Examination of Witnesses (Questions 40-59)
RT HON
DES BROWNE
MP, DAVID CAIRNS
MP AND MR
DAVID MIDDLETON
24 JUNE 2008
Q40 Mr Devine: I moved in to Southwark
two years ago. Within two months of moving in, with the law as
it presently stands, I received three letters from the Council,
a visit from the Council; and a final letter told me that if I
was not on the electoral register I could be fined a thousand
pounds. That is the law as it is. I moved back to my constituency
last year, and despite writing when I moved back to my constituency,
it took from March to December to get myself on the electoral
register. Why do we not have electoral returning officers who
are behaving in that manner?
David Cairns: The point I mentioned
earlier—in Southwark, this is done by the elections officer
in Southwark Council. That is their job and they pursue this,
clearly, very vigorously. In West Lothian it will be a joint valuation
board, which will have other things to do, and which will cover
more than just your constituency—it will cover three or
four council areas. My contention is that I do not think that
serves a very useful purpose any more. Having raised this with
all the professionals in the field I feel there is some resistance
to it; but I think this is one of the things that we push forward,
that the chief returning officer has got to be a central consideration.
However, having said all of that, the work of the joint valuation
boards is overseen by democratically elected local councillors,
and I know from working with my own councils in Inverclyde that
we have gone to Renfrewshire Valuation Board and taken motions
to that board for a much bigger take-up campaign and a much bigger
registration campaign and I still regret that the three councils
in Renfrewshire Valuation Board in Inverclyde are by far and away
the lowest. So there are steps that can and should be taken now—and
it was made very clear under the Electoral Administration Act
that we had a duty to maximise the register. I think that those
areas that are not taking that seriously are failing in their
duty under the legislation.
Q41 David Mundell: I hear what you
say about the chief returning officer, and it is inherently sensible
in most respects, but, clearly, one of the issues that arose in
the Committee's deliberation in Ron Gould's report was consistency.
That was one of the attractions to me and my party of the chief
returning officer, to ensure a greater degree of consistency so
that we did not have a situation where in one constituency a recount
was allowed and in another constituency it was not allowed and
in some constituencies people had access to ballot papers and
in other constituency counts they did not. Clearly, in the election
last year there were very significant disparities in the way in
which particularly the counts were conducted. Before a final decision
is made in relation to a chief returning officer for, for example,
the 2011 elections, how will a greater consistency of approach
be achieved?
David Cairns: We are taking forward
a recommendation from Gould as well to have an elections policy
steering group, which we have tended to have in the past, but
this time it will be chaired by a returning officer to ensure
that when the rules are drawn up the returning officers' input
into this is absolutely central—that they are the professional
electoral administrators, not us, not the politicians or civil
servants. I think that will help. Separately to all of this—because
this is not just an issue particular to Scotland—the Electoral
Commission is now very well advanced on its performance standards
for returning officers in order to ensure consistency, because
it is a great cry across the whole of the UK. I think that will
help as well. I do not think you can ever have a situation where,
even if you do have a chief returning officer he is going to be
sort of gold command, sitting in Stirling somewhere, taking decisions
on every count; there will always have to be a degree of local
flexibility of the local returning officers to make decisions,
although presumably there would be some sort of level at which
these things could be referred to a chief returning officer. It
goes to the heart of the different ways in which you could do
a chief returning officer. You could have a chief returning officer
who effectively employs all of the electoral staff right across
the councils and has a big budget, and then directs everybody;
or they could be almost like an office of the chief returning
officer, who effectively would be a regulator and responsible
for consistency and standards and so on. There is absolutely no
consensus among the electoral administrators, the political parties
or people who replied to the consultation on which model they
would like, or even if they wanted it in the first place. What
we cannot have is a model that operates one way for Westminster
and another way for the European Parliament, where there is a
quasi chief returning officer already, a separate one for the
Scottish Parliament and a separate one for local elections: that
would be an absolute recipe for disaster. It is a very complex
area and we are going to proceed in partnership with everybody
else in order that we get it right.
Des Browne: Can I add a short
addendum on the issue of standards? The Electoral Commission's
work in driving up performance relates to electoral registration
as well as to returning officers. They are thankfully quite advanced
in this process. It seems to have taken a long period of time
for them to do it, but it should make a difference once there
are national standards agreed across Scotland and indeed across
the United Kingdom on performance. We should not get the disparities
that Mr Devine has identified.
David Cairns: The worst performing
council for registration levels is in Wales, so this is not something
that is particular to Scotland.
Q42 Mr Davidson: Can you just confirm,
in relation to the electoral returning officer for the European
Parliament, that if the electorate get the result wrong then they
have to do it again?
David Cairns: It depends what
you mean by "get the result wrong". I am not entirely
sure what you are asking me!
Mr Devine: I think maybe he is going
to Ireland!
Q43 Chairman: My next question is
to the Secretary of State because I think probably you are the
most appropriate person to answer this question since you are
wearing two hats, as Secretary of State for Scotland and Secretary
of State for Defence. The Committee published its report on employment
and skills for the defence industry in Scotland yesterday, and
we expressed our concerns at delays to the future carriers programme,
which would have implications for jobs and the Scottish economy.
Can you tell us what stage we are at for signing this very crucial
and important contract?
Des Browne: The signing of this
contract is imminent. There had not been delays to this; this
is a very complex process and a very big and complicated contract
involving bringing together a number of businesses into an alliance,
indeed into a joint venture. I read with some interest, I have
to say, some of the ill-informed scaremongering that was going
about yesterday after your quite balanced and comprehensive report.
Indeed, remarkably, this is yet another unanimous report from
the Scottish Affairs Select Committee, which a Member who is part
of that unanimity seems to want to contradict at every turn. The
fact of the matter is that in contracting terms—
Q44 Chairman: He only disagrees when
he is tipped from the boss!
Des Browne: I will deal just with
the Chairman, then, on behalf of all members. The situation is
complex in terms of the nature of the contract, but the simple
point that people need to understand is that this contract will
be with the joint venture. That joint venture does not yet exist,
so there is no-one to contract with. It cannot exist before 30
June. When it exists, then we will move quickly to sign the contract.
Q45 Mr Devine: I know nothing about
the Norwegian navy, and, as you see, at the start of the report
we say that we employ 50,000 people—and I suspect it may
be more than that—direct and indirect jobs in Scotland as
a result of the MoD investment. As the Minister of Defence or
Secretary of State for Defence and Secretary of State for Scotland,
are you aware that 250,000 people are employed in the Norwegian
shipbuilding industry?
Des Browne: I think it is highly
unlikely that there will be 250,000 Norwegians employed. I have
tried today to find some source for this statistic that suggested
that there were more people employed in shipbuilding and related
defence matters in Norway than there were in Scotland, but I cannot
find the source of that. I would be interested to see it. Then
again, I see quite a number of statistics bandied about, including
statistics about fewer jobs in defence in Scotland, but I cannot
find the source of any of these statistics. I intend to ask the
person who has been using them if he can give me the source of
them. The one thing that is certain is that defence and aerospace
industries in Scotland generate about £2.31 billion in sales
every year. That is not exclusively from the UK Government but
probably over 90%, the vast majority. What is also certain is
that the estimate of about 50,000 jobs and the record number of
apprentices that they support—that that investment support
is not an over-estimate of the number of jobs. It may be an under-estimate,
but it is not an over-estimate of the jobs. What is also certain
is that those jobs depend on the UK Government's investment in
defence, and that in turn, I think, is a function of the position
that the UK occupies in terms of the defence of these islands,
but the broader defence of the NATO alliance. All these things
are necessary, and to the extent that Norway makes significant
investment in its armed forces, it does that as a member of NATO.
Chairman: Angus, do you want a chance
to clear—
Q46 Mr MacNeil: I am happy enough.
I am more than happy.
Des Browne: I am disappointed,
Chairman, that Mr MacNeil has not taken the opportunity to provide
the authorities for all his assertions he bandied about in the
media yesterday.
Q47 Mr MacNeil: I am more than happy
to do that if you really want them.
Des Browne: Because I have to
say, having gone through not just the report, which I think is
balanced and informed, and a welcome addition to the opportunities
that Scotland has for these industries, I went also through all
of the evidence—and I could not see any of these assertions
being put to any witnesses in order to provide an evidence base
for them.
Q48 Mr MacNeil: Mr Chairman, if the
Secretary of State wants to write to me, I am more than happy
to provide this!
Des Browne: I think Mr MacNeil
knows what the problems are and he can write to me.
Mr McGovern: If I can assist the Secretary
of State, when the Scottish Affairs Committee visited the shipyards
to take evidence, the Member you referred to was not present and
did not participate in that visit.
Q49 Mr Davidson: What has the Scotland
Office's role been in establishing the Calman Commission?
Des Browne: I was involved in
discussions—and I think this is known because there were
published discussions—with Wendy Alexander, as the Leader
of the Labour Party in the Scottish Parliament, and discussions
with colleagues from other parties, unionist parties, Liberal
Democrats and the Conservative Party. I was involved in discussions
that led to the response which is also substantially the response
to the motion in the Scottish Parliament, I understand, Mr Davidson.
I may well also have reported on that in some detail to the Westminster
group of Labour MPs in Scotland about what I was doing in order
that they would know what I was doing along the line.
Q50 Mr Davidson: Can I clarify whether
or not there is presumption that more powers will be devolved
to the Scottish Parliament as a result of the Commission's work?
Des Browne: No, there is no presumption.
Also in preparation for this I read Sir Kenneth Calman's evidence
to this Commission—and it is an uncorrected version of it
so people may choose to change something, including the way George
Reid's name is spelt in it! He made it perfectly clear that there
were no presumptions; that he was prepared to look at what was
in the best interests of Scotland 10 years after devolution in
relation to powers of the Scottish Parliament. Indeed, I think
he may have answered you on more than one occasion to say that
he was prepared to look at powers going both ways, as they have
done over the whole course of devolution.
Q51 Mr Davidson: You will be aware
that one of the things he said was: "we are still waiting,
if you like, to see in which areas people would like to see you
have increased devolution."[8]
There are two ways of looking at that. One is to just wait and
see how people respond, in which case the nutters with laptops—as
my colleague, David Mundell, who last time—I am not quite
sure that was the exact phrase, but that was the gist of it—people
in Los Angeles who have nothing better to do at four o'clock in
the morning and so on and so forth--
Des Browne: Four o'clock in the
morning there!
Q52 Mr Davidson: Indeed. Whether
or not it was going to be based on the weight of people writing
in or whether it was going to be based on the strength of the
argument, because he also went on to say: "It may be that
there are none, but in the national conversation there are actually
quite a lot of things, and in other submissions there are quite
a lot of things that people would like."[9]
The fact that people write in to say, "I would like this
devolved or that devolved"—I am not entirely clear
from what he said whether or not that was meant to be taken as
evidence for further devolution or whether it was going to be
based on the case for the particular thing being transferred.
Des Browne: I read all of the
evidence, and of course we could swap sentences out of the pages
of evidence that I read. You pressed him very hard on this, and
quite rightly; and I thought that he very convincingly explained
to the Committee that what he intended to do was look at the arguments
and the evidence, and that he did not approach this with any—there
was no presumption of any conclusion. Frankly, from my point of
view, I am absolutely delighted at the quality of the people who
agreed to be commissioners on this Commission; and not only that
but also the quality of those people who in addition have agreed
to be the expert advisory panel in relation to financial accountability
issues. These are people of individual impeccable reputations
in their own fields. We brought them together because of that
ability and their ability to exercise judgment, and their commitment.
They have made this commitment to devolution in the context of
the United Kingdom. I would expect Sir Kenneth Calman and his
commissioners to look at the arguments and to do all those things
that he said individually to you that he would do, look at all
the sources of submission that exist already, and that they generate
by the complex way of going about consulting. I would expect them
to look at the evidence that emerges from that, not just assertions
by people. We want them to bring their own judgment to the recommendations
that they may make. As you know, they are going, towards the end
of the year, when the shape of the work that they want to concentrate
on is evolving, to produce an interim report to give people an
idea of where they ought to concentrate in terms of their arguments.
That is exactly what I would want them to do. I thought you put
him under quite a significant amount of pressure to test whether
or not this was a man who was coming at this with a conclusion
in mind or lacked independence; and I thought, frankly, he knocked
every single ball that you bowled at him well on to the boundary.
I thought he handled himself really well and was very persuasive.
Q53 Mr Davidson: Everything raised
was for his own good!
Des Browne: You have to be cruel
to be kind sometimes—I understand that!
Q54 Mr Davidson: A practice you have
adopted on a number of occasions! Can I seek clarification about
the similarity between this and the Gould report! I take it that
as with Gould, producing recommendations we should then decide
whether or not we accept them and the same will apply with Calman;
and there is no assumption that they will automatically be accepted
and implemented.
Des Browne: Of course there is
not! At the end of the day this will be a political process. Politicians
will have to take responsibility for policy decisions that emerge.
It seems to me that it is a sensible and informed way to go forward
to bring together people of manifest expertise and experience,
who represent a very, very, very good cross-section of Scottish
society to look at these issues in a timely way. They may choose
not to make recommendations. How they come forward is a matter
for them. I suspect they will make recommendations that will say:
"In our view, the arguments support this particular conclusion,
and we recommend it." Then, of course, whoever is in an executive
position and has to bring these things forward will have to take
decisions and take responsibility for them. It is not the way
in which we do government in this country that we subcontract
these decisions to commissions. Commissions make recommendations;
ministers take responsibility.
Q55 Mr Davidson: I recognise a straight
bat when I see one!
Des Browne: The ball went to the
boundary—that is all I am interested in.
Q56 Mr MacNeil: Do you see devolution
as an event or a process, given the Calman work?
Des Browne: I think we will see
the degree to which the Calman Commission recommendations support
either of those two conclusions. This is a kind of sterile question,
you know; it relies upon—and I get slightly irritated by
this because I knew the man really well—a misrepresentation
of what Donald Dewar said on one occasion. It just is a pointless
and irritating question which people keep asking me. I am interested
in making devolution work for Scotland. Devolution has always
had built into it this ability to be able to adjust it. If it
needs greater adjustments than it presently has, then it needs
greater adjustment, but from my point of view devolution is a
settled relationship. The people of Scotland overwhelmingly want
to be in the United Kingdom. They want a degree of devolution
and they have voted for both in substantial numbers on many, many
occasions. That is settled as far as I am concerned. If we adjust
that to make the best of it, that is fine.
Q57 Mr MacNeil: At the risk of further
irritation, but bearing in mind the words of Mr Davidson about
being cruel to be kind, do you think the Scottish people perhaps
want more devolution?
Des Browne: What I think is that
the Scottish people have two sets of politicians; they have politicians
here in the United Kingdom Parliament at parliamentary level,
and they have politicians in the Scottish Parliament. To the extent
that the absence of those politicians indicate what people of
Scotland want, the Scottish Parliament voted for the remit of
the Calman Commission, but they have had foisted upon them a national
conversation which the Scottish Parliament has never endorsed.
That is what I think the Scottish people want. I think the Scottish
people want devolution, and they want devolution to work.
Q58 Mr MacNeil: How?
Des Browne: We will see.
Q59 Mr MacNeil: How will we see?
Des Browne: We will see. The Calman
Commission will report. They will collect the evidence. They will
make the arguments and they will report. This is a pointless discussion
between us to anticipate what they will do. They know they are
going to do it. They will probably do it in a period of time that
will serve both of our curiosities, and we should just wait and
see what they do. I just ask you: can you ask your political colleagues
in Scotland if they will put the national conversation to the
Scottish Parliament to get the endorsement of the Scottish Parliament
for the money that they are spending on it, which we did with
the Calman Commission?
8 Oral evidence taken before the Scottish Affairs
Committee on 11 June 2008, HC (2007-08) 704-i, Q 42 Back
9
Ibid. Back
| 
