voted for the additional members
system at that time. Now many of my Party didn’t
at that time, it is many years ago, but Mr Chairman you
will remember that very clearly, anyway the additional
members system, which is very similar to the West German
system, is working very well and effectively. |
| SIR MICHAEL WHEELER BOOTH: And there is no sort of two-tier
membership? |
| LORD JAMES DOUGLAS HAMILTON: There is as far as allowances
are concerned. There was a row about that at the beginning
of the Parliament because List MSP’s get reduced
allowances in comparison to constituency MSPs and the
reason for that was a political one - that the locally
elected MSP did not want to have a rival List MSP with
an office just down the road so what in fact happens is
List MSPs have one office in the region which they may
share with another list MSP. I am expressing this in very
simplistic terms and the allowances office could give
you the details if you wanted them. There are a number
of cases of friction and complaints which have been made
to the Speakers Committee and to the Standards Committee
about List MSPs not necessarily describing themselves
correctly as local, giving the impression of being local
MPs and the local MP objecting and there have been very
clear guidelines laid down by the Speaker which the Standards
Committee is enforcing. We have had a number of complaints
and although I don’t think we have applied any sanctions
we have been given very strong guidance and urged on that
guidance. We have supported the Speaker’s guidance
which was in the form I think of a concordat but the Speaker’s
office can readily provide you with that. We have made
it very clear that must be followed but the system at
present is if a constituent writes to a List MSP and he
takes up that constituent’s enquiry he must inform
the local MSP at the same time. |
| SIR MICHAEL WHEELER BOOTH: You send a copy of your letter
to the Minister, to the constituency? |
| LORD JAMES DOUGLAS HAMILTON: It doesn’t need to
be a copy, the local MSP must be told Mrs Smith’s
enquiry is being raised on issues of health, whatever
it is, it may be confidential so the individual may not
want that but the local MSP must be told and that is not
just a courtesy, it is regarded as a rule. |
| MR ROWLANDS: Can I just ask your personal opinion about
what you think should happen if, as is likely now, that
with the reduction in Scottish representation at Westminster
there will be no longer the appropriate number of 70 something
seats, to create the 129 Member Scottish Parliament. |
| LORD JAMES DOUGLAS HAMILTON: Yes. |
| MR ROWLANDS: What do you think should happen? |
| LORD JAMES DOUGLAS HAMILTON: Well, the Conservative
Group in the Scottish Parliament argue very strongly for
a reduction in the number of MSPs. |
| MR ROWLANDS: They want to shrink the size. |
| LORD JAMES DOUGLAS HAMILTON: Of the Parliament, yes
at the same time and the Conservatives were defeated on
that, the other three major Parties voted for the 129
Members. If I can try as objectively as possible to mention
what the reasoning was, the Conservative argument was
that there should be a more streamlined and better Parliament.
The other argument was that the Committees had to be manned
and in order for the Committees to do the job properly
they shouldn’t be shrunk beyond a certain number
so these were the two arguments and in the vote the overwhelming
majority voted for the 129. |
| SIR MICHAEL WHEELER BOOTH: And your figure was what? |
| LORD JAMES DOUGLAS HAMILTON: I am saying this from memory
and I think it was roughly about 108 but it was a considerable
reduction. |
| MS SUGAR: Can you say something how the Parliament could
be streamlined? |
| LORD JAMES DOUGLAS HAMILTON: Yes, you would amalgamate
several of the Committees, for example we have two Justice
Committees they could be amalgamated and several of the
others could be amalgamated. That is one of the ways it
could be done and also by having, if I may say so, many
fewer Ministers and fewer special advisers and generally
streamlining the process. |
| MR PRICE: By not doing, following on Westminster and
the streamlining you have described how will the issue
of the same boundaries as Westminster constituencies be
dealt with? |
| LORD JAMES DOUGLAS HAMILTON: Well, I am not sure there
has been a very clear statement on that but my understanding
is it could mean there will be different boundaries but
I don’t think that has been spelt out in any great
detail. We have had a vote on the numbers and the 129
has been the strong recommendation and I believe the Secretary
of State for Scotland at Westminster has said that figure
will be respected. This has caused some raising of eyebrows
at Westminster but I don’t think there is, I think
what George Foulkes has done is to put down an amendment
if I remember correctly in the House of Commons to the
effect that the numbers of MPs at Westminster should not
be reduced on the grounds that the MSPs are not going
to be reduced. I suspect he will not get... well you will
know as well as me what the outcome of that will be. |
| MS McALLISTER: What is your view of the future of the
Secretary of State for Scotland? |
| LORD JAMES DOUGLAS HAMILTON: Our position at present
is that the role of Secretary of State should be retained
because we don’t wish to diminish Scotland’s
influence within the Cabinet but we have warned in the
past that... |
| THE CHAIRMAN: You have got enough Scots in the Cabinet? |
| LORD JAMES DOUGLAS HAMILTON: Yes, I cannot dispute that
but we warned in the past the creation of the Parliament
will lead to controversy over this issue and a dwindling
in the responsibilities of the Secretary of State for
Scotland. |
| MR PRICE: There has been a clear picture of consensus
dominating a lot of the decision taking in the Scottish
Parliament. Is that an accurate picture and if so what
is it attributed to? |
| LORD JAMES DOUGLAS HAMILTON: Sorry, I couldn’t
catch the first part of your question. |
| MR PRICE: A picture has been given to us of consensus
dominating the decision taking in the Scottish Parliament.
Is that an accurate picture and if so what is it attributed
to? |
| LORD JAMES DOUGLAS HAMILTON: Sorry, I couldn’t
get the first part of your question. |
| MR PRICE: If that is right to what do you attribute
a sort of consensus? |
| LORD JAMES DOUGLAS HAMILTON: I can answer that very
readily. I think what has succeeded extremely well is
what would be called Private Members debates in the Commons.
In the Scottish Parliament they are the last debate which
usually take about an hour of the day’s proceedings.
One of the very early debates we had was on domestic abuse
which was an issue that had been in previous years thrust
under the carpet. Two thirds of the Parliament attended,
a lot of passionate speeches were made and as a result
the first Committee Bill was framed - its purpose was
to indict a man who had shown great violence towards a
woman, in theory it could be the other way round, but
the vast majority of cases it was the man being very violent
to the woman and the woman had nowhere to go and the woman
putting up with this over an unreasonable period of time.
Under this new legislation the man who exercised that
unwarranted violence could be interdicted from going anywhere
near the house. That was a protection for the woman who
hadn’t had that protection before and that was the
first Committee Bill and that arose because of Consensus
across the board in the Parliament as a result of that
Private Members Debate. |
| MR PRICE: But that is how there is the spirit in relation
to political activities, if you like, at legislation.
Does that carry over into legislation and how much is
there a distinction between the way the legislation goes
through the Committee and....... |
| LORD JAMES DOUGLAS HAMILTON: I think it does carry through
into legislation. I mention one obvious example, there
may be others, our own Committee was considering Legal
Aid but Legal Aid is not uprated annually and the Committee
thinks it should be uprated annually but for a variety
of reasons, this has never been done. That could be considered
as a possible candidate for Committee Bill in the future.
That kind of issue, the most contentious issues obviously
will be fought out on the floor of the chamber. |
| THE CHAIRMAN: It sounds a much sort of calmer assemblage
than say the House of Commons. There seems to be a greater
desire to make things work here? |
| LORD JAMES DOUGLAS HAMILTON: I think for much of the
time it is very much calmer, the shape of the Assembly
propels in the direction of calmer reflection. |
| THE CHAIRMAN: It’s like a horseshoe? |
| LORD JAMES DOUGLAS HAMILTON: Yes, like a horseshoe but
in the new Parliament it will be more like a banana and
there is some concern it may not be quite the same. |
| SIR MICHAEL WHEELER BOOTH: How clearly perceived in
Scotland do you think is the settlement, do people understand
who is responsible for what? |
| LORD JAMES DOUGLAS HAMILTON: I think what there is a
lot of misunderstanding about is the inability to distinguish
between the Executive on the one hand and the Parliament
on the other. Naturally the Executive wanted to present
the Parliament as its own creation and partly because
they have done this if the Executive does something which
is contentious the public react against the Parliament.
You would never hear the House of Commons being attacked
for actions taken by the Government or the Cabinet because
people understand the distinction and I think this is
partly an educational process and in time people will
understand that Ministers are held to account in the Parliament
and the Parliament is not synonymous with the Executive. |
| THE CHAIRMAN: That's correct. Is it fair to say now
that the existence of the Parliament is, so to speak,
part of the fabric now? |
| LORD JAMES DOUGLAS HAMILTON: Yes, I can only speak for
my own Party and we accepted in John Smith’s words,
the result of the referendum is the settled will of the
Scottish people who are determined to make it work, so
all the arguments in the past were set on one side because
the referendum result was, well, brought in a new era
in which we accepted the Parliament was there to stay
and we would do everything in our power to make it work
to the best interests of the people. |
| MS SUGAR: I was going to ask about reserved powers and
whether the experience of three years of operation has
led to any areas being re-examined, are there any what
we call jagged edges? |
| LORD JAMES DOUGLAS HAMILTON: I think we would say not
yet, I mean there are areas for example if I may give
an obvious one, drugs, the selection of listed drugs is
reserved to Westminster but the Policing of, with regard
to drug prevention is devolved so there are lots of areas
which overlap. Our view certainly would be that Parliament
must make itself work really effectively and settle down
before there could be a major review and I don’t
think there is any call for a major review from the other
parties apart from the SNP who obviously want anything
which propels them in the direction of independence which
we believe they will never get. |
| THE CHAIRMAN: Can I thank you very much indeed for coming.
It has been refreshing and revealing, it is very useful
to have a very practical sort of session. |
| LORD JAMES DOUGLAS HAMILTON: Thank you. I will if I
may check everything I have said and if there are any
inaccuracies I will let you know. |
| THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much indeed. |
|
|
