Examination of Witnesses (Questions 60-79)
SIR KENNETH
CALMAN, MR
JIM GALLAGHER
AND MR
DAVID MIDDLETON
11 JUNE 2008
Q60 Mr MacNeil: Therefore it would
be at least a theoretical possibility that you could turn round
and say you want to devolve everything.
Sir Kenneth Calman: If devolving
everything means independence then I do not think that is within
the remit of the Commission.
Q61 Mr MacNeil: Will you look internationally
at maybe what is happening in Canada, the different powers that
the provinces in Canada have, will that be something that your
Committee will look at?
Sir Kenneth Calman: The answer
is yes. The Steel Commission has already done a great deal of
work on that but particularly the financial group will almost
certainly look at a number of different models in other places
and anything which is positively helpful out of that we will certainly
look at, so that kind of breadth will certainly be there.
Q62 Mr MacNeil: You will be aware
of the recent debate in Scotland and effectively the debate across
Parliament on the Commission. What was your view and what was
the Commission's view on Wendy Alexander's U-turn on an independence
referendum?
Sir Kenneth Calman: The Commission
has no role in a referendum.
Q63 Mr MacNeil: Do you feel it undermined
the work of the Commission in any way or was it helpful?
Sir Kenneth Calman: No. Just listening
to it I think what it did more than anything is mean that the
Commission is more important rather than less important.
Q64 Mr Devine: I do recognise these
are early days and you are not long into this and I suspect that
a central theme of your report is going to be on funding and we
have talked about financial accountability. I would be interested
to know what is the template that you are using to consult on
this, to look at this, who you are visiting; you will obviously
be talking about the Barnett formula, obviously talking about
cash-raising powers and obviously talking about other powers than
raising funding, but I am assuming that even at this early stage
there is a template for each of these task groups, there is a
tick box for each of them, and I would be interested to know what
is the one that is operating with regards to funding?
Sir Kenneth Calman: The main thing
in relation to the funding group is to look at issues around accountability—that
is the way it fits into the remit—and to look at the strengths
and weaknesses of the present system, to look internationally
at how things are done and then to bring forward proposals. We
have three related groups on this: the Commission itself, secondly
the group that Shonaig Macpherson is chairing, which is a Commission
group, and then we have an expert opinion group who have not met
yet. They are announced today and it is a very interesting, highly
respected, group of people.
Q65 Mr Devine: Can you name them?
Sir Kenneth Calman: John Aldridge,
former Finance Director of the Scottish Executive; David Bell,
Professor of Economics, Stirling; Julia Derby, Professor of Economics,
Strathclyde; Sandra Eden, Tax Law, Edinburgh; Charlie Jeffery,
Professor of Politics, Edinburgh; Ian McClean, Politics, Oxford;
Jeremy Peat, Director of the David Hume Institute; David Ulph,
Head of School of Economics, St Andrews; Professor Clemens, Professor
of Economics at Cologne; Professor Andrew Hughes-Hallett, Professor
of Economics at George Mason University, Virginia. It is an expert
group which will I hope look widely, and we have made it very
clear and the expert group wanted it to be very clear, that they
were entirely independent and could publish separately should
they wish to publish separately and we have agreed to that.
Q66 Mr Devine: There are no restrictions,
they could come back and say abolish the Barnett formula or change
the Barnett formula as it presently stands.
Sir Kenneth Calman: They are likely
not to do it in those terms, but part of their function will be
to look at how the financing currently operates and how it could
change. Within that the Barnett formula is part of it.
Q67 Mr Devine: Is it possible within
that remit that they could look at needs-based assessments?
Sir Kenneth Calman: Yes.
Q68 Mr Devine: Is that something
that they have been particularly tasked with?
Sir Kenneth Calman: The remit
is broad enough for them to do that and since the Barnett formula
is another needs-based bit it may well be that there are other
mechanisms.
Q69 Mr Davidson: I do not think many
of us would accept that the Barnett is a fair needs-based system
in terms of deprivation and so on, that is why we are quite keen
to try and make sure that there is actually some assessment of
needs between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom.
Sir Kenneth Calman: The expertise
within the group is strong enough to handle that.
Q70 Mr Davidson: Can I clarify the
relationship to governance within Scotland, and there are two
elements that make me say that: one is in terms of needs assessment,
of spending, and clearly the West of Scotland is under-funded—cities
are funded in general, he says in a completely unbiased fashion,
especially Glasgow University if I may say so. Will there be any
assessment of things like that and, also, one of the issues about
the governance of Scotland since devolution has been a process
of centralisation in Edinburgh where not only have powers been
taken from local authorities but also in other ways powers have
been drawn into the centre. Will that be examined with a view
to further devolution from Holyrood?
Sir Kenneth Calman: I am not sure
that that is an area we will wish to get into. It may well come
up and if there are questions we will certainly look at them;
if there is evidence put forward of problems then we will certainly
look at it, but it seems to me that that is an issue for the Scottish
Parliament and how it operates rather than for the Commission.
Q71 David Mundell: Can I ask you
a couple of questions in relation to your relationship with the
Treasury? There have been media reports, and indeed the Secretary
of State for Scotland confirmed, that the Chancellor was to prepare
some form of briefing paper for the Commission on the Barnett
formula, allegedly at the instigation of the Secretary of State
for Justice. Has that been received?
Mr Gallagher: You are not quite
right there, Mr Mundell. What the Government has already said
is that the Treasury has plans to produce a factual paper explaining
more fully the Barnett system and obviously that will be of benefit
to the Commission, but it is not being prepared for the Commission.
In addition to that I expect that the Treasury, like other government
departments, will want to submit evidence to the Committee.
Sir Kenneth Calman: Government
departments have been invited to submit evidence.
Q72 David Mundell: Following through
on the specifics of the Treasury, will you test conclusions or
models with the Treasury because clearly important issues arise.
For example, at the moment in connection with the SNP government's
so-called national local income tax it is clear that issues have
arisen, whether one agrees with them or not, in relation for example
to the collection of that tax by Her Majesty's Customs and Revenue.
Clearly if your report is going to reach conclusions on funding
mechanisms it would be helpful if they had been tested with the
Treasury as to whether these mechanisms could be implemented,
that they would play their part in the implementation of them.
Sir Kenneth Calman: One of the
general principles is that there is not much point in putting
forward proposals if these proposals have not been tested in one
way or another. One way is in terms of public opinion coming from
the Scottish Affairs Committee, do you agree with where we are?
Other matters, particularly on the financial side, will have to
have this kind of modelling done in a variety of different ways,
one of which might well be in relation to the Treasury but I think
we are too early to get that yet, the answer is we are not quite
sure what it will be, but in terms of running models that will
be an important part of how the Commission will look at the financial
accountability part of it, otherwise it is just another report
that says why do you not change something and then somebody else
is going to check it.
Q73 David Mundell: If I can just
follow up on what Mr Gallagher said, are you aware of any timescale
for this paper because I had noted that a large number of Labour
MPs had signed up for an EDM[1]
calling for a review of the Barnett.
Mr Gallagher: I was not aware
of the EDM, thank you for bringing it to our attention. Summertime
is the answer to your question.
Q74 Mr MacNeil: Do you think it would
be helpful to have a referendum before your Commission finishes
its work?
Sir Kenneth Calman: First of all
the Commission will have no view on a referendum so the timing
of one would really not be an issue that we would get into at
all.
Q75 Mr MacNeil: If a referendum was
happening would it impact on your work in any way do you think?
Sir Kenneth Calman: If there was
a referendum it might well, which is one of the reasons why we
would like to get our work finished as quickly as we can.
Q76 Mr MacNeil: Do you envisage your
work being put to a referendum at some stage?
Sir Kenneth Calman: That is not
an issue for the Commission; that would be up to the Scottish
Parliament or the UK Parliament to say that would be the case.
My view, having been involved in one or two similar things before,
is that Commission's reports are looked at by governments, other
agencies and a bit of time elapses before decisions are made.
I cannot expect that this Commission would be any different from
any other, it would go and be looked at.
Q77 Mr MacNeil: Do you have any feeling
as to the amount of powers that you might add to the Scottish
Parliament? There is an argument to say that the powers currently
controlled in the Scottish Parliament are independently controlled,
as I think you can see through health and education and what have
you. Do you see your Commission adding to the devolved powers,
adding to the independence of the Scottish Parliament? If so,
do you have any inclination of the requirement for a referendum?
Sir Kenneth Calman: I made the
comment about there being no presumptions and there are no presumptions
about that either. We will have to look at that in detail, we
will need to look at the evidence that comes in, people will raise
any particular issues for us, so the answer is I do not know and
I will not know for a few months yet.
Q78 Mr Davidson: Can I come back
to the point about gathering the evidence and so on; we have already
expressed our reservations about the extent to which your emails
will be choked by the hyperactive, the vituperative and so on,
I think you understand that point, but to what extent can you
reassure us that your work is not blocked by the hyperactive,
the Unco Guid, the self-appointed and so on? I am particularly
reminded of Canon Kenyon-Wright who is one of the co-convenors
of the Scottish Assembly and so on who, when he stood for election,
came seventh in the west of Scotland and he was only saved from
coming eighth because there were only seven candidates. How do
we know that the people you are consulting are actually genuinely
representative of anybody other than themselves and how do you
intend to make sure that the vast majority of my constituents,
who very seldom would express a view on any detailed issues, are
actually being given due weight and attention?
Sir Kenneth Calman: I think Burns
had a slightly different meaning in terms of the Unco Guid by
the way, but that is something that we will talk about later perhaps.
I think that is going to be a problem but it is a problem in any
kind of public consultation of any sort at all in terms of what
you get, and I would hope that members of this Committee, through
their constituents, might actually help us with that; what is
it that people out there want? Maybe, as Mr Devine has said, they
do not actually want very much, but that in itself is actually
quite a helpful comment. You are part of this Commission.
Q79 Mr Davidson: Am I really? I have
never been invited to any of the meetings.
Sir Kenneth Calman: You have been
invited.
Mr Davidson: Thank you very much, my
letter of appointment must have got lost in the post.
1 Early Day Motion Back
| 
