Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20-39)
SIR KENNETH
CALMAN, MR
JIM GALLAGHER
AND MR
DAVID MIDDLETON
11 JUNE 2008
Q20 Mr Walker: As you tour England
on your roadshow, what types of questions are you going to ask
because the audiences will have varying degrees of sophistication.
Very briefly, what types of questions will you ask an English
audience of opinion-formers?
Sir Kenneth Calman: That will
be partly determined by the questions that we come up with, that
we have to help to answer too. Having lived in the north of England
for quite a long time I am pretty familiar with the kinds of questions
they are likely to ask; in addition to that John Curtice at Strathclyde
has a remarkable range of opinions, both in Scotland and England
on what people think and these, quite automatically, begin to
suggest the kinds of issues that might come up. But rather than
asking general questions it would be quite nice to be slightly
more focused and have something to offer so that the questions
coming back would be helpful.
Q21 Mr Walker: What types of questions
do you think will be asked of you or you will ask of them?
Sir Kenneth Calman: There will
be several issues. One will be the Barnett formula, certainly,
one will be English representation and Scottish representation
in Westminster—there is a bit in the press this morning
about how particular political parties might solve that but I
do not think that is our question, but part of it will be about
the relationship between the two Parliaments and indeed the distinctions
between the ways in which things are developing in the two countries.
I would not be surprised if these are the kinds of things that
might come up.
Q22 Mr Walker: That is quite a narrow
subject area and outside a few constitutional wonks you could
have very short conversations. You say you are going to see 200
groups of people; in a sense you have to be able to facilitate
those conversations. Obviously, you are very interested in it
and we are very interested in it but let us not over-estimate
how interested other people are in the detail of the relationship,
there will be much broader things that will need to be discussed
and drawn out in the conversations. Is that something you recognise?
Sir Kenneth Calman: Yes, but I
am not sure that I agree with you. Having been in the North East
of England for about nine years and having been part of the CBI,
the North East Chamber of Commerce, the Regional Development Agency,
I know the kinds of questions they are likely to ask. We may not
be able to answer those, it is not within our remit to answer
these questions, but we could make some contribution to that.
It would be helpful to the Commission, if I can put it back to
you, for you to give us an idea of the kinds of questions you
think they will ask. This is for me an important opportunity to
ask you, either as a group or individually, to give us some help
on that, what are the kinds of questions you think might be appropriate
to ask.
Mr Walker: If you would like to come
to Broxbourne—this is genuine—I would be happy to
organise a reception committee because I am sure they would have
lots of questions to ask you.
Q23 Mr MacNeil: A veiled threat.
Sir Kenneth Calman: I look forward
to it.
Mr Walker: Seriously, they would be interested.
If you genuinely want to come to our part of the country—I
mean that sincerely—I would organise some sensible people
to talk to you.
Mr Devine: They vote for you.
Q24 Mr Davidson: Can I just clarify
about how the five sub-groups relate to each other because I am
a bit surprised to see that one of the sub-groups is principles;
I would have thought that establishing the principles involved
in what you are doing would come before some of the detail in
order that the principles, once identified, inform the sub-groups.
How is that to be handled?
Sir Kenneth Calman: First of all
the principles sub-group really contains everybody on the Commission,
that is the first point, and if you had seen my email box over
the last two weeks you would realise that everybody in the Commission
has contributed to that. We are pretty clear about the general
principles that we will operate on and some of that will appear
on the web quite soon. It was a general discussion we thought
we should have in the first and second Commission meetings and
at our third one, which is in a couple of weeks time, we will
begin to sign that off.
Q25 Mr Davidson: Can you just clarify
for us what the principles are then, if these have been resolved?
Sir Kenneth Calman: I am happy
to do that. The issues which we think are important are first
of all we have a very wide remit and we could do quite a lot about
it. We looked at the principles in terms of methods of working
and how we will work and, as I say, that is partly by Commission
meetings, task groups, getting out there and listening, hearing,
et cetera. The other principles that I think do begin to become
quite important are that we start with a position which is consistent
with the remit, that Scotland should remain an integral and distinctive
part of the United Kingdom, that we are not there to discuss independence,
it is not on the agenda, nor are we there to close down the Scottish
Parliament, that is not on the agenda. These are quite important
principles therefore.
Q26 Mr Davidson: It leaves you quite
a lot of flexibility though, does it not?
Sir Kenneth Calman: Yes, indeed.
What we will want to do? If we are going to make any decisions
based on changing the function of the devolved/reserved powers
for example, we will wish (a) to do that on the basis of evidence
that this will be a worthwhile thing to do and, (b) that the opinion
that we get around that will support that kind of change. These
are the kinds of general principles.
Q27 Mr Davidson: Can I just pursue
that for a second? Apart from accepting the point of the two parameters
it has to be based on evidence and then judging the opinions that
come forward. One of my colleagues has already alluded to the
flood of semi-abusive emails that flood into the The Herald,
The Scotsman and almost any other paper from people very often
in the United States—I often find that people love Scotland
the more the further they are away, but there is still a fair
number of nutters within the country—
Sir Kenneth Calman: Are you talking
about Scotland or England?
Mr Davidson: This is not a reference
to any members of the Commission.
Mr Devine: Or the Scottish Affairs Select
Committee.
Q28 Mr Davidson: People can be vituperative
in the extreme, and maybe we want to have assurances that there
has got to be a wave of opinion, it is not just the loudest voice
and the wildest tones that have got to be adhered to.
Sir Kenneth Calman: We want to
reassure you on that.
Q29 Mr Davidson: I thought you would,
it is just worthwhile checking on that. On the question of evidence,
evidence can be produced in support of a variety of options on
any given possibility. I am not clear whether or not you are going
to be coming down with firm recommendations on particular topics
or whether or not you are going to be identifying options. Abortion
is probably a yes or no, but there might be a variety of options
there; broadcasting similarly, there might be a transfer or not
transfer, or there might be a number of options. I am not clear
whether or not you see your task as being the identification of
options for decisions to be taken elsewhere or whether or not
you are coming forward with recommendations yourselves.
Sir Kenneth Calman: That is a
very good point and it is likely to depend on the issue. If you
go through the Scotland Act, Schedule 5, there is a wide range
of things and some of these will be relatively straightforward,
given that there will be a lot of support for some kind of change,
in which case I am sure a recommendation might come forward. Others
could well require some options to be presented which other people
might wish to pick up, so it is likely to be a combination.
Q30 Chairman: What you are telling
us is that if there is a consensus on any issue, then you will
make recommendations, but where there is a conflicting view then
you will put the options.
Sir Kenneth Calman: We might or
we might not, it depends on the issue and how that issue comes
to us and where the strengths of evidence are. That evidence is
partly about will it help the people of Scotland, is it compatible
as being part of the union. You can see the kinds of evidence
that we might meet and some will be straightforward, some will
be more difficult.
Q31 Mr Davidson: Will it help the
people of Scotland and is it compatible with the UK and the union;
is there a formulation that does assume that it is automatically
better for things to be transferred? We have already read in the
papers that the Liberals are saying that they will not accept
any transfer of powers away from Scotland to the United Kingdom
Parliament; I am not clear whether or not individual groups have
vetoes. How do you proceed in these circumstances? If you take
a consensual approach then presumably everybody has a veto on
everything which means that you might not necessarily identify
a variety of options which you then present to us. Can you just
clarify how that is going to be dealt with?
Sir Kenneth Calman: We do not
begin with the presumption that things will move back to Westminster,
we begin with the presumption that there may be some additional
powers in relation to the devolved—
Q32 Mr Davidson: Why? You are beginning
with the presumption that powers have got to be transferred to
the Scottish Parliament.
Sir Kenneth Calman: But—and
you did not let me finish.
Q33 Mr Davidson: No, I did not because
I thought that was so significant that it was worth just pointing
it out.
Sir Kenneth Calman: We begin with
the presumption that we look at what has happened in the Scottish
Parliament over the last 10 years and the areas which people feel
might be helpful if they were severed.
Q34 Mr Davidson: Sorry, which people
feel?
Sir Kenneth Calman: We have had
a lot of evidence; indeed if you look at the National Conversation
there is a whole range of things on the National Conversation
which are put forward as areas which might actually be devolved
for them. We begin with that, but the Commission is an independent
Commission and if there are things which we feel should come back
to Westminster then we may well recommend that.
Q35 Mr Davidson: Why I am interested
in pursuing this particular line of whether or not your decision
is predetermined is that all of us—
Sir Kenneth Calman: I am sorry,
they are not predetermined. I really need to be quite clear about
that. This is an independent commission, we are not predetermined
in terms of what we do, I would not have accepted this post if
that was the case.
Q36 Mr Davidson: Why I am interested
in pursuing whether or not your decisions are predetermined is
because there are those of us who saw the Arbuthnot Commission
established. It was absolutely clear that the Arbuthnot Commission
was predetermined to maintain 129 as the number of Scottish Members
of the Scottish Parliament, despite what was in the Scotland Act.
That was why it was established and as soon as we saw the membership
it was clear what was going to be coming out of that and it was
a means of getting ministers in Westminster out of a particular
hoop. There is a strong view that your Commission is exactly the
same.
Sir Kenneth Calman: Where does
that strong view come from?
Q37 Mr Davidson: Let me just finish
the point. It would be exactly the same if you were established
in dealing with the ranks of some of the known suspects in order
to transfer powers to the Scottish Parliament and not interested
in anything else other than that, and the only excitement is going
to be a discussion between the maximalists and the minimalists,
and it is a decision that is still awaited as to where that balance
will lie. Can you understand why some of us might take the view
that that is why you were established?
Sir Kenneth Calman: I am not sure
that I can because I am not sure I actually follow the question.
We were set up with a fairly clear remit; I have been under no
pressure from any source—I would not have accepted the post
otherwise—to come to a predetermined outcome, full stop.
I am prepared to look at the mobility—there is permeability
between the two Parliaments and if there is evidence that things
moving one way or another is worthwhile then I will certainly
consider that. What I would like to have is evidence that things
might move back, but it has been quite difficult to find it.
Q38 Mr McGovern: The original question
that I wanted to ask is about financial accountability and in
particular the Barnett formula. Will the Commission be looking
at the anomalies that are generated by the Barnett formula, in
particular an example that came to light recently: the UK Government
allocated new funding to allow school pupils from senior secondary
schools to participate in visits to Auschwitz, the former concentration
camp in Poland. That money is ring-fenced; it is to guarantee
that pupils will be able to visit that camp. In Scotland the Scottish
Executive has currently refused to ring-fence that funding so
there is no guarantee that Scottish school pupils will be able
to participate in that visit. I regard that as an anomaly and
I would hope that the Commission would look at such anomalies,
but further to what my colleague Mr Davidson has just said I have
to ask why would the Commission start with any presumptions whatsoever?
I would have thought it should start with a blank sheet.
Sir Kenneth Calman: It is a blank
sheet, but we have been asked the question on a regular basis,
what is going to come back and what is not going to come back,
what will be devolved. The answer to that is we have not come
to that conclusion yet, it is too early in the stage of the investigation
so I cannot answer the question.
Q39 Mr McGovern: About presumptions.
Sir Kenneth Calman: One of the
questions that has come up is will you get rid of the Scottish
Parliament and send it all back to Westminster, and we have come
to the presumption that we do not think that is a good idea, that
is not part of the remit. The other presumption that people have
is that we would consider independence; that is not part of the
remit. What I was trying to do was to define the boundaries around
what we can and cannot consider, and one of the things that we
can consider is whether the Scottish Parliament should have additional
powers and, secondly, whether any of the powers it currently has
might move back, but we do not start from the presumption that
everything is going to move back, that really was the point I
was making.
| 
