Examination of Witnesses (Questions 80-99)
SIR KENNETH
CALMAN, MR
JIM GALLAGHER
AND MR
DAVID MIDDLETON
11 JUNE 2008
Q80 Chairman: You are wise not to
invite him.
Sir Kenneth Calman: Let me put
it more clearly, if I may. It seems to me that you, as an MP,
have an important part in informing and helping this Commission;
that is part of your responsibility.
Q81 Mr Davidson: Indeed.
Sir Kenneth Calman: And I hope
you will accept it.
Q82 Mr Davidson: Indeed I think we
will, but there is an issue that comes back to the question of
Arbuthnot and whether or not the answer was predetermined. I did
not answer to Arbuthnot at all because I have a feeling it was
rigged before it started.
Sir Kenneth Calman: All I can
do is reassure you that as far as I am aware as Chairman of this
Commission I have had no pressure from anybody to come to a particular
outcome, none, and I certainly would not have done that if that
had been the case. That seems to me to be a waste of time for
me and the Commission; so we are open, we have no presumptions,
let us through this Committee and indeed your constituents know
what you think about particular issues and we will be very happy
to look at these.
Q83 Mr Davidson: How do you weigh
up the balance? It is my experience in my constituency that there
are a number of issues relating, for example, to policing where
people feel that things are not working properly, they are not
satisfied with the service they are getting. If you said to them
should the Scottish Parliament have more powers over that they
would probably say yes because they are not satisfied with what
they have got at the moment and therefore they assume that change
must in a sense be for the better, even though operational matters
are to all intents and purposes devolved already. Similarly with
housing—I get a lot of complaints about housing and related
matters and if you asked anybody do you think more powers should
be transferred they would say yes; are you happy with the level
of unemployment, do you think more powers should be transferred,
yes. How do you balance the need to make sure that the existing
powers are actually used better and that the problem is actually
poor use of existing responsibilities and levers rather than simply
a constitutional change?
Sir Kenneth Calman: Absolutely,
and this is one of the more important things that the Commission
might do, which is say look at the powers that you already have,
are you using them effectively? You may not need more powers in
education or in the legal system or in a whole range of the NHS
for example; they are all there already, you can use them. One
of the things that the Commission might do is helpfully point
out what the Scottish Parliament can already do without any additional
powers.
Q84 Mr Davidson: There are a number
of areas in my constituency where things have actually got worse;
I do not believe that that is because of the transfer of those
powers to the Scottish Parliament, it is just because they have
not been managed properly and it is partly because a lot of these
things have been sucked up to Edinburgh and they are no longer
run locally. That relates to the previous point; will those sorts
of issues therefore be covered?
Sir Kenneth Calman: In detailed
terms I am not sure if they will be covered but in general terms
we will make the very clear point that the Scottish Parliament
already has very significant powers and it is up to the Parliament
to decide what it does with these powers. At the moment, as you
know, it has complete control over the budget and how that budget
is used. That is nothing to do with the Commission; that is what
is already there. Perhaps just pointing that out might be a helpful
thing to do.
Q85 David Mundell: Mr Davidson makes
a very important point in relation to the other side of government
and the other dynamic in the governments of Scotland, because
there has been a lot of discussion about the Scottish Parliament's
relationship with the Westminster Parliament but there has not
been the same degree of discussion about its relationship with
local government. As part of the devolved settlement that seems
to me something that was not completely thought-through and is
something that the Commission can usefully look at because effectively
you have a situation where you had the previous Westminster Government
and local government and the Scottish Parliament came in somewhere
in between those. As I say, a lot of the discussion and debate
has been around the relationship between Westminster and Holyrood
but there has not really—other than in very anorak circles—been
discussion about the relationship between local government and
the Scottish Parliament. That is something that really is worth
looking at.
Sir Kenneth Calman: It is an interesting
issue. In our meetings so far that is not one that has come up
but it is one that we can certainly look at. I think that is more
of an issue for the Scottish Parliament than for the Commission
itself.
Q86 Mr Davidson: Surely it has to
do with governments and general satisfaction? It comes back to
my point about people being unhappy about what is happening because
to some extent these things have been centralised in Edinburgh
rather than it being because the Scottish Parliament has insufficient
powers.
Sir Kenneth Calman: I think COSLA[2]
will give its views; I am sure local government will gives its
views and we look forward to getting that. That is the kind of
evidence that we will build up.
Q87 Mr MacNeil: Just hearing what you
are saying it seems an exciting and quite an interesting ... role
and of course I welcome the fact that you mentioned going to Stornoway.
Sir Kenneth Calman: It is one
of my favourite towns.
Q88 Mr MacNeil: Excellent, you will
be welcome. There is one presumption of course and that is a shackling,
that you could not consider independence. Of course, you can consider
devolving everything and total devolution which is independence
around the side, but you cannot take the issue on head first.
Have you been disappointed in any way, shape or form that there
has been that shackling of your work in that you are not able
to consider what could possibly—I would say certainly—be
in the best interests of Scotland.
Sir Kenneth Calman: The reason
that we are unable to do it relates to the remit. As you know,
the remit discussed on 6 December in the Scottish Parliament had
an amendment relating to independence. That amendment was defeated
and therefore we do not consider independence. That is within
the remit.
Q89 Mr MacNeil: Is there a niggle
of disappointment within you about your remit?
Sir Kenneth Calman: I do not think
there is, and the reason for that is if we were to consider beyond
the Scottish Parliament we would need a different commission with
a different timescale and a quite different remit. You have read
the seven pages in the National Conversation—I read it every
night—and if you read the seven pages on independence there
are big questions there. These are big questions which this Commission
is not set up to answer.
Q90 Mr MacNeil: However, you can
go to the edge of independence if you like, which must excite
you.
Sir Kenneth Calman: The edge of
independence, is that beyond Stornoway?
Q91 Mr MacNeil: Just there but no
more.
Sir Kenneth Calman: The West Coast
is always there. The issue of independence comes up every time
I meet somebody and the answer for me is pretty straightforward:
it was discussed in Parliament, it is not part of the remit, it
is not what we are going to be discussing. It will continue to
come up but that is the answer.
Q92 Mr MacNeil: Essentially devolution
is really the powers of independence, you are adding to the independence
of the Scottish Parliament. Talking about devolution, some people
might uncharitably see devolution as being independence for slow
learners but within independence all those strands of independence
are devolution.
Sir Kenneth Calman: That is an
argument that I would like to debate with you some other time
and at some other place, but I hope I am not a slow learner. It
seems to me that the remit is pretty clear and that is what our
remit is. People will continue to raise the issue of independence
and I will reply in exactly the same way.
Chairman: Angus, you have had your chance.
Katy.
Q93 Ms Clark: I understand that you
are due to publish an interim report in November. Could you outline
what the intention of making an interim report is and also can
I push you on when you expect to publish your final recommendations.
I know you have said you will do it as soon as you can but you
must have some kind of indication at this stage as to how long
this process is going to take and what the timetable will be?
Sir Kenneth Calman: The interim
report will take our discussion today further and will begin to
set out in more detail those areas where we think the evidence
is clear or strong, those areas where there is weak evidence and
those areas where we need some further help. That will provide
a much better basis for discussion, and if I was invited back
to this Committee that would be quite a good opportunity to do
that. The interim report will set out that kind of area but I
do not think, for example in financial terms, we will have many
of the answers by the members. It is a big task, but we might
be able to set out some of the kinds of options that the task
group is considering. When will we finish in 2009? That could
depend greatly on how much work there is post interim report.
It is quite difficult therefore to answer the question. From my
point of view but not from my colleagues sitting beside me, I
would like it done faster rather than slower. For all sorts of
very good reasons the sooner you have the opportunity of looking
(a) at the interim report and (b) at the final report the better,
to give time for debate and discussion. There are one or two interesting
dates ahead and it might be useful if this particular report was
on the table so that people could use that, not in referendum
terms but in terms of informing the broader debate.
Q94 Ms Clark: I understand that members
of the Commission are from three different political parties and
you also have a number of people who are not affiliated to any
political parties. From the meetings you have had so far do you
anticipate any problems in reaching one set of recommendations
given the mixture of backgrounds? We have already talked about
consensus and vetoes but do you think this is going to be a major
problem in terms of the spectrum of the Commission?
Sir Kenneth Calman: The answer
to that is no and I say that at this stage when we have already
faced one or two interesting issues. We have been able to put
these clearly on the table and discuss them and actually to move
beyond that. I should have said of course that I have written
to the previous presiding officers and first ministers and they
have all replied to say they would be delighted to meet us, and
that actually would be a very helpful way of treating it. People
like George Reid, for example, will I think be a very helpful
individual in terms of what his experience has been, and of course
we will take evidence or advice from any individual, particularly
in the Scottish Parliament, whose party is not part of the Commission
and that will be very helpful.
Q95 Ms Clark: I understand that nobody
in the Commission is taking a fee for their work, but obviously
it is going to be quite an expensive business—the way that
you have described it already suggests that there is going to
be quite a large amount of work that is going to be involved in
this. Do you know how much it is going to cost?
Sir Kenneth Calman: First of all,
nobody on the Commission is taking a fee, that is correct. I have
my train pass so I get second class cheap rail fares. It is not
clear just how much it will cost but it will come from existing
resources, both within the Scotland Office, the Department of
Justice and the Scottish Parliament. The funding will be mainly
related to a relatively small amount in terms of travel. There
will be some additional work that we will need done to back up
the evidence and that may cost us a little bit of money, but most
of it will come from existing resources.
Q96 Ms Clark: You have also come
here today and hopefully through this will at least start to build
a relationship with members of the Scottish Affairs Committee
and I would hope you also do engage particularly with the Scottish
MPs.
Sir Kenneth Calman: That is a
very good point.
Q97 Ms Clark: A number of my colleagues
here have actually made clear that there is a lot of English,
Welsh and Irish MPs who may have many things to say that might
be of use to the Commission. What would you say at this stage
your relationship has been like, both with the Scottish Government
and the UK Government because I presume that you have already
had some contact with both of those bodies.
Sir Kenneth Calman: In terms of
the Scottish Government I have written to the First Minister (a)
telling him that there is a commission and (b) to see whether
we could get access to some information which we might like to
have, and the answer is yes to that, so that has been very positive.
In terms of the UK Government, through particularly the Ministry
of Justice which Jim Gallagher is part of, again we have had some
links there, but I would like to see it as slightly separate.
The points you made earlier, is there a predetermined agenda,
there is not a predetermined agenda in my mind and I do not particularly
want to have a lot of dealings with ministers on either side because
that sends a signal that we have a predetermined agenda. I have
not met the Prime Minister, for example.
Q98 Chairman: Do you believe that
you have a good working relationship with the Scottish Parliament
and the UK Government and that you are receiving the necessary
support that you need?
Sir Kenneth Calman: The answer
is very clearly yes. In terms of the Scotland Office, the letter
back from Mr Salmond was a helpful letter, the links through the
Ministry of Justice through Mr Gallagher are again very positive
and I have seen no particular problems there.
Q99 Ms Clark: In terms of any work
that has been done so far that would have resource implications,
that has come out of the Scottish Parliament's budgets. Is there
going to be an impact in terms of the UK Government in terms of
if you need work done by them? Do you have any indication on that—we
have already had reference to the Treasury—or do you think
it will all come out of budgets that are allocated to Holyrood?
Mr Middleton: The Scottish Parliament
is able to devote resources to the exercise by virtue of the motion
that was passed and, therefore, the chief executive and the chief
clerk at Holyrood would allocate resources and has in fact assigned
a member of staff to support the work of the Commission and, additionally,
will make available meeting rooms and suchlike. The UK Government
has agreed to support the exercise and some staff in both the
Ministry of Justice and the Scotland Office may be assigned fulltime
to support this exercise through that process and also to assist
resourcing through meeting rooms and other things.
2 Convention of Scottish Local Authorities Back
| 
