House of Commons Scottish Affairs Committee

The Referendum on Separation for Scotland, Session 2012–13

Oral and written evidence

Volume II

Oral evidence ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 16 July, 5, 12 and 17 September, 31 October, 20 and 21 November and 19 December 2012

Written evidence ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on 09 January 2013

HC 139-II Published on 23 January 2013 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £0.00

The Scottish Affairs Committee

The Scottish Affairs Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Scotland Office (including (i) relations with the Scottish Parliament and (ii) administration and expenditure of the offices of the Advocate General for Scotland (but excluding individual cases and advice given within government by the Advocate General)).

Current membership Mr Ian Davidson MP (Labour/Co-op, Glasgow South West) (Chair) Fiona Bruce MP (Conservative, Congleton) Mike Crockart MP (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West) Mike Freer MP (Conservative, Finchley and Golders Green) Jim McGovern MP (Labour, Dundee West) Iain McKenzie MP (Labour, Inverclyde) Pamela Nash MP (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts) Simon Reevell MP (Conservative, Dewsbury) Mr Alan Reid MP (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute) Lindsay Roy MP (Labour, Glenrothes) Dr Eilidh Whiteford MP (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The following members were also members of the committee during the parliament: Cathy Jamieson MP (Labour/Co-op, Kilmarnock and Loudoun) Mark Menzies MP (Conservative, Fylde) Graeme Morrice MP (Labour, Livingston) David Mowat MP (Conservative, Warrington South) Fiona O’Donnell MP (Labour, East Lothian) Julian Smith MP (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

Powers The committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the internet via www.parliament.uk.

Publication The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the internet at www.parliament.uk/scotaffcom. A list of Reports of the Committee in the present parliament is at the back of this volume.

The Reports of the Committee, the formal minutes relating to that report, oral evidence taken and some or all written evidence are available in a printed volume. Additional written evidence may be published on the internet only.

Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are Eliot Wilson (Clerk), Duma Langton (Inquiry Manager), Gabrielle Hill (Senior Committee Assistant) and Ravi Abhayaratne (Committee Support Assistant).

Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Scottish Affairs Committee, House of Commons, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 6123; the Committee’s email address is [email protected]

List of witnesses

Monday 16 July 2012 Page

John Ainslie, Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament Ev 149

Wednesday 5 September 2012

Professor Bernard Ryan, University of Kent Law School, and Professor Jo Shaw, University of Edinburgh Law School Ev166

Wednesday 12 September 2012

Professor William Walker, School of International Relations, University of St Andrews, and Dr Phillips O’Brien, Scottish Centre for War Studies, University of Glasgow Ev 187

Monday 17 September 2012

Rt Hon Michael Moore MP, Secretary of State for Scotland, Rt Hon David Mundell MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, and Alun Evans, Director of the Scotland Office Ev 204

Wednesday 31 October 2012

Rt Hon Michael Moore MP, Secretary of State for Scotland, Rt Hon David Mundell MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, Alun Evans, Director, and Chris Flatt, Deputy Director, Scotland Office Ev 218

Tuesday 20 November 2012

Blair Jenkins, Chief Executive, Yes Scotland campaign, and Blair McDougall, Campaign Director, Better Together campaign Ev 235

Wednesday 21 November 2012

Ian Godden, Chairman, Farnborough International, Professor Trevor Taylor, Professorial Research Fellow in Defence Management, Royal United Services Institute, and Dr John Louth, Director, Defence, Industries and Society Programme, Royal United Services Institute Ev 256

Wednesday 19 December 2012

Philip Dunne MP, Minister for Defence Equipment, Support and Technology, Vice Admiral Andrew Mathews CB FREng, Defence Equipment and Support, Chief of Matériel (Fleet), and Les Mosco BSc FCIPS, Defence Equipment and Support, Director Commercial, Ministry of Defence Ev 276

List of written evidence

1 Professor Bernard Ryan, Law School, University of Kent Ev 286 2 Francis Tusa, Editor, Defence Analysis Ev 290 3 Professor Jo Shaw, University of Edinburgh Ev 294 4 Dr Phillips O’Brien Ev 297 5 Electoral Commission Ev 299 6 Secretary of State for Scotland Ev 301 7 Ministry of Defence Ev 301 8 Babcock Ev 309 9 Bryan Buchan, Chief Executive, Scottish Engineering Ev 310 10 Supplementary Ministry of Defence Ev 310 11 Additional Ministry of Defence Ev 311 12 BAE Systems Ev 312 13 Supplementary Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) Ev 313

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [SO] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG04 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o004_michelle_SAC RSS Defence CND 16_07_12.xml

Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 149

Monday 16 July 2012

Members present: Mr Ian Davidson (Chair)

Jim McGovern Mr Alan Reid Mr Iain McKenzie Lindsay Roy Simon Reevell ______

Examination of Witness

Witness: John Ainslie, Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.

Q1058 Chair: Good afternoon, Mr Ainslie. Thanks these various steps can be done in half the time, but for coming to give evidence to the Scottish Affairs that the proposal that I am putting forward is therefore Select Committee. Could we just start by asking you a safe and reasonable way of doing it. You could in to introduce yourself? Tell us what your role is and fact do it more quickly is what Bruce Blair was then tell us a little bit about CND Scotland. saying, but because this is not as quick as possible, John Ainslie: I am John Ainslie. I have been working that then builds more of an element of safety in the as co-ordinator of Scottish CND for about 20 years. I process. have a degree in international relations from the 1970s. During my time with Scottish CND, I have Q1060 Chair: Can I be clear? You are saying that produced a significant number of reports and papers, there are three stages. The first is the switching-off particularly on the Trident nuclear weapon system. I stage. The second is disarming, as it were, and have previously given evidence to the Defence removing things. Then there is the breaking up or Committee on the Trident system. whatever it is that you do with them. In terms of Scottish CND, our main focus clearly is John Ainslie: I am proposing about eight different on nuclear disarmament, although it is slightly broader stages— than that. We were involved a lot in the protests against the Iraq war, but now we have moved back to Q1061 Chair: I see that— our main focus on nuclear disarmament, particularly John Ainslie: Basically, that is right. It is an initial in the context of the referendum coming up. Clearly stage where you say, “Well, it is still there, but you this is an issue. How do we relate to that as an can’t use it because various components are not organisation? there.” Even at that disarmament stage—from what I’m talking about here, the dismantlement of the Q1059 Chair: As you will appreciate, there has been warheads—you still have plutonium pits, so where do some dubiety expressed about the timetable that you you start and where do you stop in that process? have brought forward. It seems astonishingly fast for some people. Maybe you could just talk us through Q1062 Chair: If the first stage is that you switch the timetable that you envisage being possible for the something off, presumably you can switch it back on removal of nuclear weapons from Scotland. again. What I am not clear about from your timetable John Ainslie: What we are looking at is disarmament of 24 months is at what stage is that, as it were, not just as an abstract concept, but as a real practical irrecoverable? possibility and how it could be brought about. The John Ainslie: It is an interesting question. In terms of initial step is that Trident could be deactivated, in a disarmament principles—from the international sense, so that it cannot be used within a matter of bodies—irreversibility is a basic principle in days. There is a trigger that the weapons operating disarmament. Having said that, how do you really officer presses and the captain turns a key. If you take enforce it? The study looks at verifying that those away the triggers and the keys and you take the processes have happened, which clearly helps to make submarine off patrol, there are components of the it more difficult to reverse them. That verification is missile that can be removed within a period of a day. more of a problem at those first stages. How do you That deactivates it in a sense so that it cannot be used know whether they have that spare key or a duplicate in anger within a matter of days. Within a period of key? Those first stages are harder to verify than about eight weeks or so, you could remove all the physically moving warheads. The study has been done warheads and store them at Coulport, which again is on verifying that. On the one hand, the warhead a further step. They are still there, but the system has information is classified, which produces a problem in been taken apart. Then it would take two years to terms of verification, but there have been studies on physically move those warheads out of Scotland, ways around that. In other words, it is possible to have which is based on frequency of convoys in the mid- systems to verify the physical process of moving or ’90s. dismantling warheads. The actual dismantlement of warheads at Burghfield might take as long as four years. Having said that, Q1063 Chair: The first point you mentioned is on Bruce Blair, the leading world expert on de-alerting recalling submarines. You give seven days for that. nuclear forces in America, basically said that this How do you know that they could get back within programme is credible. His own studies show that seven days? cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG04 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o004_michelle_SAC RSS Defence CND 16_07_12.xml

Ev 150 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

16 July 2012 John Ainslie

John Ainslie: That is a generous allowance. I do not Q1067 Lindsay Roy: And this will be travelling have anything on the current patrol changeovers; I through Scotland to England? know that in the patrol changeovers in the early ’90s John Ainslie: Yes, by road. They tried doing it by sea there were problems with Polaris and there were four once in the late ’90s, but that was only an experiment. or five days between one patrol going out and another coming in. That is the total time for changing over Q1068 Lindsay Roy: Are there special security between two submarines. It is possible with Trident arrangements? that they can patrol further away because of the John Ainslie: Yes. In theory you could run them non- missile range. To be honest, seven days is allowing stop, but in practice that is not very feasible because quite a long time; I think they could probably be back of all the security implications. in three or four. Q1069 Lindsay Roy: Can you tell us whose Q1064 Lindsay Roy: How robust is the evidence for responsibility it would be to remove and transport the your assertion that this could be completed within warheads, should Scotland become a separate two years? country? John Ainslie: As I say, these are my own. The two- John Ainslie: There are specialised vehicles, which year figure is primarily based on the time it takes for are based at Aldermaston. They have actually just the nuclear convoys. The convoys drive up and down introduced a new one; it was the truck cargo heavy on a regular basis several times a year at the moment. duty mark II, and it is now the mark III. They are very I basically looked back at figures for convoys in the specialised vehicles. It used to be RAF personnel, and mid-1990s, when there were a lot of movements and it is now Ministry of Defence police personnel. convoys were on the road once a month, or sometimes more than once a month. At the peak of the Trident Q1070 Lindsay Roy: Would it be primarily warheads being delivered to Scotland, that was the Scotland’s responsibility or the responsibility of the frequency. Again, Bruce Blair said the figure is rest of the UK to remove the warheads and transport perfectly credible. them? The other person we put the figure past is Professor John Ainslie: In terms of the logistics, it is a Richard Garwin, who is credited by Teller as being specialised job so the unit that is down in Aldermaston the true inventor of the hydrogen bomb. He is a senior would be the people with the capability to do it. member of the American nuclear weapons establishment, and he was their man on the hydrogen Q1071 Lindsay Roy: So that would require the good bomb. He basically says that you can do these things will and co-operation of the rest of the UK? within those time scales. Clearly, that depends—this John Ainslie: In practice, I think, yes. is Garwin’s caveat—on whether you want to do it. So Garwin’s view is, yes, this is a credible timetable, but Q1072 Mr McKenzie: Just on the removal of the there is a whole political issue about whether you warheads and the safety factor, is your safety want to do it. He is one of the most senior nuclear calculated on the number of warheads that are weapons advisers, and he has advised successive removed at any one time, or is that a mass removal or American Governments over several decades. a strategic one? John Ainslie: I am basing this on nine or 10 warheads Q1065 Lindsay Roy: Have you had any information per convoy. The maximum number of vehicles is five. from the MOD? Have you sought any information The maximum number of warheads—in theory, I from the MOD on whether that is an accurate think you can possibly put four, but in practice it is assertion? two, as we know historically from the 1990s. It comes John Ainslie: There was an official response from the back to the period when Trident was being brought up MOD in the Sunday Herald a few weeks ago that did here. When Trident was brought up to Scotland there not engage with the detail of the time scale, which is was quite an effort over what was going on. From what I expected. that, we know the sort of process.

Q1066 Lindsay Roy: What are the main limiting Q1073 Mr McKenzie: Do you reckon we still could factors that prevent this happening within two years? do that sort of gradual removal of warheads within You need two years. two years? John Ainslie: In terms of taking longer than that? John Ainslie: Yes, this is moving nine or 10 a month Lindsay Roy: No, taking a shorter time. over 24 months. The current stockpile is 225. John Ainslie: The safety of moving the warheads. They used to take three days to drive up and three Q1074 Mr McKenzie: So the removal would not days to drive down, so it was at least a week’s commence after two years; it would commence before operation every time. They are now quicker, but, even two years in that respect, no? so, we have to allow time for the crew and for John Ainslie: There is a separate issue of when this training. That would be having the vehicles process starts, as it were. operationally on the road for possibly a week every month and then three weeks’ build up. There are Q1075 Mr McKenzie: If it started two years from clearly lots of safety and security concerns about the time you are saying, it would not be completed in moving nuclear warheads. the two years you were saying that it could be. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG04 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o004_michelle_SAC RSS Defence CND 16_07_12.xml

Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 151

16 July 2012 John Ainslie

John Ainslie: I am really only looking at the are then potentially far more substantial, if you are practicalities of how it happens. There is clearly this talking about that. other issue of: how do you get there? Q1081 Chair: Before we move on, could I go just go Q1076 Chair: We understand that point. At the back through some of the phases of the actual physical moment we are really just wanting to explore with dismantling, just to make sure that we are absolutely you the practicalities. My understanding is that it is clear about this? You have given in your document 24 months for the complete removal of all the eight phases, which would mean that everything is warheads to somewhere in England. completed within four years and things could be out John Ainslie: Yes. of Scotland within two years. Let me just go back, if I could, to phase 1, which is the end of operational Q1077 Lindsay Roy: If that were the case, what deployment of submarines. You are quite clear, are would be the proportionate cost to the Scottish budget you, that they could all be back in base within seven of removing and transferring the warheads and in the days? Can you just clarify again for me on what you decommissioning? Has that been worked out? base that? John Ainslie: Very difficult to cost. One of the things John Ainslie: Basically, there is one Trident I have tried to do over the years is to get estimates submarine on patrol at all times. The question in terms from the MOD of various costs. I do not think I have of how long it takes them to get back is then the issue ever seen anything specifically on costs of nuclear of where the patrol areas are, which clearly is very highly classified. The only slight indication about that weapons transport, but there is an organisation that is the collision between the French and the British does that normally. Part of the context would be that submarines—the Vanguard and the Triomphant—a there will be nuclear warhead movements anyway. couple of years ago. That was probably not that far There is currently a call for mark 4A upgrades, so the from the Bay of Biscay, in terms of the time it took warheads are being upgraded. All the warheads in the the French submarine. It was not on the west side of operational stockpile will be taken down to the Atlantic, but it was on patrol. That was a Trident Burghfield, upgraded and brought back again. So there submarine on patrol within about two days’ sailing of are going to be these movements happening in any the French base. case. Q1082 Chair: As I understand it, these vessels often Q1078 Lindsay Roy: So there is no figure. My go off on three-month patrols. I am not quite sure, but question was wider than that, about the do you just sort of ring them up, say “Hello” and ask decommissioning of Faslane and Coulport. Has any them to come back? How do you know that, once they estimate been made of what proportion of the Scottish are away, you can actually get them back? budget would have to be devoted to that? John Ainslie: One of a number of basic requirements John Ainslie: Decommissioning at the sites is a of a Trident submarine on patrol—one of the different question, and it is not really something that fundamentals when you are talking about a tour—is I have looked at. This is not talking about constant communication. They must be in constant decommissioning the sites; this is talking about communication at all times. They never transmit, but removing the warheads in particular. There is a second they have to be able to receive, so it is easy to send a issue, to some extent, of looking at the missiles, which message to them. It is a fundamental thing, because if are the two bits of the strategic weapons system. It is you want to fire them, they obviously have to be able only really touching on the question of submarines, to receive the message, so one of the basic and it is not really going as far as what happens with requirements is constant communication. the site. The site issue, if we want to go down that road, is really Coulport. Q1083 Chair: Removing the keys and triggers—we touched on this earlier—is something that is done, but Q1079 Lindsay Roy: But just to clarify, you do not is then reversible and can be put back again. I am not have a notion of the proportionate cost to Scotland’s clear what the disabling of missiles, which is done in budget of transferring the warheads? eight days, is. What is it that you do to disable them, John Ainslie: There are not figures readily available, since presumably they are already disabled by the but part of my response would be that this is not removal of the keys and triggers? What different step additional. At some point these warheads have to be is this and, again, is it reversible? removed and dismantled, so it is a cost that at some John Ainslie: It is. For removing components, which point will occur. Is it already there in the nuclear are removed anyway—there is a guidance unit inside liabilities figure? I am not sure. The decommissioning the missile and there is a fire-control computer system might already be there in the MOD’s nuclear inside the missile—there is a little hatch which allows liabilities figure. submariners to get inside the missile and to remove those. They are gyroscopes and so forth, so they have Q1080 Lindsay Roy: The difference would be that to be quite carefully handled. They are routinely there would be a separate state—a separate Scotland. removed and stowed on shore, anyway, and it is quite There has been no estimate calculated on that basis? possible that, sometimes, they remove them. John Ainslie: No. The transport figures are probably There is this thing about their having several days’ not necessarily particularly high; it will be the cost of notice to fire and how they do that. Possibly one of sustaining that unit. Costs of decommissioning sites the ways is that the British force, which is currently cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG04 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o004_michelle_SAC RSS Defence CND 16_07_12.xml

Ev 152 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

16 July 2012 John Ainslie on a couple of days’ notice, simply does not have John Ainslie: There is always this element in those items installed. I do not know if that is the case, disarmament that you could in fact bring them back, but it is a relatively routine process. It would take but it is more difficult. The other thing is, you can about a day to do, but you have to bring the verify that they have gone more easily. When you start submarine in. moving substantial physical components, it is easier The other one, that Bruce Blair in America suggested for someone outside to monitor that it is happening. when I started raising this with him, was a thing called an AC/DC inverter, which physically launches the Q1087 Chair: A Government of a separate Scotland missile. Again, those are components which—within would presumably not condone them coming back in the US Navy, and presumably the British Navy—they again, so there is a certain irrevocability about that. already from time to time remove. Removing those Can I just clarify something? If you are removing the inverters prevents a missile from being physically shot keys and the triggers and disabling the missiles, can out of the tube. those bits not simply be moved south of the border at These are all things. Again, you remove them and you that stage as well? Suppose it took another week to lock them up in a cupboard somewhere, with a wee take them down south. They would then be out of video camera or something on it, but can you be Scotland within a fortnight or three weeks and that absolutely sure that somebody’s not got a spare one would, unless they were smuggled back up, up their sleeve? irrevocably stop the missiles being usable. Is that correct? Q1084 Chair: So up to that phase 3, where your John Ainslie: Yes, possibly. It is a question of how missile is disabled in eight days, all of that is still easy it is to monitor it. As I have said, work has been reversible? done on verification. I was looking at how you verify John Ainslie: Yes. The issue in terms of verification it. Quite a bit of work has been done with warheads. is quite hard to— Some of these other things are harder to verify. A warhead has a radiological signature. Because it is Q1085 Chair: No, I understand that. I just want to radioactive, you can check whether it has been moved be clear. On the removal of warheads from around and that gives you the mechanism to verify it. submarines, you have “submarines” as plural, so I presume that means that one submarine takes eight Q1088 Chair: For the sake of argument, let us weeks and that to remove missiles from two suggest that this is done in good faith. If this is done submarines takes 10 weeks. I am not sure if that is in good faith, it would be entirely possible for the eight weeks and then another two weeks, or eight submarines to be back, for the keys and triggers to be weeks and then another 10 weeks. Either way, I removed within seven days—one thing, at the end of understand the concept that by the end of 10 or 18 operational deployment, the keys and triggers are weeks all the missiles are out of all the submarines. presumably removed another seven days after that. John Ainslie: There are two stages. You have got John Ainslie: No, it really only takes about a day. nuclear warheads that are on top of the missile. The That is why these various things are saying eight days. numbers are highly classified, but, in practice, say that Seven of those eight days is the time it takes to get they are down to eight missiles in each submarine. the submarine back. You have three armed submarines, each of which has eight missiles and each missile has five nuclear Q1089 Chair: Okay, so it is within that time and they warheads. Current practice in Britain on safety get loaded into the back of a Vauxhall Vectra like mine grounds is that they install and remove the warheads and driven down to England and, subject to good faith while they are on the missile on the submarine. The and so on, that would essentially be the whole Trident first stage is you take all the warheads off one fleet disabled. submarine. The time for each is seven to 10 days. John Ainslie: Yes, that might be a better way of doing I say that because, again, I watched them loading a it. What I was proposing is that somehow or other it Vanguard in December 1994 before its first patrol. It is verified. If you were able to verify them down was taking them about a week to 10 days. They were south, that might be preferable, because they are carrying slightly more than they carry now—they further away. were loading 60 at that point. Each one would take about a week, so, in theory, with three submarines, Q1090 Chair: I suppose that, with verifying them you could do it in three weeks, but, again, because of down south, you would not know whether they had a the safety considerations, it is quite a big operation; it spare one. That was why I was making the point that, is not just something you can take on tomorrow. Eight if it is done in good faith, this could be done in less weeks is building in a longer period. It is one week, than a fortnight. Is that fair? for each of three submarines. John Ainslie: Yes, that was Bruce Blair’s comment to me. He has done work. These initial stages overlap Q1086 Chair: Okay, I see the distinction there with de-alerting. There is a whole concern now that between warheads and missiles. Once that is done, the nuclear weapons are in too high a state of alert. They removal of the limited life components from Scotland are on hair triggers, which is less the case with British takes a year. That is phase 6. Within a year, if these ones. That is why quite a lot of work has been done things were out of Scotland and not brought back in, on de-alerting and those initial stages are the same as that is the stage at which it is irreversible. Is that right? what is being talked about for American and Russian cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG04 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o004_michelle_SAC RSS Defence CND 16_07_12.xml

Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 153

16 July 2012 John Ainslie nuclear forces, so that they are not on hair trigger Q1094 Simon Reevell: Let us assume that for some alerts. That is where this sort of expertise comes in. reason, the base could not be accessed. It is not an automatic consequence of that that you begin to Q1091 Chair: As I understand it, removing missiles disarm your capability. from the two submarines is what it says on the tin. John Ainslie: When you say it couldn’t be accessed, Presumably, they are physically taken out and that can sorry— easily be verified, because somebody looks in the holes and then counts them lying somewhere. On Q1095 Simon Reevell: Let us assume, for the sake disabling the warheads, again, the point about limited of the argument, that the base, although it remains part life components is similar to the one we had before. of the UK, for whatever reason cannot be accessed, On the caveat of two years, which Iain asked about which would be the effect of separation. That does earlier, effectively, it is not really as long as two years. not mean that you begin then to remove triggers and That is just about how long it takes to physically gyroscopes. The two things are entirely unconnected, remove them from Scotland. It might take some time aren’t they? to remove the boats and missiles, but under the system John Ainslie: Are you assuming a Guantanamo Bay or timetable you have suggested of two years to no or Cork model— warheads, in reality, all of it could be disabled within 14 days, which is the point. Q1096 Simon Reevell: No, let us simply assume that John Ainslie: I would say less than that; seven or suddenly, for whatever reason, the base is not there eight days to disable it. any more. That is problematic, but the leap in logic Chair: I was allowing leeway, just in case there was that means you then start to remove the triggers comes a blockage on the motorway or something like that. I from a desire to see disarmament. It is not an just wanted to be clear. Any other questions from automatic consequence of that. anybody on those important points? John Ainslie: What I am saying is that an independent Scotland could say to a member of the UK Government, “This is what we would like you to do.” Q1092 Mr McKenzie: On removing the keys and disarming almost immediately, how could that Q1097 Simon Reevell: It cannot. It can say that you happen, and is there a sort of overlap? I take it that cannot bring your submarines here any more. That is the rest of the UK would still wish to retain a nuclear the limit of what an independent Scottish Government deterrent. As such, if you are taking the keys off all could do. It could say, “The base is closed to your the nuclear weapons in that base, the nuclear deterrent submarines. Do not bring them here”, but what that they wish to keep would be nullified. Would keys happens as a result of saying that is a completely have to be sent down south, or to Wales or Northern separate consideration, isn’t it? Ireland, and then a submarine go there to maintain it? John Ainslie: They are based there, and that is the How would the rest of the UK maintain that nuclear problem. deterrent if they wanted to? John Ainslie: It is putting it beyond use. I suppose Q1098 Simon Reevell: The ones that are at sea. that the starting point is, to some extent, an John Ainslie: They cannot actually sail them understanding of international law, and any use of anywhere else. They do not have safety clearance. these weapons would almost certainly be contrary to Even Kings Bay in America will not have safety the ICJ’s 1996 ruling that the threat or use of nuclear clearance to handle British warheads. weapons would generally be contrary to the rules and principles of humanitarian law. So, ever using these Q1099 Simon Reevell: But the point that you are things would be illegal under international law and trying to make is that if the bases are not available, therefore, it is a responsible thing to put something in the missiles have to be disarmed. The availability of place to prevent that use. That is the sort of starting the bases and the decision about the maintenance of point. the deterrent are separate. One has a bearing on the other, but it does not follow that they have to begin to Q1093 Simon Reevell: I was delayed and I missed disarm the missiles the day after the base becomes the beginning, so I am sorry if I am going to ask unavailable, does it? something that has been covered. I presume what you John Ainslie: If that is the only base that they have. have been describing is a scenario based on a desire on the part of the UK, not including Scotland, to Q1100 Simon Reevell: They could stay at sea for a disarm, because none of this is necessary without period to begin with, for example. that desire. John Ainslie: Not very long. There are practical John Ainslie: If the force is based in Scotland, and if problems. In theory, you could say, “Well, you can just we are looking at the scenario of an independent temporarily move them to Devonport or to America.” Scotland, which is a separate, sovereign state, the idea However, quite a lot of the work that I have done in of a sovereign state having its whole nuclear weapons recent years is on nuclear safety issues and to criticise capability indefinitely in another sovereign state is the defence nuclear safety regulator, but I don’t think probably not sustainable. So at some point—this is my that the defence nuclear safety regulator would say, other argument to get on to—if they can’t move it, “Oh yes. Just bring them into Devonport and we’ll you are in a position that becomes unsustainable. handle the warheads there,” or “Let’s just take them cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG04 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o004_michelle_SAC RSS Defence CND 16_07_12.xml

Ev 154 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

16 July 2012 John Ainslie over to Kings Bay in America and temporarily operate and regulations for handling elsewhere in the UK. from there.” There are huge issues with this. Those are the sorts of factors. John Ainslie: One of the areas of research that I have Q1101 Simon Reevell: There are. From an American been working on is international archives, particularly point of view, they might have to reassess the safety the Polaris track decision between 1977 and 1982. regulations at their base, but they would do that in the There are now several thousand pages of declassified context of losing an important nuclear-powered ally. files on that decision-making process. Part of what I They may or may not, but there are all sorts of other am saying here is based on that information, which at considerations that would come in. Would you accept the time was top secret. In that period, they looked at that the idea that the base ceasing to be available possibly basing them at Kings Bay. Frank Cooper, the means that we start to take the triggers out of the permanent secretary at the Ministry of Defence at the missiles is an enormous jump of logic? time, basically said it was not feasible or viable to John Ainslie: Not really, no. The other issue is that build a replacement for Coulport on any greenfield there is something less than 225 nuclear warheads, site. If he is saying it was not viable at that point, at and 120 of those are on submarines. There are about the height of the cold war—before Chernobyl and 100 spares, of which a small number—10 or 20—are before Fukushima—then I would think it is less viable under refurbishment or overhaul at Burghfield. There now than it was back then. are a significant number of extra warheads, which are currently sitting in bunkers at Coulport and so are not Q1106 Simon Reevell: But you are not aware of the at sea. work that has been done in the intervening 20 years and you know that this is a completely different type of boat. It was Polaris in the early ’90s. We are talking Q1102 Simon Reevell: But that is not the same. They about Trident in 2012. So the work that you have are weapons that are being stored. We are talking looked at is 20 years out of date and relates to a about the deterrent capability. Let us assume—God different type of boat in a different political climate. forbid—that one of those weapons being stored leaked John Ainslie: The timing has the opposite effect. and that whole area could not be approached. It would Between the 1960s and the late ’70s, the safety not follow from that that the submarine-based missile regulations were tightened up. One of the implications deterrent systems at seas would have to be disarmed of that was that the existing Polaris base safety zones unilaterally by the UK. That might be one option, but were inadequate and they had to issue waivers in the there are all sorts of other options, such as the French late ’70s. Explosives safety regulations and nuclear option, the American option or the relocation in the safety regulations tightened up. There was a major UK option. problem with the shift to Faslane, because it was built John Ainslie: These are all possible options, but the and designed before Chernobyl. After Chernobyl, the other paper that I was doing was about relocation. regulations tightened, so it does not become easier Obviously, you cannot rule it out entirely, but I do not over time. Certainly the experience of the previous think that it is very viable. decades is that it becomes harder over time.

Q1103 Simon Reevell: The impression that I got Q1107 Simon Reevell: It becomes different, doesn’t from what you were saying is that if there was it? Let us be frank. You have no idea of what has separation for Scotland, a direct consequence of that happened in the period since the papers you looked at would be imposed nuclear disarmament on the UK. I became available to the public and today, and that is appreciate that that is something that you might like a period of some 15 years plus. to see, but it is not as strong a link as that, is it? John Ainslie: I have put in freedom of information John Ainslie: It is quite a close link. I do not think requests for quite a lot of nuclear safety documents, that the weakness lies in the area that you are saying. so I know the direction of the nuclear safety issues. The weakness lies with whether an independent That is towards tightening things up. It is bringing Scotland would actually do this or whether it would defence nuclear safety in line with civil nuclear safety. negotiate a deal. Q1108 Simon Reevell: But you are making a number Q1104 Simon Reevell: That is a separate matter. If it of contentions about alternative bases. They might be negotiated a deal, the situation would not arise, but informed guesses, but they are no more than that. That if the situation arises where the bases are no longer is the point that I am trying to make. available, there are number of options at that stage, John Ainslie: I am not totally convinced that people one of which is to dismantle the weapons. in the Ministry of Defence have in fact been looking John Ainslie: Yes, that is right, but the question is at this in the detail that you suggest. They are doing how viable these other options are. some work, but how detailed is it?

Q1105 Simon Reevell: The viability of the other Q1109 Simon Reevell: If you are suggesting the options depends on a number of things, which you are MOD is not the model of efficiency that I understand not aware of and neither are we, because of the very it to be, I am stunned and surprised at that. nature of those considerations. For example, there is the accommodation that is available at the American Q1110 Chair: Stop baiting the witness. base or the French base—bearing in mind the different Coming back to the question of the phasing again, I size of the submarines—or the rewriting of the rules just want to clarify one point. Is there enough room at cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG04 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o004_michelle_SAC RSS Defence CND 16_07_12.xml

Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 155

16 July 2012 John Ainslie

Coulport for all the submarines to be worked on at the Q1114 Mr McKenzie: You say that two years is a same time, particularly removing missiles from two reasonable time scale to have these weapons removed. submarines? Is there enough staff there to do that? The rest of the UK is saying that it would be John Ainslie: Some bases would take one in at a time. something in the region of 20 years. Is there an The explosive handling jetty can take only one interim arrangement that you would accept with a submarine. The staffing is an issue in terms of guarantee that in, say, 20 years’ time they would scheduling. How do they schedule that work in definitely be off Scottish soil but in the mean time comparison with what they do? What happens at the there might be a gradual phasing? moment is that when a submarine goes from Faslane John Ainslie: I think the time scales are measuring into Devonport for a refit, at that stage they take all two different things. I am measuring practical the warheads off. The missiles go to America, so the disarmament. The UK Government could do that, and missiles do not necessarily come off. Then when a if they did there would be no nuclear weapons by the submarine comes out of refit, it goes into Coulport time of the referendum. These are practical things that and they put them all on. Those things are happening could be done. every few years. When it happens, it is quite a big operation. Clearly, if you want to do it on three—one Q1115 Mr McKenzie: But the UK Government are after the other—that is quite a task. On the other hand, saying 20 years; you are saying two years. There is a the system is there to do it. gulf. Is there anywhere in the middle that you would accept with a guarantee that, in the future, they would be gone? Q1111 Chair: That might conceivably stretch the John Ainslie: I do not think the UK Government are timetable for removing missiles from two submarines saying that it will take 20 years to move nuclear and disabling the warheads and removing the live warheads from Coulport to Burghfield. The suggestion components from Scotland. is to relocate them and rebuild a new facility. The John Ainslie: There is potential for that, but, when I main Trident programme decision was taken in July have put it to people in the States who have inside 1980, and the first submarine was operational in information on this, they say that this is all viable. December 1994, so you have a 14-year period They are not saying that this is not practical. between when the decision to go ahead with Trident was made and when the system was fully operational. Q1112 Chair: Notwithstanding that, of course, that That is almost the minimum, and because it is a new would not delay the two-week period that I was site, it will take longer. That is where the 20 years allowing for the disabling and the removal of the keys comes from. If you have to replicate Faslane or and triggers and loading these into the back of my Coulport somewhere else, that is where the 20-year Vauxhall Vectra and driving back to England. figure comes from, but that is measuring something Notwithstanding that point about staff numbers, the different from what I am measuring. actual disabling would still be able to take place within the timetable that you initially outlined, if there Q1116 Chair: To be fair, Mr McKenzie is picking up were full co-operation. Simon came in slightly late the issue of what might be acceptable to you and when we were exploring the question of what would people like you. I think you mentioned that there are be possible if that were desired. economic pressures on the UK Government with Trident, but surely Mr McKenzie’s first question was about the pressures that would be exerted on the Q1113 Mr McKenzie: In your report, you say that Scottish Government. As you will recognise, any delay by an independent Scottish Government in originally the SNP were in favour of having a republic calling for the removal of nuclear weapons would without the Queen, but that has now changed. They result in pressure from the rest of the UK to reverse were originally in favour of the euro, I think, which the policy. Can you tell us a wee bit about what you has now changed. They were also against the Bank of believe those pressures would be? England being involved, which has now changed. It John Ainslie: In terms of the remainder of the UK might well be that this, like NATO, is something that trying to say to Scotland that it should effectively keep changes, too, given the pressures that might be them? That is not something we looked at in detail, exerted. I wonder whether you could help us with but obviously it is part of the wider picture of what some clarification. Scotland might be like if it were independent, and it John Ainslie: As I say, I think it is possible that the is whether that would really be the case. I come at UK Government could try to do that. I just think there this from a slightly different angle. I know the work is a possibility that a UK Government might look at of Malcolm Chalmers, and his interpretation of how this as an opportunity, because this is very much an this will pan out is slightly different. The answer is Anglo-American system. How would America and the partly based on how strongly the establishment are Obama Administration, if re-elected, look at this? determined that they must, on all accounts, keep hold They are looking at substantial further reductions in of nuclear weapons. I am not totally convinced how the American warhead stockpile in line with Russia. solid that really is. I do not know to what extent this The British might then be a problem. So the whole is a bit of a house of cards. The underlying rationale climate might be different— is not very credible. There are all sorts of economic pressures. They could propose such things, but Q1117 Chair: I understand that. If the British whether they really would is my question. Government decided to use this as an opportunity to cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG04 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o004_michelle_SAC RSS Defence CND 16_07_12.xml

Ev 156 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

16 July 2012 John Ainslie disarm, this would give them an excuse to do so—I that questions have probably been asked about how understand that. But if they decide not to disarm— autonomous CND Scotland is—even from the rest of not to nuclear disarm unilaterally, and certainly not if the UK—but if these weapons are going to be foisted on them by a separate Scotland—and it takes removed from Scotland and you are making an 20 years to build a replacement, can I ask you to argument as to why they cannot be located in England, clarify what you believe would happen then? where are they going to go? John Ainslie: They clearly could try to make life John Ainslie: Nowhere. It was from looking again at difficult in the wider negotiation, but the other context the Walker-Chalmers book and updating it from the is international—again, it is where I probably differ more recent archive information that I have got— from what Malcolm Chalmers or some of the others Basically, when Britain moved from Polaris to are saying. I was at the NPT PrepCom earlier this Trident, the Government suddenly realised that they year, there are a lot of countries around the world that had a huge problem with Coulport, because the safety are on the disarmament side—Australia, Canada, New regulations had tightened up. The Trident C4 was a Zealand, Germany or Scandinavian countries. We bigger missile and the D5 an even bigger missile; even would be trying to move towards nuclear with moving the missile processing work to the disarmament, concerned about nuclear proliferation. If United States, they still had a huge problem trying to you have one country trying to insist that another accommodate it. They then said, at one point— country continues to host its nuclear weapons, I think 1981—how about just basing the British Trident fleet, that the international context might well be missiles and warheads at Kings Bay? So it was floated international support for Scotland’s position, rather in 1981 as a way out of this problem with sites. than for the rUK’s position. It is very difficult, because Basically that was not viable— all these are speculations and “what if”, but it might play out in a different way. Q1120 Jim McGovern: With all due respect, may I interrupt? When you say that they would go nowhere, Q1118 Jim McGovern: Not for the first time, you do you mean that they would go to America or that have probably just asked the question I wanted to ask. they just would not exist any more? Chair: I am sorry. John Ainslie: The American option is not viable. It Jim McGovern: That’s okay. My perception of CND was ruled out in 1981. is probably of a worldwide organisation. To me, it would sound slightly nimby—if you know the Q1121 Jim McGovern: So they would just meaning of that acronym, not in my back yard—“I disappear. Is that what you mean? don’t care if they are going to have to go to England, John Ainslie: It has come back to this point. You are as long as they are not in Scotland.” forced into a position of disarming. You cannot move John Ainslie: I think that the earlier work I did, which them to England or Wales. You cannot move them to was commissioned last year but I published it in the United States, because that was previously ruled January, was basically looking at this and at whether out, and Ile Longue in France—What you are talking there was anywhere they can go. Malcolm Chalmers about in France is a new site. You would have to say and William Walker wrote a book in 2001, “Uncharted to people in France: it is not using the existing place Waters”—I was aware of that because I discussed it at Ile Longue, but building a new facility somewhere with them at the time—and that went through the else in Brittany as a British nuclear base. It is very proposals in 1960 and ruled them out. What I was hard to see that happening. finding from the later 1977 to ’82 archives was further evidence to rule those out. In other words, it is not Q1122 Jim McGovern: So there is nowhere round just the arguments for why these sites in England and the globe— Wales were ruled out in 1960— John Ainslie: Looking at it, we could come up with Jim McGovern: I am looking at the future and not at somewhere like Diego Garcia. the past. Jim McGovern: You said nowhere, not me. John Ainslie: But it is a question of where. A point John Ainslie: It is a question of trying to come up that I mentioned slightly earlier was that Frank with any viable options. You could always say that Cooper was saying that no greenfield site was viable there is somewhere, but it is trying to come up with in 1979—so a greenfield site is not viable for a nuclear viable options. weapons depot. Of the existing sites, Barrow is far too shallow, it does not have the tides; Devonport is in the Q1123 Mr McKenzie: Again, on the same theme: middle of the city of Plymouth, and the nuclear pressure has been applied from within. You have regulator would never allow it. I criticise nuclear already said that CND is a worldwide organisation. regulators, but I cannot imagine the Office for Nuclear What pressure would be applied from inside CND to Regulation permitting a Coulport facility. At Coulport the Scottish arm of it to say, “Look, you have a at the moment, the explosives handling jetty is 3 km guarantee of 20 years and these weapons are gone.” It from Garelochhead on one side and Ardentinny on the is meeting its end goals. “Let us take the 20-year other. That is the sort of safety margin you have got guarantee.” around that site—you cannot build that in the middle John Ainslie: I have to come back to the point that of Plymouth. was being made there—the sort of nimby approach. For Scottish CND to say, “Let us move them in 20 Q1119 Jim McGovern: I should have started off by years’ time to England,” is not something we would saying my apologies for being a bit late. I am aware have any time for at all. If what you are saying is that cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG04 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o004_michelle_SAC RSS Defence CND 16_07_12.xml

Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 157

16 July 2012 John Ainslie in 20 years’ time, we will build another facility at John Ainslie: The problem is finding it. Barrow is the Falmouth, which is the more viable of the options, we one that comes to mind. I was reading the RAND could not say, “Oh, yes, we will go along with that.” study on refuelling submarines. Rather than fuel them at Barrow, they would take them to Devonport to be Q1124 Chair: You will be pressing the Scottish fuelled, which would mean towing them. So they Government to say that they should be removed from looked at this in great detail and explained the tidal Scotland within the timetable that you have given, conditions in Barrow. It is not just that there are only even though you understand that that timetable would particular days of a month that they can take them effectively mean unilateral nuclear disarmament for out; they have to travel at more than 8 knots to get the rest of the UK? over the sandbank. They managed to run aground John Ainslie: Yes. when they launched it at Barrow. The facilities there are behind a dock gate, so you can have an operational Q1125 Chair: You would not be willing to give them submarine base on that basis. You have got to work time to build a replacement site? not just on a high tide; it is a tide of one or two hours John Ainslie: I do not think that any of the in a month. Likewise, there is an issue with replacements are viable. That is the result of looking Devonport, but Devonport is the city. I think you are at the ’63 proposals in the light of where things are. right in saying that the most likely places to take them To put it in context, if you want to build a new nuclear are where you already have an awareness of that, but power station on a greenfield site somewhere, it does those particular sites do not look viable. not happen. Nuclear power stations are only built on existing nuclear sites. Q1130 Mr Reid: So you are saying that it is not a question of cost; it is just impractical. Q1126 Chair: I do understand. Perhaps I should have John Ainslie: Cost clearly is an option. said at the beginning that we are the Scottish Affairs Committee and therefore the question of where it goes Q1131 Mr Reid: If a lot of money was spent, would in England and Wales will be the responsibility of that overcome what you can see as the political someone else, but we must be clear about what sort difficulties? of pressures they will be placed under by what may John Ainslie: How much would it cost to dredge happen in Scotland. It is in that context that it is useful Barrow? That was the potential engineering solution for us to clarify that from your perspective waiting 20 to these things. My basic feeling is that these are not years to have a new site built would not be acceptable. just my views in relation to the option not being I think that it is your understanding that it would not viable. I suspect that, on an official level, they do not be acceptable to the SNP or the existing Scottish think radically different from that. Government either. Is that correct? John Ainslie: That is right. They did give a brief Q1132 Mr Reid: To summarise, what you are saying response to this report, which was that they would is that the cost of decommissioning would be want to get rid of Trident in the shortest possible insignificant compared with the cost of relocating. time scale. John Ainslie: The cost of decommissioning is something that happens already and I think is built Q1127 Chair: That is right. The shortest possible into defence nuclear liabilities figures. It is one of time scale does seem to be the eight weeks that we these strange words where they can alter it by a few discussed earlier on—in fact, having it disabled within billion and change the liability figure. the 14 days that you discussed earlier on. Any slide back from that is clearly a concession. Q1133 Mr Reid: Obviously, even if the UK continued with Trident and a successor, all the Q1128 Mr Reid: Is it your position that it is existing components would have to be impossible for Trident to be relocated elsewhere in the decommissioned at some point, but immediate UK or just that it would cost an awful lot of money? decommissioning brings all those costs forward. Can John Ainslie: It is more than just money; it is political you give a comparison of what it would cost to bring viability. Walker and Chalmers in their book looked all those costs forward and have it done within the at the ’63 options, and they said if you look at the four-year period that you say it is possible to do it in? matter again, you should add other ones—that is about John Ainslie: It is more looking at how that differs the political viability of the sites. In somewhere like from the running costs. There may be additional costs. Falmouth, with its peninsula, all its sailing and The point you were highlighting was about needing everything else that goes on, you are saying to the extra personnel at Coulport to unload the warheads local community that we have now decided that we and whether you have extra costs involved in that. will build a nuclear weapons base here. That is quite Your convoys would run more frequently so there are tricky. extra costs. Burghfield—are they doing a higher work load? But they are not substantial. Q1129 Mr Reid: What about a community that already has a lot of people employed in the nuclear Q1134 Mr Reid: You say it is not substantial. Can industry—either civil nuclear power or defence you put a figure on it? related? Do you not think that a community that is John Ainslie: The total annual costs of the British already used to living with nuclear and having a lot nuclear weapons programme used to be £1 billion a of jobs out of it would accept— year. It has now come to £2 billion a year, so it went cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG04 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o004_michelle_SAC RSS Defence CND 16_07_12.xml

Ev 158 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

16 July 2012 John Ainslie up with the various Trident replacement things. Your John Ainslie: The historical parallels are certainly total costs of everything—the basic running costs of that that is what happened, in terms of the break-up the British nuclear weapons programmes—is a billion of the Soviet Union and so forth. a year. That is what it currently runs at, but I do not really have the breakdown. Q1142 Mr Reid: Yes, but the break-up of the Soviet Union did not mean that Russia ceased to be a nuclear Q1135 Mr Reid: Over four years, it would cost £4 power. Your argument is that the break-up of the UK billion. During that four-year period that it would take forces rUK to cease to be a nuclear power. to decommission, have you any estimate of the cost John Ainslie: It certainly removed bits of the Russian that would be incurred? nuclear arsenal but, yes, they still had other bits left. John Ainslie: Relative to normal operating costs? It was less dramatic.

Q1136 Mr Reid: Yes. Can you put a ballpark figure Q1143 Mr Reid: So who do you think should pay? on it? John Ainslie: I think the starting point is the rUK John Ainslie: It would be quite hard to say. I could Government, because the weapons are effectively have a go at looking at that. theirs.

Q1137 Mr Reid: Who do you think should bear Q1144 Mr Reid: But the UK has ceased to exist, and those costs? there are two new states. What is your argument for John Ainslie: It is not something there is a very clear England, Wales and Northern Ireland bearing this cost view on as to whether it falls on the Scottish and not Scotland? Government. John Ainslie: I think the weapons would be seen as still being under the jurisdiction of rUK. Mr Reid: But why? Q1138 Mr Reid: The nuclear weapons and the John Ainslie: There would be huge international submarines are in Scottish territory. In the scenario we proliferation problems if that was not the case. are envisaging, we are assuming that it is the Scottish Government that is insisting that all these costs be incurred. Q1145 Mr Reid: Yes, but we are talking about a state that is split into two. Why does one part suddenly John Ainslie: I suppose it is a question of ownership. become responsible for all the components of the I would not envisage that there would be any point— nuclear deterrent rather than the other part? The part there are huge proliferation problems. They are never whose territory they are on, you are saying, does not owned by the Scottish Government. become responsible. You are saying that the responsibility is with the part whose territory they are Q1139 Mr Reid: Well, if the residual UK not on. Why? Government wanted to remain a nuclear power, your John Ainslie: I cannot see in practice anything else argument is that if Scotland says, “No, they cannot happening. It is harder to understand what the legal stay here,” that means that the residual UK basis for that would be. Government could no longer be a nuclear power. I believe that is your argument. What if the UK Q1146 Chair: Can I give you a parallel? I think the Government just said, “Well, we are walking away. Scottish Government has, probably or possibly There are the submarines, and there are the warheads. erroneously, argued that if the two states are created You, the Scottish Government, do what do you like each of them will remain members of the European with them”? Union, because they have said that the two states will John Ainslie: They would be quickly told by inherit membership of the European Union. I think Washington that that is not on. They are Anglo- Alan’s point is that the same thing would apply here. American warheads, and I think America would not If it is good enough for the European Union, surely it allow that from the proliferation point of view. The is good enough for nuclear weapons, and each Americans would not allow British nuclear weapons successor state would, as it were, inherit a degree of to be handed over to the Scottish Government. a share—so many missiles each. As I understand it, when the Czech and Slovak Republics were created Q1140 Mr Reid: But the UK becomes two separate from Czechoslovakia, each bit kept what was on its states—Scotland and the residual UK, for want of a territory. In these circumstances, Scotland would better name—so why does one of those states have a inherit all the nuclear facilities at Coulport and greater responsibility than the other? Faslane, and I am not entirely clear why you are John Ainslie: I think the assumption is that it would saying that these parallels would not apply here. be the rUK— John Ainslie: I cannot imagine Washington allowing these existing nuclear weapons to come under the Q1141 Mr Reid: But why? If Scotland is enforcing jurisdiction of a Scottish Government. nuclear disarmament on rUK and effectively—this is your argument, anyway—saying to rUK, “All these Q1147 Chair: Sorry, I am not quite sure how that multi-billion pound assets that the taxpayers have paid would work then. Washington would not necessarily for are now worthless”, why should it be rUK that be asked. This would not be a decision for bears the cost if Scotland is enforcing that decision? Washington; this would presumably be something that cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG04 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o004_michelle_SAC RSS Defence CND 16_07_12.xml

Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 159

16 July 2012 John Ainslie needs to be resolved between Scotland and the rest of wrong for us in the first instance to have them the UK. stationed in Scotland without taking our position into John Ainslie: Just in terms of any diplomatic account, then, equally, it works in reverse that it is pressure, that is how I would see it work out. wrong to say to the rest of the UK that these weapons should be removed, dismantled and made unusable Q1148 Chair: Diplomatic pressure applied by whom without their input. to whom? John Ainslie: My point of view is that disarmament John Ainslie: By Washington. is what we should be moving towards, so I do not really have any feeling of wanting to keep hold of Q1149 Chair: To whom? nuclear weapons, and a feeling of a large number of John Ainslie: Both Governments. members of the international community is that we want to be moving toward nuclear disarmament. Q1150 Mr Reid: You said that the responsibility should lie with rUK, but surely there is a Q1155 Jim McGovern: I was not here at the start— responsibility on Scotland as well. Why do you think I apologised for that earlier—so I do not know if the Washington would put the pressure on rUK to accept politics has been discussed, if CND Scotland is all the costs? affiliated to any political party or, indeed, if you have John Ainslie: They would not accept the idea of those personally expressed your support for any political weapons falling under the control of the Scottish party. I am certainly forming my own opinions on Government, and the international community would that. probably have concerns about that as well. It sounds to me that you would like Scotland to be able to cherry-pick: for 40 years or so, Scotland has Q1151 Mr Reid: Why would they be concerned been saying, “It is our oil, and these nasty English about them? You say they are concerned about them people are stealing our oil”; but when it comes to falling under the control of a Scottish Government. something like Trident, Scotland should accept no Why do you think that they would be concerned responsibility for it whatsoever, and say, “It doesn’t about that? belong to us, so get your tanks off our lawn, as it John Ainslie: I think to the extent to which the rUK were. Get them out of here, but we’re not paying is seen as the successor state, but again, as you pointed anything for it.” Do you have a view on that? Am I out earlier, there is this problem. I cannot say that I way off line there? am an expert on that area. It is a question of treaty John Ainslie: Organisationally, Scottish CND is in a responsibilities and what happens with international similar position to other organisations in Scotland. treaty responsibilities, but I am a bit out of my depth, There are meetings with the Future of Scotland and to be honest, if you are trying to get into that area. the wider grouping that the church is involved in. We are in a similar position of not having a clear yes or Q1152 Mr McKenzie: The argument that you are no view. We are consulting with our members at the outlining seems to me to be the Scottish separation moment in terms of where we are just now, so our question in reverse. We see those who want Scotland chair has been attending local meetings to gauge what to separate saying that they feel that decisions are people’s views are, because, as a membership taken elsewhere and that they have no input, but here organisation, we have a range of views. We have you are outlining how the rest of the UK would not always managed to contain representatives from a have an input into a major decision unilaterally to wide range of political parties, and that is still the disarm. Do you not think that the rest of the UK case. That said, there was also this feeling—it is not should also have some way of feeding into this unique; I think the Church of Scotland is moving in a decision making? similar direction—of looking at issues and saying, John Ainslie: The fact is that the weapons are “Can we provide information on those issues?” currently here. For us and our relationship with nuclear disarmament, what would independence mean? That was why this Q1153 Mr McKenzie: But you are saying that the research has been done. As an organisation, Scottish rest of the UK should bear the costs, so you are CND does not have a clear position. Our view is we recognising that the rest of the UK has, if you like, a want rid of nuclear weapons, whether it is in the UK stake in these weapons. You are saying that they or whether Scotland is independent. In terms of that should bear the cost of dismantling, removing and so particular plan there, although it is drafted in terms of on, but you are saying that they should not have a say Scottish independence, there is nothing that really in the actual decision to go ahead and do that. stops the UK Government from saying, “Here is this John Ainslie: They have been here, in my view, plan. Here is how you can do it.” against our will for decades—since the ’60s. From an historical point of view, I do not think people in Q1156 Chair: I think it is fair to say that— Scotland have ever particularly— Q1157 Jim McGovern: I do not think that Mr Q1154 Mr McKenzie: But two wrongs do not make Ainslie has answered my question yet. You are a right. If you are saying that we in Scotland were certainly under no obligation to tell me what your never offered the choice to have them, then it is particular politics are, but I go back to what I said equally wrong to say that we do not need to offer the about the separatism and claiming for 40 years that it choice to remove them. If you are saying that it is is our oil, because it is around our sea base, as it were. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG04 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o004_michelle_SAC RSS Defence CND 16_07_12.xml

Ev 160 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

16 July 2012 John Ainslie

To say that the Trident submarines that are around Q1163 Mr Reid: Say, after independence, that the about our sea base are nothing to do with us, so we UK Government, or rUK, want to continue as a will not pay to get rid of them, sounds like a nuclear power, and they offer Scotland a very large contradiction in terms to me. sum of money in order to negotiate a deal whereby John Ainslie: I said earlier that it is only wanting to Faslane and Coulport become rUK sovereign territory, get nuclear weapons out of Scotland, because that gets and they continue to operate as they do now. Under them out of the UK and because the UK not having those circumstances, where would Scotland stand nuclear weapons would have a major international under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty? impact on other countries. John Ainslie: That is a tricky one. It certainly could be argued that it is a problem under the NPT. There Q1158 Jim McGovern: So it would be beneficial are clearly other examples of that. America has a for Scotland— history of basing nuclear weapons around the world. John Ainslie: It would be of benefit to the world in It is an issue that is raised in the NPT conference, terms of the threats that there are today from nuclear and some non-nuclear weapons states say that they are weapons and the threats in future, and trying to break unhappy with the nuclear sharing arrangements and that logjam. If the UK did not have nuclear that deployment. Is it consistent? The view of the US weapons—other people argue against this. and UK Governments would be that is still in line with the letter of the agreement, if not the spirit of Q1159 Jim McGovern: If Scotland regards it as that it. It is certainly a potential problem. William Walker important, Mr McKenzie’s point comes back into play. highlighted that where the arrangement would differ, Presumably if Scotland wants rid of the weapons, if it happened, in comparison with the American Scotland should foot the bill, or at least in part foot nuclear weapons in Germany, is that whereas America the bill. has a few nuclear weapons in Germany and it has John Ainslie: The costing is not something that I have thousands of others, this would be the whole arsenal looked at in detail. If you are looking at a bill for of a nuclear weapons state in another state, and that disarmament or for rebuilding another nuclear site in starts getting more problematic. England, I suppose that is a personal thing. It is not something that comes with political guidance. If you Q1164 Chair: Would the case be easier if Britain had say to me we have got to pay for these convoys to go in fact retained tactical nuclear weapons and kept down the road, then— them somewhere else in the UK? I am dealing specifically with your point about its entire nuclear Q1160 Chair: I think you understand why we want arsenal. As I understand it, Britain is pretty well to probe this. As we have said to some other people disarmed from tactical nuclear weapons. Effectively, that have been in front of us, there is an enormous you are now saying that from Britain’s point of view, absence of comment, observation and solutions from it would have been more secure internationally, in the Scottish Government and those who are terms of the non-proliferation treaty, if it had not advocating separation. We are having to therefore disarmed its tactical nuclear weapons. seize on the evidence and the work that has been done John Ainslie: I would not want to endorse the United by other organisations and individuals like yourself, Kingdom keeping hold of— so therefore when we have somebody with us, it is only natural that we want to probe it as far as we can. All the points that we are raising are in the context of Q1165 Chair: I am not asking you to endorse it. I actually being very grateful for the work that has been am just exploring the point that you made. done, but of course we reserve the right not to John Ainslie: I am not sure from the NPT context completely agree with it, as I am sure you would that it would necessarily be any better, but I could accept. That is why we are pursuing some of these imagine that there might well be people, particularly points. on the RAF side of the Ministry of Defence, saying, “We should have held on to these, because to do it Q1161 Lindsay Roy: Are you not being partisan now is not very viable.” “Oh well, why don’t we when you describe it as an Anglo-American simply introduce an RAF nuclear capability as a way arrangement? It is a UK-American arrangement. round the dilemma?” John Ainslie: As I said, I have written various papers recently. There is a group called Reaching Critical Q1166 Chair: I do not think any of us had quite Will that produced books for the NPT conferences. understood the point that you made before, which was The last major event was the 2010 nuclear non- that Britain having all of its nuclear weapons stock in proliferation treaty conference. The contribution that I a separate state was different to Britain having just made was basically looking at that US-UK nuclear some of them. In fact, in those circumstances, that relationship in technical detail. could be overcome by buying another weapon, as it were—a tactical nuclear weapon that would be held Q1162 Lindsay Roy: The point I was making was on British soil. What practical difference would that that you said earlier it was an Anglo arrangement. make in legal terms? John Ainslie: Sorry, that is just the terminology that John Ainslie: I maybe was exaggerating the tends to get used. It is US-UK. I just slipped into difference there. saying Anglo-American. US-UK is what I would say Chair: If it is not a substantial point, that is fair if I was writing it properly. enough. Perhaps I misunderstood you. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG04 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o004_michelle_SAC RSS Defence CND 16_07_12.xml

Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 161

16 July 2012 John Ainslie

Q1167 Mr Reid: From what you said, would I be Q1172 Mr Reid: So the facility would need to be— right that the international legal position is unclear? Is the actual place where you put the missiles on to the that a fair comment? submarine—would have to be more than 3 km away. John Ainslie: There is a history of them being John Ainslie: And you can’t find that. I am not sure. criticised. The defence that the British and American There is a problem again with the issue of Governments would use is that they were there before classification. I know somebody in America, and the the treaty was signed. American Pacific site is trying to get the Trident explosive safety distances. One is a freedom of information case— Q1168 Mr Reid: The angle I am coming from is that if the Scottish had signed a treaty with rUK for Q1173 Mr Reid: It is hard to believe there is not Faslane and Coulport to become a sovereign UK somewhere in the whole of England and Wales that is territory with nuclear weapons on it, could the not 3 km away from habitation and deep water enough Scottish Government plausibly argue that it was a to bring in a submarine. nuclear-free state? John Ainslie: It is the west coast because of proximity John Ainslie: I don’t think they could argue that it to deep water. The east coast and south east are ruled was a nuclear-free state. out because they need to be close—they want to be Mr Reid: Sorry, I meant nuclear weapons-free state. close—to deep water. John Ainslie: In terms of the NPT, it would be a non- nuclear weapons state, but it is a legal anomaly. The Q1174 Mr Reid: It is not an essential, surely. non-proliferation treaty only recognises the five John Ainslie: It comes back to the original 1960 countries that had nuclear weapons at the time the criteria. It started off in the 1960s for Polaris, looking treaty was signed. That is almost there within it, so at everything and then they ruled out a whole large everyone else is a non-nuclear weapons state, or had chunk on the basis of being too far from deep water. their own nuclear weapons at the time it was signed. Germany and these other countries are regarded from Q1175 Mr Reid: So, you are saying there is nowhere the point of view of the NPT as non-nuclear weapons down the west coast of England or Wales where you states, although they are hosting nuclear weapons. couldn’t find a deep channel 3 km from significant habitation. Q1169 Mr Reid: So the point I am trying to make is: John Ainslie: It is looking. The study that Walker and could the Scottish Government sign this deal and still Chalmers report in quite detail, you start with quite a regard itself as a non-nuclear weapons state? lot on the shortlist and get it down and down to John Ainslie: In terms of the NPT? various ones. So the ones that are looked at in more Mr Reid: Yes. detail are the ones that end up on the shortlist. Those John Ainslie: That might be the case. That is a legal other ones were just considered. Actually, there was anomaly in terms of the wording. It isn’t that they are always a high proportion in Scotland. There were really nuclear weapon-free states. quite a lot of other options but a fairly high proportion were up there. Q1170 Mr Reid: But legally, yes. Q1176 Simon Reevell: What about Lulworth? John Ainslie: That is right. The question of Germany John Ainslie: I floated that as a possibility but I am being a non-nuclear state was not affected by the fact not sure how viable that is. I was just looking at that. that nuclear weapons are on its soil. It was a question of whether Germany owned and controlled them. Q1177 Simon Reevell: There were two reasons you Under the, as it were, Guantanamo Bay parallel that didn’t like Lulworth. One was that the Army would is being suggested or floated here, Scotland would not have to give up its tank range. Presumably, given the own or control them. They would be owned and choice between losing its nuclear deterrent and controlled by rUK and, therefore, that might open a moving its tank range to Otterburn, that is a difficulty different door. that could be overcome. I was going to raise with you facilities being created John Ainslie: Yes. at Milford Haven, Devonport or Barrow, but I think we have pretty well— Q1178 Simon Reevell: The other is that Lulworth cove is nearby and it is a pretty cove—a pretty cove Q1171 Mr Reid: One line I wanted to pursue is that near a tank range. Those were the only two points you of separation distances. You said about Ardentinny raised against it, weren’t they? being 3 km away from Coulport, but that is not my— John Ainslie: That is in terms of a depot. It was not John Ainslie: The explosive handling jetty. That is a on the original 1960s proposals. key place where you are putting warheads on and off a missile. That is the most likely place. Each missile Q1179 Simon Reevell: You were just asked is 70 tonnes of high explosive, so it would be 500- questions about whether there was anywhere else plus tonnes of high explosive on missiles and you are down the coast. moving nuclear weapons on and off. That is the most John Ainslie: Yes, I was looking at Portland, as that hazardous facility. I just checked it recently, that it is is one of the other sites. The reason Portland was 3 km— ruled out— cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG04 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o004_michelle_SAC RSS Defence CND 16_07_12.xml

Ev 162 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

16 July 2012 John Ainslie

Q1180 Simon Reevell: Let’s stick with Lulworth. Q1185 Mr McKenzie: You wouldn’t support What is the problem with Lulworth? membership of NATO by a separate Scotland. John Ainslie: Lulworth was ruled out because they John Ainslie: That’s right. could not find a site for a depot anywhere near Portland in the 1960s. So, I was certainly looking at Q1186 Mr McKenzie: What do you think taking that that. It is possible it is one they could look at in more stance on nuclear would do to international detail. I wasn’t convinced it was viable. I was just relationships in the first few weeks or months of a floating it. separate Scotland? John Ainslie: It allows different relationships. It is Q1181 Simon Reevell: But in fairness to the hard to go through it in detail, but some countries questions that you were being asked by Mr Reid, one might be happier if Scotland was within NATO and possibility is Lulworth, and the only two measures others might not. I don’t know all the details and the against it were the tank range and the cove. That is ins and outs of it. what your thing said, isn’t it? John Ainslie: Just looking at it there, but, as I said, I Q1187 Mr McKenzie: But you wouldn’t see a didn’t look at that in as much detail, because it was wholly negative attitude out there towards Scotland. not there on the initial proposals. John Ainslie: If it wasn’t in NATO? Simon Reevell: If it wasn’t in NATO. Q1182 Simon Reevell: So there may be other places John Ainslie: If it wasn’t in NATO, would lots of that weren’t on the original proposals, such as other countries be unhappy about that? Not Lulworth, that may be suitable. particularly. The complicated one is the United John Ainslie: It is possible, but there may be other States— reasons why it wasn’t— Q1188 Mr McKenzie: Bearing in mind Scotland’s Q1183 Simon Reevell: It would be quite a good strategic position on the map, would you not think thing to know, because the impression that you are that other countries would be a bit unsupportive of it not being a member of NATO? giving is that there is nowhere for these boats to go. John Ainslie: The political geography issue is a sort It would be quite useful to know whether there are in of cold-war issue. I don’t know the extent to which fact a number of places that have not been considered that is really still valid today. The problem may well because they were not on the 1963 list. be in terms of the United States or the elements within John Ainslie: If you put aside greenfield sites, which it that would be keen on Scotland being a member of are a problem. There are other bits of the defence NATO. I think that the European response might be military estate, which is partly why that cropped up. I more mixed. was just looking at what other areas of land the Ministry of Defence own near the coast that might be Q1189 Lindsay Roy: If the NATO alliance rests on possible options. It is an area where further work a principle of nuclear deterrents, why do you think the could be done. The official response from the Ministry SNP are now reconsidering an application to join of Defence is that they are not doing it, but they could NATO? do it. John Ainslie: From a Scottish CND perspective, that Chair: We have generally taken the view that it is not is not something that we would support. I don’t really for us to determine what the other possible locations know quite where that issue is within the SNP. My are. I know that the Defence Committee is going to understanding is that they might be looking at defence be looking at that, but, of course, that does have an issues, which is fair enough. To what extent are they influence on our consideration of whether a separate looking at NATO membership? We would not Scotland would be likely to allow the rest of the UK consider that a move in the right direction. the 20 years or so that might be necessary to build a replacement, as distinct from the 14 days that might Q1190 Lindsay Roy: Is it not inconsistent, on the be necessary to completely disable it and what would basis of how NATO is predicated on nuclear happen in the interim. That is the area that we are deterrence, that the SNP should be considering that? exploring. In that context, I will not go over the stuff John Ainslie: From our point of view, it would be about Milford Haven, Devonport or Barrow, because preferable for all political parties to adopt a position we have quite a lot of that in your documents. opposed to NATO membership, because NATO is a nuclear alliance. Q1184 Mr McKenzie: Do you see a link between Lindsay Roy: That is very clear and helpful. Thank Scotland being a member of NATO and allowing you. nuclear weapons on its territory? John Ainslie: From our point of view, the CND is Q1191 Chair: Norway, for example, is not a nuclear opposed to the UK being involved in NATO, so state, yet it is a member of NATO. Surely Scotland therefore it follows that it would not be very could be in that position. As I understand it, Norway consistent for us to say that we would support an does not allow nuclear weapons on its soil, yet it independent Scotland being a member of NATO, manages to exist within NATO. Why could Scotland primarily because, historically, NATO is a nuclear not do that? alliance in terms of where it comes from. Our position John Ainslie: I am not saying that is impossible. would be that NATO is an anachronism. Scotland could be in that position, but it is not cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG04 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o004_michelle_SAC RSS Defence CND 16_07_12.xml

Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 163

16 July 2012 John Ainslie desirable from our point of view. There are a number backlog of submarines awaiting decommissioning at of NATO members such as Norway, Germany and Devonport. Although what we are saying is, “Let’s get Canada that are actively involved in the nuclear rid of Trident quickly; we can do it on this sort of time disarmament movement and are trying to change scale,” the question of nuclear submarines is perhaps NATO policy. My concern is that they have not been a longer one. There is this issue of negotiation and able to get very far. Their attempts to change things so forth. have been hampered by the feeling that there has to be consensus. NATO’s nuclear policy has not moved Q1195 Mr Reid: What use would there be for the very far since the end of the cold war when it could Vanguard submarines without the Trident missiles and have potentially moved more radically. warheads that they were designed to carry? If Scotland were a member of NATO, it would not be John Ainslie: Toby Fenwick’s proposal was as cruise impossible also to follow a disarmament route, but missile launchers, although that is not something that NATO membership would make that more difficult. we particularly want to advocate. From the American Certainly, from our point of view, that is not helpful. navy’s point of view, the Americans converted the four oldest Ohio-class into cruise missile boats. The Q1192 Mr Reid: What do you think will be the American commanders—central command, Pacific economic impact on the west of Scotland if the command and European command—want those four nuclear deterrent were removed from Faslane and submarines that fire cruise missiles. They do not want Coulport? the other ones. There is a demand, and that is actually John Ainslie: I did a study with the STUC five years quite a problem for the US submarine programme ago looking at that. Certainly, the issue is separating because they do not have any plans to replace them. the removal of Trident from the closure of Faslane. Our ballistic missiles have not been converted into We are generally looking at Faslane continuing to cruise missile carriers, but that is quite arbitrary for have a function. The more specific point that we have me because I do not really— tied down recently is in the jobs figures, which are more about understanding the question. The question Q1196 Mr Reid: Yes, presumably you are also was asked in 2009, but at the time we did not opposed to cruise missiles carrying nuclear weapons. understand what it meant. Bob Ainsworth’s reply was Let us take the CND’s position. You obviously want that there are 464 jobs at Clyde naval base that rely rid of the nuclear-powered submarines as well, so on the Trident programme. I think you would look at have you done any analysis of how many jobs would that and say that 464 is not very many and that surely go if the submarines went as well as the nuclear there are far more than that. Because of privatisation, weapons? jobs at Coulport are being moved into the private sector from the MOD civilian force. Looking at that John Ainslie: It is a question of transition. It is again, those 464 jobs are related to the Trident assuming Trident is maintained as a naval base of strategic weapon system at Faslane. That says there some form. are fewer than 500 civilian people working on the warheads, missiles and systems that support them at Q1197 Mr Reid: Faslane is maintained, you mean. Coulport and on some of the strategic weapon system John Ainslie: Yes. Coulport I think is a separate issue, facilities at Faslane. In other words, if you remove the and if you remove the nuclear weapons, what is there weapon system in the way I am talking about, you to do with this huge site? have that figure of 500 jobs. Clearly, what happens out there is the bigger issue. Q1198 Mr Reid: Have you done any analysis as to what else might be done? Q1193 Mr Reid: Yes, because the Vanguard John Ainslie: The only thing with that is that we did submarines will not stay and be maintained without manage to get a reply from the Ministry of Defence the weapon systems. In practice, a lot more than 400 saying that there was no radiological or toxic people work directly on maintaining the weapon contamination on the site that would prevent system. alternative use. We asked whether there was any huge John Ainslie: This is not something I or the CND problem that would mean the site could not be used would necessarily advocate, but there was a Lib Dem for something else, and they said that there was not. study by Toby Fenwick called “Dropping the bomb” Beyond that, we have not actually looked any more, that basically proposed alternative uses for the but I think it would be one of the stages to ask, “What submarines. The study presented an argument for is the potential for that site?” getting rid of the nuclear weapon system that said, The STUC study that was done a few years ago was “We now have these four Vanguard-class boats. What partly looking at this idea where you could get rid do we do with them?” The study looked at them as of Vanguard-class submarines and have Astute-class assets that could have alternative uses. That is more submarines coming in. Again, there is a bit of a weak difficult from a CND perspective, because we are also point there, certainly in terms of what happens if you opposed to nuclear-powered submarines. get rid of nuclear submarines as well and you have got a conventional base. I think the issue in the wider Q1194 Mr Reid: So CND would want to see the context was one of transition and how long and how submarines go as well as the weapons. quickly you do these things. The experience of John Ainslie: I think the question would be one of Dunoon and the experience of base closures both in time scale, and we have to recognise that there is a the UK and America is that you ought to plan when cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG04 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o004_michelle_SAC RSS Defence CND 16_07_12.xml

Ev 164 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

16 July 2012 John Ainslie you are looking at closures or even at a substantial independent Scotland having a need for all these change. Astute submarines? John Ainslie: That is more looking at whether it is a Q1199 Mr Reid: Yes, but you have said this would conventional military base or a conventional navy happen overnight. Within a few weeks the submarines base. More importantly—I have only just looked at would no longer— this myself, slightly—you had Stuart Crawford and he John Ainslie: There are not job implications. In fact, was looking at these figures. I have done a similar as the Chair was suggesting, you might actually need thing of looking at what sort of numbers there are and these people more in the short term. There might be what you do with the things there. more of a demand for people to do some of those jobs. One of the issues would be that you have got all this accommodation in Faslane, so would you have some Q1200 Mr Reid: That is only for the first two years, sort of military unit based at Faslane simply because though. Have you done any studies as to what would it has the facilities for that, even if you no longer have happen after that? a naval requirement? That is the sort of thing that I John Ainslie: Not since the STUC one. was looking at. It has got over 4,000 service personnel there at the moment, and I found it quite hard to see Q1201 Mr Reid: What did the STUC come up with? that you have a naval presence on that scale. Do you Was the STUC assuming that nuclear-powered look at it and say, “Ah, somehow or other, do you submarines went as well? accommodate a military presence?” John Ainslie: No, that was assuming that the nuclear- powered submarines were there. That is an entirely Q1208 Chair: My understanding is that, apart from different scenario. It said that because the Astute the nuclear submarines that are there with the missiles, numbers were coming up, if you ended up with a there is virtually no other work there for anybody similar number of submarines, yes there would be supporting the base. Astute is due to come in, but if some job losses— Astute does not come in because a separate Scotland cannot afford it, it will just simply be the Scottish Navy. They will then have a lot of surplus Q1202 Mr Reid: And what purpose did the STUC accommodation, but there is going to be a lot of see for all these submarines that were not carrying surplus accommodation elsewhere in Scotland. nuclear weapons? I was interested in the point that you made about being John Ainslie: No, it was assuming that the Vanguards willing to look at running down the base over a longer go and the Astutes come, so you have a static number period, and trying to preserve work in that sort of way. of six submarines. That is almost an argument for accepting the running down of the Trident missile force over a much longer Q1203 Mr Reid: What would those submarines be period in order gradually to wean either Scotland or doing? the UK off these boats and this system, or to allow John Ainslie: What Astute would be planning to do, the rest of the UK to build up another system. That is so it would be Astute— moving away from the 14 days that it could be scrapped under. Is that something that CND would Q1204 Mr Reid: But the main purpose of the Astute really consider? is to protect the Vanguard. Without the Vanguard to John Ainslie: What we were doing is making a protect, what is the purpose of the Astute? distinction between nuclear weapons, because of this John Ainslie: I would question that now. I think the basic moral argument, and nuclear-powered submarines that were there in the past—it probably submarines, which, yes, have hazards and so forth but still is the primary purpose, but in terms of the balance are really on a different scale. That is probably where of work load, I am not sure it is in the sense that it it is coming from, because we want to get rid of was in the old days. nuclear weapons from that point of view, whereas we would rather we did not have nuclear submarines but Q1205 Mr Reid: So what other role do you see for there is a difference. the Astute submarines? John Ainslie: Off hand, I think the allocation to Q1209 Chair: Right. That is a helpful distinction. protection of the deterrent is probably one submarine Are there any other questions that any of my at the moment. colleagues want to raise? Do you have any answers prepared for questions that we have forgotten to ask, Q1206 Mr Reid: Sorry; I did not hear that. or do you have anything else that you feel that you Allocation to? want to tell us that we have not touched on? We have John Ainslie: To protecting the nuclear-armed tried to give you as much of an opportunity as possible submarine force. I think it is one submarine. I am to outline and expand on the documents that you had aware that the figures have gone down. The figures already written. are somewhere in some strategic defence review. John Ainslie: I think that that has largely covered it. Certainly, the 1998 strategic defence review gave a I am very grateful for the opportunity to get across breakdown of those. these points. I suppose the feeling is that this is initial work. You will be aware of this, but the wider context Q1207 Mr Reid: But this all presumably assumes is that both of these reports were produced relatively that the UK is still in existence. Would you see an quickly. We need to look at these and, as with a whole cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG04 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o004_michelle_SAC RSS Defence CND 16_07_12.xml

Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 165

16 July 2012 John Ainslie number of other issues around independence and so regrettably, those who are actually arguing for forth, we need to home in on them in more detail. It separation seem unwilling to provide it. So the sources is quite useful, in a sense, to be questioned about it to that you have identified and the papers that you have see what points we actually need to come back and drawn up have been very helpful to us. It might very look at a bit more. well be that we come back to you in due course, as Chair: On behalf of my colleagues, I want to place the debate goes on, and seek clarification on some of on the record that we regard your work as extremely the points as the argument goes on. valuable. Obviously, if people in Scotland are going May I thank you very much for coming and draw the to have to take this major decision about separation or meeting to a close? not, they need to have the maximum information and, cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [SE] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG05 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o005_michelle_SAC 05.09.12 (corrected).xml

Ev 166 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

Wednesday 5 September 2012

Members present: Mr Ian Davidson (Chair)

Fiona Bruce Pamela Nash Mike Freer Simon Reevell Jim McGovern Mr Alan Reid Iain McKenzie Lindsay Roy David Mowat ______

Examination of Witnesses

Witnesses: Professor Bernard Ryan, University of Kent Law School, and Professor Jo Shaw, University of Edinburgh Law School, gave evidence.

Q1210 Chair: I welcome you both to this meeting Q1212 Pamela Nash: So that would be the first of the Scottish Affairs Select Committee. As you may thing. know, we are investigating various aspects of the Professor Shaw: I would amplify that a little, without referendum on separation. Today we want to look at disagreeing with anything that Bernard said, by saying various issues connected to passports, immigration, that the first thing the state has to do is to consider citizenship and the like. what the purposes of citizenship law are. One of the To begin with, it would be helpful if you told us primary purposes of citizenship law is to determine briefly who you are so that we know why you are here the continuity of membership of the polity on a and what your general background and experience is reasonably stable and, in the sorts of liberal in this particular area. democratic states in which I am sure we live and Professor Shaw: Is the microphone picking me up aspire to continue living, reasonably transparent basis despite the presence of my laptop? I apologise for as well, without reference to criteria that would be putting my laptop here, but I haven’t had an regarded as suspect in the context of a liberal opportunity to print out my notes and so I will have democratic legal system. In that context I am thinking to refer to them from time to time. that we would be looking at civic issues rather than My name is Jo Shaw. I hold the Salvesen Chair of ethnic issues in order to determine the process of European Institutions at the university of Edinburgh, saying who should be members of the original state which means that my general area of expertise is and also how we determine access to membership on European Union law, but my particular interest has for the basis of consanguinity, continued residence or of a long time been areas of citizenship and birth in the territory. They are the main types of constitutionalism in relation to the EU and its member criteria that can determine whether or not a person can states. I have done quite a number of projects recently become a member of a polity. in relation to EU citizenship, European citizenship and citizenship also in the successor states of the former Q1213 Chair: Professor Ryan, you indicated that Yugoslavia. there were two choices. Perhaps you could expand on Professor Ryan: I am Professor Bernard Ryan. I am each of them for us. Professor of Migration Law at the university of Kent. I work predominantly on British migration law but I Professor Ryan: If you go back to the Irish case in have in the past written on the Irish/British 1922 or look at some of the discussion in Scotland relationship, specifically in relation to immigration over the past 20 years, we see a focus on domicile— and nationality. permanent residence—as the way of defining the initial population. That is somehow different in the Q1211 Pamela Nash: Good afternoon and thank you case of Scotland from saying that there is going to be for joining us today. To kick us off, I want to think a section of British citizens with a connection to about the concept of citizenship. If tomorrow I Scotland and that that would be the initial population. decided to start my own brand new country, what There may be a philosophical issue as to how a future would I need to consider when it came to defining Scottish state conceives itself. Is it just a successor of citizenship of that new country? a bit of the United Kingdom or is it something that Professor Ryan: I said in my written submission that has some separate existence that expresses itself in the any new state needs to do two things. It needs to nationality field? define its initial population and then it needs to have a permanent nationality law going forward. With the Q1214 Chair: What would the practical differences first of those, the difficulty is to know whether the be between those two choices? citizenship is defined from scratch or to what extent Professor Ryan: It seems to me that a focus on that is done and to what extent the existing pool of domicile would mean that some people who weren’t citizens from the greater state is just a subset that has British citizens could gain access to Scottish been taken over. If Scotland were to become citizenship from the outset. It might also have the independent, that would be a basic choice to be made reverse consequence that certain people with Scottish right from the outset. connections would be more likely to be left out if the cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG05 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o005_michelle_SAC 05.09.12 (corrected).xml

Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 167

5 September 2012 Professor Bernard Ryan and Professor Jo Shaw focus is on domicile and permanent residence because they need to be looked at a year or six months in they weren’t at that point still in Scotland. advance? Professor Ryan: Are you referring to the Q1215 Chair: The first one is on the question of international treaties? domicile, which would mean that anyone who is in Iain McKenzie: Yes. If they are saying that Scotland Scotland at the time when independence was declared could sign up to some or all of these, is there a time could become a Scottish citizen. scale? When would they need to commence? Professor Shaw: That is normally called the zero Professor Ryan: My understanding is that Scotland option in new states’ establishment. It is normally would be bound by the treaties that the United done in circumstances where you don’t have adequate Kingdom is a party to at present. As regards the prior registers of citizens. Kosovo is an example treaties that the UK is not currently a party to, then where, effectively, domicile was used indirectly Scotland would presumably be free to decide how it because of the UNMIK transition. Kosovo was wished to proceed once it became independent. essentially used as a domicile basis to determine the Professor Shaw: The UK is not a party to the citizenry. As I say, that is normally used in European Convention on Nationality. That would be a circumstances where you are trying to transmit certain free choice for Scotland. You can see situations when types of messages about the prior situation. Bernard’s new states get into problems with not adhering to the idea that connections with a prior British state European Convention immediately. represent quite a strong normative basis for citizenship Let us take the case of Slovenia, which is indubitably would be quite effective, but it gets more complicated part of our common European home now as a member when you put the European Union into the mix. of the European Union but was of course a republic in Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia was not a member of the Q1216 Pamela Nash: As a follow-up to my original European Convention before 1991 and so there was question, is there any expectation from the not an issue of state succession there. Slovenia did not international community or in international law that immediately adhere to the Convention. It did so some means there are certain expectations of citizenship? months later. Between its independence and when it Every country has different citizenship law, but is adhered to the Convention there was a rather shameful there anything that they must have in there to fulfil episode in Slovenia’s history where they “erased” or their obligation as a member of the international removed people who did not have access or had community? chosen not to take Slovenian citizenship. Slovenian Professor Shaw: Normal international obligations to citizenship was opened up quite widely. They had a certain extent will constrain the way that a state chosen either not to do so or they had applied and behaves in relation to the definition of citizenship. been rejected for various reasons, or, in some cases, Obviously the European Convention on Human were just inefficient, out of the country or unaware of Rights, which an independent Scotland would what was going on. This case of erasure is not directly inevitably be a member of as part of the common legal itself covered by the European Convention, although heritage of the European space in which we all live it is in many respects discriminatory. together regardless of the question of the European The European Court of Human Rights, in various Union, would place some constraints in relation to cases which have concluded very recently, has dealt various forms of discrimination: discrimination with the issue of the subsequent discriminatory against women, such as making it harder for women treatment of the erased people. That gives you an to transmit their citizenship than for men, and also discrimination on grounds of ethnicity, would example of problems that can arise if you don’t have effectively be caught by means of the European the protective umbrella of the European Convention Convention. in place. This would not apply to Scotland because it There are other norms that Scotland could sign up to, would, as Bernard pointed out, be seceding pretty such as the European Convention on Nationality and much automatically to those types of very significant others that it would be expected to observe, if not and important treaties. necessarily formally to sign up to, relating to the elimination of statelessness. As I am sure you are Q1218 Jim McGovern: There seems to be some aware, one risk of establishing a new state is creating argument about whether Scotland would automatically scenarios of statelessness either de facto or de jure. secede to being a member of the European Scotland would be expected to adhere to international Convention. Are you totally certain about the legal norms, which helps to ensure that either statelessness view? didn’t occur or that steps were taken to reduce or Professor Ryan: I suspect we might have to look at eliminate it. Would you add anything, Bernard? individual treaties to see if there are specific Professor Ryan: No. I would have said that avoidance provisions about secession. The general position is— of statelessness and non-discrimination are the two key principles of international law in relation to Q1219 Jim McGovern: Presumably it would be a nationality. I would not anticipate that it would pose new nation. There are 27 nations that are currently great difficulties in complying with those. part of the EC. Scotland would be a new nation. I am not quite sure why we should assume that. As my Q1217 Iain McKenzie: What are the time scales for granny used to say to me, “The word ‘assume’ makes signing up to these things that you have outlined? an ‘ass’ out of ‘u’ and ‘me’.” Why should we assume Would that be the day after, the day before or would that Scotland would automatically be a member state? cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG05 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o005_michelle_SAC 05.09.12 (corrected).xml

Ev 168 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

5 September 2012 Professor Bernard Ryan and Professor Jo Shaw

Professor Shaw: We are talking slightly at cross- from Middlesbrough, would I become a Scottish purposes, if I may say. I think we were referring to citizen? the European Convention, of which there are 40-plus Professor Shaw: No, you wouldn’t. I would disagree members right across Europe. Essentially all states with you there. Citizenship is always a voluntary act that could be defined as European in any geographical on the part of a person. There are no circumstances in sense apart from Belarus are members of the which citizenship could or should be imposed on European Convention, whereas the European Union— anyone. If you look at British citizenship law at the which I think is what you are referring to—is a moment, it has no provisions for depriving people of separate question. If we want to discuss the issue of citizenship simply because they are not residing in the how and whether Scotland does or does not become a territory of the United Kingdom, whatever that may member of the EU, that is a slightly different issue. I be, for the time being. One assumes that the UK will know that has been ventilated several times in your not change its law. At the point of independence, if it Committee. were to occur, those people would simply be British Jim McGovern: I apologise if I misunderstood you citizens who are not residing in the UK. there. Over a period of time that would change the character Professor Shaw: It is hard to consider issues of of their rights and obligations. In particular, it would citizenship because there are some very significant change the character of their right to vote in British and complicated questions relating to the present local elections because they wouldn’t be resident in membership of Scotland by virtue of being part of the the territory of the United Kingdom, as it was then United Kingdom for citizenship. Hopefully, we will defined, and it would also change over a period of come on to those in a moment. The broad view within time their right to vote in Westminster elections the international law community, of which I am not a because I believe that the current limit is now 15 member but I do try to read about it a little, would be years. But they would not lose their British that, with basic human rights treaties where the UK citizenship. It would be entirely their choice whether was already a member, Scottish secession would not they became Scottish citizens or not. be a difficulty. The EU is much more complicated because of the complex rights and obligations. Q1223 David Mowat: What puzzles me about that answer is that, after the referendum, if the separatists Q1220 David Mowat: I am interested in this win 70% to 30%, so 30% of the people didn’t want to concept of domicility that you started off with. Is there become a separate nation, could that 30% then just an element of optionality in becoming a citizen of say, “Right, we will leave this. We’ll just stay in the Scotland? If I lived there on the day of independence, UK residual and we won’t vote in the Scottish do I have to be a citizen of Scotland or can I opt out? elections if that is the cost of it. As far as we are Can I just say, “I am going to stay and be a citizen of concerned, we are UK citizens, even though we might UK residual” or whatever that is? have lived in Edinburgh for three generations”? Is that Professor Ryan: I will first go back and clarify what what you are saying is possible? the idea of domicile is. It is the sense of a permanent Professor Shaw: Yes, absolutely. Obviously the UK, centre of interests. It is not the same as just being as I say, doesn’t have any provisions that I know of resident on a particular day. It is where someone’s to deprive people of their citizenship because they centre is. Indeed, as a consequence it does pose its leave the territory. If they leave the territory because own difficulties because it isn’t always apparent where the territory leaves them rather than them leaving the somebody’s permanent centre of interests is at any territory, then that should make no difference. given time. It might well be that permanent residence However, of course, their children or their or something was used. grandchildren may no longer be able to be UK citizens because there are limits to the transmission of British Q1221 David Mowat: What about this idea of citizenship outwith the borders of the United opting? Would there be an element by which you Kingdom, whatever those borders are. You might say would opt to become a Scottish citizen, or would it be that over three generations the children, grandchildren clear that everybody has to be one that had the and great grandchildren of those people would domicility or some other criteria? effectively have no choice but to become Scottish Professor Ryan: It would have to be resolved as to because they would not be able to be British unless how obligatory it was. I would certainly say there is they returned to Britain. scope where someone has no connections anywhere else to say that they would be Scottish by virtue of Q1224 David Mowat: The implication of that is that their centre of interests being Scotland. With this person living in Edinburgh who just doesn’t like somebody who has a nationality that isn’t British the idea of independence can say, “I will have nothing citizenship, it would seem strange that Scottish to do with it and I am not going to opt in and be a nationality should automatically be imposed upon Scottish citizen.” Then everyone just leaves him them just because they are resident in Scotland and, alone, and he lives in Edinburgh as an expatriate or equally, for people with connections to the rest of the something and doesn’t vote. United Kingdom who are living in Scotland. Professor Shaw: That’s the one. David Mowat: But there could be millions of people Q1222 David Mowat: For example, if I am working in that category, couldn’t there, under this scenario? in Aberdeen on a three-year secondment but I am Chair: Lindsay, you want to pick this up as well. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG05 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o005_michelle_SAC 05.09.12 (corrected).xml

Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 169

5 September 2012 Professor Bernard Ryan and Professor Jo Shaw

Q1225 Lindsay Roy: You have said that citizenship Professor Shaw: Because at the moment there is no is a voluntary act. How long in your view would it constraint. I really just don’t see how that works take to confirm who are Scottish citizens and who because, if they don’t opt, then by default they are are not? British because they are currently British. Professor Shaw: I think you should ask people who Professor Ryan: I don’t think we can assume that are experts in doing these sorts of jobs. British nationality law is going to remain unaffected Lindsay Roy: Who would they be? by Scottish separation if that is what happens. I would Professor Shaw: The trouble is there aren’t really any imagine there would be some kind of arrangement very relevant examples that one could ask. There are entered into between a Scottish Government around people who have worked on behalf of the international the time of independence and a UK Government about community in relation to registration in Kosovo. They what the consequences of nationality would be. would be able to tell you in a worst-case-type scenario how long it might take to register that and work out a Q1230 Chair: This is one of the difficulties. It is so group of about 2.5 million people or something of that difficult to try and clarify what the Scottish order living in Kosovo. I reserve the right to correct Government, or those who support separation, that figure. That would offer you a worst-case scenario actually intend. We are having to pretty much fly in of how long it would take. It all depends on the the dark. Also, a lot of this depends upon the climate efficiency of the administration. I would have thought at the time and about whether or not it is done in co- that in the UK it shouldn’t take too long. We have all operation or in conflict. I would come back to this types of registers, including registers of births, deaths, point. You seem to be saying to us that not everybody marriages and electoral registration, which would help who is in Scotland at the time of separation would us with that process. automatically qualify for Scottish citizenship. Presumably there are a number of people who are here illegally, due for deportation or something similar who Q1226 Lindsay Roy: Are you saying that a body would not be British citizens. Of those who were like the Electoral Commission would produce a British citizens, it would be possible for all of those questionnaire, which would go to every household, to qualify for Scottish citizenship and to make the and they would identify whether they wanted to be a choice. Is that correct? Scottish citizen or not? Professor Shaw: Yes; I think we agree on that. Professor Shaw: No. It would happen because people Professor Ryan: Assuming there is permanent would want to apply for passports. residence. Lindsay Roy: We will come on to that. Q1231 Lindsay Roy: Could you have dual Q1227 Chair: I want to clarify this. If Scotland citizenship? became a separate state, I think you are saying that Professor Ryan: Absolutely. everyone who was living in Scotland at that time Professor Shaw: I hope so. would not automatically become Scottish citizens. Professor Ryan: The British tradition accepts dual There would be a category of people who were nationality. From what I understand, that is the transients, illegals or due for deportation who would working assumption in Scotland too. Having both is not automatically become Scottish citizens. The rest not a difficulty. would then have a choice about whether or not to become Scottish citizens or citizens of whichever Q1232 Chair: But that would depend upon the country they were already citizens of. Is that a fair British Government agreeing. This comes back to this assessment? question of the spirit within which these negotiations Professor Ryan: I don’t think we are saying the take place. If they are sour, then dual citizenship for same thing. Scots need not necessarily be granted. It could end up Professor Shaw: No; we are disagreeing with each with the situation where people have to choose other. between Scottish and British citizenship, and dual Chair: Good. We always like a fight because it makes citizenship would not be possible. things much clearer. Professor Ryan: I personally find that very unlikely. Professor Ryan: I think making it entirely voluntary would come up against one or possibly two problems. Q1233 Chair: I didn’t ask you whether you thought It would certainly come up against the problem of it was likely. I asked you whether or not it was what you do about the people who don’t elect or don’t possible. choose. You have to have a default position for them. Professor Ryan: In a sense everything is possible. One would have to decide what that was. In all There are many possible outcomes. probability, for those with long connections to Scotland, the default position would be Scottish Q1234 Chair: But this is slightly more possible than nationality. just being conceivable. Presumably the question of dual nationality would depend upon the decision of Q1228 Pamela Nash: You would have to opt out. the British Government. If the British Government Professor Shaw: But that would require Britain to decided not to accept dual nationality, then people change its citizenship law. would have to choose. Is that correct? Professor Ryan: That is true, but the history of British Q1229 Chair: Why? nationality law is one of acceptance of dual cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG05 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o005_michelle_SAC 05.09.12 (corrected).xml

Ev 170 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

5 September 2012 Professor Bernard Ryan and Professor Jo Shaw nationality. So it would be a really remarkable step at Professor Shaw: Yes, and it would be in the sovereign this moment in relation to Scotland, with, let’s say, a determination of the Scottish state, if it existed, to large minority that did not wish independence, to give decide what fee it charged and what conditions it up on that. wanted to place on the level of proof it required in Professor Shaw: I have to say that the UK would be order to hand over a passport. liable to be taken to the European Court of Human Rights in that event, because, unless it changed its Q1239 Chair: The existing fee is £72.50 for a 10- citizenship law for everyone and got rid of all dual year passport, so anybody that wants dual nationality citizenship arrangements, including with Ireland, then and dual passports would have to pay out another it would be discriminating against people on the £72.50 for a Scottish passport. grounds of an irrelevant factor, which would be that Professor Ryan: With respect, that would be for the they happen to be Scottish citizens. Because it has a passport. The nationality is a different matter. The heritage of dual citizenship, I cannot see how the nationality is the underlying status, which would arise British state can extricate itself from that heritage in in different ways. order to make it more difficult, if you will, to have dual citizenship between Scotland and England. Q1240 Chair: You get the nationality free, but to get a passport under the new nationality you might have Q1235 Simon Reevell: Why would it be to pay £72.50. discriminatory if the British Government simply said, Professor Shaw: You might even have to pay for the “We will end our policy of dual citizenship”? It would nationality in the sense that it depends on what the be discriminatory if they said, “We will end it because two states decide to do. If they decide to opt for some of Scotland”, but if they simply ended it as a policy sort of registration or opt-in procedure, they might then it wouldn’t be discriminatory. also potentially charge a fee for various of those Professor Shaw: No; I agree with you. That is what I services and particularly, one might say, for those who said. It would have to do it for everyone, including were born in Scotland and are no longer resident in for Ireland. Scotland, for example. That is the other side of the coin. Particularly if they are not resident elsewhere in Q1236 Simon Reevell: No; in terms of future the UK, they might decide to charge a fee that is events. If the British Government said, “As of now, in perhaps proportionate to the checking process that future, our policy will be this”, it wouldn’t have to must be undergone in order to determine whether or alter existing arrangements and it wouldn’t be not someone is actually who they say they are and discriminatory in relation to Scotland because it would with the heritage that they say they have. be a change of policy for everybody in future. Professor Shaw: That is possible. It could do that if Q1241 Chair: Just to be clear, in terms of it chose to do that. That would obviously have proportionate to the amount of work involved, what repercussions, as dual citizenship often does, in level of fee would that be? international relations. Professor Shaw: Possibly lower than the British state Simon Reevell: Absolutely. currently charges. Professor Ryan: I would add one thing there. We are talking about a slightly different kind of dual Q1242 Chair: That could be down to a penny. nationality to the one that typically arises. Typically Professor Shaw: To become a British citizen? somebody has connections to more than one state and acquires dual nationality that way. Here we would be Q1243 Chair: You raised the point about there being talking about dual nationality for a former territory a checking fee and so on. I am just trying to clarify arising out of a connection to that former territory and it. You indicated that it was likely to be equivalent to not necessarily a connection to the new United the costs thereof. Give us an indication of what you Kingdom. There would be that difference. It might believe those costs might be. technically permit a different treatment of that kind of Professor Shaw: That would require you to have dual nationality. I am just saying that support for dual information about the internal costs of the nationality is so entrenched within the British tradition bureaucracy. that it is difficult to see it being banned here. Q1244 Chair: Is there an international equivalent Q1237 Chair: Would that mean that anybody who that you can draw on? wanted to have dual nationality would have to buy a Professor Shaw: The European Convention on new Scottish passport? I myself have a British Nationality says something like fees should be passport at the moment. Does it mean that I would reasonable for any processes. have to buy a new Scottish passport? Professor Shaw: I don’t believe that we buy our Q1245 Chair: But you are not being drawn on a passports. I believe that we pay a fee in order to carry figure at all. something that belongs to the state. Professor Shaw: I would be plucking one out of the air. Q1238 Chair: Okay. Would I have to pay a fee in order to carry something that belongs to the Scottish Q1246 Chair: That would be helpful since you have state then? more of an idea on these things than we have. Give cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG05 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o005_michelle_SAC 05.09.12 (corrected).xml

Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 171

5 September 2012 Professor Bernard Ryan and Professor Jo Shaw us an indication of what you think would be a that, accept that you will probably be disenfranchised reasonable figure. from voting in national elections, depending on what Professor Shaw: What are we talking about? Are we Scotland decides to do. In those circumstances you talking about passports or are we talking about any wouldn’t necessarily have to do anything. type of— If you wanted to exercise any of those Scottish citizenship rights, then it would be for the legislation Q1247 Chair: No, we are off passports. I had not to determine what the standards of proof are that it thought of this until you raised it. Then you mentioned requires. Which groups of people are resident? Is it a fee and I am seeking to clarify what level of fee just British citizens resident in Scotland? Is it also there might be. European Union citizens? Is it also Irish citizens? Is Professor Shaw: One would assume less than £100. it also third country nationals who are lawfully Chair: That is helpful. It would be less than £100 for resident in Scotland and so on? Which groups will that fee and then £72 or so for a passport if it is of need to be defined by operation of law? the equivalent level to the British fee at the moment. There is then the process to determine how you access that and any fees that you pay for the authorities to Q1248 Mr Reid: Following on from this and dealing check. Birth certificates, witness statements, criminal with practicalities, let us assume that Scotland has records and other things in different categories may declared itself to be an independent state and that is be relevant. That will be a bureaucratic process. internationally recognised. From what you have said, One might imagine that a nationalising state might would I be correct in assuming that on day one choose to be more proactive than that and to choose everyone in Scotland who is a British citizen then to engage in a registration process, which would be remains a British citizen unless the rest of the UK different from any type of registration process that, to changes its nationality laws? my knowledge, has taken place on British territory Professor Shaw: That is my view. before but would not necessarily be that different from Professor Ryan: Certainly, unless the British the proposals and legislation that we have had in the nationality laws change, yes, that clearly would be past that would have introduced identity cards for the case. everybody. That type of registration process may take place on a more proactive basis. What the charges in Q1249 Mr Reid: I think we can assume that the new relation to that registration process will be and Scottish Government would want to have their own whether they would be socialised within ordinary nationality and wouldn’t want to be a country full of taxation so that we all pay for them, or whether there citizens of a different country. What happens then? will be some burden on the citizen, is a matter for the Would there need to be a bureaucratic registration choice of the Scottish state. process for five million people or a proportion of those I imagine that a nationalising state that wanted to who wanted to would then have to apply for Scottish identify who its citizens were would engage in that citizenship? Is that what would happen? process proactively and may commission an Electoral Professor Ryan: I don’t think so. The two are Commission to do that or whatever, given that the formally distinct issues: the acquisition of the new primary two indices that would flow from being Scottish nationality and the retention of British Scottish and being self-evidently Scottish would citizenship. normally be the right to vote in national elections, which would be the elections to a body in Edinburgh, Q1250 Mr Reid: We are all British citizens living whatever it was called, and the right to carry a in a country called Scotland. At that point does passport and being recognised in international law as Scotland have any citizens if everybody living in it is a national of that state with a connection to that state a British citizen? and subject to the protections provided under Professor Ryan: It is hard to imagine that by the day of independence Scotland would not have provision international law and diplomacy. made for its new citizenship. Scotland, in isolation at least— Q1252 Mr Reid: Are there any international comparisons or experiences whereby you can put a Q1251 Mr Reid: What sort of provision would it figure on the cost to each individual? Maybe you can’t make? Can you suggest what the rules would be? tell us off the top of your head today, but is it Professor Shaw: They will be defined by law, which something you could go away and arrive at an then raises the question as to whether it is the estimate on for the Committee? definition by law that matters or the process of proof Professor Shaw: It is the sort of thing that the various and evidence. If it is defined by law, then by operation states tend to be quite coy about, so it is really hard to of law you are a Scottish citizen, but if you don’t wish tell. One imagines it wouldn’t be cheap. The obvious to use that Scottish citizenship in any way—you don’t comparator or one sort of thing would be what want to vote in Scottish elections and you don’t want additional costs arose from establishing any sort of a Scottish passport—in those circumstances there is identifiable electoral register for a new election. Of probably nothing you need to do so long as you wish, course the UK state chose largely in the case of and are allowed, to continue to operate on the basis devolution to avoid those extra costs by using the of your British passport, which you can renew local electoral register. That might be the sort of presumably by travelling to the UK, and you vote in comparable cost—that it costs you to go out there and British elections for as long as you can and then, after find out more about who lives where. Census costs cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG05 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o005_michelle_SAC 05.09.12 (corrected).xml

Ev 172 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

5 September 2012 Professor Bernard Ryan and Professor Jo Shaw would also presumably be a reasonable proxy for Professor Shaw: But if they are still paying it to UK establishing a register of citizens. citizens in Spain, which is a nice warm country, then Professor Ryan: Again, I favour a more automatic I imagine that that would be a breach of EU law. solution. If one goes back to the principle of avoiding statelessness, there is a logic to having nationality Q1259 Mr Reid: I have heard that the UK conferred by operation of law because it avoids the Government are thinking of introducing a temperature need for people to register and incur costs that they rule that would stop them paying winter fuel might not be able to afford and so on. I would allowance to UK citizens in Spain, but that would not imagine, if there were an independent Scotland, that work for UK citizens in Scotland. Assuming there are in the run-up to the moment of independence a a million people in Scotland over 60, the UK nationality law would be prepared that identified who Government are not going to continue paying out the people were that were going to acquire Scottish winter fuel allowance to them. nationality. Whatever else happened to them, they Professor Ryan: The cases are different. Someone were going to acquire that at the moment of who has lived in the current United Kingdom and then independence. moved to Spain or somewhere else in the EU is able That is exactly what happened with the Irish Free to bring their entitlements with them. Where you have State, which is a thing I know a fair bit about. a separation of the United Kingdom into two parts, Between December 1921 and December 1922 a those liabilities would presumably also be separated. constitution was drafted that had an article 3 that This is part of what would have to be resolved at the defined the original citizenship of the state. moment of independence and the time of independence. Q1253 Mr Reid: I think we are planning to come to Ireland later on. Would it be correct to assume from Q1260 Mr Reid: They could only separate it by the what you have said that the day after independence UK Government removing UK citizenship. you will have almost five million people who are of Professor Ryan: I am not sure I agree with that. both Scottish and British nationality? Is that a fair assumption? Probably an independent Scotland would be acquiring Professor Ryan: I would reserve my position on what the equivalent liabilities towards the Scottish residents British nationality law might do. irrespective of their nationality.

Q1254 Mr Reid: Assuming British nationality law Q1261 Chair: We have a position where people who doesn’t change. have been abroad in Spain for substantial periods of Professor Ryan: Yes. time are able to claim winter fuel allowance. You are Professor Shaw: Yes. saying that there are two different categories of Britons who become Scots and who are in Scotland. Q1255 Mr Reid: Are there any potential costs to There are those who have lived in Scotland all their the residual United Kingdom of having five million lives and never moved, but there are those, as Mr citizens living outside its borders and therefore paying Mowat has mentioned, who are living in Aberdeen, no tax to the UK? These people, presumably, would having been in England for a while. They would then still have rights within the UK. Is there not then a be eligible for winter fuel allowance, so there could financial incentive to the residual UK Government to be quite a substantial amount of cross-border traffic. pass a law depriving these people of UK nationality? All of these people could be eligible for winter fuel Professor Ryan: There is a responsibility as well that allowance. a state has towards its citizens. If there are large Professor Ryan: It is hard to answer at that level of numbers outside the territory with no connection to detail. the current territory, there are potential costs. Chair: Indeed it is. We need to get this clarified. Professor Shaw: There is a case involving the Czech Q1256 Mr Reid: Therefore, as these people are not Republic and Slovakia that went to the ECJ. I wish I paying taxes to the UK any more, surely there is an could remember it; I am sure that 15 years ago I incentive to the UK to deprive them of citizenship. would have been able to remember it, having read it Professor Ryan: Tax is not really referable to once a while ago, but I can’t any more. There is a case citizenship. It is more of a domicile thing. that looks at the interface between what was agreed between the Czech and Slovak states at the moment Q1257 Mr Reid: These people would all have the of independence and the dissolution of right to a UK winter fuel allowance. Anybody over Czechoslovakia for precisely these types of situations, 60 would have the right to ask the UK taxpayer to pay where you get more generous allowances or you get their winter fuel allowance. The UK Government are people trying to effect a situation of additionality by not going to put up with a million Scots over 60 who virtue of transnationalism. There are questions about are paying no taxes to the UK Government getting the whether or not it is a breach of EU law, whether it UK winter fuel allowance. could be a breach of international human rights law if Professor Ryan: But they would no longer be in the you were thought to be discriminating against people United Kingdom. on certain bases, or whether it is simply something that could be superseded by means of an agreement Q1258 Mr Reid: No, but as Mr Freer has pointed between the states in which they worked out which out to me— responsibilities they assumed. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG05 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o005_michelle_SAC 05.09.12 (corrected).xml

Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 173

5 September 2012 Professor Bernard Ryan and Professor Jo Shaw

I absolutely agree with you that it would be to travel, which is what is prized beyond all, typically profoundly difficult and that there would be all sorts by the young people of that region. of problems that would arise, not necessarily Their pragmatism leads them by various means, immediately. It is almost impossible to contemplate looking at their histories, past residence and citizens’ all the problems, but, when you have a complex registries of the former republics of what was the welfare state, then inevitably many of those problems Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, to see are going to appear, not immediately but over a period whether there are opportunities to have other passports of time. that might give Schengen visa liberalisation or, better It might get more complicated. We are assuming that still, possible membership of the European Union. people play around with citizenship law at the point Having a Croatian passport, given that Croatia is of independence and that’s that. The experience of about to become a member of the European Union, is new states shows that their citizenship laws often a very prized thing. There are an awful lot of external remain quite unstable for longer periods of time. The Croatian citizens living in Bosnia. People are very situation in Scotland would be particularly interesting pragmatic about those sorts of things, so I wouldn’t because we don’t know what the alignment of political accept that people who identify themselves as unionist forces might be in Scotland. We don’t know who in a referendum would then turn round and say, would choose to vote and what this 30% or 40% or “We’re opting out of voting in Scottish elections.” whatever percentage—the 49% who voted against— There is always a disjunction between local and would choose in that event; how they would line up national elections anyway. Local elections are what in political forces in Scotland; whether there would be we call second order elections. You tend to get a mass abstentionism and so on. We don’t know those reaction against governing forces and all those sorts things. The effect of those would obviously then of things. There are lots of games that people play, determine which parties had control of the new but I think in relation to citizenship issues people are, Scottish Parliament and then how they evolve above all, very pragmatic. They take into account citizenship law over a period of time. issues around freedom to travel, welfare and to a We make this distinction between, on the one hand, certain extent identity. To be honest, I think that is a very poor third behind issues to do with travel and the new state determination of citizenry and then we welfare. say, going forward, that every state has to have a means of determining the continuity of its citizenry, but that does not necessarily stay stable over time. Q1264 Jim McGovern: This is a question to There is an interaction between the two. That is very Professor Shaw as regards dual nationality and dual evident from states like Montenegro, where quite passports. You mentioned earlier that some people might look on it as a way to benefit themselves by small shifts of electoral arithmetic have really affected national identity. In my constituency, Dundee West, how citizenship has been determined over a longer there are two universities. We have a large influx of period of time and how citizenship law has been students annually coming to these universities from changed. Small changes can affect electoral arithmetic Northern Ireland. It is my understanding that, due to quite significantly. European Union rules, if these students from Northern Ireland choose to get a Republic of Ireland passport, Q1262 Chair: To come back to the question of then their tuition at the universities in Dundee will electoral arithmetic, presumably all of those who be free, whereas if they are Northern Ireland passport retained their British citizenship would remain eligible holders they would have to pay fees. Do you accept to vote in local authority elections as, say, Germans, that? French or other EU citizens would. Professor Shaw: I understand that you are entirely Professor Shaw: Yes. correct in your interpretation of the effects of the interaction between EU rules on equal treatment and Q1263 Chair: It is entirely feasible then that you free movement versus the Scottish Government’s would have a division between the voting patterns at choice in relation to how it wants to fund higher local authority elections and national elections, since education at the present time. That clash—and I am presumably those who were self-selecting to become making no judgment about it—does arise at the Scottish citizens were likely to be disproportionately present time. I think everyone accepts that. nationalist, whereas those who remained British were likely to be disproportionately unionist, and therefore Q1265 Jim McGovern: Professor Ryan, do you there is a potential conflict in all of that. I see from have anything to add to that? your nodding that you accept that. Professor Ryan: I am afraid I am not familiar enough Professor Shaw: No. What I would say is that people with Scottish higher education to comment. are remarkably pragmatic. What I derive from studying the former Yugoslavia is that levels of Q1266 Chair: You mentioned the question of carrying two or even three passports are extremely registration of people who wished to take up Scottish high. People are very pragmatic in that context. It is nationality and that it would be necessary to have freedom to travel that matters more than anything else. registers and the like. Am I right in thinking that that There are certain passports that frankly aren’t really is essentially equivalent to the poll tax? The way in worth the paper that they are written on, which is which the poll tax was operated in Scotland was to probably not something I ought to say within these get registers of all those who were eligible to pay. It walls, but they don’t really give you access to freedom would be a similar process. We could look at the costs cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG05 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o005_michelle_SAC 05.09.12 (corrected).xml

Ev 174 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

5 September 2012 Professor Bernard Ryan and Professor Jo Shaw for drawing up the poll tax register for a parallel. Is Kingdom. There is no register of British citizens that reasonable? currently, so I don’t necessarily see that a future Professor Ryan: I don’t think that is my position Scottish— because, as I have said, I favour a more automatic solution, at least for those who are Scottish and only Q1271 Chair: The Electoral Register is probably the Scottish in their connections. That would seem to me nearest, isn’t it? to be the way forward. That would obviate the need Professor Shaw: Yes. There are various proxies. It for registration. I agree that for other groups there used to be the case that we thought national insurance might well be a registration system put in place. I was a decent proxy but it is not. That is why there are would have thought it would be a relatively simple lots of proxies such as the census. one. Q1272 Mike Freer: So far the discussion has Q1267 Chair: How does the state in Scotland clarify centred around the decisions being based on a bilateral to its own satisfaction that someone is eligible for discussion between RUK and the Scottish Scottish citizenship and a Scottish passport unless Government. Assuming an independent Scotland has there is some system of assessment and registration? membership of the EU conferred on it automatically, We have substantial numbers of people in certain parts what constraints would the EU place on the definition of the city, in Glasgow, who are here illegally. They of citizenship in the processes? would appear and claim Scottish citizenship by dint Professor Shaw: It is complicated. It is not my of residence. There would have to be some system of judgment that EU law places any constraints as such verification and therefore some system of assessment on the definition of citizenship. There is no evidence and registration. That was the point I was making from existing EU law that that is the case. The reason about being comparable to the poll tax. Surely it why I say that is that, if you draw from the experience cannot be the case that Scottish passports, registration post-1989 in central and eastern Europe and in south- or citizenship would just be given out because east Europe, there have been instances of a somebody was physically there. problematic definition and redefinition of citizenship. Professor Shaw: No, but you think that the domicile I have already mentioned a couple in this context, but system is probably too broad, don’t you? you could also refer to the Baltic states. The EU has Professor Ryan: I do, but there are other systems not had any leverage as a legal order or as a political already in place that could be used, including birth force effectively to change that situation. certificates and the electoral roll as partial substitutes There are, as you may know, substantial numbers of at least or indicators towards people meeting the stateless people in the Baltic states because of the criteria. particular way in which the definition of citizenship has been undertaken in those states and the problems Q1268 Simon Reevell: Is the point you are making in relation to Russia and people who identify that, if you have a law that says if you were born in themselves as Russian. There are these categories of Scotland you are a Scottish citizen, then if you need so-called non-citizens who are in an effective halfway to make a claim on that citizenship you need to turn house, which does not make them Latvian or Estonian up with your birth certificate? citizens and, therefore, by virtue of that EU citizens. Professor Shaw: Yes, or you have to show how you EU law does not really place any constraints, although satisfy the criterion. That is one side of the coin. The we would be in a slightly different situation, just to other side of the coin is whether or not a nationalising be precise, if we went ahead with the separation in the state, in that sense of the word, that wants to define United Kingdom because we would have two states and know who its citizens are and work out how many being created as one state that is already a member. citizens it does have—which is a perfectly legitimate That would be a different situation. My judgment is thing to want to know when you are a new state—is that, if you draw from the experience it would not more likely, in my view, to be more proactive. That constrain citizenship, but it would massively might lead to a registration process that would be complicate many issues around the operation of that unprecedented, although I don’t know about the poll separation and the interaction between existing EU tax because I didn’t live in Scotland at the time. citizenship rights and possible future national citizenship rights. Q1269 Simon Reevell: That is where you differ. If Let me give you one example that is potentially a real you want to create citizenship by birth, for example, issue that I think Scotland should grapple with in an that is easy. You just put it as section 1 of the Act. open way and really address. Because the UK state Professor Shaw: I think we agree on that. chose to make devolved elections based on the local electoral register, it had a peculiar effect that does not Q1270 Simon Reevell: If you actually want to know pertain in any other state in the European Union that who those people are, you then need a register; but has either a federal or quasi-federal type of system, you only need the register if you want to know. If you whereby EU citizens, because they are on the local are happy for someone to be able to prove that they electoral register, vote in Scottish Parliament meet the criteria, you don’t need a register to compare elections, Welsh elections and elections to the them against. You just need to have a robust method Northern Ireland Assembly. They also voted, with the of evidencing your claim to citizenship. exception of the referendum in Northern Ireland, in Professor Ryan: In effect I would see Scotland as those referendums on whether devolution was a good being in much the same position as the current United idea or not. They do vote in those elections. They cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG05 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o005_michelle_SAC 05.09.12 (corrected).xml

Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 175

5 September 2012 Professor Bernard Ryan and Professor Jo Shaw don’t necessarily vote in very large numbers. Of could be the first one that allows lawfully resident EU course those are very important elections in Scotland. citizens to vote in its national elections, which is a They determine very important issues about the claim that many people make in any event. It is not allocation of social goods, but they don’t determine necessarily one that anyone in this room would share, issues at present around our collective security and but it is a claim that is made on behalf of lawfully other issues that are reserved to Westminster. resident EU citizens. They say it is irrational that they As I understand it, it is proposed that any referendum could be resident for decades in another member state held in Scotland on separation would be done under and be unable to vote in the state in which they pay that same electoral register. There would be very taxes unless they take citizenship. They may not want important questions, and this would be in effect not to take citizenship because that may mean they have so much a constraint of the EU but the way in which to give up their home citizenship. the existence of the EU and its legal order, and the Professor Ryan: In the United Kingdom there is questions about continuing membership that would be already a separation between the franchise and raised, interacted with the question of what would be citizenship. It is the British, Commonwealth and Irish the responsibilities of a new state. What do you do who have access to the full franchise. with that group of citizens afterwards? Do you include them automatically in this group, who, according to Bernard’s scheme, would be automatically included? Q1275 Chair: We just wanted to draw that out. You It is not that you are proposing it, but your system is would have a situation where French and Germans saying it is automatic. I am saying that the could vote to split up the UK but then would not nationalising state is more likely to be engaging in an necessarily become Scottish citizens. It would have to activist process of looking to see who its citizens are. be something that they chose to undertake and that Whatever it is, how do you define the citizenry? Do would be parallel with that of the Republic of Ireland they include the people who you thought were citizens, who are eligible to vote in UK general politically significant enough to vote in the elections at the moment but are not necessarily referendum, but do you then regard them as not citizens. They can choose not to be citizens. politically significant enough to be Scottish citizens Professor Ryan: Correct. after that? Q1276 Fiona Bruce: I would like to ask you about Q1273 Mike Freer: If I can put that into a nutshell, how citizenship is inherited and the implications that you are saying that a French citizen living in there might be if there was separation. I should Edinburgh would have more say on the break-up of declare a personal interest in this. Ordinarily, how the union than a Scot living in London? would citizenship be inherited? Let me give you an Professor Shaw: Yes; I think that is correct. I am not example. I lived in Scotland for the first few years of saying it is a good or a bad thing, but I am saying that my life and then my family moved to England. I is the situation. would presumably be entitled to dual citizenship. I was born in Scotland. Q1274 Chair: Just to continue that point—and I had Professor Ryan: Again, the detail remains to be spotted that one as well—the French person living in defined. If one looks at the British tradition in Edinburgh would be able to vote on whether or not nationality law, which has to a certain extent been Scotland became a separate state, but under all the exported around the world to its former territories, the discussions that we have had so far it would only be focus is on place of birth, but at least one generation existing UK citizens that became Scottish citizens. We born outside the given territory will ordinarily acquire have not discussed whether or not a French, Indian, the citizenship or at least an entitlement to the Pakistani or a German citizen would automatically citizenship. become a Scottish citizen after independence. Professor Ryan: They might have the option. It all Q1277 Fiona Bruce: This is my next question. You depends what decisions are taken. They could talked about how freedom to travel was very certainly be given the option if they meet the test of permanent residence. important and prized by the young. The fact that my Professor Shaw: Depending on what you make the son could play for Scotland’s football team as a keen test. If you make the test a prior connection with the footballer is something that he prizes now. Under British state that means you can prove you were separation do you think he would still have that kind previously a British citizen, then, no, clearly not. of connection? You are saying one generation away Given that you are allocating the right to vote in the from me being born in Scotland would entitle him referendum on the basis of residence, it raises very to apply. important questions about how that then rolls on into Professor Ryan: Scotland might take a broader view. the definition of citizenship and potentially the right Scotland might well wish to maintain a longer to vote. connection to a Scottish diaspora, as it were, in the The other way round that you could do it is that an future environment than the United Kingdom does independent Scotland could become the first member presently. In Ireland it is two generations that have state of the European Union, assuming it becomes a easy access to Irish citizenship. Scotland might take member state of the European Union, and I know the same view. there are questions about that. But, if it were to Simon Reevell: I expect if he is any good they would become a member state of the European Union, it find a way. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG05 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o005_michelle_SAC 05.09.12 (corrected).xml

Ev 176 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

5 September 2012 Professor Bernard Ryan and Professor Jo Shaw

Q1278 Fiona Bruce: Professor Ryan, you used the not be included, depending perhaps on electoral phrase “long connections”. Could you amplify that calculus. because it seems to me it could involve some really lengthy tribunal debates? For example, my brother is Q1282 Fiona Bruce: I have two other points. Of a few years older than I. He was born just before my course some people have one parental connection in family moved to Scotland. I am being slightly Scotland and some have two. Again, that is a variable, hypothetical here. He stayed for 20 years and now isn’t it, which could make a big difference? I want to lives back in England. He does not therefore have a ask you also about those serving in the Scottish forces. Scottish birth certificate, as I have. Are his What would their position be in terms of nationality? connections long enough or is it that you have worked As someone said, if you are willing to die for your in Scotland for a few years or sat on the Scottish country, shouldn’t you perhaps be entitled to be a Affairs Select Committee for three years? citizen of it? Professor Ryan: That is quite an interesting example. Professor Ryan: On the first point, one consequence It is someone who, hypothetically, had Scottish of essentially outlawing gender discrimination in nationality existed at the time, could have acquired it nationality law is that you cannot really distinguish but it is now too late. between the one-parent and two-parent case, certainly Fiona Bruce: Absolutely. if the paternity is established. British nationality law Professor Ryan: That is a category of retrospective makes very generous provision now for people in the situation that would have to be addressed. All these armed forces around the world. That is a question of problems do arise. detail on nationality law as to whether the armed forces are treated as a distinct case. It is equivalent to Q1279 Fiona Bruce: What you are saying is that a being in the territory. I suppose Scotland could do the huge volume of questions will arise, particularly same thing. because there are enormous numbers of families in my situation, aren’t there? I know that in parts of this Q1283 Fiona Bruce: This is my last question. country there are quite large settlements of Scots. The Someone, say, from Japan is on holiday in Edinburgh. Chairman mentioned Corby; there are large numbers She is a lady who gives birth prematurely. Her child of Scots there. Would they be treated differently, for is born in Edinburgh and a few days later she goes example, from someone who had settled in Canada back home. What are the options for that child? for the last 20 years? Professor Shaw: That depends on whether Scotland Professor Ryan: That is another question. I have put were to institute unconditional jus soli. That would this in my written submission. It is an interesting issue be very unlikely. The last state to have more or less as to whether Scotland might treat the United unconditional jus soli was Ireland and it was abolished Kingdom differently from the rest of the world or in 2004. In every state now, although birth in the indeed whether the United Kingdom might treat territory is a relevant criterion, it is other types of Scotland differently from the rest of the world going connections that are important. It is birth in the forward. You could certainly imagine that happening. territory of parents who have a right to be in the territory that is the type of thing which gives you a Q1280 Chair: I thought we were told earlier on that connection or a right to reside in the territory. it would not be possible to discriminate in that way because that would be illegal. Q1284 Fiona Bruce: A proactive step would have Professor Shaw: That is the type of rule that might to be taken by the Scottish Government to make sure arise if you tried to distinguish between people who that provision was made for that kind of situation. had the same underlying criteria—e.g. born in Professor Shaw: I am absolutely sure that any Scotland or born not in Scotland but to parents who citizenship law will make provision for the degree of were born in Scotland—and you treated people connection. I would be astonished if any citizenship differently depending on where they went afterwards, law that was enacted post- independence would their final destination. There would undoubtedly be a provide for that type of situation, but of course there lot of questions raised about that. have been instances, and effectively that is still the case in the United States as well. Q1281 Chair: All of this clarifies that the Scottish Government have to come clean on what their Q1285 Chair: The Irish law, as I understand it, proposals are, doesn’t it? We don’t know what they changed because it was being abused. We then had are actually suggesting and therefore we don’t know the position where children who were born in Ireland whether or not it would be feasible. were not Irish citizens. The Scottish Government will Professor Shaw: In a way there is almost a bigger have to come clean and say whether or not children question than that, and some people were hinting at who are born in Scotland might not be Scottish this. There is always this paradox. Who determines it? citizens or might not be entitled to be Scottish citizens We can suggest that it is the Scottish Government that depending on the residency of their parents. has a more legitimate claim to make proposals which Let me clarify one point. When Fiona was mentioning may or may not be accepted, but on the other hand her son and possibly other people’s grandchildren who that Government is elected by people on a residency would be eligible to play either football or rugby for basis and a residency basis alone. There are all these Scotland—and goodness knows we need them in people with connections to Scotland who may or may both—it is entirely possible that they would be cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG05 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o005_michelle_SAC 05.09.12 (corrected).xml

Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 177

5 September 2012 Professor Bernard Ryan and Professor Jo Shaw eligible to play for the national team but not be pursue with you. What exactly are the points that we eligible for citizenship. should be seeking clarification on from them in order Professor Ryan: I think it works the other way round. that the people of Scotland can be clear? My understanding is that it is a pre-condition that one That brings me on to the Sean Connery issue. If they has the citizenship, to avoid people being able to play decide that those who are living abroad and who claim sport for several countries at once. That is the only Scottish ancestry will become citizens, will there go condition. with that any commitment to be tax liable in any way? My understanding is that citizens of the United States Q1286 Chair: As I understand it, the rule that stops are liable for US taxation wherever they are in the them playing for several countries at once is that, if world. Is that something that goes automatically or is you play for one country, you then can’t play for that something that is up for choice? anybody else. That is the rule that stops that. Ireland Professor Shaw: That is a matter of choice by was particularly good at fetching in the grandparent legislation. connection. Scotland has brought people from Australia who had Australian citizenship to play for Q1289 Chair: So it would be entirely fair for us to Scotland. Indeed, it has brought people with New ask the Scottish Government whether or not they Zealand citizenship to play for Scotland in rugby but propose that anyone who takes Scottish citizenship they were not eligible to be citizens. They might abroad would then become liable for Scottish taxation. subsequently have become citizens, but, unless I am That is something that they could tell us now. mistaken, you are saying that simply becoming a state Professor Shaw: The Scottish Government could tell would not change that in any way. you what they would propose, but what might be Professor Ryan: I am not familiar with the details of decided by a subsequent Scottish Parliament— Scotland’s position as regards sport. In the Irish case Chair: I understand. What we are looking for is the pre-condition is citizenship. It is because the clarification on what the advantage is and what they citizenship law is generous and extends outwards for envisage separation to be like in order that people can two generations that it is possible to bring people in decide. All of these questions that we are identifying later on, as it were, to play for the teams. are things that we can legitimately ask.

Q1287 Chair: I want to ask about people who are Q1290 Fiona Bruce: I would add to that, Chairman. abroad. We have mentioned that a Scot in Putney As I understand it from you, what you are saying is might be eligible for Scottish citizenship, but would a that the position is so unknown and so much will have Scot in equivalent circumstances in Paris be eligible to be determined that the cost of all this is going to for Scottish citizenship? Would this be entirely a be huge and will rumble on for years and years and decision of the Scottish Government? years determining these issues. Professor Ryan is Professor Ryan: Scottish nationality law. smiling at me. Professor Shaw: I hope it would be a decision of the Professor Ryan: I am not sure. I would err on the side Scottish Parliament. of favouring more automatic solutions, which would Chair: I understand the point. tend to put the Scottish state much in the position of Professor Shaw: I think we are also missing the point. the British state today. I don’t see huge extra costs We tend to say there is so much uncertainty. It is associated with the nationality field. potentially and actually very complex. Those complexities will continue over many years. The issue Q1291 Fiona Bruce: Except for the fact that we about how many degrees of separation or connection have had quite a discussion about what, for example, is important. Eventually, if Scotland were to become long connections are and how that is going to be independent, that would be a decision of the Scottish determined with two and three generations. people. The precise terms of a Scottish nationality law Professor Ryan: I agree with Jo that in a post- would be a decision of a popularly elected and independent scenario there probably will be more flux, democratically elected Scottish Parliament. My point and new problems that haven’t quite been thought is that that would change, including a possible through will come up. But nationality law evolves retrospective changing of the terms of entry originally. over time; British nationality law does and it does There is plenty of evidence from recent examples that change. these things have been messed around with for Professor Shaw: I don’t think any state that has ever reasons of electoral calculus. become independent has publicly said afterwards, “Oh my gosh, I wish we hadn’t done that because of the Q1288 Chair: I understand that, but, unless I am cost both for the taxpayers and in terms of socialised mistaken, you are saying to us that those of us who costs, and also for individuals in terms of uncertainty.” have a vote in the forthcoming referendum have no At that point the identity side of citizenship tends to idea what we are voting for in terms of nationality, predominate. citizenship, passports and the like, because all of this could be changed by a subsequent Scottish Q1292 Chair: That is right, but there will also be Government. I understand that, but I would have situations such as in Quebec, where people, looking thought that those who are presently pressing for over the abyss and realising what the costs were, separation should be up front and honest about what decided not to go down that particular route. it is that they propose should they then go on to win Professor Shaw: I would entirely agree with you that in that first election. That is what we are trying to it will be interesting to see a clarification of what types cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG05 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o005_michelle_SAC 05.09.12 (corrected).xml

Ev 178 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

5 September 2012 Professor Bernard Ryan and Professor Jo Shaw of choices would need to be made. There are the The other point at that time was that there was a single connection choices; the length of residence choices; status called British subjecthood that applied to the the degree of automaticity; and the types of proposals United Kingdom and overseas dominions and that might be made in an international context. With colonies. The Irish were resisting that. They wanted all those sorts of things, it will be interesting to see a their own citizenship that would be recognised as menu of choices laid out so that we felt there could autonomous. They didn’t get that in 1922, and they be a more informed decision. At the moment, and I tried to edge towards it and to detach themselves from would agree with you as someone who lives in the United Kingdom over the ensuing 25 years or so. Scotland but self-evidently was not born there, it is an The historical context meant that things were resolved area where it is very uncertain. It does raise people’s very slowly, whereas with the Scottish case, whatever anxieties to quite a high degree. the test of independence is, if that test is met, then I Chair: It is not self-evident that you weren’t born think the principle is accepted and therefore there there. Remember that there are lots of people in would be the possibility to move relatively quickly to Scotland who have spent a lot of money on an some kind of solution. expensive education to make sure that they don’t sound Scottish. Accent is not the only determinant. Q1296 Fiona Bruce: What are the lessons to be I understand that there is a vote at four, so we will try learned from 1922 if Scotland does decide to leave and get through another couple of questions and then the United Kingdom? we will have to break and return. Professor Ryan: The lesson we were discussing before is that the key thing is to have an initial Q1293 Pamela Nash: Professor Shaw, I would like citizenship defined. That was done by the Free State to return to the concept of discriminatory legislation in 1922. The negative lesson is waiting 13 years to when it comes to immigration law. We were talking then address the rest of nationality law. That was too about whether Scotland would be able to give special long because there were people left out by the initial treatment to Scots who live in the rest of Britain above decision who might have had a good claim. There the rest of the world. Is that not the situation for were people born in the meantime and who moved in Ireland at the moment? in the meantime. There was that kind of delay. Professor Shaw: If it is a question about Ireland it should go to Professor Ryan. Q1297 Pamela Nash: That takes us back to what we were just discussing a few minutes ago. That Q1294 Pamela Nash: Would the immigration definition is something that we need rather quickly if legislation in terms of people who live in Northern Scotland is going to leave the United Kingdom. We Ireland being given Irish citizenship not be seen as as politicians and many of us who are citizens of discriminatory in international terms? Scotland would want to have that in advance of an Professor Ryan: It should still be possible for a state election on Scotland’s future in the UK. to justify differential treatment for historic Professor Ryan: Certainly as soon as possible. Maybe connections and continuing links in questions of not every detail needs to be specified but the broad identity. That is the kind of justification that could be outlines perhaps in the pre-independence period might permitted. It is not an absolute rule. be sufficient.

Q1295 Pamela Nash: I am not suggesting that there Q1298 Chair: Is there any reason why the broad is or isn’t a disparity. I am just trying to picture if details of the Scottish Government’s proposals should Scotland could carry on. Thank you for the paper that not be drawn up and in front of us within six months? you provided entitled “Are there lessons from Unless I am mistaken, this is not rocket science, is it? Ireland?” That is really helpful. For the purposes of The Scottish Government and those who want the record today would you be able to summarise that? separation should be able to draw on both your The main issue I have seen in the paper is that it did evidence and evidence available generally and put take 13 years for Britain and Ireland to come to a forward a pattern for citizenship, immigration and conclusion on what Irish citizenship should look like. passports very quickly. Is that fair? That illustrates to me the fact that the rest of the UK Professor Ryan: I certainly think that who are citizens will very much have a say in what Scottish citizenship at the initial moment is something that be known in looks like as we separate Scottishness and Britishness, advance. I do not think you can wait until afterwards although you do ascertain in this paper that you to fill in the gaps there. Almost all of that needs to be foresee the situation in Scotland being resolved a lot known. Additions could be made later. New groups quicker. Could you explain why you feel that is the could be added that had been left out, but the core case? group must be defined. With the ongoing nationality Professor Ryan: The parallel is very imperfect law there might be some scope to not spell it out in between the question of the Irish Free State in 1922 full detail as long as the broad outlines were clear. and a hypothetical Scottish independence today. In a sense, the principle of Scottish independence has Q1299 Chair: Someone like yourself could have this always been accepted. If there is sufficient support for done over the weekend, couldn’t you? Presumably the it, then the United Kingdom will accept that it is going Scottish Government have access to equivalent to happen, whereas that was not exactly the way it experts. Therefore, there is no reason why they worked with the Irish Free State. That was one shouldn’t come clean and tell us what they are problem. proposing, or are there hidden depths to this that we cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG05 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o005_michelle_SAC 05.09.12 (corrected).xml

Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 179

5 September 2012 Professor Bernard Ryan and Professor Jo Shaw are just not seeing? Are there complex reasons why Q1301 David Mowat: The learning point for me they have to keep this secret? Is there any reason why about your evidence is that there is a huge amount of it should be kept secret? I can understand why there discretion as to how citizenship is defined by the are no commercial disclosures in case the share prices Scottish Government. That is a big learning point for move, but nothing like that applies here. There is no me in that they have a lot of options about reason for a lack of honesty, is there? automaticity, as you called it, or opt-in and how that Professor Ryan: My answer, I suppose, is that it is a works. On the Chairman’s point that that is not question of who decides. Maybe the implicit position defined prior to the ballot, I could quite conceivably that has essentially been taken by the Scottish be voting in the ballot and eligible to vote because of Government—I don’t know—is, as Jo was saying the way that is done, not knowing whether I would be earlier, that these are matters ultimately for a future eligible to be a Scottish citizen afterwards because this Scottish Parliament. stuff is not defined, couldn’t I? I could be the Frenchman living in Edinburgh—I could be all sorts Q1300 Chair: But people can’t be asked to buy a of things—or I could be somebody with no real connection with Scotland who happens to be resident pig in a poke. We have to assume that, if they are for a year. I am not certain whether that would give going for separation, they know what they want and me residency. There is a bit of an issue there in that, they have a vision. We are entitled to know what that without defining it a bit more than it is now, I just is because the assumption normally would be that don’t know whether I am going to be a citizen, even those who lead the country into separation or though I am going to vote in the referendum. independence then become the Government and then Professor Shaw: There are those issues, but, by implement the package that they had either in secret definition, citizenship is clearly a matter for the or in public. We are just trying to clarify whether or discretion of every sovereign people. The paradox of not there is any reason why they shouldn’t come clean it all is who determines who is sovereign and how can with us now. That will affect our report. If we end up you break out of what seems to be an impossible loop saying, “Here is a whole number of things that need if you don’t know, as you say, if you are going to vote to be clarified. We saw these incredibly clever people in the referendum whether you will be able to vote in who agreed with us that there is no reason why the the ordinary politics later on. Scottish Government shouldn’t tell us”, then that is clear and a straightforward report. Is that the sort of Q1302 Simon Reevell: The Scottish Government thing we can write? could ask you. They could say, “We want to have a Professor Shaw: I think we would be very reluctant definition of citizenship along these lines. Is that to say to you what you should say to the Scottish something that falls foul of any sort of international Government for obvious reasons, particularly as law or any judicial decision?” You would be able to someone who is resident in Scotland. We wouldn’t give them an answer to that in a very short period of participate in that debate. I would be very reluctant to time. If they said, “We are completely open about the say that. What I would say is that there are a couple definition of citizenship. Please could you provide us of lines that are in various documents that focus on with two or three options and we will choose one?”, residence and dual citizenship as if those were you could do that in a very short period of time. There panaceas and provided answers to everything. is no reason at all why someone who is Scottish and Clearly what we have brought out in thinking and who goes to vote in a referendum shouldn’t know the talking about this here is that there are a number of nature of the citizenship of the state that they are other issues that could usefully be, or would have to voting whether to create or not. be, clarified at various points during the debate Professor Ryan: I agree. Certainly the principles between any referendum and the separation or after could be specified in advance. separation. Those are issues around the degree of connection and the degrees of consanguinity that Q1303 Simon Reevell: So the only thing that is might be needed. There are issues around not only missing, because we don’t have that information, is residence but externality—so external citizens. There lack of will. There is no other reason for that are issues around what might be likely to be possible information not to be there. to be negotiated in inter-governmental relations and Professor Shaw: That is your conclusion. That is not international relations with the UK. There are issues our proposal or not my proposal. about what the effects of EU law might be—not so much constraints but effects. Finally, there are issues Q1304 Simon Reevell: As experts, can you think of about the interaction between citizenship and the another reason why the definition of citizenship for franchise, where EU law on top of the peculiarities of the proposed independent country is not available? If the UK situation has produced some very interesting there is some reason that you know of through your outcomes, which would be very challenging for expertise, then tell us. people to face up to. David Mowat: Presumably they could take the line Those are the sorts of things that you could put down that the reason is that it should be defined by a future as a menu of options, but I don’t think it is for us to Scottish Government that had been elected. tell you that we would agree with you that you should be pushing the Scottish Government on those matters. Q1305 Simon Reevell: But that is lack of will. I do That is a matter for you as a Committee of Parliament. not use that as a pejorative phrase. That is the same cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG05 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o005_michelle_SAC 05.09.12 (corrected).xml

Ev 180 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

5 September 2012 Professor Bernard Ryan and Professor Jo Shaw thing. If they want to do it, there is no reason why maybe even negotiating with places like Thailand and they can’t, as far as you are concerned. so on. Professor Shaw: No. Pragmatically what you might Professor Shaw: But EU law is moving in that say, once you start to write about these things, is that direction anyway. I don’t see that that is going to be there is very little between the two lines that we have a big sticking point. EU law is very much moving at the moment that talk about dual citizenship and towards the sharing of responsibilities for consular residence and a very detailed elaboration that then protection of all EU citizens. Assuming everyone is goes on to all of those sorts of issues and starts to an EU citizen, on top of being a British citizen— consider issues around what types of judicial Chair: We might spend some time debating whether processes you would have to secure that people had or not there is such a thing as an EU citizen. I am access to— aware that that is what the EU wants but views on the Simon Reevell: I am sorry to interrupt, but we have future of the EU might differ. That is not guaranteed. a Division. The fact that you are listing all of these I will turn back to David on the question of things means that they are all known and so they could immigration. be identified if somebody wanted to identify them. Chair: That is agreed then. We will adjourn and be Q1310 David Mowat: That is what I was meant to back as quickly as we can. be asking you about. On immigration, what is the Sitting suspended for a Division in the House implication for the rest of the UK of an independent Chair: We turn now to the question of immigration Scotland in terms of how the borders might work? and, David, you are going to pick up question 9. How would you envisage that working if Scotland was in the EU? Is there a difference if they were to Q1306 David Mowat: Before I do that, as I said join Schengen or not? Is there a risk that we get an before the break, I have been reflecting on the fact that issue at the northern border in the same way as we there is a great deal of discretion in how the Scottish have a little bit on the southern border, with people Government define citizenship and how they deal with piled up in France trying to get in? How do you see all that, but there isn’t much discretion in what you that working? have said—that the UK residual Government would Professor Ryan: I don’t see any real prospect of have five million people who are not living in the UK Scotland joining Schengen unless the United any more but are still citizens of the UK. I am right Kingdom does it, and I don’t see any real prospect of in saying that, aren’t I? You are saying there is no that. Schengen is a little bit off the table. I would ambiguity in that. foresee that Scotland would continue to be part of the Professor Ryan: I think there is a slight difference common travel area but as a separate state. That might between us. I feel that independence would have have implications for how that common travel area is consequences within British nationality law because run because you would then have Scotland and the the ongoing territory would be smaller than it had Republic of Ireland there with the United Kingdom. been in the past. At the moment it is run in a relatively loose administrative manner. It might be more open and Q1307 David Mowat: So it wouldn’t automatically clearer what the roles of different states were within happen. it. That is what I would foresee happening. Professor Ryan: I do not see it as such. Jo’s position is more of an “ought”. It ought to be the case that Q1311 David Mowat: Based on your answer, from everyone could keep their citizenship. the catalogue of hundreds of issues that we have Professor Shaw: I don’t see how, short of a mass facing us around all of this, this immigration one isn’t deprivation of citizenship, you could change the a very big one. position for the people who are alive at the moment. Professor Ryan: I have looked a lot at the position of the Republic of Ireland within the common travel Q1308 David Mowat: We talked about the winter area. It is not straightforward because it isn’t like fuel allowance, but presumably those five million Schengen. It is not based on an international people could use the British embassies abroad and agreement that clearly sets out what the roles of there is a cost to that, which the British Government different states are and what the rights of individuals would continue to have to fund or negotiate a transfer are. There would be some difficulties that would arise payment with the Scottish Government. and some questions to be answered. One would be Professor Shaw: That is why these things are always whether to have any control at all on any form of going to involve inter-governmental negotiations. travel between the states. It is one thing not to have permanent controls on the land border, but there is air Q1309 Chair: Picking up the point about embassies, travel and sea travel. They may create different I am not sure this is entirely directly involved in your possibilities. area of expertise, but Scottish citizens would not automatically have access to UK consular facilities Q1312 David Mowat: If a future Scottish abroad unless they were dual citizens. That comes Government were to be perceived as being very loose back to your point, Professor Shaw, about people on their immigration controls, a UK residual holding on to what suits them. Therefore, it would be Government might be concerned about how a land advantageous for people to hold on to British border that is pretty permeable would work. citizenship on the basis that it would give them access Professor Ryan: The fact is that those discussions and to consular services abroad, visa arrangements and those forms of co-operation already exist between the cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG05 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o005_michelle_SAC 05.09.12 (corrected).xml

Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 181

5 September 2012 Professor Bernard Ryan and Professor Jo Shaw

United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. They that Scotland was not strict enough in relation to visa may not be advertised greatly but they do take place nationals who were coming for short-term stays and at the governmental level and at the operational level. that there might be some consequential effects in that people then either continued to reside illegally in Q1313 Chair: That is right. I have a copy of the Scotland, which is Scotland’s matter, or to reside joint statement between Damian Green and Alan illegally in the rest of the UK. Shatter of the Republic of Ireland. As I understand it, That might raise a question about how you control basically, the Republic of Ireland has accepted British that border or whether you have effective controls immigration rules as the price of having an open within the border, which is effectively a lot of what border. Effectively, unless we are mistaken, that would you do now anyway. It is still the case that, despite really be the price for Scotland of having an open the best efforts of anyone, there are still a lot of people border with the rest of the UK—that they accepted who overstay, so there have to be controls within the UK immigration rules. borders anyway. I am not sure it is going to raise any Professor Shaw: What do you mean by “immigration particular additional problems. It does not seem to me rules”? Do you mean border crossing or the right to that there is any a priori likely assumption that enter, reside and work? Scotland would be any more lax in relation to the allocation of visit visas for leisure, short-term business Q1314 Chair: The rights to come in and so on and or families than the rest of the UK. so forth. One of the issues is the question of whether or not there would be a border at Carlisle and Berwick Q1316 Chair: The Scottish Government have and so on. Were Scotland to join Schengen, then argued for a long time that they want to have different clearly there would be different policies being applied immigration policies from the rest of the UK. As a in England and in Scotland. Unless I am mistaken, constituency member with a large number of migrants Scotland joining Schengen would require border in my constituency, I am aware that, of those who are controls. given permission to stay, over 50% move to London Professor Shaw: Yes. right away. Professor Shaw: Yes, of course, and that may well be Q1315 Chair: In relation to joining the EU, we can the case but they are given permission to stay under discuss whether or not any EU new state is required UK rules at the moment. Those deflection effects to make a commitment to join Schengen and to join would doubtless continue. If what you are saying is the euro. There is then the issue about whether or not that Scotland wants to have a different position in Scotland automatically accedes, which takes us down relation, for example, to the rights of students to a different road. If you are accepting, as I think you continue to reside and attract rights towards are, that Scotland joining Schengen unilaterally would permanent settlement after graduating, which used to require border controls, then the issue is what, short be the case throughout the UK and is not the case any of Schengen, might require border controls and what more now, or if it wanted to have a different position flexibility would there be in those circumstances for in relation to highly skilled nationals, or if it wanted Scotland to have an immigration policy that was to lower some of the thresholds on income different from that of the rest of the UK. requirements for family reunification, then those Professor Shaw: Ireland has a different immigration would be decisions that Scotland would make. If the policy but what you are actually talking about is UK objected to them, then that might be a reason to border control. There is far too much confusion call into question the common travel area. between immigration and border control. Obviously In all of those areas Ireland has quite different rules the vast majority of people who would come and visit from the UK. Some are more lax and some are stricter Ireland or Scotland are not seeking to reside there. On in various cases. It has not proved to be a problem, the other hand, there are therefore some consequences has it? I don’t know. in them potentially being able to circulate within the Professor Ryan: I would draw the same distinction common travel area, if they were visa nationals, for between immigration control or border control as such example, having acquired a visa only to visit one part and immigration policy for people who might wish to of it. There are restrictions. People who are visa stay on a medium-term or long-term basis. I don’t see nationals in the UK can’t necessarily go to Ireland that an open border, even a very open border, implies without having a separate Irish visa and vice versa, a need to have similarity in the medium or long-term but that doesn’t mean to say that some of it doesn’t policies, but it probably does create some pressure to happen. To be perfectly honest, I have not travelled to have co-operation and similarity in the short-stay Ireland for a very long time without my passport in policy. That is the experience of the United Kingdom my pocket just in case. vis-à-vis the Republic. It is somewhat behind the I have never resided or spent that much time in Ireland scenes because there are sensitivities around it. It has so I don’t know how the land border operates, but been clear for a long time that the UK has had an there is a sea border between the mass. There would influence on Irish visa policy as to which states are be no sea border between Scotland and the rest of the visa states. Also, the sharing of information about UK except for that part which is Northern Ireland, so individuals goes on. It may be upon request—I don’t there would be an issue about how the land border know exactly how it works—but some sharing of would operate. Yes, it would be complicated, but what information goes on so that individuals who are we are really talking about is whether or not there undesirable in one state can be excluded from the could be consequences flowing because the UK felt other. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG05 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o005_michelle_SAC 05.09.12 (corrected).xml

Ev 182 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

5 September 2012 Professor Bernard Ryan and Professor Jo Shaw

That level of immigration control is really aimed at UK as a whole are quite harsh towards certain types short-term stays and people who don’t have a status. of groups, but I have never seen any evidence to The longer term policy is where the focus of pressure suggest that we are going to be providing big hugs and therefore co-operation would be. and kisses at Edinburgh airport to anyone who flies in from anywhere else and saying, “Yeah, come on in Q1317 Chair: If I could tackle this a little further, and go on down to London.” the UK Border Agency used to have quite a bundle of staff in Stranraer to catch people coming over on the Q1322 Chair: I must say that as a local Member it ferry. Now they have moved quite a lot of it across to is not my experience that anybody from the Larne to stop people coming across. That is the route Nationalists has ever supported any deportation ever from Ireland into Northern Ireland and into Scotland, of anybody who got themselves to Scotland. Any time because that is seen to be a choke point. If a Scottish there is a proposal for anybody who is here illegally Government declined to have that sort of check on its or breaking any other rule to be removed they oppose borders, potentially that is a route from Ireland into it, which is consistent with having an open Northern Ireland into Scotland and down to London, immigration policy. One is the converse of the other. where the UK Government might very well then wish Professor Shaw: This is something that really makes to have some sort of barrier to make sure that that is me wonder why everyone conflates—or why you are not abused. That either means that the Scottish conflating to me—the policies of a particular party Government have effectively lost control of their own that happens to be in Government in Scotland running travel policy, because they would have to institute the a certain set of things in Scotland and has certain types UK norms in order to stop a barrier being erected or of proposals, with which you and I may agree, with make some other arrangements. Does that seem a the will of the Scottish people in the event of reasonable set of assumptions? independence and what the configuration of political Professor Ryan: The underlying question, at least in forces would be in Scotland. People always say to me the Irish case, is that it is simply seen as not feasible that Scotland is a deeply conservative—with a small to police the land border. I don’t know enough about “c”—country but it would be no more open or closed the Scottish/English border to say. I don’t know towards outsiders than any other state. We don’t know whether, in any peace-time circumstances, it is a what the will of the Scottish people will be in relation realistic option to have controls in and around that to those sorts of questions. border. If it isn’t, that then changes the nature of the game between the two states. They are then forced to Q1323 Chair: That comes back to the argument co-operate pretty much. about buying a complete pig in a poke. That is an argument for saying we have to wander into Q1318 Chair: Why are they forced to co-operate? If separation completely, totally and utterly blind. It is a Scotland is providing an open gateway for not unreasonable assumption that those who are uncontrolled immigration— making the case for separation should spell out what Professor Shaw: Why? Where from? Where is it sort of policies they would have in mind post- coming from? separation. As I indicated earlier on, the almost universal experience is that those who have led their Q1319 Chair: Anybody who can get to Scotland country to separation or independence then become would then travel down to London if there were open the first Government and at least have a period to borders in Scotland. Many of the Scottish ports are implement their policies. Therefore it is not not guarded. unreasonable for us to seek clarification on the Professor Shaw: But they would be if Scotland were separatists’ policy on immigration and so on. As far a state, in just the same way as— as is clear at the moment, it is virtually unlimited immigration. What would the consequences of that be Q1320 Chair: Why? for borders, border controls and so on and so forth? Professor Shaw: Why are you assuming they I am originally from the Borders. People there would wouldn’t be? Why would Scotland be any different like to know whether or not they are likely to have from any other quasi-island state? border controls imposed by the rest of the UK. If the SNP said now, “We will have an agreement with the Q1321 Chair: In the absence of any alternative rest of the UK that gives us a common immigration stated policy, the SNP seem to be supportive of an policy”, then clearly in those circumstances it is open immigration policy. highly unlikely that any border controls would be Professor Shaw: I am sorry but I can’t agree that I necessary. But, in the absence of that, as responsible have ever seen any statements that seem to say, legislators we have to take a worst-case scenario and “Anyone can come and live, reside and work in think, “What if?” It is in that context that we are Scotland” and so on and so forth. I have never seen pressing about the issue of under what circumstances any statements about that. What I have seen are border controls would be necessary. statements that, if people come and pay large Professor Shaw: That is a matter for you, but I do quantities of overseas fees, then we would be very think you need to clarify exactly what it is that you interested in using their skills in the Scottish labour are asking for. Would Scotland be somehow different market afterwards. I have seen some suggestions in from every other sovereign state in the world, which the press that there is a feeling that some of the family is that it would make choices about not only who its reunification rules that have now been applied in the citizens were but also about who could legitimately cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG05 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o005_michelle_SAC 05.09.12 (corrected).xml

Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 183

5 September 2012 Professor Bernard Ryan and Professor Jo Shaw arrive? Scotland needs to make choices about between Scotland and the rest of the UK? It is not so immigration policy and it needs to make choices about much worrying about an open border scenario, which border control, but you need to be clear about what in Scotland I don’t think would happen, but worrying the questions are that you are asking. about the practicalities of having a completely open Just because people may object to certain aspects of frontier. Will people be able to be tourists in England existing control policies, such as the processes and then Scotland or vice versa if that is what they whereby people are removed after long residence in wish? That has to be designed and put in place. It is the UK or some of the rules and so on— not automatic from the common travel area as it is presently constituted. Q1324 Chair: I understand, but would you agree, though, that if immigration policy is different in Q1326 Lindsay Roy: As far as I can understand it, Scotland from the rest of the UK there is a possibility the SNP have said they want to have a different of what, in financial terms, could be described as immigration policy because they want more people to “arbitrage”? People would go to one in order then to come into what is basically a small country with a gain access to the other. Before we re-met you limited labour force. That is the issue we are grappling mentioned the question of Canada. with here. Professor Shaw: Of course. That is entirely likely. It Chair: What then happens if people are allowed into already happens to a certain extent within the EU. You Scotland on the basis that they are going to work in will find different members of families who end up Scotland and then they decide, “Now that I am in, I separated and who have had traumatic experiences in would much rather go to London”, and they just go a failed state. They end up in different states and some to London? can access citizenship easily, some can’t, and then Professor Shaw: As Bernard has just said, if there is they take advantage of EU citizenship. Of course that no mutual recognition between the two systems—so happens. It happens as well between the United States the work permit is only valid for Scotland—then they and Canada. People who go and live and work in risk being illegal in London. The deflection effect Canada gain Canadian citizenship and then move on through a lawful track would be London saying that to the States because, once they have a Canadian it is far too easy to come from a third country to get passport, it is much easier to move to the United Scottish citizenship and then, on the basis of that, once States. Yes, all of those deflection effects—those you are a Scottish citizen to live and work in the rest consequences of policies—do occur already. I suspect of the UK either because of some arrangement they occur to a certain extent between the Irish between Britain and Scotland or by virtue of EU law, Republic and the UK, and they occur elsewhere in which would allow it if the EU continues to exist in its the EU. current form. That would be a lawful deflection effect. I am looking for the evidence that Scotland would With unlawful deflection effects, those are the risks deviate from all of the other EU member states in that people take. People do extraordinarily stupid some dramatic way in lacking some sort of things because they think it is going to make them immigration policy in which it made choices about the better than their current situation. It is hard to imagine types of people it wanted to have, the labour market that anyone who was lawfully working in Scotland problems it had, high-skill labour, low-skill labour, would choose to go to the rest of the UK unlawfully demography and so on and so forth. if they had a lawful status in Scotland. That would be a deeply irrational act. Q1325 Chair: Professor Ryan, you are desperate to come in here. Q1327 Pamela Nash: I have constituency cases like Professor Ryan: I am. The problem between the that where someone legally went to Ireland and then Republic and the United Kingdom is exactly the came to Scotland when they didn’t have the right opposite of the one you are speculating about. There work permit. On Lindsay’s point about what the SNP is no mutual recognition of visas or residence permits. have said on the fact that Scotland has different The fact that somebody goes to the Republic as a immigration requirements from the UK, I have the student on a work permit does not give them any right SNP website here now. I have just typed in at all, if they are from outside the EU, to go to the “immigration”, and there is statement after statement United Kingdom. They may physically be able to go, saying that Scotland should have different but of course they risk encountering immigration immigration laws from the rest of the United officials at the ports in Northern Ireland or in Scotland Kingdom. and falling into trouble with the UK immigration I appreciate, Professor Shaw, that you are saying we authorities as a result. The problem is the opposite: cannot predict what the SNP are going to do in that there is no mutual recognition even for short-term government, but I have to say that the previous visits. This causes great difficulties, particularly Labour Government have also said that Scotland has between the north and south in Ireland. People who different immigration requirements. So those are the are there perfectly legitimately in one state or the two major parties in Scotland. It is foreseeable that other, maybe even for a medium or long-term stay, do Scotland would have quite different rules as to who not automatically have the right to go to the other, would come to the country and not just in terms of even to go shopping or for a small piece of tourism. citizenship but for work permits and visas too. In many ways I would argue that that is the question At the end of that, my question is would this not lead you should be asking. What is envisaged to be the to a requirement from the residual UK to have a future relationship as regards freedom of travel border between Scotland and England if it was very cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG05 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o005_michelle_SAC 05.09.12 (corrected).xml

Ev 184 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

5 September 2012 Professor Bernard Ryan and Professor Jo Shaw likely that people were coming to Scotland where it With regard to the numbers of those who would then was easier to get work permits and then very easily choose to go illegal and move to London, bearing in being able to travel down to England? mind just how highly regulated those issues are and Professor Ryan: Based on the Irish case, the people all of the obligations on employers in the UK now coming in on work permits are for what I would call trying to ensure that there isn’t illegal working, the medium or long-term stay. They are students and difficulties of accessing national insurance numbers longer than that. That is 10% at most. It might only unless you could prove that you were legitimately be 5% of the people coming in. Most people are there and all the other various controls that exist— coming in for short-term reasons. I don’t think given all those controls—surely the last thing that you differences in work permit policy, student or family would think of is spending hundreds of millions of migration policy would drive the relationship between pounds erecting a fence somewhere around Berwick- the two states. upon-Tweed and policing it. Surely there are many other cheaper and more proportionate ways of doing Q1328 Pamela Nash: But that is at the moment. If it. Scotland had a different policy and they were seeking people to come to work in the sparsely populated Q1330 Pamela Nash: It depends how much is being areas, the percentage of people coming for work spent on the other measures or crackdown that you permits would be a lot higher. If it was too easy for refer to. them to leave Scotland and go to the residual United Professor Shaw: But all of those measures that are Kingdom if Scotland left, would that not mean that a there to deal with the people who overstay short-term border would become necessary for the British visas would also apply to the problem. It is totally Government? within the sovereign choice of the UK to have those Professor Ryan: I would still say that the concern types of measures. It seems disproportionate then to inevitably would be on the people coming for short- say that, on top of that, you will spend hundreds of term stays—people coming as tourists or business millions of pounds on a fence around Berwick-upon- visitors. That is the large majority of people who come Tweed. You would surely just keep focusing on those in and they have limited rights to stay. Those are the types. In my lifetime there has been much increased ones inherently most likely to try to move to another control on having to produce your passport and so on part of the common travel area or to overstay in the before you can get your employment contract, which bit that they are in. Almost inevitably that would be pretty much brings any reputable employer into line. the focus of any disagreements and therefore any co- operation. I don’t know how you foresee relations, if Q1331 Chair: But there are substantial numbers of this ever happens, between a future Scotland and a non-reputable employers. I accept that, if there is a future United Kingdom, but I hope that they would be common barrier and the same rules are in force right a lot more constructive than the relationship across the UK after separation, there is not a difficulty. historically between the Irish state and the UK. Things The danger is, what happens if that is not the position? are a lot better now. If they were constructive, because Say the visa access rules for short-stay holidays or for students are entirely different, they end up being they would then be doomed to share an island abused and there is a constant flow down to the south. together, that opens up possibilities. There could be How does the south then react? Either they get an many forms of co-operation emerging. I don’t think agreement, in which case we are back basically to we should assume that it is going to be a stand-off Scotland having its immigration or visa policy between two different groups. dictated by the rest of the UK, or some action has got to be taken. It’s not going to be my problem. Q1329 Pamela Nash: But we also have to prepare Professor Shaw: It was ever thus with a small state. for a worst-case scenario should this happen. It is not going to be any different. Scotland will never Professor Shaw: The point that Bernard is making be anything other than a small state so it will be really needs to be emphasised. You could give a subject to the normal realpolitik of being a small state million visit visas to come to Scotland because the in an uncomfortable non-monogamous relationship UK is satisfied that Scotland has similar sorts of with a big state. standards about visa nationals in the same way as with Chair: That is fair. We have been looking at the the Irish Republic, such as the checking and making nature of the relationship. We have just visited sure that people have invitations or enough to Faslane. We were being told there by CND that maintain themselves, return tickets and so on and so nuclear weapons could be removed within a week or forth. In every scenario, unless a state is going to close two weeks. They could be defused and unilateral itself off à la North Korea or Albania, or whatever nuclear disarmament could be imposed upon the rest you want to do, a proportion of those people will of the UK within a matter of months. In those overstay. That is a much larger number of people who circumstances we are not necessarily likely to have are at risk of overstaying than the number of people harmony in this relationship. Therefore, what we want who are potentially in Scotland lawfully for very good to explore is what happens if there is not harmony and reasons, where there may be sparsely populated areas there is not agreement. If everything works fine then where you are consciously trying to repopulate them everything works fine, and we would not bother using an immigration policy, which would be a speaking to you. What we are trying to explore are legitimate choice of a Parliament and a Government the “What ifs?” of this. I think we have covered it to make in those circumstances. pretty well. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG05 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o005_michelle_SAC 05.09.12 (corrected).xml

Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 185

5 September 2012 Professor Bernard Ryan and Professor Jo Shaw

Q1332 Mr Reid: Bernard explained that the border open and frank statement of what they were doing, between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic was but that might not be exactly how it would pan out. impossible to police, but you referred to checks going from the island of Ireland to the island of Great Q1336 Mr Reid: But you feel force of Britain. Could you explain exactly what checks do circumstances would mean all three countries would happen to travellers between Ireland and Great have to co-operate on immigration. Britain? Professor Shaw: In the same way that the Schengen Professor Ryan: Between Northern Ireland and states do. The Schengen states have common visa Great Britain? rules, in the sense that they give visa-free travel to the Mr Reid: Or between the island of Ireland and the same states and require visas for the same states, but island of Great Britain. they have slightly different processes under which Professor Ryan: As I understand it, there are selective they give visas. Some states are more willing to give checks on arrivals into the sea ports and airports in multiple-entry visas for longer periods of time. Other Northern Ireland. states give them only just for the time that you say you are precisely going to be there. In fact the UK Q1333 Mr Reid: Is that on people trying to leave errs more towards the longer ones. They would give Northern Ireland or going into Northern Ireland, or three months or six months even to someone who is both? coming to visit initially only for a few days, in my Professor Ryan: As I understand it, primarily on the experience. Equally, the Schengen states all have very way in. It seems to have been done initially in co- different immigration policies. Some of those states operation with the Gardai in the Republic, who have a perceived demographic problem which they enforce immigration law there. It was designed to want to try to correct, depending on whether it is in identify people intending to travel to the Republic the high-skill or low-skill sectors of the economy. without permission. I believe it leads inexorably to There are very different approaches to “choosing” the people being identified who should not be in the types of people that you would like to encourage to United Kingdom either. I am less sure about travel to come and settle. Therefore, you are going to have Scotland by ferry. There are some controls but not as deflection effects in that context. frequent as take place in Northern Ireland. At the moment there isn’t a single work permit within the EU, though it is moving in that direction. You see Q1334 Mr Reid: Is that at the request of the Irish those types of co-operation starting to occur between Government or is it the British Government that are states, and there is no reason why those co-operations carrying out these controls? Which Government want that have not already existed between the UK and to carry out these controls or is it both? Ireland, uncomfortable as they have often been, might Professor Ryan: It is part of the ongoing co-operation not continue to occur if you then have three states between the two states. I don’t think the checks that occupying this archipelago off the north-west coast of occasionally take place at the ports of arrival to mainland Europe. Northern Ireland can be viewed in isolation from the fact that there is other operational co-operation taking Q1337 Lindsay Roy: To go off at a slight tangent place between the two states. and hopefully finally, would you expect a separate Scottish state to have separate embassies abroad? Is Q1335 Mr Reid: If Scotland and England were that the normal pattern when you have a small state? separate countries and they had significantly different Have you any experience of shared embassies? immigration policies, would the British or Scottish Professor Ryan: This is an issue for the Irish Republic Government want snap checks on cars or trains of course. It would be not dissimilar. My crossing the border? Do you think that is something understanding is that, de facto, the Republic relies that would be introduced or would be feasible? upon Britain when it comes to assisting its nationals Professor Ryan: The situation would be slightly in places that it isn’t represented. It endeavours to different if Scotland were independent on its own. represent itself as much as possible. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, and that is where the dynamic is slightly different for Q1338 Lindsay Roy: But the Irish Republic has people arriving there. If there was an open border or embassies in certain countries. even a partly open border—let’s say an open land Professor Ryan: Of course, yes. border but not necessarily arrivals by air—the two states, or the three including the Republic, would be Q1339 Lindsay Roy: By agreement it has a forced by circumstance to co-operate. What I see in relationship with the UK whereby they service the the long history between the Irish state and the United needs of their citizens abroad. Kingdom is that the co-operation has always gone on. Professor Ryan: I wouldn’t go that far. It is more It has not always been publicised because it is when people are in difficulties. sensitive. I can imagine something similar with an independent Scotland. It would happen but would not Q1340 Lindsay Roy: That would be their needs necessarily be talked about openly. That is a matter of abroad. regret. I think things should be open and formalised. Professor Ryan: I think there is a practice that the I would prefer in the hypothetical situation to push British can be relied upon for Irish citizens in places Scotland and the United Kingdom towards a more where the Irish are not represented. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG05 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o005_michelle_SAC 05.09.12 (corrected).xml

Ev 186 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

5 September 2012 Professor Bernard Ryan and Professor Jo Shaw

Q1341 Lindsay Roy: Have you any idea what that you are desperate to get off your chests, or have percentage of states has a separate Irish embassy and we covered everything? those who don’t? Professor Ryan: I am fine; thank you. Professor Ryan: I am afraid not. Q1345 Chair: I want to stress that we don’t Q1342 Chair: But you are a professor; we expect necessarily believe all the questions we were asking you to know all these things. Professor Shaw, is there you, but there are a number of points where we feel anything you want to add to that? we have to press to clarify the “What ifs?” and so on. Professor Shaw: Just to revert to the fact that in the Professor Shaw, have you reached the end of your context of the EU, as it currently is, there is a notes? developing trend towards more co-operation around Professor Shaw: I am just checking to see whether helping citizens of other member states by virtue of there was anything I noted down that I wanted to talk their membership of EU citizenship. That already about, but I don’t think there is. exists to support small states particularly that lack embassies in places where, typically, France, Germany Q1346 Chair: If on your way back up on the train or the UK might have an embassy and where small to Edinburgh, or wherever it is you are going tonight states can’t afford to have that number of external or subsequently, there is anything you suddenly representations. In circumstances where states trust remember that you wish you had told us, we would each other there is an increasing move towards co- welcome having something in writing. operation over assistance of citizens who have Professor Shaw: I apologise for not sending anything difficulties. It does not replace all the other types of in in writing. consular services that people might need in an ideal Chair: It was not an intended rebuke of any sort. world, but it certainly protects in the emergency What we are likely to do is produce something pretty situation. quickly saying, “These are a whole number of areas where we require clarification and where the Scottish Q1343 Lindsay Roy: So there would be a Government have an obligation to provide further dependency on the larger state and not an information in order to avoid this pig in a poke issue.” independence. Hopefully, we might end up exploring this further Professor Shaw: ’Twas ever thus for small states. with you in 18 months’ time. If the Scottish Government come out with any clarification, we Q1344 Chair: We are drawing matters to a close. might want to pursue things further. Are there any answers you had prepared to questions In the meantime, I thank you very much for coming that we have not asked? Is there anything in particular along. I think your evidence has been most valuable. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [SO] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG06 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o006_db_Corrected SAC 120912.xml

Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 187

Wednesday 12 September 2012

Members present: Mr Ian Davidson (Chair)

Fiona Bruce Pamela Nash Jim McGovern Mr Alan Reid Iain McKenzie Lindsay Roy ______

Examination of Witnesses

Witnesses: Professor William Walker, School of International Relations, University of St Andrews, and Dr Phillips O’Brien, Scottish Centre for War Studies, University of Glasgow, gave evidence.

Q1347 Chair: Gentlemen, could I welcome you to expulsion of Trident from Scotland is untenable and this meeting of the Scottish Affairs Committee? As will be regarded internationally as unreasonable. you know, we have been conducting a series of On the other hand, in my view, if Scotland did gain investigations into various aspects of the separation independence, the idea of the UK strategic force being referendum, both process and issues of substance. We permanently based in Scotland would also be are now engaged in looking at defence, and especially untenable and would probably be regarded your areas of expertise. internationally as unreasonable, if it was against the I stress that, while we are the Scottish Affairs Scottish will. My conclusion is that you are really Committee and focusing mainly on the impact of talking about phase-out, and the whole debate should separation upon Scotland, obviously we will spill over be about the terms of it: how long it would take, who into some areas about how it affects Britain, though would pay for it and exactly how to manage and the Defence Committee is looking at the aspect of negotiate it. how it impacts on the rest of Britain as well. I wonder Of course it begs the question: is there anywhere else if I could start by asking you to introduce yourselves to put the deterrent? Again, my view, which I think is and tell us a little bit about your background for the a commonly accepted one—it is not definite—is that record. probably you could find alternatives to Faslane for Professor Walker: My name is William Walker. I berthing of submarines in England, but Coulport teach at the University of St Andrews in Scotland. I would be very difficult. There is a question about am Scottish by background, although I worked out the whether any kind of phase-out of the bases in Scotland other day that I have lived 29 years of my life in is compatible with maintaining the UK deterrent in England and 36 in Scotland. I have an engineering the long term at all and what the cost implications degree from Edinburgh university. I worked at Sussex would be. university for 20 years, and I have been at St Andrews That is a very difficult question. I am sure the Ministry since 1996. My field of expertise is international of Defence will be asking themselves some very relations, particularly the international politics of difficult questions about this at the moment. I don’t nuclear weapons. see a clear answer to those questions at the moment, Dr O’Brien: I am Phillips O’Brien. I am from Boston but it clearly is a very difficult issue. Sometimes it but I have been a resident of the United Kingdom for seems rather intractable, but somehow a way through 23 years now. I have spent the last 15 at the University it would have to be negotiated if Scotland did gain of Glasgow, where I have run the War Studies Centre. independence. Before that, I did my PhD at Cambridge and was a Chair: That is a very cheery introduction. research fellow there. My area of expertise has been 20th century naval and strategic policy—in particular with a British-American angle of expertise. Q1349 Lindsay Roy: If not in England and Wales, is there any possibility of a short-term stopgap in either Q1348 Chair: Can I kick things off by saying that France or the USA? initially we want to talk about the nuclear deterrent Professor Walker: My answer would be no. and its presence in Coulport and Faslane? If Scotland did become a separate country and said it wanted the Q1350 Lindsay Roy: On what basis? nuclear weapons out of Scotland as quickly as Professor Walker: It is partly a matter of possible, what would be the impacts and implications, independence, but also various complicated matters both for the rest of the UK and Scotland? would have to be negotiated to do with installations, Professor Walker: There are many uncertainties in costs, safety matters and public consent in these this, but my view is that there are two options that countries. There would be international issues to do are untenable. One is the immediate expulsion of the with basing your deterrent in another country. Again, deterrent from Scotland. I notice that recent it would be something that would have to be statements by the Scottish Government have talked negotiated and it would take quite a long time. about “as quickly as possible”. In my view, “as quickly” cannot be very quick; it would take quite a Q1351 Lindsay Roy: So there are huge political and long time politically to negotiate, organise and find logistical matters. other sites, if they can be found at all. The immediate Professor Walker: Yes. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG06 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o006_db_Corrected SAC 120912.xml

Ev 188 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

12 September 2012 Professor William Walker and Dr Phillips O'Brien

Dr O’Brien: The one area of the debate that has not bear the cost of removing it. If the UK decided to been explored much at all is how the rest of the United keep it, would the rest of the UK then have to pay the Kingdom would react. It is often looked at as an intra- cost of removing it from Scotland to another part of Scottish debate about nuclear, non-nuclear, NATO and the UK, or would it be fee-free, as it were, to non-NATO. If Scotland leaves the rest of the United Scotland? Kingdom, that opens up the whole debate about Dr O’Brien: It would all have to be negotiated, but if whether the rest of the United Kingdom wishes to the United Kingdom very much wanted to keep the continue as a nuclear power. At certain times in the weapons—for example, to guarantee a UN Security last 30 years there has been a lot of pressure against Council seat—it would behove the UK to keep them it. A lot of people in the military believe we don’t under its control and rebase them. My guess is that, need nuclear weapons. That aspect will go down a in that situation, Scotland would have a stronger road and we don’t know where it is heading. negotiating stance to get the weapons moved, whereas if the rest of the UK decided it did not want to keep Q1352 Chair: That simply raises the price of the weapons, those costs would have to be shared. retention, does it not? There are already huge costs in retaining a successor to Trident, but the uncertainty Q1357 Jim McGovern: Do they not have to be of the additional costs simply raises the cost of all shared in any case? of that. Dr O’Brien: I think the balance would be different. Dr O’Brien: It might be that Scotland is stuck with Chair: Jim, could you pick up the point about the bearing a lot of the costs of getting rid of them. alternative sites?

Q1353 Chair: How would that work? Q1358 Jim McGovern: We have heard some Dr O’Brien: If the rest of the United Kingdom wishes contrasting evidence about where nuclear submarines not to remain a nuclear power, how the weapons are or weapons might have to be relocated. We have heard dispensed with would have to be negotiated. After the of the possibility of that being in England and Wales. USSR broke up, there were a lot of nuclear weapons Is that feasible? in places like Kazakhstan, and they were quite Professor Walker: Nothing is impossible. It depends expensive to ship out. That was paid for mostly by the upon political will, cost—I suppose—local opposition United States and Russia, but these can be expensive and many other factors, such as whether the land is things. available and the geography. As you may know, I did a study with Malcolm Q1354 Chair: If we work on the basis that the Chalmers some years ago in which we looked into the United States is unlikely to fund the removal of original basing decisions. They were very nuclear weapons from Scotland, is there any precedent complicated. In the end, very few sites appeared to be as to who would bear the costs? The Scottish feasible for the Coulport equivalent. I am not a Government have said they are not theirs—they don’t technical person and do not know the ins and outs of want them, and if somebody else wants to remove what the Ministry of Defence would regard as them, that is their problem and their cost, which would acceptable in these respects, but it seems to me that seem, on the face of it, to be a not unreasonable this kind of facility is very difficult to locate. There position. has been an enormous investment in Coulport over Lindsay Roy: But, on the other hand, they are on decades, and a great deal of experience has been built their territory. up. Therefore, simply moving to another part of the Dr O’Brien: Yes; they are on Scottish territory, and if country and opening another facility, which might be the rest of the United Kingdom doesn’t want to pay tailored a bit differently—for instance, it could be to take them away, it will have to be a negotiated issue smaller than the current one—would still be a huge where Scotland would pay, with the rest of the United undertaking. Kingdom, to decommission them. We also live in an age when planning consent is very often needed. None of these facilities had to go Q1355 Chair: But there would be a difference, through any kind of planning system. The public feels though, between decommissioning and replacing. it has a right to express an opinion on these matters, Dr O’Brien: Yes, if they wanted to get rid of them. If and I can imagine it being very controversial. I believe the decision is made by the rest of the United that the other day someone in Wales said they might Kingdom not to continue on as a nuclear power, which welcome one of these facilities, but in practice it I think is possible but maybe not likely, you are would be very controversial. The Government would talking about decommissioning the weapons system, have to go through various quite difficult political and that would be something for which Scotland processes to try to get consent for this. would have to pay, as the rest of the United One of the great difficulties here—we might come on Kingdom would. to the question of how Scotland and the UK negotiate a reasonable position on all this—is that, from the Q1356 Jim McGovern: Thank you both for coming UK’s side, it would be faced with the huge uncertainty along. Actually it’s just across the Tay bridge from St as to whether it could open a base, how long it would Andrews and Dundee, and I have visited Boston on a take and how much it would cost. So, after number of occasions. It’s a great city. independence was declared, or the yes vote had come You say that, if the UK decided not to maintain a in, it wouldn’t really know what it could fix or nuclear deterrent, Scotland would probably need to arrange, and what it could open. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG06 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o006_db_Corrected SAC 120912.xml

Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 189

12 September 2012 Professor William Walker and Dr Phillips O'Brien

As far as we can see, there has been no significant points of difference, we would much prefer to have exploration of this matter since the 1960s. It would be those drawn to our attention. We would find that faced with this huge uncertainty. Could we create this helpful. new facility somewhere in the UK? I think the answer Professor Walker: I am sure we will. is that they wouldn’t know. It is very difficult in terms of negotiating if the question of having to find another Q1364 Chair: I don’t want to encourage you to base somewhere else comes up. The trouble is that the fight, but it is always useful to us to identify whether UK Government wouldn’t know whether they could there are disagreements. I understand the point about open another base somewhere else until they had gone increasing the cost of rebasing Trident and so on, and some way into the business of working the politics on the price of staying. I want to be clearer about the it, you might say. question of whether or not replacement locations can be found. Q1359 Jim McGovern: As you say, the bases have We were at Faslane a little while ago. It seemed to me been there for 40-odd years—since the 1960s, that there are four separate elements there that will anyway. Has something changed that means they do have different issues surrounding them for rebasing. not necessarily have to be there and could be The easiest is the minesweepers, which can go almost somewhere else in England or Wales, or are the anywhere, as I understand it. There are the attack reasons for their location there in the 1960s the same submarines and the nuclear-armed submarines, and and therefore why they should remain there? then there is the nuclear-weapons storage. Professor Walker: It began with the Americans in Leaving aside the minesweepers—and, presumably, Holy Loch and their insistence on having it in the attack submarines as well, since if you have got Scotland. They would not have it in England for some nuclear-armed submarines, the attack submarines can reason; it had to be in Scotland, and in a particular be in the same location—with the other two, are there location in Scotland. They wanted to be reasonably more locations potentially available for the close to Prestwick. When the Ministry of Defence submarines than for the nuclear-weapons storage? Are looked at various sites around the coast of the UK, there constraints that mean one has to be within five they came to the conclusion that this was the best site miles of the other? For example, the facility at for them, too, so it developed like that. Aldermaston is concerned with the preparation of These days, if you have a strategic weapons system, nuclear weapons, which are then shipped up to the precise location of the base isn’t terribly Scotland. Is it possible to keep the weapons there, for important. As long as there is deep water, reasonable example, and have the submarines sailing out of coverage and protection against foreign intrusion and Barrow, albeit with dredging and the like, or do the all the rest of it, where it is around the perimeter of weapons have to be close beside the submarines into Britain doesn’t matter very much in terms of the which they will be fitted? distance of the missiles getting to their targets and so Dr O’Brien: It is good to have them close-ish. I don’t on. It is all to do with geography, location, feasibility, think they have to be five miles away, but you infrastructure and many other things that determine certainly don’t want them 100 miles away. these matters. Q1365 Chair: Why not? Q1360 Jim McGovern: You have almost pre- Dr O’Brien: Just for ease of replacement and if you empted my next question. Presumably, expense would have to make adjustments in the submarine. This is come into that as well. Money would come into that. not my strong area of expertise; I am not a nuclear- Professor Walker: Yes; it would be extremely weapons person. expensive, and if you had to do this, it would profoundly affect the economics of Trident Q1366 Chair: But you are here, so that is why we replacement. Don’t ask me to put a figure on it; I have are asking. no idea at all, but certainly it would be billions of Dr O’Brien: I would think that having them close pounds. is useful.

Q1361 Jim McGovern: It would need geography, Q1367 Chair: But not essential. political will and engineering, but also money. Dr O’Brien: No. I would think you could get by Professor Walker: Yes. It would be very difficult. without having it right next door.

Q1362 Chair: Dr O’Brien, do you want to add Q1368 Chair: Presumably, the further you can have anything to those points? them apart, the more options you have, because you Dr O’Brien: That was very well said. I think that is are not then looking for a location that can one of the issues that might impress the UK not to accommodate the two of them. You could be looking keep the weapons: i.e. when the true reality of the potentially at two separate locations within a rebasing situation came up, the cost might contribute reasonable distance. Can you illuminate for us the sort to that. of factors that determine where you could have the nuclear-armed submarines and nuclear storage, and Q1363 Chair: We understand that. Can I say that give an indication of whether there are potential sites when we have two witnesses they are not obliged to available in the rest of the UK, but it is just a question agree with each other? From our point of view, it is of cost—understanding your point about planning much better if witnesses disagree. If there are any matters, local political opposition and so on? Is there cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG06 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o006_db_Corrected SAC 120912.xml

Ev 190 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

12 September 2012 Professor William Walker and Dr Phillips O'Brien anything we ought to be aware of, because obviously Professor Walker: Can I add that it would require this is one of the issues we will have to explore in quite a severe external threat to generate the political our report? will to do something like this? Professor Walker: I read the evidence given by John Ainslie, and you went into some detail on this. I didn’t Q1372 Chair: Do you concur with all that? see much reason to disagree with him on the question Dr O’Brien: If you had unlimited political will and of location. In my view, the warhead storage is not the funds behind it, you could do it quicker than 20 years crucial issue; the crucial question is how you create a without a doubt, but an enormous amount of resources facility where you can marry the warhead and missile, would have to be put into it with no one objecting and load it on to the submarine and also remove it from cross-party support. As a guess, it would be shorter the submarine, if you need to, and bring it back on than 20 in that rare situation. shore. That is a very delicate and dangerous operation, so it is all to do with safety calculations. If you have a massive explosion, what exactly happens within a Q1373 Chair: How much shorter? certain radius? How does one manage that politically Dr O’Brien: It would be closer to 10 or 15, but with all the emergency services and so on? personally I can’t see that happening. There is a great deal of speculation about this, frankly, and it needs someone with great technical expertise Q1374 Mr Reid: If Scotland became independent, and experience in naval matters and managing these one option that has been suggested to us is that the affairs to give a strong opinion about it. I personally Scottish Government could lease Faslane and don’t feel I am in a position to say more than that, but Coulport to the UK Government. In their evidence to my instinct simply is that it is very difficult and us, the UK Government said that that could be requires a huge accumulation of experience and acceptable to them, as long as it was a sovereign base expertise, plus infrastructure, to be able to do this. You and sovereign UK territory. Do you see that as a don’t want to do anything like this near built-up areas, feasible solution? tourist sites or whatever. Professor Walker: Do you mean the creation of a sovereign base area, like Akrotiri in Cyprus? Q1369 Chair: Would it be fair for us to say that, Mr Reid: Yes. notwithstanding your points about planning Professor Walker: It would be a very unusual thing difficulties and additional cost, if the political will is to do these days. I can imagine that, given Scottish there, this is doable? We don’t record nods. You are politics, there would be great difficulty with it. I both saying it is. suppose that it is one of the options that would be Professor Walker: Yes. available to do that. By the way, there are three sites, Dr O’Brien: Yes. not two. The Vulcan test reactor at Dounreay, which is used for testing submarine reactors, would have to Q1370 Chair: Can you give us some indication of be brought into this too. That is run by Rolls-Royce the timetable for that? Somebody said to us it was at the moment. There is also a question about whether reasonable to think that the quickest would be 10 that would have to close or if that, too, would come years, but it would be more realistic to think in terms under some kind of leasing arrangement. of 20 years before an alternative provision for both the submarines and weapons storage was available. Q1375 Mr Reid: If Faslane and Coulport were to Does that seem to you to be the right ballpark figure? become a sovereign base, how big an area would the Professor Walker: Yes, but 20 years might be a UK Government need? Faslane and Coulport are close minimum; it might be longer than that. You would to each other and a road links them. It is also possible have to sustain your political will and funding for a that, for security reasons, they would want the very long time. I don’t know whether the political perimeter of the base to be bigger than where the wire parties could agree upon that and exactly what the fence is at the moment. How large an area do you ramifications would be. The process of finding a site think they would want? might take five to 10 years, and then being sure you Dr O’Brien: It would cut off the Rosneath peninsula, have one, and all the engineering and construction like Guantanamo bay. You would need a direct works, mean it could be a long time. connection between Faslane and Coulport. There is the road that exists there now. You would need to have Q1371 Chair: People say things like, “This is going everything on each side of that road for quite a while. to be very difficult,” or, “This is going to be a long time,” but we want to try to pin it down a bit more, in the sense of providing information. You are saying Q1376 Mr Reid: Would the whole Rosneath that possibly 20 years might be too slow. To explain, peninsula be needed? we are trying to produce a report that puts the options Dr O’Brien: No, but that would cut it off from the in front of the people of Scotland and says that these rest of Scotland. You would have to pass through the are the issues that require answers from either the United Kingdom to get from Cove into Scotland. You British Government or the Scottish Government as to would need quite a large area. This can’t be a small what the policies are, and these are the things on facility. which we want to put questions to avoid people voting for a pig in a poke, as it were. That is why we want Q1377 Mr Reid: Do you know the geography? to get as much clarification as possible. Dr O’Brien: Yes. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG06 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o006_db_Corrected SAC 120912.xml

Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 191

12 September 2012 Professor William Walker and Dr Phillips O'Brien

Q1378 Mr Reid: As you know, Faslane is on the Q1382 Mr Reid: It sounds as if you feel that the east side of the Gareloch, and on the west side there sovereign base idea is a non-starter. is all this wooded area. I would have thought the UK Professor Walker: I don’t think a sovereign base area Government would want to control that wooded area has been established anywhere in the world for a long to have security against, say, someone with a hand- time; it is not really a contemporary idea. It would held missile firing something into the base. Do you remain Scottish sovereign territory leased to the UK. think the UK Government would want that part of the That would be the likely model here. It would be Rosneath peninsula as well? Scottish sovereign territory. Dr O’Brien: If Scotland were a NATO ally, you might be able to work up an agreement, but so much of this Q1383 Mr Reid: But Defence Ministers seemed to hinges on the NATO question. If Scotland remained believe that that would not give them the security they in NATO, you could perhaps limit it and give would need. For example, they might reach an Scotland, as a NATO ally, certain defensive agreement with one Scottish Government and an responsibilities without it. A non-NATO Scotland election could change that Government. Is there any would mean they would want a fully protected area, treaty that could be put in place that would bind future which would be good. You would certainly take the Governments of Scotland? bluffs. Faslane down to the water has those huge Professor Walker: How to provide confidence in that bluffs behind it, which means it is one of the most would be subject to the negotiation. visible nuclear bases in the world. You would probably have to close off those bluffs and then take Q1384 Mr Reid: Is it possible to provide that the road to Coulport. confidence? Professor Walker: Whether they can establish that Q1379 Mr Reid: People going to Cove and kind of confidence is a matter for negotiation between Kilcreggan would need to pass through a secure area the two. I don’t know. I have always felt that, if the in a foreign country. UK Government look at a situation of having their Dr O’Brien: They would have to get their passports strategic nuclear force in this particular place in a out. foreign country, they will feel extremely uncomfortable and will wonder how to manage it, Q1380 Mr Reid: If this solution was pursued, what what the international implications are, and how to about submarines getting access to the Atlantic? react to exactly what you are suggesting—the idea Obviously, they have to sail down the Gareloch, that you might have public protests happening there through the Rhu Narrows, into the River Clyde and and so on. You might have an accident in the Clyde. then into the Firth of Clyde to get to the Atlantic. How exactly do they respond to this? I think they What sort of agreement would have to be in place would feel very uncomfortable. there? Professor Walker: Under the Law of the Sea, Q1385 Chair: What were the arrangements when territorial waters extend for 12 miles. Essentially, that the Americans were in the Holy Loch? Was that means 24 miles, which takes you south of Arran. Am leased or sovereign? I right in remembering that, under article 20 of the Professor Walker: I don’t think there was any formal Law of the Sea, any foreign submarines have to fly a arrangement at all; it was a gentleman’s agreement. flag and be on the surface when travelling through There was no legal agreement. This is my memory, territorial waters? There is an issue there. Would the but I seem to remember there was no formal Scottish Government be at all times informed of the agreement, and I think that is true of all the American movement of submarines up and down these bases in Britain. There was no formal legal treaty channels? I imagine there would have to be a separate between the UK and US Governments; it was all done treaty between the two as to exactly how these informally by gentleman’s agreements. There would waterways will be managed. There is also sonar probably have been some understandings on paper, equipment and many other things to do with this, but there was no formal legal agreement. which I imagine are very sensitive matters for the UK Government, but all of this would have to be part of Q1386 Chair: If the negotiators on each side can a treaty between the two as to exactly how these find gentlemen to deal with, it might be possible to waterways were managed. find some arrangement. I want to pursue Alan’s point about access to the sea. Q1381 Mr Reid: Would that treaty need to compel Who had responsibility for protecting the American the Scottish Government to take action to stop submarines from CND or sundry other bad people protestors disrupting the progress of the submarines? who might want to attack them? We have been there Professor Walker: I can’t imagine how the Scottish and seen it. You have the Ministry of Defence police Government could concede quite to that. For them to and the last line is the Royal Marines, who potentially take action would be a matter of sovereignty and their will shoot people if they get that far. Presumably, at decision as to what was a justifiable protest and so on. some stage, Scottish police would have a Presumably, they would feel some responsibility to responsibility before it would fall to the MOD police look after public safety and make sure that nothing and then the Royal Marines. Surely, if there was an was done to infringe international agreements, but at arrangement, there would be some sort of provision the same time I would be surprised if something like by the Scottish Government or Scottish forces to that was built into an agreement. provide a guaranteed sea lane; otherwise, they are cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG06 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o006_db_Corrected SAC 120912.xml

Ev 192 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

12 September 2012 Professor William Walker and Dr Phillips O'Brien handing over responsibility for the whole sea lane to as being the best short-term—even medium-term— a foreign power. solution, but not in the long term. Professor Walker: Yes, exactly. Presumably, in the Chair: It depends on whether you judge 20 years as cold war, the United States and the UK were very being long, short or medium term. If it was that sort close. The UK took on a lot of responsibility in of arrangement until an alternative was constructed, it maintaining the safety of these sites. It had a great is probably the second-best option. Presumably, the deal to lose if it did not provide that safety. I would best option for the UK is to keep it there for ever, as also point out that, even under the devolution it were, and have no relocation costs, but the second- settlement, the Scottish Government have co-operated best option is to have that for as long as is necessary. with the UK Government in providing policing and so on around the site in Faslane, so that suggests Q1392 Mr Reid: On the American comparison at confidence can be built up to some degree. Sea lanes Holy Loch, we have already discussed how long it are particularly difficult, because there are so many could take for the UK Government to transfer the things going up and down here. How do you disguise facilities at Faslane and Coulport, but would I be right this? Nuclear-weapon states don’t like other states in saying that the way the American base at Holy knowing the position of their boats—when they are Loch was constructed was that, if a new UK going up and down and so on—so these are very Government had asked them to leave, they could have difficult things. packed up and moved out very quickly? Would that be a fair comment? Q1387 Chair: But it works at the moment. Professor Walker: Yes, it would. You are absolutely Professor Walker: It seems to work at the moment. right that the NATO framework was very important, but also the US-UK mutual defence agreement in 1958 provided a framework for an awful lot of Q1388 Chair: Therefore, if there was goodwill, co-operation between the two. In fact, it still is the presumably it could work in the future. framework for co-operation between the United States Professor Walker: Yes, but it would nevertheless still and the UK over Trident replacement, for instance. have to form part of some international agreement Another point to make about all this is that the United between the two; it would have to be formalised to States would be involved in all these discussions. Of make it workable. course, the missiles going up and down the Clyde are American-manufactured missiles, which are taken out Q1389 Chair: From the point of view of the United of a pool of missiles at Kings Bay. The Americans Kingdom, it would be best to have a sovereign base would be part of this discussion; you can’t keep them agreement, some sort of leasing, or some gentleman’s out. I am not saying they would drive it, but they agreement. I don’t think we had fully appreciated would nevertheless certainly be involved in the those distinctions. From the UK’s point of view, that discussion and would have a position on it, is the best deal, isn’t it? Is it right that in negotiations presumably. that is what they would ask for? Professor Walker: Probably. Again, the international Q1393 Chair: When you say they would “have a lawyers would have to get involved in this. I can position on it, presumably”, give us a clue as to what imagine that the Scottish Government wouldn’t like you think that position might be. this one little bit. Professor Walker: This takes us into the question of the international response to all this. My view is that Q1390 Chair: We are trying to explore what the states would not take up precise positions until negotiating positions might be, what people might ask London and Edinburgh had come together and for and then the process of haggling. Other speakers discussed it a lot themselves. For instance, on NATO have said to us that much of this could be set off and the statement made by the SNP about removing against Scotland’s right to use the pound, so it need the weapons from the Clyde, all that would have to not necessarily be contained solely within defence. be subject to negotiation between London and Professor Walker: Absolutely. Edinburgh. At least to begin with, this would have to be part of the framework agreement that would follow Q1391 Chair: We just wanted to be clear what the the yes vote and announcement of independence. The chosen option of the UK Government was likely to two sides would have to come together bilaterally to be, and something similar to the status quo is the negotiate some kind of framework agreement before most desirable. it all went international. There would be consultation, Dr O’Brien: I really think the NATO question is no doubt. central to this. What made the American-British gentleman’s agreements work was that they acted Q1394 Chair: But, surely, lots of that should be within a structure and a very formal alliance. If discussed and negotiated before the vote; otherwise, Scotland was not in NATO, you would have huge people are voting for a pig in a poke. Since there is trouble making this work. Personally, I don’t see how no suggestion that there would then be a second vote a nuclear power can, in the long term, base its once the terms were clear, you can’t have a situation weapons in another country, particularly if it is done where people are just seeking a mandate to discuss by gentleman’s agreement that could be changed without any idea of what might happen. because of domestic political changes in that country. Professor Walker: It is wonderful that you are Scotland could go down another route. I could see that discussing this, but I can’t see the two sides having cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG06 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o006_db_Corrected SAC 120912.xml

Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 193

12 September 2012 Professor William Walker and Dr Phillips O'Brien any negotiation on it in advance. Both sides find it a Q1400 Chair: Could I turn now to the timetable for very tricky issue. The Ministry of Defence have been removal? We have touched on the timetable for very quiet about it, and the SNP want to go so far in relocation. I don’t know whether you saw the CND declaring their position but probably no further. It evidence. It seemed to me that CND were identifying really would come to negotiation after the yes vote as three different time bands. One of them, which they to exactly what— were not particularly interested in, was replacement in Chair: I think we would regard that as unacceptable, England. The first was what I have described as because people in Scotland can’t be asked, as I say, to removing the fuses from the missiles, and the second buy a pig in a poke. was the physical removal of the warheads. I think they were talking about removing the keys and triggers Q1395 Iain McKenzie: First, I apologise for not within about eight days of the nuclear submarines being present at the commencement of the witness with the missiles being back in Scotland, and that all session. the missiles physically located there could be de- Did I hear you clearly enough when you said that it fused, as it were, within about a fortnight. Obviously, would be no comfort to NATO to have almost a barter there might be a delay if some were at sea, but by the system with the Scottish Government—“We keep the time they came back again and were de-fused, it base and perhaps you get the pound”—or some other would be a fortnight. weighty exchange? They were then saying that, with a generous timetable, Dr O’Brien: No. I said it would be easier for the rest they thought that all the warheads could be removed of the United Kingdom to negotiate the security from Scotland within 24 months, working on the same arrangement on the basis that Scotland remained in sort of timetable at the moment for warheads coming NATO. A non-NATO Scotland would be subject to up and down from Burghfield and Aldermaston, but the kind of domestic political pressures that, say, New perhaps speeded up a little bit. Do you recognise these Zealand experienced in the 1980s when it took a very two timetables as being feasible? strong anti-nuclear stance. Professor Walker: They are feasible. Again, it comes back to political will, and it would have to be done Q1396 Iain McKenzie: Any negotiations would consensually. You would need a lot of co-operation explicitly need to have Scotland remaining within between the two sides to make it workable, but if that NATO. was what the two sides wanted to do, it could be done. Dr O’Brien: It would make it much easier to have John Ainslie consulted with some American experts, Scotland within NATO. If Scotland is outside NATO, in particular Richard Garwin, who is extremely expert a lot of bets are off. No one in the State Department in all these matters. He didn’t seem to object to these or Department of Defense will go on record about timetables. I would take that as pretty good support this, but they are very worried about a non-NATO for his case that you can do it but, again, I come back Scotland. to the fact there has to be political will and agreement—there would have to be a framework for Q1397 Iain McKenzie: But would you see it as it. I suspect it would take a bit longer. acceptable to NATO, if Scotland were outside it, if, for instance, the deal would be struck: “To use the Q1401 Chair: I understand all that. What we are pound, you could use the base”? trying to explore in order that we can put it in front Dr O’Brien: I don’t think the question is about usage of the people of Scotland is what the parameters are but security. You can cut a deal that, yes, you can use and if you are agreeing that the fuses can be removed, the base, but that opens up a huge number of other as it were, within eight to 14 days—all that is subject questions: how long, how you protect it, and what if to haggling—with physical removal within 24 there are protestors. To my mind, it is a little more months. Again, we are posing 24 months against, say, involved than just saying, “You pay; you use.” 20 years. One extreme is that they are out within 24 months; the other extreme is that they remain there Q1398 Iain McKenzie: The Scottish Government for 20 years until replacements are built. That is the couldn’t come in and say, “We’ll just do a deal in sort of choice that might very well be open. Does that exchange,” almost. seem reasonable? Is that recognisable as a Dr O’Brien: If it is not a NATO member, you would meaningful choice? need a formal treaty. If it is not a NATO member, say Professor Walker: Yes. the Scottish Government changes in four or six years’ Dr O’Brien: Yes. You can de-nuclearise Scotland, but time and you go down a very different political route, you probably cannot re-nuclearise the rest of the UK or there is a greater economic crisis. Being in NATO and replace it. provides greater security to the agreement. Q1402 Chair: That is right. We are exploring Q1399 Chair: Being in NATO makes it more likely Scotland’s position. that nuclear weapons will stay in Scotland longer. Dr O’Brien: Only in a perfect world, you could Dr O’Brien: I would say yes. If Scotland were to go probably get the weapons out. independent and leave NATO, both the domestic pressures within Scotland to get them out and the Q1403 Chair: A separate Scotland would be a strategic need of the rest of the United Kingdom to perfect world. Have you not been reading the rebase them would be raised. propaganda? cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG06 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o006_db_Corrected SAC 120912.xml

Ev 194 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

12 September 2012 Professor William Walker and Dr Phillips O'Brien

Dr O’Brien: You could probably get them out of and they had to find another base. There is an element there. What you do with them in the rest of the UK— of coercion in that. Another possibility that came up at the RUSI seminar, Q1404 Chair: But that is then the rest of the UK’s at which we were present, was the idea that you problem. From the point of view of the Scottish separate Coulport and Faslane and close down Faslane Government and for people voting in Scotland, CND reasonably quickly, perhaps relocating the berthing of are right that they could be de-fused or de-triggered submarines to Devonport, or somewhere like that, within about 14 days and the warheads could be out with investment and so on, and Coulport just takes of Scotland within 24 months. longer. That might be tied to another kind of time Professor Walker: I think you should take evidence frame, which is the American programme for from the Ministry of Defence on that and ask them replacing the Trident missiles. The date quoted then the question. It seems reasonable to me. was 2042, which is an awfully long way away, but the Chair: We have been speaking to the Ministry of idea of separating Coulport and Faslane is quite an Defence. At one point we were discussing air cover interesting one. over Scotland. We asked them how long it would take, By the way, I notice that in the language here, which if Leuchars was no longer available, for replacement may be carelessness on their part, they say “the jets to fly up from East Anglia. They said that it speediest safe transition of the nuclear fleet from depended on how fast they were going. Those are the Faslane”. There is not a discussion about the warheads sorts of responses we have been getting to some and missiles at Coulport in that language, but the interesting question is whether one should be thinking questions posed publicly to the MOD, but they have about these two bases at the same time and whether been more open with us privately. Some of the people one might separate the transition. The Coulport one is we are speaking to concur with this view. I just obviously much more difficult. wanted to make sure that you did as well. In my view, it would take far less will, and probably less cost, to move the Faslane base. Politically, you Q1405 Iain McKenzie: I am going to quote to the could imagine how the Scottish Government might two witnesses the SNP conference resolution on feel they had made their point and made a big gain in NATO so that I can ask specific questions about some removing the submarines from Faslane, and the UK of the wording: “A long standing national consensus had at least maintained its deterrent by keeping its has existed that Scotland should not host nuclear warhead and missile base at Coulport. weapons and a sovereign SNP government will One can imagine that sort of compromise. Whether it negotiate the speediest safe transition of the nuclear is acceptable to either side is quite another matter, but fleet from Faslane which will be replaced by you could imagine this being the basis for some kind conventional naval forces.” As we can see from that of negotiation between them. You separate them and SNP resolution on NATO, it specifically says that “a think about what the time frames might be for phasing sovereign SNP government will negotiate the out the two bases, which might be very different. speediest safe transition of the nuclear fleet from Faslane”. Do you think this means that a future SNP Q1407 Chair: In that scenario of separating the Government would allow the nuclear fleet to remain submarines from the nuclear weapons, where would at Faslane as long as they could claim to be in a the loading take place? drawn-out negotiation for what they term “the Professor Walker: The loading would still take place speediest safe transition”? in Coulport. Dr O’Brien: I would say there is no time limit on that. You can define “speedy” or “safe” however you Q1408 Chair: Nuclear submarines would still be wish to define “speedy” or “safe”. coming into Scotland under that scenario. Professor Walker: Yes. Q1406 Iain McKenzie: My further question on that would be: what do you think is the interpretation of Q1409 Chair: Live nuclear missiles would be in the Ministry of Defence and Royal Navy of “speediest Scotland under that scenario, albeit for a relatively safe transition”? short period while they were sailing in and out. Professor Walker: In terms of reasonable positions to Professor Walker: Yes. That, again, might be difficult take both at home and abroad, one would be to in Scotland, but it is at least one of the options that maintain these bases for the current boats until they might be considered. retire and not accept the replacements—so basically you phase it out. That would mean 10, 15 or 20 years; Q1410 Chair: I must confess I don’t think any of us so you give the UK Government that length of time had considered that this might be a deliberate to find the alternative bases. That would be regarded looseness of wording by the SNP in specifying the as a reasonable position to take but, again, it would fleet at Faslane and making a distinction between that require the UK Government to accept that the and the weapons store and loading bay at Coulport. replacements would go elsewhere and into another That is something we will want to raise with them. base. What would seem too reasonable probably to Professor Walker: I suspect it is carelessness. the Scottish Government—10 to 20 years is a very long time in their time frame, I think—would Q1411 Chair: We are dealing with nuclear weapons probably seem unreasonable to the UK Government if here, so I would have thought that carelessness from it meant the replacements had to go somewhere else the SNP is the last thing we would want. If that is just cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG06 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o006_db_Corrected SAC 120912.xml

Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 195

12 September 2012 Professor William Walker and Dr Phillips O'Brien simply sloppiness, that tells us something; if not, you negotiation on this, and it would have to be raise a very useful point. consensual; otherwise, it wouldn’t happen like this. Taking into account what I think you have agreed Chair: That is right. The negotiating position of the about CND, in “speediest safe transition”—i.e. Scottish Government would have to be, “We want removal—we are talking about 24 months. To honour them out within 24 months,” and it would be the pledge that is here, the minimum, I would have necessary to have specialist UK staff—contractor staff thought, is the 24 months. Any other agreement that from Babcocks or whoever else deals with these is reached about keeping them for a longer period, or things, or Royal Navy personnel—to carry out these until Trident wears out or a replacement is built, is not movements. I understand that point, but we just want the speediest safe transition; that would be a longer to clarify what the two negotiating positions might transition. It might be that they want to move on that, be in order to promote discussion among people in but is it correct that nothing less than 24 months Scotland. Lindsay, do you want to pick up the other would fulfil this commitment? issues of cost of removal? Professor Walker: I understood the CND paper as saying that this is what would be feasible. It does not Q1416 Lindsay Roy: I think we have covered them really go into the politics of it. I am not sure that is fairly well. The other issue is that at the moment what is implied in the Scottish Government’s Faslane is a home to nuclear-powered submarines and statement. several mine control vessels, and by 2017 it will be home to the entire UK submarine fleet. Can you see Q1412 Chair: Let’s come back to that. As I an independent Scotland having any use for, or being understand “speediest safe transition”, 24 months for able to afford, any of these assets? the removal of the weapons from Scotland is safe. Dr O’Brien: I have written a little bit on this. If you Professor Walker: Yes. look at the number Faslane now employs—the MOD’s stated figure for Faslane and Coulport is 6,500 Q1413 Chair: They would be going to a store people—it would be extraordinary for a facility of that somewhere in England—either Burghfield or size to continue in an independent Scotland. There is Aldermaston. That is “safe”. The “speediest safe one facility in a country of comparable size—it is still transition” is therefore the removal of the weapons considerably smaller—and that is the Norwegian base within that 24 months, and anything other than that is in Bergen: Haakonsvern. That is the base for the entire not the speediest. Is that a reasonable way of reading Norwegian fleet, which includes six submarines, five it? or six frigates, mine vessels and patrol vessels. That Dr O’Brien: If you are not worried about deploying has a population of about 4,000 employees, military them from the rest of the UK, yes. or not. Chair: That’s right. It would be hard to see Scotland having a navy of that Dr O’Brien: If all you are trying to do is get them size, to begin with. The Norwegians have a fleet of out, yes, but if you are looking at it from the rest of that size because they believe they have a real the UK, that would not be so. enemy—though they will not talk about it, it is Russia. It is protecting their oilfields; therefore, they are Q1414 Chair: No, but we are not. It may well be building up quite a large force. true that the person who wrote this was sloppy on the If Scotland were to go independent, even remaining Faslane-Coulport point; I understand that. But, in NATO, it would probably mirror more the Danish presumably, the words “speediest safe transition” have been deliberately chosen, and in those circumstances model when it comes to fleet size. The Danes since anything more than 24 months is a departure from that about 2004 have given up submarines completely. resolution. I am sorry; Hansard does not record the They maintain two quite limited bases in number, nodding of heads. each with three frigates, with quite distinct roles. Professor Walker: I understand what you are saying, Their total basing requirements are about 1,100 or and again it depends upon the interpretation and 1,200. If you are looking at it as a naval facility, it meaning of these words, and it is for them to clarify it. would be in and of itself almost impossible, unless you are simply employing people to do nothing. Q1415 Chair: It is reasonable for any reasonable person to assume that “speediest” means “as quickly Q1417 Lindsay Roy: The SNP are often keen to as possible”, and “safe” is fulfilled by the 24 months. follow the Norwegian model. Would they require non- Professor Walker: Again, the “24 months” relies upon nuclear submarines to protect assets in the North sea? complete co-operation between the two sides and Dr O’Brien: That is a very interesting question. I agreement on it. We might come on to the question of don’t know what submarines they use right now. They the Non-Proliferation Treaty and so on. All the certainly couldn’t use the British attack submarines sensitive stuff would have to be under the complete that are being built. Those are four times the size of control of the UK Government; Scottish hands could the Norwegian submarines, which are these littoral not be on it. There is a point to be made about water subs to protect the coastline. I would be decommissioning. It couldn’t be carried out by the surprised if an independent Scotland bought the Scots; it would have to be carried out by the UK smaller submarines from other countries instead of Government, the weapons establishment and so on. It putting money into shipbuilding in the Clyde. I would would have to be completely under control. Again, I find it hard to imagine that Scotland would be basing come back to the fact that there would have to be a lot of submarines. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG06 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o006_db_Corrected SAC 120912.xml

Ev 196 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

12 September 2012 Professor William Walker and Dr Phillips O'Brien

Q1418 Lindsay Roy: In your view, what would be maintains the infrastructure of a combat air force needed to protect the North sea assets adequately? without the air force itself. Dr O’Brien: What you would need to do to build up If you are looking at what would happen beyond the Faslane is bring the Army there. You would bring a domestic political impact, if Scotland went few frigates. I imagine Scotland would start with three independent, they might try to keep Faslane at that or four of the Type 23 frigates and then add the Type level, but almost certainly it would fail in that. The 26 when they came on line. You would add natural impetus would be one base on the east coast. minesweepers and patrol boats. Those, together, might If you are being at all sensible, you have to protect get you to 2,000 men, if you are adding it up. But, if the oil base. You could follow the Danish model you want to keep Faslane as the kind of facility it basically with a base on each coast. That is quite an is now, you would rebase the Army units—those in intelligent thing for Scotland to do. Faslane is Penicuik and those up in Inverness at Fort George— uniquely inaccessible to the oilfields. To get there, you and make it a joint Army-Navy base. You cannot have to cruise all the way down and around, so the redeploy the air force; there is no airstrip there. It is natural naval input would be to split it between one very difficult terrain on which to build an airstrip. In force on each coast. You could also do that with the addition, if you look at what happens in many Army and split it but, whatever happens, the impetus countries of Scotland’s size, certainly non-NATO would be to reduce Faslane. countries—Ireland and New Zealand are ones I have If you look at other countries, what tends to happen looked at—they have got rid of combat aircraft. is that the military tries to stay close to the seat of power. The headquarters, military colleges and human Q1419 Lindsay Roy: Do you seriously think that resources elements of the military will probably want Scotland would get Type 26 frigates? to be close to Edinburgh; they might not want to be Dr O’Brien: I think there would be a domestic out on the Rosneath peninsula. Therefore, through impetus behind it to try to save shipbuilding on the independence, the general thrust would be to benefit Clyde. The real Über issue for Scotland in the east over the west. independence is that the natural pull is that it will benefit the east over the west absolutely. If you look Q1421 Iain McKenzie: You said earlier that the at, say, how the Danes and Norwegians base their numbers employed at Faslane were 6,000-plus. forces and how these things go, the east would benefit: Dr O’Brien: That is what the MOD said. first, because the oilfields are in the east and they need to be protected; secondly, because a lot of things get Q1422 Iain McKenzie: In a separate Scotland, it built up around the national capital, and you tend to would be highly unlikely that that level of base a lot of elements around that. The west now employment could be sustained, bearing in mind that disproportionately is supported by Faslane-Coulport. the Navy would be significantly reduced if it was at Chair: On that happy note, can we stop because we Faslane. You are saying that to keep anywhere near have a vote? I am afraid we will have to go and vote that level of employment you would need to include and come back again. Fascinating though you are, we other military forces, and that that would be are more afraid of the Whips than we are of you. significantly out of step, or it would be unusual in a Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. defence strategy to base such a large number of your On resuming— forces in one area. Dr O’Brien: It would be unusual because there aren’t Q1420 Chair: Can we now restart because there is many people there who would benefit. It is not a a quorum? I know at least one of our colleagues has politically— been caught by the Whips and is being tortured as we speak. Dr O’Brien, maybe you would continue your Q1423 Iain McKenzie: It would be your defensive answer. Achilles heel by having so many forces based in the Dr O’Brien: I go back to what I was saying about the one area. viability of Faslane and what would probably happen Dr O’Brien: “Defensive Achilles heel” is a phrase I if you look at other models. You could certainly have would not want to use, because who is going to be as many jobs in Faslane in the future as they have the threat right now? You could say it is an illogical now, but you would have to concentrate in that area deployment, but it doesn’t make Scotland any more of Scotland in a way that no other nation of this size vulnerable to invasion. concentrates its military. You would have to rebase the Army with the Navy in that area. It is mostly the Q1424 Iain McKenzie: I suspect that the idea of case that the smaller nations disperse in a way that is diversifying your bases around the country is for politically sensitive to the entire country. Denmark, security reasons as well. If you bring them all with its small fleet, is a good model. It maintains two together, it makes it an easier target, does it not? separate bases. It has given them different roles and Dr O’Brien: I don’t know that it makes it easier. You they cover different areas, but it is a way of spreading would have to have something on the east and on the around positions. Ireland with an even smaller Navy west because of the way Scotland is shaped. The has one base, but it has moved the Army and Air Norwegians have this very big base. Force to different areas as a way of dispersing the benefits that those bring to the local areas. New Q1425 Iain McKenzie: Even if you had something Zealand has gone down a very extreme route. It has in the east and something in the west, could that level no combat aircraft but it maintains three airstrips. It of employment be sustained? cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG06 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o006_db_Corrected SAC 120912.xml

Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 197

12 September 2012 Professor William Walker and Dr Phillips O'Brien

Dr O’Brien: If those were the only two military Dr O’Brien: Certainly, or a drastic scaling down. facilities in Scotland. Chair: That is helpful.

Q1426 Iain McKenzie: If you had only two—one Q1432 Mr Reid: Would it cost much to develop in the east and one in the west. Rosyth to enable it to be used as one of the naval Dr O’Brien: If they were the only two in Scotland, bases? and Scotland had a slightly larger military than it Dr O’Brien: I don’t know. I don’t want to guess at a needed. If you look at a country like Ireland or New figure. There are the historic docks there. Rebasing Zealand, you have about 10,000 military personnel in surface ships as opposed to submarines is not that total. It is higher in Denmark and Norway, but of that difficult. My guess is that it could be done with a there are always some based in and around the capital. reasonable expense, but I do not want to put a price If you are going to have two bases—one east and one on it. west—and 6,500 to mirror what Faslane has now, in a sense you have nothing anywhere else. You could Q1433 Pamela Nash: To come back to the SNP’s reach that level with one base in the east and one in resolution on NATO, they state that the budget will be the west, but you would have a bigger military than £2.5 billion. They also mention that this is more than you might actually need. is currently spent in Scotland, but clearly at the moment Scotland benefits from the entire UK defence Q1427 Chair: You mentioned the closure of budget, which is 10 times that, not just the budget Glencourse at Penicuik and all the other barracks. It spent in Scotland. We are discussing here costs in would mean the closure of the barracks in Inverness terms of jobs and base closures, which are and no troops being sent to any of the air bases that extraordinarily important and one of the focuses of are being vacated; it would mean a total concentration our inquiry. As someone who lives in Scotland, I also on Faslane, which you said was an illogical want to know the cost in terms of the security of a deployment, and that would be done only for Scotland separate from the UK. community reasons, as it were, not military ones. In terms of the Danish model that you put forward Dr O’Brien: It would be done for political reasons. If and what the SNP envisaged—the vague vision that you are going to have one big base, you wouldn’t they have given us of a possible future Scottish want it there. defence force—what are the risks for Scotland and what are the threats that we need to anticipate that Q1428 Chair: Let us suppose for the sake of will not be covered by this force? argument that the Scottish Government were being Dr O’Brien: The international risks to Scotland. rational in military terms. If the attack submarines and Pamela Nash: Yes. nuclear-armed submarines are removed, the expansion Dr O’Brien: The one international risk to Scotland is by 50% that is scheduled does not take place, and the partly protected for you now by Norway and NATO. minesweepers there to protect the submarines and all That would be a dispute involving Russia over oil in the Royal Marines go, it is difficult to see rationally the North sea. The only reasonable threat—and, even what remains. then, I would argue it is an unlikely one, in the short Dr O’Brien: Having studied it, I quite like the Danish to medium term—would be some kind of dispute in model. The Danes have developed two naval bases. the north over the oilfields, but Scotland would not You could expand them in Scottish terms to make get involved in that on its own. You might say there them naval and military, one of which focuses on is a potential terrorist threat to the oil rigs and domestic security—patrolling. That would be on the oilfields. That would be one. east coast. You can go down the Irish route, which is fascinating. If you become a non-NATO country, in a sense you Q1429 Chair: That would be Rosyth, presumably. have almost no military. You have no aircraft; you Dr O’Brien: It could be Rosyth, Inverness or have eight large patrol boats; you have 10,000 people, Aberdeen. Rosyth would be the natural place, but it and you spend €1 billion, and that’s it. To Ireland, would be somewhere on the east. As a NATO power, £2.5 billion would be an extraordinary figure. You what they have done is specialise certain areas of might say that Ireland is secure; the United Kingdom international deployment and their humanitarian and and NATO provide that security to it. I am not saying evacuation forces in the other base. That would be the that Scotland needs to have a large military. I think it kind of thing you would want to have in Faslane—an could be secure in the short to medium term following international NATO-based force. an Irish route. What it could not argue is that it could protect anywhere near the number of jobs it has now Q1430 Chair: Is all that affordable within the or the industry. You would have to say, “We will save parameter of £2.5 billion? money by spending a little,” but a lot of these jobs Dr O’Brien: Yes. It would certainly be smaller than will go. Faslane is now. That split force is affordable. The Danes spend a little less than that, but it would mean Q1434 Pamela Nash: What about the figures that that, with the Navy and Army, Faslane would they have stated? They want to keep 15,000 regular probably be 2,000 to 3,000, not 6,500. personnel and 5,000 reserves. Dr O’Brien: You need the £2.5 billion to get to that. Q1431 Chair: That would mean the closure of The Irish have about 10,000 for €1 billion, but they Inverness, Penicuik and all those. are in the extraordinary situation of having almost no cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG06 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o006_db_Corrected SAC 120912.xml

Ev 198 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

12 September 2012 Professor William Walker and Dr Phillips O'Brien equipment. The Irish military is a salary-paying body; being a different pattern of personnel from the rest of about 80% to 85% of its money is paid in salary or the British Army. Is that fair? pensions. Dr O’Brien: It would certainly attract a different personality. Actually the Irish Army does deploy Q1435 Chair: I understand the point about the £2.5 overseas in UN missions quite a lot. If you join the billion, but we are being told that all current bases Irish Army, you don’t sit in home barracks the whole will be retained and the Air Force will be at time. You would spend a lot of your career going on Lossiemouth and Leuchars. You referred to different missions. It will not attract those who concentrating things at Faslane. It is a question of perhaps want to fight. In Ireland, certain communities these incompatibilities between, on the one hand, tend to produce the soldiers who go through the role. £2.5 billion and keeping Faslane the size it is, and, on It would not perhaps have the general pull for those the other hand, keeping all the bases at their existing who want to fight, but it would still be able to offer level and all the existing regiments. I am sorry. It is: some kind of international experience. “Regular ground forces will include current Scottish raised and restored UK regiments.” We are not clear Q1438 Chair: When Ireland deploys troops to the whether that means re-establishing the Argylls and the UN, what sort of things do they deploy? Do they Sutherland Highlanders, or whether they will just be deploy fully-formed brigades or sections? Are they restored as two battalions or a full battalion. None of self-sustaining or are they providing feet on the that is clear. It seems to me that all these things cannot ground, with the United States or somebody else be done at the same time. Is that reasonable? providing all the logistics, transport and everything Dr O’Brien: You are operating with the nexus of the else? An infantry-heavy Scottish Army could provide contradiction of domestic politics and strategic need. feet on the ground with rifles, but then be dependent The domestic political need says, “We are going to for artillery and everything else on somebody else. keep all these bases open.” I do not want to say it That is a feasible model, isn’t it? would be an exceptional model, but it would be an Dr O’Brien: I don’t want to say I am 100% expert on unusual one if Scotland did that. If Scotland declared this, but the Irish Army does not deploy tanks; it independence, kept defence spending at a very high would deploy light armoured personnel carriers. I level and kept all these facilities open, many of them can’t believe it would deploy much artillery, so it would serve a purpose very different from how they would tend to be responsible for boots in the armoured have been developed to serve. It is unlikely that they personnel carriers in those deployments. would keep anything like all the aircraft they keep up at Lossiemouth; they would have to redevelop it. They Q1439 Chair: If you want an all-arms force, it could do it, but my guess is that domestic political doesn’t seem to me—having those sorts of numbers pressure in the long run will lead to a much slimmed- and all the regiments, all within £2.5 billion, and down military, which tends to be what happens. keeping all the bases open and Faslane at its existing level of employment—that that can be done. Q1436 Chair: It has been suggested to us that, if Dr O’Brien: As a non-NATO country, I would have you have the idea of the current Scottish raised and to say absolutely not. As a NATO country playing a restored UK regiments, which presumably are all of full role in the alliance, you would slim down the the Royal Scots, plus the Scots Guards—there is a infantry, keep the aircraft and naval vessels, and have debate about whether or not the Coldstream Guards a smaller version of what you have now. are Scottish, depending on how you define “Coldstream”—you will end up with a parade ground Q1440 Chair: If a separate Scotland joins NATO, army, which basically has enormous numbers that can the pressure will be on it to slim down the Army— march about but does not have the infrastructure and the existing regiments. support behind it to do anything. Dr O’Brien: It depends on the role. If you look at the Lindsay Roy: It is ceremonial. difference between NATO and non-NATO, in the Chair: Basically, it is ceremonial. Is that a cases I have looked at, the NATO members spend reasonable assessment? considerably more. Denmark and Norway spend more Dr O’Brien: If you wanted to keep all those than New Zealand and Ireland. That is because they infantrymen employed and paid good salaries, you have more equipment; that is where the real price would probably have to economise on equipment difference between those militaries occurs. They have purchases. They would have a more limited role— a larger military in numbers, but the real difference is something akin to the Irish situation. that they keep combat air wings and larger naval vessels. If Scotland was to join NATO, I think the Q1437 Chair: One of our previous visitors told us Danish model is best. It would develop certain niches that they thought in those sorts of circumstances that requiring equipment within NATO. It would probably the Scottish forces would be less attractive as a career not develop an armoured deployment capability option to young men and women in the existing within NATO. It would be hard to see it keeping these Scottish forces, or in the rest of the British Army, on regiments going as the fighting edge of the NATO the basis that they were not likely to be doing very alliance, but it would more likely concentrate on much or going anywhere. It would tend to be those certain maritime or air operations just because of near the end of their service who wanted, as it were, where Scotland is located. a quieter life. They didn’t think it was entirely fair to Professor Walker: I offer the thought that, as part of describe it as a “Dad’s Army”, but they did see it as my career, I spent some time researching and writing cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG06 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o006_db_Corrected SAC 120912.xml

Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 199

12 September 2012 Professor William Walker and Dr Phillips O'Brien about Sellafield in Cumbria, where you have a big Q1444 Lindsay Roy: Would Scotland then be concentration of employment in one particular part. It dependent on others for the security of these strategic is not a base, of course, but an industrial site. assets, or could it cope on its own? Sometimes they prevent economic regeneration. One Dr O’Brien: I am talking about this within the context shouldn’t assume that simply removing employment of a NATO Scotland. In my view, if it becomes non- by running down bases means that in the long run that NATO, none of this will be built. If Scotland goes area of the country can’t be regenerated and probably non-NATO, it is going the Ireland and New Zealand more sustainable industries and economic activities route and it won’t spend anything like this. It will not can’t be developed there. Around Faslane, there is a build submarines. It might keep two Type 23 frigates point that that whole area of Scotland could be going or something like that. This is being said within regenerated in very interesting ways. the context of the NATO alliance.

Q1441 Chair: We understand the possibilities of Q1445 Lindsay Roy: A NATO nuclear alliance. regeneration if Faslane is run down, but it is the Dr O’Brien: Yes, absolutely; NATO is a nuclear largest single employer in that area, so we want to say alliance. You could provide excellent security to to people that this is the option. It is particularly Scotland within NATO if Scotland plays its full role helpful to have clarified that Fort George and some of in the alliance. the barracks at Penicuik and so on might have to shut to keep Faslane at its present size. There are very real Q1446 Chair: To finish off the section about the choices to be made. removal of the submarines and so on, perhaps I can In terms of the budget—you mentioned equipment— ask about “Continuous At Sea Deterrence” and how would the construction of up to half a dozen and whether it is achievable in a situation where you submarines, in addition to everything else, be doable are potentially moving from one location to another within the £2.5 billion? The six submarines would not with the existing four boats, or if it is just simply keep the shipyards going all that long because they not doable? need a vessel a year to keep going, at least for the Professor Walker: It depends on how long you are Type 26, and that would require closures elsewhere. going to take to do this and how you manage the They have never built a submarine. How realistic is it transition. If it is a question of the replacement to say that the Clyde yards would be reformulated in submarines going somewhere else and you are order to build four submarines as a one-off? building up a replacement fleet in other bases, you can Dr O’Brien: Again, it could be done. They would manage the transition so that you phase out an old probably build Norwegian-type submarines, which submarine and bring in a new one, although it is located elsewhere. I can imagine it working. If you were built with the Germans. The Norwegian are doing it rather suddenly and rapidly, it is hard to submarines came out of German-Norwegian imagine. There would be periods in which there was collaboration and that was how they were constructed. no deterrent operating in those circumstances but, My guess is that they would not be wholly-built again, it is a matter of how it is phased and managed. Scottish submarines; they would be built in You could imagine it working; in other scenarios it collaboration with another country. You would want wouldn’t work. to have more of them and say, “We’re building more than just a run for ourselves.” If you were building Q1447 Chair: One of the issues that we want the just four or six for Scotland, they would end up being people of Scotland to be clear about is that, unless very expensive one-offs, and I do not think that that you have a 20-year period allowing for the build-up, would be an efficient way to spend your money. effectively you are having unilateral nuclear Chair: We are going to meet the shipyards in due disarmament, at least for a period, imposed upon course and we will discuss it with them. Britain. Professor Walker: Yes. Q1442 Lindsay Roy: If you went ahead with four to six submarines, how would that impact on the budget? Q1448 Chair: I just wanted to get that on the record. Dr O’Brien: They come off the line. You might Professor Walker: I would like to say something produce one a year, so it is more a matter of how long about the international reaction to that and the debates the production cycle is than a one-off payment to start. that would go on in the context of the Non- You wouldn’t produce all six at a time; you would Proliferation Treaty. Is this a good time to say produce them consecutively. something about that? Chair: Yes; that is helpful. Q1443 Lindsay Roy: Are you saying that, without Professor Walker: These would be very unusual them, you would be dependent on others to protect circumstances. As you know, the UK is a nuclear- your strategic assets, like the North sea development? weapon state member of the Non-Proliferation Treaty Dr O’Brien: You don’t need submarines at this point and has legal rights to maintain nuclear weapons to protect the North sea assets; you need surface under that treaty. If Scotland becomes independent, vessels, helicopters and air power. The Norwegians there is no question that it will have to become a non- build and man submarines because they are worried nuclear-weapon state member of that treaty. I think about the Russian submarines on their coast. The the Scottish Government have declared their interest Russians spend a lot of time in Norwegian territorial in that. There is no question that internationally any waters. other route would be accepted. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG06 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o006_db_Corrected SAC 120912.xml

Ev 200 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

12 September 2012 Professor William Walker and Dr Phillips O'Brien

As again you are aware, the UK would be legally and Scotland is split off, or there are two successor entitled under the treaty to base nuclear weapons in a countries. This is the same argument about non-nuclear-weapon state, but in this case it would be membership of the EU and a number of other things. the entire strategic force. We are conscious of that. Within the NPT context, the question of nuclear Can I seek clarification from you on the question of possession and disarmament is extremely “against its will”? I can see how, if the British Army controversial, and a large majority of states in the arrived in Faslane with tanks and guns and defended world are pressing very hard on the nuclear-weapon it against any attempt by the Scottish forces to remove states to reduce their forces and even to disarm, it, that is clearly against its will. On the other hand, particularly in the non-aligned movement. If the UK if it is part of a deal whereby Scotland comes to an was seen to be imposing nuclear weapons on a non- arrangement and, in return for being allowed to retain nuclear Scotland, it would have to handle it very the pound, it agrees to keep the nuclear weapons on carefully. Internationally, one can imagine that the the Clyde for a while, is that against its will, assuming American, French and perhaps some NATO it is a negotiation willingly entered into and eventually Governments would put pressure, perhaps indirectly, it is agreed, even though, as with most negotiations, it on Scotland to play along with the UK and try to reach does not get everything it wants? It is the question of an accommodation and accept these things for quite a what “against its will” means. long time. If Scotland said no and it wanted them out Professor Walker: I agree there would be a great deal faster than that, it would find it had quite a lot of of linkage between the issues. If the UK Government support internationally for that position. If the UK, said, “One of our red lines is that we want to replace which has been in the forefront of pressing for nuclear Trident and the replacement will be located at disarmament internationally, was seen to be trying to Coulport and Faslane, full stop”, and the Scottish impose nuclear weapons on Scotland for a very long Government wouldn’t accept that and there was time against its will, it would have to handle that very intransigence on both sides, the UK Government’s carefully internationally and might find that it position on that would not necessarily be welcomed provoked a lot of resistance. internationally. A lot of people have raised the question of the UK continuing in membership of the UN Security Q1450 Chair: I understand that, but that is only if Council. The rest of the UK would have no legal right there is a complete impasse and everything else of succession as a permanent member of the UN collapses round about it, and this is unlikely to be Security Council. It would be a political decision by negotiated on its own. the other members and the international community Professor Walker: Yes. as to whether it inherited the right of the UK in that context. I suspect that it would gain that right and Q1451 Chair: If this is seen to be a deal breaker and keep its seat in the UN Security Council. the deals break down on both sides around here and But a point made to me by a Brazilian Government around this, I can see that. However, if there are diplomat and others from this kind of community is negotiations and the Scottish Government depart from that, if the UK decided to give up its nuclear weapons, the 24 months, which is the speediest that it can be it would probably do more to secure its position as a done, and do so willingly—if not enthusiastically but permanent member. Seriously, many countries in the freely, because it is part of a bigger deal—surely that world would love to see a permanent member of the could not be counted as being against its will. UN Security Council that did not have nuclear Professor Walker: You are completely right, yes, but weapons. They would also very much welcome the the international hope will be that the two sides could idea of the UK taking the lead in promoting nuclear negotiate an agreement on this. They might express disarmament—not just a lot of rhetoric and admittedly their views in the corridors, but that would be their some very good work with the Norwegians and others hope and they would not grandstand on that. in preparing the ground for nuclear disarmament. All I am saying is that, internationally, the community Q1452 Chair: I would have thought it would be the of states out there would be very divided on this, and complete NATO gang, or most of them, expressing you might find that a lot of them are very sympathetic one view and the non-aligned—the third world and so to the Scots and unsympathetic to the British on—expressing a different view. Opinion is likely to Government, particularly if they tried to coerce the be mixed in these circumstances. We have touched on Scots into accepting what they don’t want. questions about whether or not being a member of NATO is incompatible with insisting upon nuclear Q1449 Chair: The difficulty we have with some of weapons being removed. Is a fair way of putting it these issues is that in a sense they are clearly for that it is not incompatible but there would be Britain rather than the Scottish side of things. tremendous difficulties? Therefore, these are issues for the Defence and Professor Walker: Except that the circumstances are Foreign Affairs Select Committees rather than the different. Theirs are tactical weapons and that is part Scottish Affairs Committee to pronounce upon. of extended deterrence. It is a different situation where Your argument that Britain does not automatically it is strategic weapons and not part of extended succeed to this seat on the UN Security Council begs deterrence. a number of questions, which we have heard about from a number of witnesses, about succession and Q1453 Chair: You mentioned earlier countries not whether or not the UK remains as the UK, as it were, having strategic weapons in other states. Did not the cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG06 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o006_db_Corrected SAC 120912.xml

Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 201

12 September 2012 Professor William Walker and Dr Phillips O'Brien

Americans have strategic weapons in Turkey at one and economically stronger than Scotland, finds itself point, and the Russians wanted to have them in Cuba? in a position of being unable to insist on the removal Surely there are circumstances where people have of nuclear weapons from its territory, will not strategic weapons on other states. Scotland be in the same position? It will not just be a Professor Walker: But it is largely in the past. It is dialogue with the UK. Presumably, if it seeks to join certainly true that the Americans had their weapons at NATO, it will be a dialogue with the whole of NATO. Holy Loch. Professor Walker: Your basic position is probably correct. Scotland would have difficulty within NATO. Q1454 Chair: There are clear precedents for this. It On the other hand, the NATO countries will be quite is largely in the past because weapons have longer divided on this, as they have been on the question of ranges and are more accurate, so they don’t need to tactical weapons. You would not find a single, uniform be in Turkey or Cuba any more. The targets can be NATO position on this. You will find the Norwegians reached from home countries, but the principle of taking up one position and possibly the Germans and basing furth of your own hasn’t been ruled out, as I the Americans, in particular, taking up another. The understand it. politics around this will be quite complicated. Professor Walker: All I say is that the politics of nuclear weapons in Germany in NATO are different Q1457 Chair: It has been very complicated, but from what the politics would be of UK weapons in Germany has caved in. Do you think that Scotland Scotland in NATO. The nuclear weapons in Germany might be able to stand up where Germany has fallen were tactical, and it is all tied up with the question of over? Russian tactical weapons in Estonia and the Baltic Professor Walker: No, I am not saying it would; I states and a whole lot of politics around it, which are think it would be very difficult for Scotland, too. very distinctive. That is why the Germans have changed their position on this. This would be a Q1458 Chair: Do people apply to join NATO? If different situation. You might arrive at the same the two states separate, would the rest of the United conclusion that it is very difficult for the Scots to get Kingdom end up outside NATO in the event of a split, out of this if they are part of NATO. It is simply a or would it remain in NATO with Scotland outside different kind of circumstance. and having to join? What is your view? Dr O’Brien: My understanding is that, if the United Q1455 Chair: No circumstances are ever exactly the Kingdom remains the United Kingdom and Scotland same. Coming to Germany, since you have raised it, leaves, Scotland will have to apply, but I am not an my understanding is that the Germans have said they international lawyer; I am a military historian. would like to have NATO’s nuclear weapons removed, and they have been obliged to back down and they have been or will be retained. The fact that they are Q1459 Chair: But, as we have said before, you are tactical rather than strategic doesn’t seem to be the here. issue of substance here. Germany, which is a great Dr O’Brien: Yes, I am here. Scotland would not have deal stronger than a separate Scotland is likely to be, automatic membership of NATO. The United wanted to remove nuclear weapons and because of Kingdom is a member, and Scotland would have to international pressure has now bent the knee. Is that a apply. It could be fast-tracked. fair assessment? Professor Walker: Yes, but these are part of American Q1460 Chair: Some Members have other forces in Europe, and it is to do with extended commitments and must leave. As I have said before, deterrence and America providing umbrellas to I’ve got to be away by nine, so we will try to finish European countries against the possibility of Russian by then. misbehaviour, basically. In this case it is not to do I think we have covered the future role for Faslane if with extended deterrence. There is no question of the all the nuclear submarines had to leave. Are there any UK providing extended deterrence to Scotland. I don’t other points about Faslane or Rosyth that we have not think that is what it is about. touched on? One thing we always have to explain to The degree to which the UK deterrent is extended to people is: never assume that we know the basics. We other European countries is very opaque. There is would much rather be insulted by having very simple language about it being assigned to NATO, but what things explained to us than run the risk of them being exactly is that? Perhaps you are very clear about it, overlooked. If there is anything basic about Faslane but I am not. One consequence of this whole debate and Rosyth that we have not looked at, by all means might be that the UK would have to clarify its tell us. We have covered the need for a base on the position. What exactly does it mean by assigning its east coast, the size of it and so on. If we have covered nuclear weapons to NATO? Is it providing guarantees everything, I am not necessarily dragging it out. to other countries? What are the implications of Do you have any views about procurement? Earlier withdrawing the UK’s nuclear deterrent from NATO? you touched on the need to keep the shipyards and so There are lots of issues around this that are very on, and as the member for Govan I am particularly unclear, but it is a rather different circumstance. keen on that. There is a possibility of the Type 26 order being given to the Clyde. That would give 13 Q1456 Chair: I accept that circumstances are never or more years of work, plus any export work that exactly the same, but I want to come back to the comes up, and then we are on to the next wave. German parallel. If Germany, which is much bigger Potentially, on the positive side, you have shipbuilding cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG06 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o006_db_Corrected SAC 120912.xml

Ev 202 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

12 September 2012 Professor William Walker and Dr Phillips O'Brien on the Clyde for the next 40 years guaranteed through that would happen in the rest of the United Kingdom. the Royal Navy. It would be very unusual if the rest of the United Our assumption has been that separation would shut Kingdom kept large ship orders on the Clyde, if the shipyards because the rest of the UK would not Scotland left the United Kingdom. place orders. You have suggested that they might possibly order some submarines, but since the Clyde Q1462 Chair: Do you think that would apply to has never built submarines, I would have thought the companies like SELEX, Thales, Raytheon and all the costs would be prohibitive. Given EU procurement rest of them? rules, one would have thought that the cost advantage Dr O’Brien: It depends on the kinds of weapons. would be to throw it open and simply buy them in Within the context of the from elsewhere. Therefore, most of the firms European Union, if they can manufacture and ship dependent on UK orders—whether it is the yards, anywhere, it might not immediately apply, but often Thales, SELEX or Raytheon—would end up moving there are quid pro quos for giving these orders: “We’ll south. As somebody said, they would just follow the give you these orders, Raytheon, but you must make money in order to be within the UK market and get them close by.” In that situation, unless Scotland the opportunity for preferential treatment. Does all wishes to spend a huge amount on the military, the that seem a reasonable set of assumptions to you, or pressure will be to get the jobs out, but is that a bad is there something that you think we are missing? thing? We don’t know. Professor Walker: My colleague knows more about this. I personally would not necessarily cry about this Q1463 Chair: We have a budget starting off at £2.5 if I was in Scotland. In the UK, the defence industrial billion, and we have mentioned perhaps the over- base is too large a part of our industrial base and has provision of infantry and so on. That doesn’t leave all been too protected for too long. Governments have that much for capital spending on equipment, does it? been too obsessed with protecting it over the years. Scotland will not be a big buyer, and therefore the We know that so much of the rest of the industrial issue about quid pro quos isn’t likely to be a big base has gone. So, if I were in the Scottish driver. Government, I would be focusing not on maintaining Dr O’Brien: With the Type 26, they could perhaps the military industrial base, but on trying to develop reach a deal with the rest of the United Kingdom that other areas of economic activity. Of course they would said, “We’ll buy four; you buy eight.” Therefore, like to maintain expertise, but to lose some defence construction is split between the Clyde and industries is not necessarily a negative thing, somewhere else. That would be economically quite particularly if they are not heavily involved in the sensible, if you could reach that deal. The more you defence market. can build of any weapons system, the cheaper it will To throw in one other thought on Trident, Scotland be. I think the question is: what happens after that doesn’t benefit tremendously from it in terms of with weapons not now in the pipeline? The question procurement. It is nearly all in England, the United will be: why would anyone place orders in Scotland? States or elsewhere. That is just a fact of the situation. That would be a hard question to answer.

Q1461 Chair: That is the construction rather than Q1464 Chair: Just off the top of my head, I would the running of it. have thought that the cost of something like four Professor Walker: The construction and Type 26s is likely to be totally out of Scotland’s reach, manufacturing of Trident is mostly outside Scotland, and presumably it is far greater capacity than Scotland which is one reason why the whole replacement would need. You mentioned earlier the Type 23. programme is not hugely beneficial to Scotland. Maybe the Type 45, or something like that, will be Dr O’Brien: Speaking about what has happened in part of the divvying up. You don’t want a tenth of an countries of a size similar to Scotland, since the aircraft carrier, so you would swap it for something economic downturn there has been a decided shift to else. It might end up with a Type 45, but I would have buying as much home-grown stuff as you can. People thought a Type 26 is far more capacity than it needed are not placing orders outside their own country, if at Dr O’Brien: I assume it would be a slimmed-down all possible. In fact they are delaying the buying of Type 26 without all the weapons systems. A fully weapon systems if it means purchasing them from developed Type 26 is a far greater warship than another country. Scotland needs, or any other country the size of A country like Scotland might assume it will get a Scotland maintains. large number of orders for military equipment from outside, but getting those orders would be unusual in Q1465 Chair: It would be the basic model, as it the present procurement climate, when all the were. domestic pressure is to go the other way. In fact what Dr O’Brien: You could use the same hull with a much has happened is that a lot of the countries have been reduced weapons system. trying to build up their own export industries at this time—the Austrians in small arms and the Swedes in Q1466 Chair: Colleagues, are there any other points armoured personnel carriers. Countries like Scotland that you want to raise? I think we have gone through are all trying to get into this business and it is not all the things that we want to bring up. We always ask working, but they are certainly not buying from at the end whether or not there are any answers you others. The domestic pressure from the outside would have prepared to questions that we have not asked— be to limit orders in Scottish shipyards, and I think things you came with that you wanted to place on cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG06 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o006_db_Corrected SAC 120912.xml

Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 203

12 September 2012 Professor William Walker and Dr Phillips O'Brien the table, but we haven’t given you the opportunity that, just on the Trident nuclear issue, the two to raise. positions are poles apart. In coming together after the Professor Walker: Perhaps I can have a minute to say yes vote, the question is how you draw together these that the issue perplexing me recently is what positions and over what time frame—and can you? I negotiation takes place, and what the objective of the can’t imagine the Ministry of Defence, for instance, two Governments is, in the immediate aftermath of a entering into an open public debate on this issue. They yes vote. In the defence, security and nuclear context, haven’t shown any willingness to do it so far, and I if, first off, you have a framework agreement don’t think they will. negotiated between Edinburgh and London, which I think would be the first step before the big detailed Q1468 Chair: Remember that the Ministry of negotiations happened, what exactly would have to go Defence were the people who told us that getting from into that framework agreement? What basic principles A to B would depend on how fast the plane was would you apply and what level of detail would you flying. Ministers are a trifle more forthcoming and have to go into in that framework agreement? available on some of these things. Has any work been Internationally, it would be expected that, first off, done on that? Is there a model to which we can London and Edinburgh would agree some basic make reference? principles on what they are trying to achieve. That Professor Walker: In Edinburgh there has been would be the first step before going out into the world discussion by constitutional experts and so on about it and gaining recognition in the UN, sorting out NATO happening. This will all take time. These are the kinds and EU issues and all the rest of it. The two of issues that people will be wrestling with over the Governments would have to come together to decide coming months and the next two years. on some basic principles on what they are trying to achieve. Q1469 Chair: For example, are there precedents in I can tell you that, in a nuclear context, there will be the break-up of Czechoslovakia and how that was a lot of pressure internationally for some clarity on dealt with, or the break-up of the Soviet Union, or exactly what is entailed here. I guess that both the international agreements between Russia and the Scotland and the rest of the UK would also wish to Ukraine about nuclear weapons, and the Baltic states express clear opinions at that stage. There would need and so on? to be careful examination as to how this process Professor Walker: Again, these things tend to be would work and what kind of framework agreement unique to certain circumstances. I remember one would have to be developed between the two statistic from the break-up of Czechoslovakia. There Governments before we went out into the world and were 27 broad agreements and 2,000 smaller tried to sort out these other international issues. agreements.

Q1467 Chair: Why do you make the assumption Q1470 Chair: I thought there were 27,000 that the framework agreement could begin to be agreements, but I get the idea. negotiated only once the vote was over? Look at this Professor Walker: The negotiating capacity of the from the perspective of a voter. I don’t know whether Scots, in particular, is going to be extremely stretched. or not you are, but you will be a voter. Professor Walker: Yes. Q1471 Chair: It is going to be a huge job creation Chair: It’s this point about a pig in a poke. function for lawyers, isn’t it? Presumably, you want to know as much of this Professor Walker: Exactly. beforehand rather than suddenly find out after the vote Chair: Of which I am not one, thank goodness. has taken place—for the sake of argument, say it has I think we have drawn matters to a close. Could I been a yes vote—that maybe the Government are thank you very much for coming along? What we doing things or are prepared to settle for things that have heard from you has been very useful. We intend you are not willing to accept. Why should the Scottish to produce a report pretty quickly on some of these Government’s position about what they seek to things as a means of stimulating further discussion, achieve not be clear beforehand, with an initial but if, once you get out of here, you suddenly response from the UK about whether or not some of remember something you wish you had said, or if you these things are acceptable, so that people have an come across something that you think would assist us, idea of the pattern of negotiation that might then it would be very helpful if you let us have it either in occur, rather than just going into it blind? writing or by speaking to one of our staff, because we Professor Walker: Things will certainly be clarified see this very much as an ongoing exercise. between now and whenever in 2014, but I can imagine cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [SE] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG07 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o007_db_Corrected SAC 120917.xml

Ev 204 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

Monday 17 September 2012

Members present: Mr Ian Davidson (Chair)

Jim McGovern Mr Alan Reid Iain McKenzie Lindsay Roy Simon Reevell ______

Examination of Witnesses

Witnesses: Rt Hon Michael Moore MP, Secretary of State for Scotland, Rt Hon David Mundell MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, and Alun Evans, Director of the Scotland Office, gave evidence.

Q1472 Chair: Could I open this meeting of the The consultation earlier in the year had nearly 3,000 Scottish Affairs Committee by welcoming you, responses from across Scotland. We were very pleased Secretary of State, Mr Mundell and Mr Evans, who is that, broadly speaking, opinion within Scotland a new man at the Scotland Office? supported the view we were taking that there should Michael Moore: The new Alisdair McIntosh. be legal transfer of the powers; that we should have a single question; that we should have the normal rules Q1473 Chair: Could I start off by making a number of electoral encounters and referendum contests in of points on behalf of the Committee about this place; and we should be clear that the outcome was particular meeting and how we intend to proceed from going to be regarded as fair to people on both sides here? We very much take the view that Scotland of the argument. Office Ministers are accountable to Parliament and to The Scottish Government have separately held their this Committee in particular, and we want to be own consultation in recent months. We await the closely involved in all the discussions going on about publication of the outcome of that process and their what will be the most important decision for the views on it, but I am very pleased that over the course Scottish people to make in 300 years. of the last two or three months we have had a series We recognise and welcome the fact that we are going to have a referendum, but we also recognise, as some of meetings with Scottish Government Ministers and of our reports have said, that Westminster has the legal officials that has been attempting in some ways to thin and moral responsibility for the management of out the weeds and understand the detail of what lies constitutional matters and changes in the status of the behind the principles of the referendum and what United Kingdom. We want to make sure that we are detail we need to agree between us. reporting back to the rest of Scotland’s MPs on how David had a series of very constructive meetings with this process is working. We haven’t quite established Bruce Crawford, the then Cabinet Secretary for exactly how that would be done, but we are looking Parliamentary Business and Government Strategy for forward to working with you on that. the Scottish Government, in June and July, and latterly Could I start off by asking you about your recent had a meeting with Nicola Sturgeon when she was meetings with the Scottish Government, how many appointed Constitutional Minister by the First there have been, whether or not you have made much Minister a couple of weeks ago. I believe that her progress, and how long you anticipate this process appointment and the central place that the Referendum taking? Bill has within the Scottish Government’s legislative Michael Moore: First of all, thank you very much for programme have sent a very important signal that the the opportunity for the Scotland Office to be here this Scottish Government, like ourselves, want to reach an afternoon. In particular, Alun Evans as the new agreement and get the referendum process sorted so director of the Scotland Office is very much involved that we can get on and debate the substantive political in the processes in which we are all engaged in the issues about independence. delivery of the referendum. My first meeting with Nicola Sturgeon last Thursday I agree with you completely, Mr Davidson, that this is in Edinburgh was constructive and reinforced my a hugely important political choice facing Scotland. judgment that the two Governments can reach The referendum will be the most important decision any of us take in our lives politically, and the most agreement. We have stepped up the pace; we are important decision in 300 years, so that referendum looking at the detail, but, as yet, that has not been process has to be a fair one, the outcome has to be resolved. We have a lot of work to do, and officials clear-cut, but, fundamentally, it has to start from a have been spending the time since we met last week legal basis. As your report has highlighted and the UK working away at that. I hope that, when we meet again Government consultation focused earlier this year, the on Wednesday, we will be able to make some legal powers to hold a referendum rest with the United progress. How long that will take and how many Kingdom Parliament, but we believe it is appropriate, meetings it requires is not clear at this stage, but if the so that the referendum can be made in Scotland, that intent is good on both sides—for now, I believe it is— the powers are devolved to the Scottish Parliament so there is no reason why we can’t resolve this, I hope, that this referendum can take place. relatively speedily. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG07 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o007_db_Corrected SAC 120917.xml

Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 205

17 September 2012 Rt Hon Michael Moore MP, Rt Hon David Mundell MP and Alun Evans

Q1474 Chair: I recognise that the mood music has resolve it to get rid of the uncertainty. But I am not changed, but can you clarify whether or not anything being pessimistic about the ability of either at all has been agreed? Government to approve a section 30 order between Michael Moore: At this stage we have not reached each other and then get the Parliaments to approve it formal agreement on anything other than the timing as well. It is on that basis I am working at the moment. of the process that we believe is necessary to meet the Scottish Government’s timetable to deliver their Bill Q1480 Jim McGovern: Thank you, gentlemen, for in the spring of next year, which essentially requires coming along. Secretary of State, if I could take you us, if we can, to reach agreement between the back to an earlier question from the Chair, he asked Governments by late October, allowing this what you hoped might be agreed on 22 October. I Parliament and the Scottish Parliament to scrutinise couldn’t quite grasp what your answer meant. To the process. paraphrase, I think you said, “We would hope to agree what the Scottish and UK Governments can agree Q1475 Chair: So you would envisage the section 30 following that meeting.” notice being agreed between the negotiators by the Michael Moore: The section 30 order would set out end of October. the terms by which the power would be devolved over Michael Moore: The indicative dates that we are a single question and all the other bits that we were working on are around 22 October, which coincide covering in the consultation. The section 30 order has both with the end of our conference season recess and to provide the legal framework for powers to be also the half-term break that the Scottish Parliament transferred that currently reside with this Parliament. has in October. That allows the 10 to 12-week process There are other aspects of the process of the to run through, in terms of parliamentary sitting referendum that do not necessarily require legal weeks, to next February, when the Privy Council agreement between the two Parliaments, but it is still would, I hope, endorse what Parliament has already politically important for the two Governments and endorsed and then the power would be transferred. Parliaments to be in agreement. Those are the issues that I envisage might be in a separate document sitting Q1476 Chair: Can you clarify exactly what you alongside the section 30 order, but at this stage we are hope would be agreed by 22 October? working our way through some of the detail of the Michael Moore: With good progress on both sides, issues. At the moment I do not have a view as to what constructively, I hope we will have agreed the terms will be in the section 30 order for sure and what will of the order and any accompanying document that be in any other document. My presumption is that as would set out what the two Governments have agreed much as possible will be in the section 30 order, but should be the basis on which the referendum is carried that really depends on what the Scottish Government out. At this stage what is in the order or any bring forward in terms of their proposals. accompanying document has not even begun to be resolved, but that is the work on which we are now Q1481 Jim McGovern: To repeat the Chair’s very much focused. question, maybe you could try and put it in language that everybody understands. What do you hope might Q1477 Iain McKenzie: Can you explain to us be agreed on 22 October? briefly the mechanics of the section 30 order to allow Michael Moore: I hope we will be agreeing that we the Scottish Government to hold the referendum? can devolve the powers to hold a referendum to the Michael Moore: The section 30 order would be Scottish Parliament; that it will be on a single published once it had been agreed between the two question; and that it will be governed by the normal Governments. It would then be a matter for the House rules for carrying out referendums anywhere in the of Commons and House of Lords to approve it, we United Kingdom. hope. For our part, simultaneously or in tandem, the Jim McGovern: I have got that now. Scottish Parliament would be asked to approve it as well. Those two approvals having been achieved, the Q1482 Lindsay Roy: Do you propose that this matter would go to the Privy Council, where we hope Parliament and Committee will have the opportunity it would receive Her Majesty’s assent, at which point to scrutinise any draft section 30 order you are the legislation is devolved. considering with the Scottish Parliament? Michael Moore: The Committee and any other Q1478 Chair: What happens if either Parliament Committee of this House or the House of Lords will does not agree the proposals that are brought forward? be able to scrutinise the section 30 order that we agree Michael Moore: Then the legislation is not devolved. between the two Governments and any associated The key point is that the whole process has to be documents. There is a rough rule of thumb that that approved by both Parliaments. Without that, the law can take two to three months, if necessary, but we will stays as it is at the moment. be in Parliament’s hands as far as that is concerned.

Q1479 Chair: But, presumably, the negotiators Q1483 Lindsay Roy: What is the time scale for would want to go back and negotiate an agreement that? that was acceptable to both Parliaments rather than Michael Moore: It goes back to an earlier question. simply dropping the whole business. With a fair wind, we would hope to get agreement by Michael Moore: I think it is important that we have a late October. That would begin the process, which referendum. This issue is now out there; we need to could take us through to February, whereby this House cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG07 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o007_db_Corrected SAC 120917.xml

Ev 206 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

17 September 2012 Rt Hon Michael Moore MP, Rt Hon David Mundell MP and Alun Evans and the House of Lords, as well as the Scottish Q1490 Chair: Some Parliaments may simply be a Parliament, would look at the details. rubber stamp for the Executive, but clearly this Parliament would not wish that. Can I pursue further Q1484 Lindsay Roy: We understand too that there the question of the side letters, agreements, documents may be some inter-governmental proposals alongside attached and so on and seek clarification as to how the section 30 order. Can you assure this Committee specific these would be on the outstanding issues? Are that we will have an opportunity to view these? these essentially legally binding upon, say, the Michael Moore: Any document that goes with the Scottish Government once powers under a section 30 section 30 order will be a public one, and it will be order have been transferred, or would they be able to there to assist understanding of the legal framework tear them up and progress along different lines? that has been devolved. Michael Moore: I think that, inevitably, there is a legal and political aspect to that. The purpose of any Q1485 Lindsay Roy: So it will come before this document that sat with the section 30 order would be Committee and Parliament. to inform that order and to be clear about the context Michael Moore: Yes. in which it had been agreed, but the section 30 order Lindsay Roy: That is very helpful. itself is the legal instrument to transfer the powers. It is my view that a document that sits alongside that, Q1486 Simon Reevell: To be clear about an answer agreed by the two Governments, will be a very you just gave, the question was whether a draft section important political statement from both those 30 order would be open to scrutiny. You said there Governments and the basis on which, clearly, the would be an opportunity to scrutinise an order that power has been transferred. I think that both here and was agreed with the Scottish Government. Do you in the Scottish Parliament that will carry a great deal mean “agreed in draft form”? of weight. Michael Moore: The order that comes before If you recall, alongside the Scotland Bill was a Parliament is not amendable. Therefore, it is the hope command paper that set out a great deal of the detail. of the Governments sponsoring it that it will be That was a commitment we made to Parliament about approved by both Parliaments. It is not like a normal what we intended to pursue in terms of the policy and piece of legislation that might pass through this how we would carry things out. At the conclusion of Parliament, but clearly Parliament will want to the Scotland Bill, the Scottish and UK Governments scrutinise that and use that opportunity, whether it is exchanged letters about how some of the provisions through Select Committees or other means. within it were to be interpreted. We took a great deal of care about that and, again, put those in the public Q1487 Simon Reevell: Will Parliament see it in domain so that people could have confidence in the draft form or once it has been agreed? nature of the technical issues at the heart of the Michael Moore: Inevitably, given the nature of the legislation. We have not yet agreed what that process involved, it will be once it is agreed because document looks like and how it will be shaped, but I it is important that the two Governments are able to am sure there will be something alongside the section report to their Parliaments that this is the basis of an 30 order to give Parliaments confidence in the process agreement agreed between them. and that will spell out more of the detail.

Q1488 Simon Reevell: You were asked whether Q1491 Chair: The memorandum of understanding, Parliament would have the opportunity to scrutinise if I can use that term—unless there is a more any draft order, and, in fairness to you, in fact the appropriate one—would be morally and politically but answer to that is no. The answer you gave was yes, not legally binding. and I don’t want you to have answered that if that is Michael Moore: It would be our intention to make it not what you meant to say. a strong statement of political commitment from the Michael Moore: I am very grateful for the two Governments, but it would not have the same opportunity to be clear. It would be the agreed order legal force as the section 30 order. that we would bring to Parliament. Q1492 Chair: That is a yes then. Q1489 Chair: That is something about which we Michael Moore: I am just trying to make the would possibly want to have further discussions, because we are not entirely happy with the idea that, distinction, but yes. as representatives of Scotland’s MPs, we are presented with a fait accompli, which is essentially what the deal Q1493 Lindsay Roy: In essence, what you are would be, because only the nuclear option of rejection saying is that a climate of confidence and trust is vital. of the whole process would be available to Scotland’s Michael Moore: I think that is important for the MPs in those circumstances rather than any whole process, not just for transferring the power but meaningful input into the process. Is that not correct? conducting the referendum itself. That is one of the Michael Moore: I hope that we will be able to satisfy key issues we are considering with the Scottish you through this process, not just this afternoon but Government at the moment. I believe they understand later on, that what we are doing is sensible, good for that people not just in this Parliament but, more Scotland and meets the requirements of this importantly, across Scotland, dare I say, need Committee, but clearly you will want to look at that confidence in the process we are setting up, that what very carefully and will do, I am sure. we will enter into is a fair electoral contest and we cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG07 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o007_db_Corrected SAC 120917.xml

Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 207

17 September 2012 Rt Hon Michael Moore MP, Rt Hon David Mundell MP and Alun Evans can all have confidence in the outcome. The more of have a view, too—on how robust the proposals are that that can be spelt out the better. coming forward from the Scottish Government, but we are still at a very early stage in this. At the moment Q1494 Lindsay Roy: Can I ask what you are doing I don’t know where the balance of that will need to lie. specifically to generate that climate of confidence and trust? Q1498 Simon Reevell: As I understood your answer Michael Moore: From the outset, with our own to Mr McGovern, discussions on the section 30 order consultation, we were clear on the principles that had are to be completed by 22 October. to be at the heart of the transfer of power. To make Michael Moore: In an ideal world. this whole process made in Scotland rather than made in London, the Scottish Parliament have to have the Q1499 Simon Reevell: So, if we are at an early power; they don’t at the moment, so that is the starting stage, we are in a world where the stages must be very point. Beyond that, it is the involvement of the short, because in about a month we are going to get Electoral Commission, who have set the rules and from the early stage to the end of it. overseen the contests in elections and referendums for Michael Moore: We are setting a fairly rapid pace. a very long period. We think they are important to that Over the summer David had a whole series of confidence. There is a lot of detail inside there that discussions with Bruce Crawford and latterly had an people will look to see as familiar and something that initial meeting with Nicola Sturgeon. That worked gives them confidence that there is somebody looking through some very important chunky details. Last after it. Thursday, it was clear from public statements made in Lindsay Roy: I am glad you have raised that, and, advance, the nature of what we discussed and what through the Chair, we will come on to these we said subsequently that both Governments really do questions later. want to get on with this. We are meeting this Wednesday and are ready to meet again thereafter. Q1495 Chair: You have used the term “made in Yes, these stages will be short, but at this stage, here Scotland” a couple of times, as if it did not include today, the detail is still at an early stage. yourself. Surely, “made in Scotland” includes you as Secretary of State for Scotland elected by people in Q1500 Simon Reevell: You have referred twice in Scotland and other MPs as well. answers, when talking about things being dealt with Michael Moore: It does. It involves all of us and all by 22 October, to a single-question referendum. You of this Parliament, but I also think—this has been the used that expression on two occasions. Is that a deciding point for us—it is important that the Scottish section 30 matter rather than a side letter matter? Parliament is at the heart of this process and that Michael Moore: Yes. It is essential that, in MSPs are involved in it too. transferring the power, we set out what that power is. Chair: Absolutely. Michael Moore: But Scotland’s two Governments are Q1501 Simon Reevell: If—and I appreciate it is working together to enable that to happen. “if”—negotiations go to plan, in about a month’s time we should know that it is a single-question Q1496 Chair: That is right, but Scotland’s MPs referendum and that that issue will be contained would also be at the heart of this. within the section 30 order. Michael Moore: I think you are showing that right Michael Moore: With a fair wind and with agreement. now, sir. I stress that at this stage our view is clear. The Scottish Chair: We are indeed. I raise it in case there was any Government have set out a number or views about the doubt on that matter. questions and how many there should be. There is quite a lot to get through and to agree, but we are Q1497 Simon Reevell: Can I take you back briefly working hard to do that. to this point about the section 30 order and memorandum of understanding, letters of comfort or Q1502 Simon Reevell: Things such as a single whatever you want to call them? Recognising the question you do not regard as suitable for side letters difference between the two—the section 30 order is or whatever you want to call them. legally enforceable; the others are not—what are your Michael Moore: No. minimum requirements for the section 30 order? In Chair: That is helpful. other words, what are those matters that, together with transfer of power, have to be included in the Q1503 Lindsay Roy: Can you tell us what the red section 30 order so that they are legally enforceable? lines are for you in this process? Michael Moore: At the moment the starting point will Michael Moore: If you don’t mind, I would not wish be the requirement to transfer the capability to have a to share every last detail of the way I am approaching referendum on a constitutional matter. At present that the discussions with the Scottish Government. is all 100% reserved to this Parliament. We have to start with that and, I believe, set out that we are going Q1504 Lindsay Roy: They could be blue lines. to have a referendum on independence. Michael Moore: Essentially, I want to see a package Frankly, the rules that govern a referendum also need that ensures we have a referendum whose legal basis to be very clear to people. Whether that is in the is beyond challenge, which is about independence and section 30 order or it can now be in a separate is governed by a set of rules that those on both sides document depends for my part—of course you will all of the argument regard as fair and decisive. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG07 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o007_db_Corrected SAC 120917.xml

Ev 208 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

17 September 2012 Rt Hon Michael Moore MP, Rt Hon David Mundell MP and Alun Evans

Lindsay Roy: That is helpful. Q1509 Chair: I think it is clear that anything other Chair: Iain? than a single-question referendum would not pass Iain McKenzie: I think, Chair, the question on the through this Parliament, so that obviously makes a issue of a single question, how that would be dealt difference. Can I ask about the wording and the with and so on has been answered. agreement about how this is to be handled? Is there an agreement that the wording will be dealt with by Q1505 Chair: You expect to reach an agreement the Electoral Commission? with the Scottish Government on a single question. Michael Moore: In the published consultation and the Michael Moore: I hope I will; that is where we are public comments that have been made by Scottish coming from. Different members of the Scottish Government Ministers, they have agreed that the Government have said they want a single question; we Electoral Commission should be central to the have heard others suggest there might be two, but I process, but we have yet to work through the detail of am working on the basis that we will get an agreement how they envisage that would work. I wait to see the on a single question. proposals and how they think they would involve them, but I am encouraged by the fact they recognise Q1506 Iain McKenzie: How would you deal with the expertise and experience that the Electoral that in a section 30 order? Would that also be Commission offer, most recently when it came to the intimated? local government elections in May of this year. Michael Moore: That would be spelt out in the section 30 order under my plan. Q1510 Iain McKenzie: Secretary of State, do you agree that the Electoral Commission should regulate Q1507 Lindsay Roy: Is that a red line? the referendum? Michael Moore: I don’t think we have a referendum Michael Moore: It is important that we have a trusted on independence if we don’t have a single question, body, which undoubtedly the Electoral Commission and the expectation in Scotland is that we need to are, to set and oversee the rules of the game. In a resolve the issue of independence. Some people have offered the idea that you could do this with two referendum here, run and authorised by the UK questions. I think there is a pretty straightforward set Parliament, the Government have clear of answers to that. The mandate secured by the SNP responsibilities to put a question to the Electoral in last year’s election was its manifesto commitment Commission, which must review it and report back to to an independence referendum. I don’t accept for a this Parliament, and, at the end of the process, review minute that independence and devolution are the same how the referendum was carried out. I think that is the thing. Therefore, there is not a sliding scale between gold standard people are looking to see agreed and the two; they should not be on the same ballot paper. approached by the Scottish Government. I have no A further observation is that there isn’t a second reason to doubt that that is where they want to get to. question to ask; there isn’t a body of opinion out there I look forward to seeing how they want to do that. that has given us a fully-formed version of the next stage of devolution beyond this year’s Scotland Act, Q1511 Iain McKenzie: Could you assure this so it is pretty hard to work out what you would ask Committee that the Electoral Commission will take about. the question out and test it and come back with a Lastly, there is a legitimacy point. I have seen a lot of fair question? different clever ways of trying to formulate a two- Michael Moore: The Scottish Government’s own question ballot paper, with gateway or side-by-side observations on this, as well as our expectations as questions, but you always end up with a difficulty. Scottish MPs, mean that this will not, I hope, be an How would you interpret the outcome, particularly issue. The need for them to look at the question and when I understand that for some nationalists the view report on it is very important indeed. I can’t see how is that, once you had answered the first question, if that won’t be agreed. there was a majority for independence, it would not matter if a much bigger majority was in favour of more powers because that would be disregarded? I Q1512 Chair: Surely, this would be another red line, don’t think that anybody would have confidence in an effectively. It would not be acceptable for the Scottish outcome where you were arguing over what it meant, Government or SNP to pick the question without and I don’t think that would settle it in Scotland. So consulting and involving the Electoral Commission, it seems to me a single question is needed. or to disregard their recommendations. As we said in our report, “Do you agree that this is a biased Q1508 Lindsay Roy: It does not meet the objective question?”, it would seem that we cannot have vested of clarity. interests drawing up the question in these Michael Moore: If I may say so, I don’t think it circumstances. Surely, that must be a red line. actually meets the Scottish Government’s requirement Michael Moore: The Electoral Commission to be for clarity on a central manifesto process. We are involved, in whatever way they might be, will want working hard to help them honour a manifesto to set the highest possible standards, and I want to see commitment. We have been very constructive and that. We will see what proposals are brought forward co-operative in that. I think they respond to and from the Scottish Government. I regard it as respect that fact, and that is why we are able to talk fundamental that we have a referee and a set of rules to each other. that all of us as Scots can have confidence in. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG07 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o007_db_Corrected SAC 120917.xml

Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 209

17 September 2012 Rt Hon Michael Moore MP, Rt Hon David Mundell MP and Alun Evans

Q1513 Chair: But, surely, anything other than a Q1516 Chair: It is helpful to have your commitment from the Scottish Government that they understanding that the question produced by the three will accept the recommendations of the Electoral parties in the Better Together campaign will be Commission would not be acceptable. considered as part of this process. Michael Moore: I find it almost impossible to Michael Moore: I am surmising—the process has not envisage circumstances in which they would disregard been set out yet—that that is entirely reasonable and the Electoral Commission’s views. It is such an something that most people across Scotland will important thing for all of us in Scotland and so expect. I would be very surprised if the Scottish fundamental that people can have confidence in this. Government turned round and found that difficult. In fairness, I think this is the direction of travel that Chair: That is helpful. the Scottish Government are following. They want the Electoral Commission involved. Their own Q1517 Mr Reid: Secretary of State, you said earlier consultation suggested tweaking the arrangements to that the normal rules for carrying out referendums in a certain extent to take account of the fact that the the UK should apply. I just want to explore how that Electoral Management Board is now in place in will be implemented in practice. Will all the Scotland. Obviously, that is a body that does not exist legislation that has been built up over the years for south of the border, but it would be able to run the UK referendums automatically apply to this one? polls. That is the kind of tweak to the system that we Michael Moore: I think the spirit of the principle, would encourage and see as part of this. The fact they framework and the rules that are there must and will are suggesting that in the consultation is a good apply. We are at a very early stage of discussing how indication. the mechanics of that are done through the section 30 order. Q1514 Chair: Is there any reason why the Electoral Commission should not be asked by both Q1518 Mr Reid: Will the section 30 order say that Governments to examine the proposed question now? the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act Since the Electoral Commission will presumably take applies, or will the Scottish Parliament have the power to amend that Act as it relates to this referendum? some period to examine the question, surely that need Michael Moore: not wait on everything else being settled. They will not have the power to amend that Act; only this Parliament has that power. Michael Moore: If I may say so, it is important that we have an agreement to be scrutinised by this Q1519 Mr Reid: Parliament and the Scottish Parliament, which says As it relates to this referendum. that, in principle, this power is going to be devolved, Michael Moore: It depends on what powers are used by the Electoral Commission to review questions and subject to parliamentary approval. To do it right now run the referendum, but we have said to the Scottish would be running ahead of the process, but, if we were Government that we believe all this detail is to achieve the timetable I highlighted earlier, there is important, so the presumption is that it starts as part ample time for the Electoral Commission to be able of the section 30 order. If it is to be different, we to do their work, which will involve testing the would need to understand how and in what way that wording of whatever question is proposed to them. would be delivered, but I have not had any proposals Bear in mind that, while the Scottish Government from them on that as yet. have put a particular question into the public consultation, they have not yet given their final view Q1520 Mr Reid: I am still not clear what powers of what that question might look like following that the Scottish Parliament will have to legislate for the consultation. Other views have been put forward. referendum. I agree that they cannot amend the Independent experts who were asked to review this by Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act, but the party leaders in the Scottish Parliament have come does that Act automatically apply to this referendum, forward with a different formulation. I think that and or do the Scottish Parliament have any powers? others will get ample opportunity to be scrutinised and Michael Moore: Nothing automatically applies to the have plenty of time. referendum. The Scottish Government have publicly stated that they want to see the PPERA framework Q1515 Chair: To be clear, do you think that these in place. other questions will also be scrutinised by the Electoral Commission as part of the process? Q1521 Chair: We are starting from the point of view Michael Moore: Either because the Electoral that any departure from what can be seen as the norm Commission invite people to give them their views on would have to be justified. The norm, as far as we can a question proposed to them or because those see, would be the AV referendum and general particular points are put directly to the Electoral elections. Given that we have already reported on Commission. The process by which they review what we saw as an outrageously biased question, we questions is pretty time-consuming and very thorough. wouldn’t want to have anything that smacks of rigging It involves a lot of testing of the formulations of the ballot to the advantage of one side or the other. words, phrases and so on, and, in the course of doing Therefore, having something coming back that says that, they may be inundated with suggestions as to any departure from the norm has to be agreed by both what will make this fair or not, but in the end they sides would give us considerable reassurance. need to take an independent view. Michael Moore: I understand that. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG07 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o007_db_Corrected SAC 120917.xml

Ev 210 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

17 September 2012 Rt Hon Michael Moore MP, Rt Hon David Mundell MP and Alun Evans

Q1522 Chair: That is pretty much an undertaking David Mundell: I am in complete agreement with from yourself that that is going to be the template. what the Secretary of State has said to date, obviously. Michael Moore: I have said many times—I am happy We have all worked to get to this point. A lot of to say it again—that the test for all of us is that people preparatory work has been done, and now it is about have confidence in the legitimacy of the contest. The finalising the negotiation. We have had a wide-ranging PPERA framework is central to that. How that is discussion about some of those issues as part of that delivered technically is a matter still for discussion, negotiation. but I understand what you are saying, which chimes pretty well with most views I hear in other parts of Q1528 Chair: Maybe I ought to mention that, when the country and, I believe, is entirely in the spirit in we have academic witnesses in front of us on things which the Scottish Government are approaching this. like defence, we always stress that it would be helpful if they disagreed in front of us in order that we can Q1523 Chair: I accept that the spirit in which the get a grasp of the issues that are under debate and Scottish Government are approaching this seems to discussion. If you feel the need to clarify things by have changed from the day they came forward with disagreeing, do so. an outrageously biased question, but we would none Michael Moore: That is typically generous, if I may the less want to be clear whether or not it would be say so. your intention that the memorandum of understanding would itself include reference to the practical Q1529 Jim McGovern: We now come on to the arrangements taking place in order to have that dirty work: money. Will the regulatory framework ban reassurance and not just simply that powers are foreign donations from people who live outside the handed over willy-nilly and then perhaps a majority United Kingdom? in the Scottish Parliament decide to do some things Michael Moore: I don’t think that foreign donations that outsiders would consider outrageous. should play a part in this. Again, the precise form in Michael Moore: I think we are using different which that is made clear has not been discussed in any language, but essentially it is an agreement that we great detail or agreed, but, as far as I am aware, we have not had a proposal from the Scottish Government have to have a robust process and a good framework that foreign donations should be allowed. that enables all of us, whether we are parliamentarians here or in Edinburgh, or members of the public in our constituencies, to have confidence in the process. Q1530 Jim McGovern: That is a matter of opinion, Those are recognisably the normal rules for carrying but as yet it is not a matter of fact. Michael Moore: It has not been debated or discussed out a referendum. That is the test we are working to in detail, but I take your clear view on this, Mr in our discussions with the Scottish Government. McGovern. In the case of a normal UK general election, people would not be allowed to make Q1524 Chair: To press you on this point, will these donations unless they were UK registered voters, but be in the MOU? that detail hasn’t yet been covered. Michael Moore: As I said to Mr Reevell and Mr Reid earlier, at this stage I don’t know. They could easily Q1531 Jim McGovern: If we are looking for a be in the section 30 order itself or in the MOU. precedent, how did it apply in the Welsh referendum? Michael Moore: In practical terms, the Welsh didn’t Q1525 Chair: The question is whether or not they allow it. I confess that at this moment I am not entirely are in the section 30 order or the MOU and not clear whether in technical terms it was specifically whether they are there at all. excluded, but I have asked officials to double check Michael Moore: Nobody envisages a blank cheque that. being handed over to the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament on this particular issue. I don’t Q1532 Chair: Mr Evans, that is something you will think, frankly, that is what the Scottish Parliament are know, isn’t it? looking for, so we will work our way through that. Alun Evans: I must admit that I am not an expert on Welsh electoral reform— Q1526 Chair: That is very helpful. Mr Evans, were Chair: Regrettable. you about to burst into speech? Alun Evans:—but we will follow it up for the Alun Evans: I was going to add the point that we Committee. have agreed with the Scottish Government that the PPERA will be the basis of the negotiations. If there Q1533 Chair: Perhaps you would. The first of our were to be any deviations from that which was agreed comments is perfectly clear. as part of the order or the memorandum of Michael Moore: Very clear. understanding, they would be laid before both Chair: Can I just clarify the point about tax exiles? Parliaments. So it would be quite transparent if there Jim McGovern: Chair, I presume we will get an were any variation. answer to that in writing. Chair: Yes. Q1527 Chair: Mr Mundell, you are the only one who hasn’t spoken yet. Are you happy with Q1534 Jim McGovern: It is the answers that are everything Michael is saying, or would you like to not quite clear yet. disagree with him on a couple of subjects? Michael Moore: Touché. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG07 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o007_db_Corrected SAC 120917.xml

Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 211

17 September 2012 Rt Hon Michael Moore MP, Rt Hon David Mundell MP and Alun Evans

Q1535 Chair: The position of tax exiles, some of we have seen any detailed proposals other than what whom have been quite vocal in these matters recently, is in the consultation at the moment. would depend upon whether or not they were registered voters in the United Kingdom, would it not? Q1542 Jim McGovern: Is it fair to assume that that Michael Moore: Under normal rules, yes. will not be part of a section 30 order? Michael Moore: It is unlikely that all of that will be Q1536 Chair: There is no suggestion that there agreed in that time. On the other hand, it is really would be any difference. important to all participants in the process that they Michael Moore: I have not heard any suggestion that recognise a fair set of financial rules, in a way that tax exiles are going to have an exception made for not just they but the Scottish public can have them on this particular occasion. confidence that we are setting up a fair contest. There would be nothing worse than having Governments Q1537 Chair: When the French Government held agreeing and perhaps even Parliaments endorsing it their recent general election they had ballot boxes in and then the campaigns saying this doesn’t work; this London because they allow expats to vote, but you are isn’t right. If we haven’t nailed down the details, we not proposing to allow something similar for Monaco, will need to understand exactly how those details the Bahamas or anywhere like that. would be nailed down. At this stage my presumption Michael Moore: It was an early area of agreement is that it is the rules as they apply, but we will see between the two Governments—hopefully, Parliament what the Scottish Government have to say. will endorse it—that the Scottish Parliament franchise is the one that should be used, and therefore it is those Q1543 Jim McGovern: The rules as they apply to resident in Scotland who will get the vote. general elections and Scottish elections. Michael Moore: Or a referendum. We have an Q1538 Chair: And none of those constituencies interesting parallel in the Welsh Assembly referendum includes Monaco or the Bahamas. powers where they use as a benchmark the national Michael Moore: Not even under the broader-ranging campaign totals for the National Assembly elections Boundary Commission proposals. themselves. As I read them, the current proposals from the Scottish Government are substantially lower Q1539 Chair: Not even under the European than that, but I look forward to discussing that with elections, because Gibraltar is included in the south- them, having a greater understanding of what they west under the European elections, is it not? propose or how they would like to resolve this. Michael Moore: I have not heard anybody make that suggestion. Q1544 Chair: The difference here, surely, is the Chair: That is very helpful. length of run-in period that there might be before the referendum takes place. The AV referendum, which Q1540 Jim McGovern: To go back to the subject you may not have forgotten though might wish to, of donations, in line with the points you have just was organised fairly quickly. Here we have potentially been making about who is allowed to vote and who is quite a long time before the vote in the referendum allowed to donate, presumably, for the purpose of takes place. Therefore, if there are no controls at all people who wish to make a donation to whichever between now and then, huge amounts of money could campaign, the rest of the UK outwith Scotland is not potentially be spent and one side could possibly buy regarded as a foreign country. the referendum on the basis of having much more to Michael Moore: Correct. spend than the other. I think you are saying it is unlikely that you will have an agreement on this by Q1541 Jim McGovern: That is pretty clear. Still on 22 October, but is it possible to have, as part of the the money side of things, how will limits on MOU, an agreement about how it would be agreed, expenditure in the campaign be set and calculated? which was then binding on both sides so that that How will it be decided how much anybody can spend? could be resolved at a later stage? Michael Moore: This is a really important issue for Michael Moore: This is so important that we will both campaigns, because neither was formally need to have a strong measure of understanding and constituted when the two Governments set out their agreement about how it will proceed so that people own consultations earlier in the year. All we have had can have confidence in the process. so far are the proposals that the Scottish Government As far as the regulated period is concerned, the put in their own consultation. We have not had the Electoral Commission have looked at these issues and consultation responses published or their commentary offered some thoughts about whether it should be 12 on what that says. On the other hand, the Electoral or 16 weeks. The Scottish Government have proposed Commission and others clearly will want to take a 16 weeks. I don’t disagree in principle with that being view about what the appropriate levels of spending extended. The last four-month period is absolutely might be, and it is important that both campaigns get fundamental to the debate and outcome. In the the opportunity to discuss what those levels should be. meantime, we as a UK Government, political parties If the proposal is to depart from what is now the and other groups will want to enter into the debate accepted approach on donation levels, that would have and, come the moment of the regulated period, the to be very carefully explained and agreed by the two UK Government wouldn’t formally be producing new different campaigns. That is not something on which material for that debate. Some people might think it cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG07 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o007_db_Corrected SAC 120917.xml

Ev 212 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

17 September 2012 Rt Hon Michael Moore MP, Rt Hon David Mundell MP and Alun Evans is good to start that period as soon as possible. I don’t sides of the campaign in the run-up to the regulated necessarily think that is right. period? Michael Moore: I have not seen that as my role, to Q1545 Chair: Are you saying that the only debate be honest, but I do think it is important that the two that is taking place is about controlling how long the campaigns are engaged in the discussions around regulated period should be? Surely, there has to be campaign finance and so on, and what the Scottish some agreement outwith the regulated period. Government might want to do in discussing those with Michael Moore: There hasn’t been in the past, and them and coming to an agreement is something I look the whole idea of the regulated period is that you forward to seeing. control the rules around that. Q1551 Simon Reevell: Going back briefly to the Q1546 Chair: That is right, but for the AV content of the section 30 order, I presume you have referendum it was a relatively short period. Now, we had significant discussion with the Scottish are potentially talking about a period of a year and a Government about franchise. half, if not more, before the referendum takes place. Michael Moore: We have had “in principle” In fact it is more than two years, isn’t it, potentially? discussions with them and we start from a broadly Michael Moore: Yes. similar place in terms of the franchise being that which applies to the Scottish Parliament. Q1547 Chair: More than two years and only the last 16 weeks would have expenditure controls. Surely, Q1552 Simon Reevell: Do you see franchise as that can’t be right. That could potentially give an being a section 30 order matter or a side letter matter? enormous benefit to the side with the deepest pockets. Michael Moore: It depends, again, on the nature of Michael Moore: The two campaigns may wish to the agreement between the two Governments. In terms make representations on these issues. My take on the of the franchise, in theory, one could be silent on the situation as things stand is that nobody is proposing a matter in the section 30 order, but I don’t think radical departure from 12 or 16 weeks. We might have anybody would accept that there would be silence in heard by now if that was an issue, but the way this is any accompanying documentation. This is an early controlled and regulated is an important part of the area where we have discussed with the Scottish discussions that I will be having with Nicola Sturgeon Government the need for everybody to have over the next few days. confidence about who will be able to vote and for them to spell it out. Q1548 Mr Reid: Where will the legislative power lie in order to determine the regulated period? Will Q1553 Simon Reevell: I accept entirely that it that still lie with Westminster as it is responsible for would have to be in the section 30 order or the the PPERA, or will power be devolved to the Scottish accompanying documents. I just wonder whether you Parliament to decide the regulated period? see it as a section 30 matter. Michael Moore: One option would be to put that into Michael Moore: Our starting point in all of this stuff the section 30 order, but, equally, the Scottish is that it is a section 30 order unless there is a strong, Government may wish to make public commitments clear agreement that can be put into a separate that that is the basis on which it would take the document. I want to see the balance of the proposal legislation through the Scottish Parliament. As things from the Scottish Government before we determine stand, we are still at a very early stage in those whether we have sufficient comfort to leave it out of discussions, so I do not have from them a firm the section 30 order. The more that is left out of the proposal on that. section 30 order, the more it is the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament to detail it. Q1549 Mr Reid: If the section 30 order was silent on the regulated period, would the Scottish Parliament Q1554 Simon Reevell: What would be the have the power to determine it, or is it already written circumstances that you could envisage where, when down in the PPERA? this Parliament was examining a section 30 order for Michael Moore: Under the PPERA, a degree of this a referendum on independence, it didn’t have the could be done informally once the Scottish detail of the franchise? Government were established as, say, the relevant Michael Moore: I don’t think I would be asking you Government for the purposes of the referendum. It or anybody else in this Parliament to take this simply could be approached based on the advisory powers on trust. Whether or not it is spelt out in the order or that are there. My view is that we need to have as the accompanying documents is a matter on which I much of this detail explicitly spelt out either in the will have to return to you and persuade you that we section 30 order or, if that is not going to be the case, have made the right judgment, but it will have to be a clear commitment that the spirit of what the Scottish covered. We will not be silent on that matter. Government are saying so far will be spelt out in the memorandum or accompanying documents and then Q1555 Simon Reevell: We know from the earlier taken through the Parliament in that way. answers that the accompanying document is not legally binding; only the section 30 order is. In what Q1550 Mr Reid: Have you examined the possibility circumstances would it be appropriate for the of trying to reach a voluntary agreement between both franchise to be other than in the legally binding order? cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG07 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o007_db_Corrected SAC 120917.xml

Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 213

17 September 2012 Rt Hon Michael Moore MP, Rt Hon David Mundell MP and Alun Evans

Michael Moore: The legal issue here is whether or Q1560 Simon Reevell: Maybe it is the “detail”; you not the Parliament has competence to carry out the never know. referendum. Unless it is explicitly ruled out, which in Michael Moore: Maybe it is a helpful intervention. terms of the constitution it is, the Scottish Parliament What I am looking to see is the proposal on the can carry out a referendum on any subject within its franchise from the Scottish Government and how they competence. It follows from that that the franchise envisage that being worked through. Whether it is in belongs to the Scottish Parliament to determine. In the section 30 order or elsewhere, as yet we have not straightforward terms, we could devolve that power got that. without the detail of the franchise and just leave that to the Scottish Parliament exclusively to resolve, but, Q1561 Simon Reevell: I suppose one reason for not recognising and understanding that not just the two wanting it in the section 30 order and having it in Governments have to agree but the Parliaments have a side document is if you wanted to leave open the to endorse it, we want that spelt out more clearly. possibility of them extending the franchise to 16 or Whether it is in the order or side by side with it 17-year-olds. Are those considerations? depends upon the quality of the assurances and Michael Moore: The issue of 16 and 17-year-olds is commitments that the Scottish Government wish to clearly an important and lively one. As yet, we have make, but that is at a very early stage of the discussion had no firm proposal from Ministers to discuss exactly at the moment. what they are proposing there. They have said aspirationally they would like to include it. The Q1556 Simon Reevell: Isn’t the quality of the suggestions they have put forward at the moment assurance dependent upon whether it is in the don’t deal with a wholly new franchise for 16 and section 30 order or the side documents? If you are 17-year-olds but simply those who are already on the seeking quality of assurance, the best quality of electoral register before they attain the age of 18. assurance is if it is a section 30 matter. Technically, it is a very grey area. It is important that Michael Moore: That is the gold standard, but we they provide some clear details to us. are seeking to get the balance here between the two Governments and Parliaments agreeing something that then enables the power to be devolved and for the Q1562 Simon Reevell: It could be made less grey if Scottish Parliament’s Bill to contain serious matters the franchise was dealt with in the section 30 order. of substance. That is a judgment call that we can make Michael Moore: Absolutely. only when we see the particular proposals that they bring forward. Q1563 Simon Reevell: Just so I am clear, can you assure us that the reason you are not saying franchise Q1557 Simon Reevell: I am sure it is me, but I don’t is a section 30 matter is to allow room to put it in a understand why, if the issue of franchise can be side document, which could then be modified to clarified, it can’t be a section 30 matter. I can include 16 or 17-year-olds? I am not suggesting you understand it if what you are saying is, “We can’t are saying that, but a cynic might think that. clarify it, so we want it to be dealt with by some sort Michael Moore: You could do that in the section 30 of side document, which isn’t binding”, but, if it can order too; you could put explicit rules in that order, be agreed and clarified, there is no possible objection depending on what had been agreed. The difficulty to it being a section 30 matter. with this conversation is that at the moment our Michael Moore: It absolutely could be in the presumption would be against 16 and 17-year-olds section 30 order. having the vote for this one-off electoral event, but the Scottish Government want to bring forward their Q1558 Simon Reevell: Would you prefer to see it detailed proposals, and I await those from them. as a section 30 matter? Michael Moore: Unless there are very strong Q1564 Simon Reevell: I don’t want to go over this alternatives in terms of the memorandum, or whatever for ever, but, finally, the point I am trying to make is it might be styled, clearly that is my starting point. this. I am suggesting that franchise is something that can be clearly defined and put in a section 30 order. Q1559 Simon Reevell: Can you envisage You seem to not want to commit to that. I am circumstances where it would be preferable to have it wondering whether the reason you want franchise to in a side document? I can’t, and I’m just wondering if be the subject of a side document is that it is then not I’m missing something. legally binding in the same way and so the Scottish Michael Moore: Perhaps we are approaching this in Government could amend it. a slightly different way. I am not sitting here or in my Michael Moore: The Scottish Government would be discussions with the Scottish Government and saying, able, once they had the power in the referendum, to “There’s no chance of our coming to any kind of determine that franchise, but if they want to go agreement here. We don’t believe it is possible to rely beyond the existing franchise they would need new on an assurance from you here, here or here, but I legislation that set that out and to bear the costs. would need to see the quality of that assurance and what you are actually proposing.” Part of the difficulty Q1565 Simon Reevell: But that would be a matter about the conversation right now is that because we for the Scottish Government. have not seen any detail it is hypothetical. [A mobile Michael Moore: It certainly wouldn’t be anything phone rang] for us. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG07 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o007_db_Corrected SAC 120917.xml

Ev 214 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

17 September 2012 Rt Hon Michael Moore MP, Rt Hon David Mundell MP and Alun Evans

Q1566 Simon Reevell: Once it is off a section 30 should be an obstacle to an agreement between the order and on to a side document, the Scottish two Governments— Government can legislate to extend the franchise. Michael Moore: If they were to choose to do that. Q1572 Chair: It should not necessarily be an obstacle, but the timing of a decision to break up Q1567 Simon Reevell: If they chose to. If it is in a Britain surely is also a subject of interest to the section 30 order, they cannot. British Parliament. Michael Moore: If it is explicitly ruled out in a Michael Moore: It is a matter of great interest to section 30 order, because at the moment you could do everybody, but somebody has to determine the date. I a section 30 order with no reference to it whatsoever. believe it is right that that should be a matter for the Scottish Parliament, but not indefinitely. They have Q1568 Simon Reevell: Yes, you could. Will you got a mandate. ensure that the section 30 order is used so that the franchise is defined at the time this Parliament Q1573 Chair: Exclusively. Everything else you have approves the section 30 order, because, otherwise, you been saying has got to be the subject of a are asking Parliament to approve a process of memorandum of understanding, agreement, discussion referendum for independence with what might be a and so on, but unilaterally you seem to be saying that moving franchise? If it is defined only in a side this should be left to the Scottish Parliament. This document, the Scottish Government can change the seems to be the only issue, I think, that you say should franchise after they have been given the power to be left unilaterally to the Scottish Parliament. conduct the referendum. Michael Moore: The Prime Minister indicated earlier Michael Moore: The basis on which they would seek in the summer that, in the spirit of ensuring that we to do anything, if that were their proposal, would to could come to an agreement, we were willing to pass my mind have to be clear as part of the agreement this power to the Scottish Parliament for use within between the two Governments. The difficulty at the the defined period. This is not an indefinite power that moment is that we do not have a clear proposition lasts for ever and ever. They have a mandate for a referendum on independence for this Parliament. We from them about exactly what franchise they want to believe it should take place by the end of 2014, and put forward. I envisage that they will bring that that is the basis on which we seek to reach agreement. forward soon. In the end, we will need to make a judgment about reaching an agreement with them as to what is the best and most appropriate way to reach Q1574 Chair: That is the Government’s view—the Prime Minister’s view—but it is not necessarily that agreement that gives both this Parliament Parliament’s view, because Parliament hasn’t been confidence in that process and the Scottish Parliament asked. confidence and the ability to fulfil its obligation under Michael Moore: Mr Davidson, I am sure that you and its Referendum Bill. others will let us know what you think about that Simon Reevell: I can only give you the opportunity particular proposal. so many times. Q1575 Chair: I think we are doing so at the Q1569 Chair: You are confident that all of this will moment; that is the process. be sorted out by 22 October, are you? Michael Moore: Indeed. It is my judgment that, Michael Moore: I am very hopeful that, if the spirit having a clear window in which this power can be in which we entered discussions— devolved—

Q1570 Chair: That is a yes then, is it? Q1576 Chair: Is the date of 2014 the only issue, Michael Moore:—the week before last continues, apart from the issue of the single question, on which then, yes, but politics is politics. Who knows? the Government have a settled position, or are there other things you have also conceded that have not Q1571 Chair: Indeed it is. Can I turn to the question been drawn to our attention? of the date? Has anything been firmly resolved about Michael Moore: We have had a good opportunity this the date? Potentially, this seems to be spinning it out afternoon to discuss all the different issues. I am very quite a long time, and many people have not been grateful for the patience of the Committee in entirely convinced that it has to wait until the tail end recognising that, when you are in this stage of the of 2014. The only reason for 2014 is the discussions, a lot of the detail still has to be brought Commonwealth Games and the anniversary of to our attention, never mind yours. On all the different Bannockburn, but there seems to be no reason why issues we have discussed, we are clear that we need this exercise could not be undertaken a great deal to have very firm agreements so that we will get the quicker. Has this already been agreed? support of this Parliament as well as the Scottish Michael Moore: I believe that to resolve the Parliament to the section 30 order and other uncertainty, politically and economically, the sooner documents. this can happen the better, but it is ultimately my judgment—one that we accepted as a Government Q1577 Jim McGovern: On the same subject, it earlier in the year—that within the context of this would appear that almost everything is up for Parliament the timing should be a matter for the negotiation: the franchise and one question or two Scottish Parliament to determine. We don’t believe it questions. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG07 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o007_db_Corrected SAC 120917.xml

Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 215

17 September 2012 Rt Hon Michael Moore MP, Rt Hon David Mundell MP and Alun Evans

Michael Moore: No. We have been clear that a lot of this and they hadn’t shifted at all, we wouldn’t even of the detail has not come forward from the Scottish be discussing this. Government yet about how they wish to deal with some of the central issues that are really important to Q1581 Chair: Can I clarify whether or not any steps us to make this a legal, fair and decisive referendum, will be taken to ensure that the Commonwealth but a single question is right at the heart of that. I Games—the Glasgow games—are not politicised in a hope I was clear about that earlier. way that detracts from the general theme so that they don’t just simply become a giant SNP rally? Are you Q1578 Jim McGovern: Yes, you were actually; we seeking assurances from the Scottish Government that don’t disagree on that. Perhaps I may say that is one they will not seek to abuse their position to try to of the issues we seem to have given up almost from inject politics into the Commonwealth Games to be day one, although I am quite sure, Secretary of State, held in Glasgow? I have heard you call for an earlier referendum. I have Michael Moore: I don’t think it is in anybody’s certainly heard our party leader call for it and David’s interests that such a thing should be done. The leader has called for an earlier referendum, but we Commonwealth Games organisers, the city of never seem to have pushed that one. We have said that Glasgow and other key stakeholders in what we hope we want a single question, but we seem to have given will be a fantastic games in two years’ time—all of up on the date. Although we have made noises and them—will want this to be done in a way that is free done a bit of sabre-rattling, we seem to have given of politics, which is neutral and keeps politicians at that up from day one and let them do it and make the arm’s length. I am confident that the organisers of the running on that one. Why is that? games and all the different stakeholders will ensure Michael Moore: A judgment had to be taken. The that that happens. First Minister and others have said from the outset when they want this referendum to be. We have Q1582 Chair: Certainly some politicians might end sought to argue— up being booed if they turned up too much at the Commonwealth Games and were seen to try to abuse Q1579 Jim McGovern: They have also said that it. To make a final point on timing, are you aware that maybe they want more than one question and also 16 some defence contractors might very well run out of and 17-year-olds to vote. On certain things the pro- work before the referendum takes place because they UK parties have taken a stance and said, “No, no; this are dependent upon UK work, particularly the is the way we want it to be done.” Although we have shipyards? As I understand it, they are scheduled to made certain noises about when the referendum run out before the date of the referendum. Because the should take place, we seem to have been very soft on UK Government, quite understandably and probably this one and more or less given up. Why is that? correctly, have decided that new orders will not be Michael Moore: I wouldn’t necessarily accept that. placed until after the referendum, we could end up However, in the spirit of illustrating that we are in a situation, because of the undue delay, that those willing and able, we believe, to come to an agreement, shipyards run out of work. I am sure there will be certain things have to shift. From our perspective, as other organisations in the same position. Will the long as we can get this referendum sorted within a Government take that into account when deciding particular time scale and know there is an end point whether or not to agree to this absurd 2014 deadline? to this, the fact that the Scottish Parliament should Michael Moore: I recognise your own constituency determine the timing is a fair enough proposition, and interest and expertise in both the shipyards and other for people in the Scottish Parliament clearly it is a key installations such as Thales and so on. At the very important issue. That is the basis on which we moment the carriers are the critical project that is were agreed. going on. It is a fantastic example of Scotland benefiting from those orders as part of the UK. The Q1580 Iain McKenzie: You said earlier that some next generation of ships that will be ordered in the things had to shift. Can you indicate to the Committee middle part of this decade will be beyond the anything that has shifted from the Scottish referendum. Government’s point of view? Michael Moore: The fact that they are talking to us Q1583 Chair: But some of the work was going to at all and want to come to an agreement recognises be started before then. the central truth that the power resides at Westminster; Michael Moore: I am not party to this. that they need to reach an agreement with us; and that the only way to get the power devolved legally is to Q1584 Chair: Perhaps you could have a look at this. get the section 30 order. That is a really important Perhaps this is an issue that could be considered. political statement and shift from their perspective. In Michael Moore: I know that you and the Committee the early part of this year I made my statement to the have looked at this very carefully, and the unions have House calling for a legal, fair and decisive great concern. I want to ensure that Scotland continues referendum. All that I said then about the Electoral to be part of the UK and that the Clyde, the Forth and Commission, the franchise and other things, is now all parts of Scotland can continue to contribute to the being engaged in on terms broadly acceptable to us. UK’s defence effort. By the way, I am confident that That is why, subject to where the balance fits between they will. I know the Committee was there a week or the section 30 order and any other document, we are two ago. Bear in mind that at Faslane we continue to able to discuss things. If we were wildly apart on all build up the transfer of all our submarine fleet from cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG07 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o007_db_Corrected SAC 120917.xml

Ev 216 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

17 September 2012 Rt Hon Michael Moore MP, Rt Hon David Mundell MP and Alun Evans the south of England. We are continuing in the debate in terms of analysis, facts and figures and so expectation that we will secure a resounding victory on to be as well informed as possible. I believe that for Scotland continuing to be in the UK. That will material as it is published will help you and any other inform decisions across Government for the next few Committee of the House, as well as the general public, years. to examine the big issues at stake here. Alun Evans: Can I just ask how long this session is going on? I am aware that the Secretary of State has Q1589 Lindsay Roy: Mr Mundell, do you have an something else to go to, and we will need to send ongoing role in the negotiations that are taking place? some apologies. David Mundell: I do have an ongoing role, because we operate on a collegiate basis. As the Secretary of Q1585 Chair: I think we all have something else to State said at the start, I carried out a lot of the detailed go to. The half-past 4 deadline was set for mutual negotiations over the summer. advantage. I would not envisage that we would be too long, but, if the Secretary of State had a constraint, Q1590 Lindsay Roy: You paved the way earlier on. perhaps his staff ought to have communicated to our David Mundell: It is part of a process in which we staff what the constraints were. began a dialogue with the Scottish Government Alun Evans: I think they just agreed an indicative where, as the Secretary of State said, initially there time. I was just checking how long we would go on was some suggestion that the section 30 order was not for, but obviously the Secretary of State is able to stay required and then acceptance that it was required. as long as the Committee would like to go on for. There was a discussion of the issues about what it Michael Moore: At your convenience, sir. should contain and a discussion as to how certain things could be achieved either within or outwith the Q1586 Chair: Indeed. Are there any other questions order. We have carried on that process on a collegiate anybody wants to raise? We could spin this out for basis in accordance with the policies and issues that another half an hour if we wanted to, couldn’t we? the coalition Government are determining and taking Michael Moore: Only half an hour? forward in Scotland.

Q1587 Chair: Don’t challenge me. The final point I Q1591 Lindsay Roy: In essence, you have been want to make is about going forward. We may want party to breaking new ground in terms of a to see you again before 22 October. Obviously, we co-operative approach. will discuss that. Another point is how we manage to David Mundell: We have sought at all points in this get information out there to the Scottish public about process to work with the Scottish Government. To be their concerns. There is a whole string of issues, fair, in terms of our discussions with the Scottish whether it is monetary policy, defence or pensions, Government and their officials, we have always found where it will be essential to hear from Government them to be positive. It is not always how it Departments and Government what the position is. subsequently was postured in the media, but the It is only fair that we flag up to you that we have been underlying process of working towards these in touch with a number of Departments, not all of objectives once it began has always been a positive whom have been as helpful as they might. You will one. We are now at a point where some significant be aware possibly of the response we had from the decisions will have to be made, but those will be Ministry of Defence when we were discussing the entirely consistent with the approach we have pursued question of air cover over Scotland if aircraft were from the start. rebased in East Anglia. We asked how long it would take to get up there to provide that cover. They replied Q1592 Lindsay Roy: Are there any aspects of the that it would depend on how fast the planes went. I consultation for which you have prime responsibility? think we did know that; we could work out that David Mundell: It is ensuring, along with the general principle ourselves. It wasn’t actually wrong, Secretary of State, that we get a positive outcome and but it wasn’t quite as helpful as it could have been. I convey what we are doing to the wider political and don’t hold you personally responsible for that civic community in Scotland. From the Prime particular answer. Minister down, the Government have pursued this on Michael Moore: I am grateful. the basis of seeking to get an agreement with the Scottish Government to allow them to carry out their Q1588 Chair: But, now that we have raised it with manifesto commitment. That was what the Prime you, we think it is fair for us to hold you responsible Minister said immediately after the Scottish for other answers. Perhaps you can make sure that Parliament elections in 2011, and that has been our Departments are as helpful as possible in bringing approach throughout. Whether it is the Secretary of forward this information, and maybe we could discuss State or me, or indeed others who have been in the informally how best to channel that into the general forefront of the discussions, that has remained our debate. underlying objective, and still is. Michael Moore: I am certainly happy to work with Lindsay Roy: That is very helpful. you on that. Separate from your own inquiries and dealings with individual Departments, as a Q1593 Jim McGovern: I am mindful of everyone’s Government we will be setting out some of the key time and I will keep it brief. I realise that you as Chair issues relating to the debate on Scotland’s place in the are allowed to mention your local industries and I UK over the months ahead, because we want the can’t resist the opportunity to do the same. The cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG07 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o007_db_Corrected SAC 120917.xml

Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 217

17 September 2012 Rt Hon Michael Moore MP, Rt Hon David Mundell MP and Alun Evans

Scottish Government recently published a report that to close. Thank you very much for your responses. seemed to say that the video games industry was of That has been very helpful and constructive. In fact no particular benefit to the Scottish economy. we have enjoyed it so much we will probably want Secretary of State, with me you have visited Abertay to do it again fairly soon in order to continue these university in Dundee and have seen the value of the discussions. Are we correct in assuming that the video games industry. agreement will be signed effectively by you and the Given that the coalition Government have said there First Minister? will be tax relief for the video games industry in the Michael Moore: The choreography of any such happy UK—we are still waiting for it, mind you, but they moment has not been discussed or worked through, have said it will happen—what do you think the but the Deputy First Minister and I are working implications of separation would be for that industry? through the substantive issues and the detail at Michael Moore: Like so many other industries, to present. I envisage that, should we get to a point of separate Scotland from the rest of the UK could agreement, the First Minister, the Prime Minister and potentially be disastrous. It is important that we don’t I will all be involved. put at risk the great benefits of the Dundee games sector, and those in Edinburgh and across Scotland, Q1595 Chair: That is just in the signing, but we which are shared with the rest of the UK. I pay tribute take the view that the ratification of the settlement, the to the fact that you have championed this sector for a agreement and so on is your responsibility. very long period, and I am pleased that we are now Michael Moore: The responsibility clearly given to working on getting the tax relief that you have me by the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister particularly focused upon. I will certainly remind my was to get on with this. That is exactly what I am colleagues in the Treasury that you are looking for doing. some details. Chair: Thank you very much. We are two minutes early. Q1594 Chair: We have three minutes before the time that I thought it was appropriate for the meeting cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [SE] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG08 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o008_db_Corrected SAC 121031.xml

Ev 218 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

Wednesday 31 October 2012

Members present: Mr Ian Davidson (Chair)

Jim McGovern Mr Alan Reid Pamela Nash Lindsay Roy Simon Reevell ______

Examination of Witnesses

Witnesses: Rt Hon Michael Moore MP, Secretary of State for Scotland, Rt Hon David Mundell MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, Alun Evans, Director, and Chris Flatt, Deputy Director, Scotland Office.

Q1596 Chair: Secretary of State and Mr Mundell, Michael Moore: Yes. The Prime Minister has been could we make a start? We are obviously moving very clear on this himself. He said, much like you, that forward on the whole question of the referendum for this is a matter for people in Scotland to determine. He Scotland. It would be appropriate, before I ask you to believes that is the most appropriate way. Of course say any introductory remarks, to ask whether or not he will debate the politics of this in different forums you have had legal advice on all of this. and we had the points raised in Prime Minister’s Michael Moore: We have decided to arrive without Questions last week. There will be plenty of our lawyers this afternoon, Mr Chairman. On all of opportunities for the Prime Minister to participate. He this, of course, we have thought about things very looks forward to that. What is curious about all this is carefully indeed, including consulting our lawyers. that the First Minister keeps wanting to pick a debate or a fight with somebody from England rather than Q1597 Chair: When you say you have consulted having the debate within Scotland itself. Over the next your lawyers, does that mean, yes, you have consulted two years, we will have ample opportunity for him and all of us to be part of this debate. It should not be your lawyers or no, you have not consulted your just about the politicians and the experts. It should lawyers but you wish you had consulted your also be about people in Scotland being part of it as lawyers? We do not want to be in a position where well and I am pretty sure that over the next two years David Mundell, impersonating Nicola, has to come that is what will happen. back and say what he meant was that he had not actually consulted his lawyers at all. Q1599 Lindsay Roy: I want to know whether that Michael Moore: We are in a good place on this, Mr will be consistent because we heard echoed again and Davidson. again that this is “made in Scotland”. Michael Moore: Indeed, it has been a refrain from Q1598 Chair: I am very glad to hear that, because those of us who serve in the UK Parliament but also this does raise the question of trust. One of the particularly from the Scottish Government as well that concerns that we have is about whether or not, given this is a contest, or an issue, that has to be resolved in the recent debate about legal advice, we can trust Scotland and I am sure that is how it will work. everything that is being asserted. As we go through this, we will raise on a number of occasions what your Q1600 Chair: So there will be no English Tory posh understanding has been of the agreement that was boys coming up to tell us what to do. reached and will want to be following up whether or Michael Moore: Nobody will be excluded from the not these agreements are being followed through in debate about this, but the key debate will be for those good faith. You will understand, as I say, why we want of us in Scotland. to do that. Before we come on to the detail, there are a number Q1601 Chair: Fine, thanks. In those circumstances, of other points we want maybe to seek clarification I understand that the Government are preparing from you on as well. There have been calls for debates various papers to be lodged at one time or another between the Prime Minister and the First Minister. It indicating various aspects of the separation issues. is this Committee’s view that the referendum is Our view, which we want to transmit to you, is that something that has to be achieved, managed and these should be coming from yourself, perhaps to us fought out in Scotland. Therefore, if there are debates or perhaps to another forum, but the Scotland Office taking place, you or another Scottish representative of is the vehicle for these issues, debates and papers to the Government—[A mobile phone rang.] be injected into the political discussion. Is that We mentioned the Prime Minister and immediately something that you accept? the Tory Member’s phone rings. Is that psychic, or is Michael Moore: I do, and indeed, as you will have it not? We want to make it clear that, in our view, this seen in some of the press coverage on this recently— is not a matter for the Prime Minister to be involved and you will, I hope, recall my announcement to directly in debates with the First Minister. This is a Parliament in June about the work that we are matter for yourself and others. Is that something that undertaking—all the issues of independence and you understand? separation are being brought to the fore. We are cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG08 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o008_db_Corrected SAC 121031.xml

Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 219

31 October 2012 Rt Hon Michael Moore MP, Rt Hon David Mundell MP, Alun Evans and Chris Flatt working across Government on this, particularly with and others as well. We need to have as many of those colleagues in the Treasury, but elsewhere as well. We questions asked as we can, and hopefully answered, certainly, as the Scotland Office, are and will continue so that we can have as informed a debate as possible. to be central to those efforts. All the papers that are published will, of course, be given to you as a Q1604 Chair: Fine, thank you. We can move on to Committee and I would welcome your scrutiny of the question of the Order and the memoranda. Now them because what we want to see is all the facts, that they have been laid before both Parliaments, figures and analysis in the public domain open to could you outline to us what you understand be to be scrutiny by you and anyone else who wishes to do so. the timetable for these? As you are aware, other Committees of this House Michael Moore: As to the timetable—if I may and their Lordships’ House are looking at these issues approach this from the end and work backwards to as well. There are papers that are being submitted to explain why we have started at this point—as I think them and to their inquiries. I hope, out of courtesy, I made clear to the Committee when I was here before that you have already had those submissions and if you in September, the intention of the Scottish you have not I will make sure that they come to you Government is that they should introduce a as well. Referendum Bill into the Scottish Parliament in March with a view to the scrutiny of that Bill taking place Q1602 Chair: Fine. That is very helpful. In relation over the following months and being passed into law to that as well, I want to talk about the position of in November, roughly speaking this time next year. central Government Departments as regards reports As you will see, we are promoting an Order in produced by this Committee. We have produced one Council that requires it to go to the Privy Council. We recently about Trident and we have heard that the are hoping to be able to be in a position to do that in position of the Ministry of Defence is that since it February. That requires that, for us, both Houses of does not expect separation to occur it is not having Parliament have scrutinised and passed the Order and any contingency planning and does not see the need that the Scottish Parliament should also have done to respond to our report. I have to say that that is that. We worked through the amount of time that simply not acceptable and is disrespectful to the Parliament here may wish to spend scrutinising it and people of Scotland. If we are producing a paper about decided that we needed to promote or publish it now. the possible consequences of separation upon Trident, we do expect the Ministry of Defence to have Q1605 Chair: Can I be clear that there is no scope considered the “what ifs” of this and be in a position for amending the Order, that it is a “take it or leave to respond, saying what it would do in the event that it”? there was separation. I raise this now because we will Michael Moore: It is the nature of the legislation be looking in a little while at a whole number of other under which we operate that that is indeed the case. defence establishments, and indeed defence We seek Parliament’s approval for the order as it manufacturing plants, and simply for the MOD to say, stands. “It will not happen, so we are not considering it” will not be adequate. I hope you accept that and will Q1606 Chair: What happens if a technical error is communicate it back. discovered? Michael Moore: We have been explicit that we are Michael Moore: We have obviously made best not pre-negotiating on the issues of independence, endeavours—both Governments have been working which are many and varied, as we have already hard on this for the last few weeks—to ensure that we touched on briefly in this afternoon’s session, and have avoided any technical errors. We do not believe there is a whole range of them to be examined, as you there are any, but we will obviously now wait for and your colleagues will do. I will absolutely clear up parliamentary scrutiny of that and for others to see if that the Ministry of Defence will, of course, respond they believe there are any. But we are confident that to the Committee’s report. Whether you agree with we have orders which are technically correct. the response, of course, will be a matter for us to debate further, but there should be a report to you in Q1607 Chair: I presume that, but presumably Mr response to it. It will happen. Evans and your legal adviser are not infallible. Can I clarify what would happen in the event that an error Q1603 Chair: Fine. We have made it clear that, in is discovered? our view, as much as possible of the information Michael Moore: In the very remote circumstances—I should be made available to the Scottish people before hope—that you describe, orders get withdrawn and the referendum rather than as many things as possible resubmitted in the appropriate fashion. being pushed until after the date of the referendum. People have to be aware of what the consequences of Q1608 Chair: They get withdrawn, amended and a vote for separation would be. resubmitted, therefore. Michael Moore: One of the key issues that has arisen Michael Moore: If I can remind you, it would have from your inquiry already and from other things is to be passed in the same form in both Parliaments. the large degrees of uncertainty that exist across the spectrum of issues. That is something that we all need Q1609 Chair: I understand that, fine. If a technical to look at carefully. We need to ask the questions; you error is discovered, orders can be withdrawn, amended are asking the questions and many individuals across and resubmitted. Therefore, if the will was there, they Scotland are asking those questions too, businesses could be amended in other ways. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG08 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o008_db_Corrected SAC 121031.xml

Ev 220 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

31 October 2012 Rt Hon Michael Moore MP, Rt Hon David Mundell MP, Alun Evans and Chris Flatt

Michael Moore: I am not sure that there have ever for a specific period of time. As you will have seen, been examples of that, but if there have been we can we envisaged that this has to be held before the end furnish them to the Committee, but for technical of December 2014. reasons. Chair: It is helpful to clarify that these things can be Q1617 Lindsay Roy: Are you satisfied that this is withdrawn and resubmitted. legally watertight? Jim McGovern: How quickly could that happen? Michael Moore: Yes. Lindsay Roy: Thank you. Q1610 Chair: How quickly could that happen? Sorry, maybe I should have said that to Mr Flatt. Q1618 Mr Reid: There is the memorandum of Michael Moore: No, there was a bit of information I agreement which accompanies the draft section 30 was unaware of there. Counsel for the Joint order. Can you tell us what the status of that Committee on Statutory Instruments has reviewed it memorandum of agreement is? and I understand is satisfied that it technically Michael Moore: The agreement is one between the achieves the aims that we seek. two Governments and you will have seen that the Prime Minister, the First Minister, the Deputy First Q1611 Chair: But presumably it is not infallible Minister and I signed the agreement in Edinburgh two either. If we discover that there is still an error, the weeks ago. It is not legally binding but it does set out mechanism is as you outlined. very clearly the agreed framework under which the Michael Moore: I think we would be in new territory, Scottish Government will proceed with the but clearly we would not wish to move forward with development of the question, the Referendum Bill a technically deficient— itself, and all the other issues that are covered in the Chair: And we are re-assured that you have taken document. legal advice definitely on that. Jim McGovern: Chair, I don’t think I have had my question answered. Q1619 Mr Reid: Say, for example, the Scottish Michael Moore: I apologise. Government did not abide by the terms of the memorandum of agreement, what would happen then? Michael Moore: Q1612 Jim McGovern: If that error took place, how That is going to be a matter for the quickly could it be corrected? Scottish Parliament to determine as it considers the Michael Moore: We would be looking to do that Referendum Bill. This, like a lot of our everyday work immediately. between the Governments, has to be based on a memorandum. We have a memorandum of understanding which covers all the inter-governmental Q1613 Jim McGovern: Immediately. work. I believe that we have set out some very clear Michael Moore: As quickly as possible. I do not envisage the circumstances. You are tempting me into processes here for the involvement of the Electoral highly hypothetical territory here. I appreciate your Commission, which it is committed to, and for the full concern that this is done properly, thoroughly and as scrutiny by the Scottish Parliament. Those two bodies speedily as possible. I think we have shared interests will have a very big role to play in ensuring that the in that. Scottish Government maintain the promises they have made in this document. Q1614 Lindsay Roy: During your negotiations, did the Scottish Government accept that Holyrood does Q1620 Mr Reid: Will you be monitoring the not have the legal power to hold the referendum on Scottish Government’s actions to see if they do keep separation? to the memorandum? Michael Moore: This whole process, at the end point, Michael Moore: I do not think we will be alone in was based on their acceptance that this Parliament keeping a very close eye on all of this: holds the power and needs to devolve it. parliamentarians here at Westminster, parliamentarians in Holyrood likewise and indeed Q1615 Lindsay Roy: So it required a section 30 people across Scotland will be looking at this. As the order. events of the last 10 days have shown, there is a very Michael Moore: Yes. high price to be extracted if you do not maintain people’s support for what you are doing. In that spirit, Q1616 Lindsay Roy: Can you explain how the order the scrutiny of the Scottish Government will hold works legally? them to this document and the promises they have Michael Moore: What the order does is to remove made. the reservation on issues relating to the union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England, which, in Q1621 Mr Reid: I want to turn particularly to the shorthand, means that anything to do with the last paragraph of the agreement at paragraph 30, constitution about the UK and the union of Scotland entitled “Co-operation”. It talks about the two and England is for this Parliament, not for the Scottish Governments working together on matters of mutual Parliament, to determine. Clearly, to allow a interest, good communication and mutual respect. referendum based on legislation of the Scottish Given that the Scottish Government have been prone Parliament to be legal we need to remove that to interpret things creatively and in its own interests, reservation. We are doing it in this very narrow way can you tell us what the purpose of that paragraph is? cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG08 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o008_db_Corrected SAC 121031.xml

Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 221

31 October 2012 Rt Hon Michael Moore MP, Rt Hon David Mundell MP, Alun Evans and Chris Flatt

Michael Moore: I think it is fairly straightforward. Scottish Government could have taken legal advice, There are only four sentences here. The first half of considered all the options and given a view on those the paragraph is basically setting out that by at any stage in the last 18 months since they were in long-standing agreement, pre-dating this Government a position politically to hold this referendum. They and indeed the current Scottish Government, there is chose not to do so. There is nothing in this agreement a memorandum of understanding between the that unlocked the process to enable them to do that, Governments about how they will work together so I am glad to have the chance to correct that constructively to ensure that the everyday business of misconception. Government works effectively. That is the spirit, as Secondly, on the issue of being overtaken by events, we acknowledge here, in which this agreement has I have heard this phrase used quite often by people in been reached. It then simply states what I hope is Scottish nationalist circles where they, for instance, obvious but worth stating that we all hope to have a said after the Scottish elections last year that the legal and decisive referendum, the outcome of which Scotland Bill had been overtaken by events and would will be respected by both sides. never pass. In fact, it did pass with their unanimous Finally, what it is saying there is that we are support within the year. committed to working together irrespective of the Clearly, as far as the Spanish foreign minister’s outcome, so we will accept that outcome. It is no more observations are concerned, if that had been overtaken than that. I have heard some suggestions that it might by events, then perhaps the exchange between mean more than is said there, but I do not think Commissioner Reding—the European anybody could be in favour of the opposite of that. So Commissioner—and the Spanish Government about at that level it is a statement of the obvious, but I think Catalonia’s status would have overtaken the events in it is worth while having it there to show the spirit in question as well. So I think the issue here is that which this has been done. Scotland’s place in Europe, as we are focusing on that, would be extraordinarily uncertain. Q1622 Mr Reid: Yes, but the Scottish Government Mr Reid: Thank you. appear to be interpreting that part of the agreement as meaning that if there was a yes vote on the Q1624 Lindsay Roy: Was it a surprise that the referendum, then, when it came to negotiations agreement and the memorandum of understanding afterwards, the Scottish Government would find it were put together prior to the publication of the straightforward to get generous concessions from the consultation by the Scottish Government? UK Government in those negotiations. Do you share Michael Moore: It was always a matter for the that opinion? Scottish Government to determine when they would Michael Moore: What we have said—and I think it is publish that consultation outcome. entirely right and proper—is that we, like they, will respect the outcomes. So I am confident that we will Q1625 Lindsay Roy: Did it not seem premature? win the referendum. I look forward to the Scottish Michael Moore: Let us remember that for a long time Government working constructively and it was put to us that we could not start discussing it co-operatively with us in terms of maintaining the until the consultation outcome was known. It turned devolution settlement and developing it as this out in the end that we could discuss it before the Parliament and theirs has shown with the Scotland Act outcome was known and, whatever the reasons this year. As far as this being some kind of magic were—and the Deputy First Minister and the Scottish lamp that when you rub it the genie appears and there Government really need to answer those questions— are three for four wishes that you are entitled to and the important point was that a few weeks ago, as you it clears away all the difficulties of an independent know, when the Deputy First Minister was put in Scotland, that is completely incorrect. This says that charge of the constitutional process, at that point we we would of course work constructively and in an were able to get on and have serious discussions engaged fashion with each other. building on the work that David had done with his then opposite number, Bruce Crawford. Q1623 Mr Reid: We are finding that the Scottish Government is already interpreting the agreement Q1626 Lindsay Roy: You have no indication as to quite widely. For example, the Scottish Government why there was a change of heart. has said recently that it can only now ask for specific Michael Moore: None whatsoever and people have legal advice on a separate Scotland’s future in the EU struggled to get the answers when they have asked because of the memorandum of understanding. When those questions in the Scottish Parliament. the Spanish foreign minister said that a separate Scotland would need to join the end of the queue for Q1627 Chair: Can I just be clear? Are you saying EU membership, the Scottish Government said that he that the results of the consultation that the Scottish had been overtaken by events because of the Government held were not drawn to your attention in agreement. What do you think of that interpretation of any way by the Scottish Government? the agreement? Michael Moore: Throughout the discussions, they Michael Moore: There are two ways of looking at were not shared with us, and indeed I think the Deputy that. I regret the fact that it was said that it required First Minister, if I read it correctly, launched the this agreement before any legal advice could be consultation and had only just received it herself days sought on Scotland’s future membership of the before she made her statement to the Scottish European Union. This did not need to happen. The Parliament last week. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG08 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o008_db_Corrected SAC 121031.xml

Ev 222 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

31 October 2012 Rt Hon Michael Moore MP, Rt Hon David Mundell MP, Alun Evans and Chris Flatt

Q1628 Chair: I’m sorry, but I am having difficulty Michael Moore: I am sure everybody has heard your grasping this. So not only were you not told the results observations and the questions are very important for of the consultation, but are you saying that the the Scottish Government. In fairness to the Scottish Scottish Government themselves did not have the Parliament, these are questions that are being getting results of their own consultation when they came to asked there as well. a conclusion? Chair: Goodness me, that is a surprise. Michael Moore: I am unaware of when they got those and when their independent analysis was completed. Q1634 Lindsay Roy: Did you not press at all for That would be a matter that they should answer, but, even a broad indication of the outcome of the as far as the dealings I was having with the Scottish consultation? Government throughout this process were concerned, Michael Moore: No, we did not discuss it because it at no stage did the consultation outcome get shared was not part of the negotiation. We knew what we had with us. seen from the consultation, and while it was—

Q1629 Chair: It would seem exceedingly bizarre, Q1635 Lindsay Roy: Can I ask why not? would it not, to have a consultation and then strike a Michael Moore: Sorry, Mr Roy, I didn’t catch that. deal on the subject about which you were consulting before you actually had the results of the consultation? Q1636 Lindsay Roy: Why did you not ask for a I am almost glad now that I did not respond because broad indication? it would have been, surely, a complete waste of time Michael Moore: We knew what was in our for anybody in Scotland that responded to the Scottish consultation, and we published it. We were confident Government’s consultation to find that they came to a it supported the case we were arguing for, which is conclusion on these issues before the consultation was pretty well reflected in this agreement that we now either published or drawn to the attention of Scottish have. It was a matter for the Scottish Government to Ministers? determine the importance or otherwise of the Michael Moore: I would simply point to our own consultation that they had brought forward. They did practice earlier in the year where, within a month of not have it or chose not to share it with us. Whatever the actual consultation being concluded, we had not only published a report on it but we had also published the case was, for us the important thing was that we all the responses to it. You make some important were able to work through the issues, which we did, points, Mr Davidson, which I am sure the Scottish and hence the agreement that is before you. Government would be happy to answer for you. David Mundell: I think the Scottish Government made it clear that their thinking was based on reaching Q1630 Chair: Did it never occur to you to ask them an agreement that could command majority support whether or not they had the results of the within the Scottish Parliament. consultation? Michael Moore: Look, I am not going to reveal all Q1637 Chair: Why then, in that case, did they the ins and outs of the discussions we had with the bother having a consultation? Scottish Government through that process. David Mundell: Obviously it was our concern to ensure that an agreement was reached that could Q1631 Chair: Go on. command majority support in the Scottish Parliament. Michael Moore: Suffice to say, the results of this were not shared with us in the course of these discussions. Q1638 Chair: Presumably your negotiating position In fairness, to my mind, the relevance was what the was influenced by the results of the consultation. It is Scottish Government believed it could command difficult to see that the Scottish Government’s support for in the Scottish Parliament and in wider negotiating position was influenced by the results of Scottish opinion. I believe, in terms of the section 30 the consultation when they did not know what the order and the agreement beside it, we have achieved result of that consultation was. that. Michael Moore: You are inviting us to speculate— Chair: Indeed. Q1632 Chair: Can I clarify how much your Michael Moore:—on how the Scottish Government consultation cost, do you know? approached this matter. For me, the good news is that Michael Moore: I would have to ask officials. they came out the other end of this process.

Q1633 Chair: Let us know, as that would be Q1639 Chair: I understand that, but it does again considered money well spent because at least you then raise the question of trust, and Mr Reid did raise the took account of the results of the consultation. You point about clause 30 and the way in which this is do not know how much the Scottish Government’s now being creatively interpreted to suit one position. consultation cost because, like the £12,000 to protect It makes me a bit anxious lest we find that section 30 the existence of the legal advice that did not exist, that is interpreted creatively as having built up a number would seem to have been a complete waste of money of obligations for yourselves, such as the Bank of if this consultation, which presumably cost—and the England, monetary union, access to NATO, the EU, company involved cost—an enormous amount of Trident and West Coast Main Line. All of that could money, was then not passed to the Ministers before be interpreted creatively as being covered by section they struck deals on the subject of the consultation. 30. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG08 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o008_db_Corrected SAC 121031.xml

Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 223

31 October 2012 Rt Hon Michael Moore MP, Rt Hon David Mundell MP, Alun Evans and Chris Flatt

Michael Moore: Paragraph 30 is there very and the current one, in the way that the Electoral straightforwardly: “The two Governments are Commission is engaged in the process. It will be committed to continue to work together constructively asked to test the question that is submitted to it, to in the light of the outcome, whatever it is, in the best scrutinise that, produce a report and inform the interests of the people of Scotland and of the rest of Scottish Parliament about it—likewise on all other the United Kingdom.” It is no more, no less than that. aspects such as campaign finance. That is the same I think that is the right spirit in which to go into this standard that is applied to us in the UK Government. process and to agree how we will handle the outcome. We are not asking more of them than we would apply to ourselves. That is an important principle of Q1640 Chair: So this is a “motherhood and apple devolution. pie” paragraph, is it? It is very hard to argue that the Scottish Parliament Michael Moore: At the risk of being vaguely insulting should have to have a higher standard on this than to it, you might say that but I think it is a very we would accept ourselves. The role of the Electoral important statement. Commission is very carefully spelt out in the agreement, and I believe that, based on its credibility, Q1641 Chair: Legal advice. its experience and everything else, it provides a very Michael Moore: Put it this way, it would be very hard strong track record which shows it is neutral and to be in favour of the opposite of this and no above the fray. Therefore, people in Scotland will responsible Government, north or south of the border, expect the Scottish Government to follow its would argue that. recommendations. We have, as a coalition—and the previous Labour Government—never disregarded the Q1642 Chair: But it does not mean anything else. advice on the question or on financing limits. Indeed, That is fine. I am happy to give the Committee further written Michael Moore: It doesn’t mean anything beyond the evidence on this about changes that have been made words that are written on the page. in the past following Electoral Commission advice. What we believe is important is that the Scottish Q1643 Jim McGovern: On the basis of the Government should now follow that track record. legalities of this, you had sent out a letter following the signing of the agreement saying that—I think it Q1645 Jim McGovern: That does not quite answer said—the referendum should have a clear legal basis. the question. They can, perhaps at their peril, choose The Deputy First Minister of Scotland, Nicola to ignore it if they wish. Sturgeon, said the next day, “We might listen to the Michael Moore: In the same way that the UK Electoral Commission but we are not bound by how Government could disregard the Electoral they guide us.” If the Electoral Commission gives Commission’s position on the wording of questions or certain advice and guidance to the Scottish other things, so too could the Scottish Government, Government and the Scottish Government choose to but I think they would do so—and you used a very ignore it, will it still be a legal and binding important phrase there—“at their peril”. Again, we referendum? have seen in the last week the risks you take with Michael Moore: May I take that in two parts, Mr public trust if you act in a way that people do not McGovern? On the first bit about the legal basis, that believe is right. There is a big onus on the Scottish goes to the heart of Mr Roy’s question about the legal Government to follow standard and expected power of the Parliament to hold this referendum. procedures and I believe they should. Chair: Pamela, do you have a question following on Q1644 Jim McGovern: Which Parliament? directly from this? Michael Moore: The power of the Scottish Parliament to hold the referendum. I have always agreed, the Q1646 Pamela Nash: Yes. First of all, Secretary of Government have agreed and I believe it has the State, the difference is that none of the main parties support across Parliament here as well, that it was here in the UK Parliament have ever publicly said important that this referendum was made in Scotland, that they would consider going against the Electoral that it was run with legislation created in the Scottish Commission’s advice on the instance that we are Parliament. That is what we have been discussing over talking about, on a referendum, although I appreciate the last few weeks. The section 30 order itself allows where you are coming from. the Scottish Parliament to carry out that referendum. Just before we move on, following Lindsay’s earlier It says it will be on a single question on independence. question about the Scottish Government accepting that It says that there will be no other polls held on that they did not have the legal powers to hold a binding day on any other issue that Parliament already has referendum—and certainly none of the rhetoric I have competence for and it is clear that it has to be held by heard from the Scottish Government before the order the end of December 2014. That is the legal basis of was made would indicate that—I want to know if, in the referendum which will now be moved forward your meetings with them, they ever mentioned once the Referendum Bill has been submitted to the receiving legal advice on their ability to have a legally Parliament. binding referendum without a section 30 order. Alongside that legal instrument, we have the Michael Moore: I have had countless meetings on this memorandum of agreement where the Scottish over the course of the last 18 months. We have Government have said in terms that they will follow debated lots of things to and fro. I am not in a position the practice of the UK Governments, previous ones to recall precisely one way or the other; suffice to say cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG08 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o008_db_Corrected SAC 121031.xml

Ev 224 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

31 October 2012 Rt Hon Michael Moore MP, Rt Hon David Mundell MP, Alun Evans and Chris Flatt they maintained in public a very strong position on did that successfully, and in a fairly relatively short what they believed the settlement for the Parliament period of time. allowed. I think the proof of the pudding is that when it came to the crunch they accepted that the only way Q1652 Simon Reevell: It was a week less than you to ensure that this was beyond legal challenge was to thought it would take in an ideal world. have the power transferred. Michael Moore: We wanted to be able to table the order by the time both Parliaments were back and the Q1647 Pamela Nash: I suppose what we are trying Scottish Parliament, obviously, was in a recess— to get to the bottom of is what caused the change of heart in the Scottish Government. I have asked the Q1653 Simon Reevell: Feel free to take the First Minister this and yet, three months on, he has compliment. yet to respond to my letter asking him, which is why Michael Moore: I am grateful to you for the you are getting asked because you are here. compliment. I would just say that both sides entered Michael Moore: I respect and understand that. I into this very constructively, so it was good. simply celebrate the fact that, from what looked like an unpromising starting point, we have now reached Q1654 Simon Reevell: After the session we had on agreement, and they are committed with us to getting 17 September, when you and I had discussed the issue the section 30 order passed through both Parliaments. of the franchise, I had in my mind, I suppose, three Chair: It is a standard format, isn’t it? It is bluff and things that had followed from those discussions. The bluster and insistence and constant repetition and then first was that you had a presumption against the some things change and you move on from there. We franchise being extended to 16 or 17-year-olds. have seen it at the moment in Europe and we will see Correct me if you think I am wrong about that. it again and again. Maybe, Simon, I could ask you to Michael Moore: It might help if you give me all come in now because I am conscious that you have to three bits. leave early. Q1655 Simon Reevell: The second was that you had Q1648 Simon Reevell: Yes. Could I pick up on one received no firm proposals from Scottish Ministers to thing you just mentioned? You said that the order that the contrary. The third was that the issue of the is being proposed would not allow for any other vote franchise should be dealt with in the section 30 order or poll on the day of the referendum. My unless there were strong and clear reasons for not understanding is that it would not allow for another doing so, or indeed strong and clear agreements that referendum on the same day but there is nothing in meant it did not need to fall into the section 30 order. the section 30 order that prohibits there being a vote Michael Moore: On the first of those I have on something else. It is section 3(2) that I think is consistently said that there is. As a Liberal Democrat, relevant. if I may put it that way as different from a coalition Michael Moore: I am sorry, yes. What we were position here, we support votes for 16 and getting at here was the idea of a referendum on more 17-year-olds. My point had been throughout that, in powers, or whatever, that might act as a second, which an ideal world, you would not just offer this for a one-off event. It would be for everything. You would was the issue at stake. need to have consensus across the parties to be able to achieve that. I observed then and observe again that Q1649 Simon Reevell: But if there were elections that consensus does not exist. called, for whatever reason, there is no prohibition to We also, however—I believe I also made clear at the any other ordinary electoral activity. It is only the time—respect the fact that once you have passed the referendum. power over a particular issue to the Scottish Michael Moore: Yes, but those are fairly rare and Parliament, should they have a desire to hold a unusual and I do not believe that there is any prospect referendum on that, then it is for them to determine of it being on the same day. But, you are right, this the franchise. So for us to restrict 16 and 17-year-olds, does not exclude it. we would have to put a specific restriction in the section 30 order. On this issue, we were willing to say, Q1650 Simon Reevell: Depending on your “Look, there are different views within our Parliament definition of “rare and unusual”, this is quite rare and about this. This is a matter they will have to take to unusual, isn’t it? their Parliament.” But we agreed not to put that Michael Moore: This is very rare, thankfully. restriction there. I believe that was, in fairness, important to getting the overall agreement. Q1651 Simon Reevell: You were before the Committee last on 17 September. I assume that, since Q1656 Simon Reevell: So my understanding that then, the negotiations went very well and fairly easily there was a presumption against 16 or 17-year-olds because you had hoped, in an ideal world, they would having the vote at the time you came before us on 17 be wrapped up by 22 October but they were signed September is accurate, that there was a— by 15 October. I am assuming from that that things Michael Moore: The presumption was that our were not particularly difficult or complicated. position was that it was preferable that they did not, Michael Moore: They were fairly straightforward in terms of the coalition or wider Parliament, but I do negotiations, but each side expressed its views very not believe I said that there was no question of them strongly. We worked through areas of difficulty and at any point having that power. We would have to talk cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG08 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o008_db_Corrected SAC 121031.xml

Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 225

31 October 2012 Rt Hon Michael Moore MP, Rt Hon David Mundell MP, Alun Evans and Chris Flatt that through. We wanted to see what they were “made in Scotland” issue was one that, in the course proposing. of the hour and a half, I am reasonably confident we covered, but I would be happy to check that. Q1657 Simon Reevell: On my understanding that there was a presumption, what you said was “our Q1664 Simon Reevell: Let me help you. presumption would be against 16 and 17-year-olds Michael Moore: I think the gist of this is that you having the vote for this one-off electoral event”. That believe that we should not have made this and you is where I got my presumption from. So we had a want to know why, perhaps, we did. shared presumption. Michael Moore: Yes, which was subject to further Q1665 Simon Reevell: I am interested to know why discussions. you had such a clear understanding of what should happen based on the information available to you on Q1658 Simon Reevell: We can come on to the 17 September and why, by the date that everything second one. You asked me to tell you all three, but was signed on 15 October, it had changed completely, the first one was that I had an understanding that there that the franchise was not in the section 30 order, that was a presumption against it. it was going to be entirely at the discretion of the Michael Moore: Okay. Scottish Parliament, which was a completely different position. You are entitled to change your mind. I am Q1659 Simon Reevell: Was that right at the time? just interested to know what the arguments were that Michael Moore: You have asserted it and read out the you found so powerful that you changed your mind relevant piece, so I am happy with your presumption. so completely in such a short period of time. Michael Moore: If I may say so, I appreciate that we Q1660 Simon Reevell: On 17 November, you had do not see eye to eye on the issue. I think it sits within received no firm proposals from Scottish Ministers to the broader context of the “made in Scotland” extend the franchise. principle and the role of the Scottish Parliament, Michael Moore: It was 17 September. You might have which I was happy to accept, and there was a position said November. on which, not unsurprisingly perhaps, the Scottish Government and the Scottish National Party felt very Q1661 Simon Reevell: Yes. On 17 September, the strongly, that the Scottish Parliament should be the last time we were all doing this in the other room, you one to determine the franchise. I recognised that that said that “As yet, we have had no firm proposal from was a key issue for them. Therefore, I was not going Ministers to discuss exactly what they are proposing.” to get an agreement if we insisted on putting in the Michael Moore: As things stand, we don’t have it restriction that would remove that or putting in, today either. It would not be for us. spelling out, the entire franchise, bearing in mind that we were in broad agreement that it was the Scottish Q1662 Simon Reevell: On 17 September, the Parliament franchise that should be the basis of all presumption was against and there were no firm this. So, recognising their views on that, recognising proposals to the contrary. You and I discussed this and too that the Scottish Parliament will still scrutinise your view or starting point was that—and I am this, and they still have to bring forward their quoting you again—“Unless there are very strong proposals, I was content to make that agreement with alternatives in terms of the memorandum”, it others as well and change from the position that I had absolutely should be in the section 30 order, the detail had then. A lot of discussions happened in the of the franchise. By the time we had finished on 17 meantime before we got to that agreement. September, there was a presumption against 16 and 17-year-olds having the vote, there were no Q1666 Simon Reevell: So on 17 September, where counterproposals from Scottish Ministers and it was you felt the issue of franchise was something that something that absolutely should be in the section 30 should be dealt with in the section 30 agreement—so order. If we fast forward to 15 October and look at that it was something that was considered here, prior what happened, it is quite different by about 180 to that—had it not occurred to you that the Scottish degrees. I am wondering what the strengths of the Government might feel strongly about the franchise arguments were that persuaded you in such a short for a referendum on independence? time to abandon the presumption, to abandon the need Michael Moore: Yes, and we had heard that. We had for the franchise to be dealt with in the section 30 not had all the detailed discussions at that point and I order and to leave it to the Scottish Parliament to take responsibility for the balance of the agreement decide whether 16 or 17-year-olds get the vote. that we reached. I believed that on that point we could Michael Moore: The last one is the relatively and should respect the principle that the Scottish straightforward bit of that, that we, as I have already Parliament will determine the franchise without enunciated, recognised that the Scottish Parliament, actually having conceded two political points that are once given the power, has the ability to set out the very important: one, that this will be straightforward franchise and that is the way it— or easy or won’t have problems that people in the Conservative Party and elsewhere have highlighted, Q1663 Simon Reevell: We always knew that but that will now have to be debated in the Scottish because when you and I discussed this last time— Parliament—there is not a free pass on that—and, Michael Moore: I believe I made reference to that, secondly, without prejudice to the fact that it has no but perhaps not in answer to your questions. The bearing on what happens here at Westminster for any cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG08 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o008_db_Corrected SAC 121031.xml

Ev 226 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

31 October 2012 Rt Hon Michael Moore MP, Rt Hon David Mundell MP, Alun Evans and Chris Flatt other elections. I think that is not ideal, but, in the reached agreement. Precisely where it was, I am circumstances and in the interests of making sure we afraid I— could reach agreement, I thought that was acceptable. Q1672 Simon Reevell: You can see why it is Q1667 Simon Reevell: Your belief is that the important from our point of view because you come concession that you made in relation to the franchise before the Committee and say, “This is the position, is unlikely to have any sort of impact at all on that franchise should be a section 30 matter.” The next franchise for other elections within the United thing we hear is that it is not. So someone has Kingdom in the future. produced an argument that was so good you accepted Michael Moore: It certainly has stirred up a political it; something happened that you had never anticipated; debate, and that is good because we can examine the or you did not really push it very hard in the first issue in a UK context and determine whether or not it place, putting it simply. I am trying to work out what is an appropriate thing for House of Commons votes. happened between 17 September when you were so We have well-rehearsed party positions on all of that. clear and 15 October when you signed the agreement. I know that lots of people inside and outside Michael Moore: I apologise, but I think I have Parliament are getting into that debate. But it will only answered that. I know you do not accept that I should be if Parliament itself were to have a proposition in have, perhaps, conceded this point or had it as part of front of it to change the vote and then agree to it that the overall agreement. it would change. So I think we are a very long way from having that thorough debate or getting anywhere Q1673 Simon Reevell: I do not criticise you. I near somebody suggesting that there should be simply want to find out how it came about. You may legislation on this. have done exactly the right thing but, at the moment, I am trying to understand why things changed. Q1668 Simon Reevell: In the negotiations that took Michael Moore: We went through a process of place after 17 September, what were the arguments arguing the different points, making the case to each that you put forward for the franchise being included other, understanding where each other’s clear red lines within the section 30 order? You left us on 17 were. In the context of the franchise for 16 and September saying the franchise should be in the 17-year-olds, very important as that is, I was satisfied section 30 order. By the time the agreement was that, within the bigger principle of the franchise being signed on 15 October, it was not, but I presume that determined by the Scottish Parliament on a matter that you argued in favour of what you described to us but was now to be devolved, this was acceptable and right accepted that the other side had better arguments. I and that, in the broader political debate about what am interested to know what arguments you advanced this might mean here for Westminster elections or to support the section 30 point. other elections across the UK, it was not something Michael Moore: This may not be to your liking, but that had any consequences for that other than getting I am afraid that I am not going to go through all the the debate going. On that, it is pretty clear to me that ins and outs of what were fairly extensive discussions if you had a vote in Parliament on this at the moment at official level and between Ministers. The arguments it would not pass here at Westminster and I do not were of the same order that we had discussed in this think anyone is proposing to bring that forward. Committee and which had been discussed in other forums as well. There was no change to that. Q1674 Simon Reevell: Can I put it very simply, very finally, so that I understand it? The situation is just Q1669 Simon Reevell: So you did argue in favour simply that, having started the negotiations after 17 of it. September, looked at the strength of the arguments Michael Moore: Absolutely, I argued our position, but and the counter-arguments, your judgment was that again in any discussion like this, designed— that was something that could go on to the memorandum, not the section 30, as part of the Q1670 Simon Reevell: You say you argued your overall negotiations. position. Whatever you argue is your position. Did Michael Moore: That is, I think, a fair summary of you advance argument in favour of franchise being a the process we went through and where we ended up. section 30 matter? Simon Reevell: Thank you. Michael Moore: All through the process— Q1675 Chair: It is a long political tradition that Q1671 Simon Reevell: After 17 September. Liberals can completely change their positions from Michael Moore: Yes. I am trying to remember—I week to week, so I do not find that surprising. Can I apologise that I am having to check this in my own come on to the question of dates? Am I right in mind—what the sequencing of meetings was. I had thinking, following up the point that Simon made three different meetings with Nicola Sturgeon and I there, that the referendum could be held on the same had two conference calls with her as well, so there day as the European elections? was a total of five different times when we discussed Michael Moore: Potentially, it could. It could be held all of this. All the arguments were laid on the table as a matter yet to be determined by the Scottish from our side in advance of all the different arguments Parliament. or issues that are covered in the agreement. Likewise, they put their arguments forward. Over time, we Q1676 Chair: That is right. reconciled ourselves to each other’s positions and Michael Moore: There is a back-stop. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG08 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o008_db_Corrected SAC 121031.xml

Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 227

31 October 2012 Rt Hon Michael Moore MP, Rt Hon David Mundell MP, Alun Evans and Chris Flatt

Q1677 Chair: You are precluded from having a Q1685 Jim McGovern: You are aware, Secretary of second referendum and so on, and I understand the State, that this Committee has long said that there point of no second question, but it could be held the should be a single question. I think we are delighted same day as the European elections, which would that that now seems to be the case. In your certainly increase turn-out. Was that discussed at all negotiations with the Scottish Government, did they at any point? ever say or propose that there should be another Michael Moore: We did not discuss the date of it. We question? discussed the principle that the Scottish Parliament Michael Moore: Building on what I said to Mr should be the one determining the date, which we Reevell a few minutes ago, all these issues were fully accepted, subject to this back-stop of December 2014. rehearsed by both Governments, so they were arguing originally for the possibility of more than one Q1678 Chair: Fine. There is still the expectation question. Of course that was discussed in the course that it is likely to be about October. I cannot remember of— the exact date that was given to The Sun by Mr Salmond but that sort of date is still the most likely, Q1686 Jim McGovern: Was that in favour of? is it? Michael Moore: Yes. All of the different issues were Michael Moore: There is no further discussion considered in the course of our— beyond what you and I have seen in the public domain. Q1687 Chair: Can I just be clear on that? The Chair: Fine, thank you. Scottish Government were at some point proposing that there should be a second question. That was a Q1679 Jim McGovern: The Secretary of State said formal negotiating position. This was not just a that part of the agreement was that it would not clash general discussion. This was a firm proposal from with any other election on the day. them that there should be a second question. Michael Moore: Part of this is that there would not Michael Moore: What we discussed together was be any other referendum or poll that was seeking to entirely in keeping with what they had said publicly, get people’s opinions on, say, more powers for which was that some parts of the SNP were saying Scotland. they wanted a single question and other parts were saying that they wanted to take account of what they Q1680 Jim McGovern: So there could be umpteen saw as other people in Scotland’s opinions on more elections, but just not on that subject. powers and, therefore, the case was made primarily by Michael Moore: There is a cycle of elections already the First Minister on that. All of that was, of course, published for all the different bodies that people are rehearsed as we discussed. elected to in Scotland and of course there are unexpected elections from time to time, by-elections Q1688 Chair: I am not clear. What I am asking is and the like, but, as far as a referendum is concerned, whether or not, and when, in the negotiations between that was the key thing for us to be clear about. either the Deputy First Minister and Mr Mundell or the First Minister or Nicola and yourself, did they Q1681 Jim McGovern: I want you to read your formally propose that there should be a second advice. question? I want none of this vague, “There was talk Michael Moore: Yes, I mean, it is simply saying, the about all sorts of things.” Did they formally propose order does not bind UK Government elections either, that there should be a second question? so in theory we could come forward with one. Michael Moore: I am not going to go into the “hows and whys” of every last thing that was formally tabled Q1682 Chair: So the Government could have a or otherwise. general election on the same day if they so wished. Michael Moore: We have a fixed-term Parliament. Q1689 Chair: This is not every last thing. This is a major issue. Q1683 Chair: At the moment, but that is this week. Michael Moore: It is a major issue. Clearly, what I Again, as we have seen before, positions can change, am seeking to say to you is that the position we can’t they? That is an important point and I had not discussed from the starting point of the negotiations appreciated that it would be entirely possible to have was entirely consistent with the positions that the a general election on the same day. I had assumed that Governments had taken in public, so about two there would be nothing else happening on the same questions from their point, one from ours. We moved day. from there to the agreement we have before you. Michael Moore: As you will appreciate, what I think is very important is that these are separated out. Q1690 Chair: I am sorry, but you indicated earlier on that the SNP were saying two things at the same Q1684 Chair: I understand that. I am sure you time. Some were saying that they wanted one question would be the first to tell us if the general election and some were saying that they wanted two questions. was— When you were having negotiations, I would have Michael Moore: Of course you would be the first thought it was highly unlikely that they were saying place I would come to, sir. two things at the same time and I want to be clear Chair: Thank you. I am very glad to hear that. whether or not they were actually proposing— cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG08 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o008_db_Corrected SAC 121031.xml

Ev 228 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

31 October 2012 Rt Hon Michael Moore MP, Rt Hon David Mundell MP, Alun Evans and Chris Flatt

Michael Moore: They wanted to explore all the not necessarily mean that all issues were on the table options that would be available, including having in every single discussion. more than one question, entirely consistent with what they had said in public would be their position. Q1698 Pamela Nash: Over the last few months, this Committee has very loudly expressed the opinion that Q1691 Chair: They proposed that there should be a we were concerned about the wording of the question second question and then abandoned that position. and particularly concerned about the alleged new Michael Moore: Over the course of the discussions— wording proposed by the Scottish Government. First, and we have been through some of the detail of the is each of you completely certain and confident that positions that we moved on—they obviously moved the Electoral Commission will be able to ensure that on this rather critical issue. there is a fair question? Michael Moore: The Electoral Commission has a Q1692 Chair: They moved on this. That is helpful. very well-established track record in reviewing Michael Moore: You have seen the outcome. questions for referendums across the whole of the UK and in distinct parts of it. I will mention, perhaps Q1693 Lindsay Roy: That was not consistent with before the Chairman does, the AV referendum being the Scottish Government consultation. one, more powers for the Welsh Assembly and for the Michael Moore: The consultation, now that it has Welsh Government being another, so it has been there been published, actually shows that two to one are in and has a really well-established process of testing favour of a single question. questions. From the outset, we have argued that they Chair: That is because they did not know what the should be central to this and we were pleased that, at consultation was, did they, because they had not an early stage, that was one of the areas of agreement. actually received it by then so they were not able to The Scottish Government said they, too, recognised take that into account, I presume? the Electoral Commission. If I may highlight some of the points I made earlier about the Electoral Commission, we, as the UK Government, and our Q1694 Jim McGovern: Somewhat on the same predecessors, the Labour Government, have never question, Secretary of State, in my prior career I was been bound by it; however, accepting its a trades union negotiator so I know that some things independence, neutrality and credibility, we always are accepted and some are set aside. Could I take it have, as did the previous Labour Government. That is that you are saying that the Scottish Government an important track record for us as politicians and I wanted a second question but, as part of the think, therefore, having them central to this process negotiations, you won that position and they ditched can give us confidence. a second question? On the question itself, of course we anticipate that Michael Moore: You are tempting me into dangerous the Scottish Government will wish to put forward the territory, Mr McGovern. wording formally to the Electoral Commission at some point relatively soon. It takes the Commission Q1695 Jim McGovern: Yes, I am trying to and I some weeks to do its work properly and it is clear that want a straight answer actually. they will also consult widely on that and it will be an Michael Moore: I am not going to put it in these opportunity for the questions submitted by the expert terms. What I am happy to point to is the fact that, panel, or for anybody else, to submit their thoughts on having had a very different position from the Scottish possible questions and alternatives to the Electoral Government on the number of questions there should Commission. be, we got to a position where we have a single question referendum on the issue that everybody Q1699 Pamela Nash: I will come on to that in a wants to resolve, namely independence. minute, but you will understand our concerns when Scottish Ministers, since this draft order has been Q1696 Jim McGovern: Okay, fine. Were there any made public, have refused to say that they will support discussions between the two Governments about the the Electoral Commission and have made it quite clear so-called devo-max, whatever that may mean? that they are giving themselves wriggle room as to Michael Moore: I cannot honestly say that I have ever what the Electoral Commission might say about the heard a formal request about devo-max. I have always wording of a question. In fact, leading up to this, the thought it was a kind of brand without a product. First Minister had originally proposed a completely There was no definition to it and at no stage, publicly new organisation to fulfil the role that we are giving or privately, have we ever been offered a detailed plan to the Electoral Commission in this referendum. So of what that might have looked like. you can understand why we continue raising this in the Committee. Q1697 Chair: Does that also apply to the Michael Moore: It is entirely legitimate and an negotiations Mr Mundell had about devo-max? entirely legitimate part of the political debate in David Mundell: I don’t recall any specific mention of Scotland. All of us are stakeholders in that all of us the phrase devo-max in those discussions. In the early will want to see that this is fair and credible and that part of the discussions, we focused on very specific the whole process is transparent. I believe that—and issues so that we would have a discussion about the we are talking about issues of trust—the trust of the PPERA rules or we would have a discussion about the Scottish people will be earned and maintained if the franchise so that the structure of the discussions did Electoral Commission is followed in what it advises. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG08 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o008_db_Corrected SAC 121031.xml

Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 229

31 October 2012 Rt Hon Michael Moore MP, Rt Hon David Mundell MP, Alun Evans and Chris Flatt

I also think that it is important to recognise that the party, an individual or organisation, will be able to same standards apply to the Scottish Government as engage, whether or not they are sought out by the would apply to us, so we are asking no more of them Electoral Commission. I am sure they will have an than we would ask of ourselves. The same political open door to people making their suggestions and pressures that apply and the same public debate will comments to them. of course exist here. David Mundell: Indeed, I think this Committee would be in a position to make its views known, or certainly Q1700 Pamela Nash: Was it ever considered not to provide the Electoral Commission with the various to give the Electoral Commission the final say in the reports that you have previously produced on this wording of the question, but perhaps to put in a clause issue. that the Electoral Commission and the Scottish Chair: I think we will follow up that invitation; thank Parliament would have to agree a wording, or was it you very much. always insisted upon that it would be exactly the same as it has been in the past? Q1702 Pamela Nash: Certainly. Before we move Michael Moore: It was a fairly straightforward on, I would like to ask a couple of questions about the principle to agree that these two should match one specific wording of the question and what the Scottish another and that we should not ask any less of the Government have said previous to the order being Scottish Government but no more either. I clearly published and their consultation, as to which I cannot speak for the Electoral Commission but, as I understand you were not made privy to the early observe, I do not know that they have ever specifically results. They suggested a question beginning “Do you sought the power to determine a question. They do agree”, but they also mentioned that this was the case seek to be independent, neutral observers and as soon in the 1997 referendum. However, we, as a as, dare I say it, you would give them the power to Committee, feel that that is a misrepresentation of the set the question, you change the terms of that words because “Do you agree” in 1997 was one of particular debate. two different statements, “Do you agree” or “Do you In the same way that the wording of the legislation not agree”. Can I ask if you agree with the Committee talks about the intelligibility rather than the neutrality that this is a misrepresentation of the 1997 referendum of the question, it is about ensuring that people and if you have any opinion on a similar style of understand what the words mean and that they know referendum question being used this time, that is, with exactly what the issues are when they come to answer two different statements? it. I think, again, the Electoral Commission have a Michael Moore: I think, as politicians, we all have very strong track record and have offered some very opinions, and like everybody else I felt that the “Do good advice. On a number of different occasions, the you agree” formulation would not be right. However, advice has been to change the question and the I think it is important. Because we are politicians, we question has always been changed as a result of that take particular views based on what outcome we want, in UK terms, and I expect that to be the case in and what we need is a question that does not favour Scotland as well. one outcome over the other. There has been a mass David Mundell: I think I said when I responded to of academic response to the proposed wording. The very similar questions during the statement in consultation is there. The key to this again will be the Parliament that we should not only have confidence Electoral Commission’s thoroughness. They will test in the Scottish people but we should have confidence what impression or view people take of what they are in our colleagues in the Scottish Parliament to hold being asked, if that formulation is there. But, of the SNP Government to account, to hold the First course, what we do not know is whether that is Minister to account. I think they have demonstrated actually the question that will be put forward. The that very ably in recent times and, who knows, by the Commission will, I am sure, look at it rigorously. For time this matter is debated the SNP Government my part, I am happy to say, as a politician, I would might not have a majority in the Scottish Parliament look to accept their advice on this and I hope that will and there will be even more opportunity to hold them be the case for the Scottish Government too. to account. Q1703 Pamela Nash: Minister, have you anything Q1701 Pamela Nash: As of two o’clock, when we to add? came into this room, they still had a majority but, yes, David Mundell: No, I do agree with the Committee that is falling away quickly, so who knows what the that it is a misrepresentation of the 1997 referendum. I case might be when we leave. am sure that the Electoral Commission will look very Before we leave the Electoral Commission, you rigorously at the question’s possible wording. We saw mentioned, Secretary of State, that other interested with the proposed AV referendum that they came parties will be able to contribute to this process. forward with a recommendation and that that was Would you be able to give any detail today as to how accepted. They are very well versed in this field and I that might happen? would have confidence in the question that they came Michael Moore: The Electoral Commission will be in forward with. I would hope that the Scottish charge of that process and will want to consult widely. Government would not see any reason not to go ahead Again, that is a matter for them to determine, but I with the question that they propose. think on this, the most important political decision in 300 years, the level of interest will be higher than Q1704 Chair: The point about what is presumably normal and therefore anybody who is an interested a deliberate misrepresentation by the Scottish cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG08 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o008_db_Corrected SAC 121031.xml

Ev 230 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

31 October 2012 Rt Hon Michael Moore MP, Rt Hon David Mundell MP, Alun Evans and Chris Flatt

Government of that 1997 referendum, “Do you the House about all of this. That is part of the debate. agree”, is an indication that these people cannot That has been echoed in the Scottish Parliament, in always be trusted to put things forward honestly. the Scottish media and in the meetings I am having There is a clear, deliberate misrepresentation of the with constituents and people around Scotland. There position to compare the “Do you agree” and “Do you is a lot of expectation now placed on the Scottish not agree” in 1997 with the proposal that they have Government. We have seen them have a very difficult now. It is in that context that I want to ask you about 10 days where they have worked through an issue, not your approach toward PPERA because it seems to be as straightforwardly perhaps—he says that you are saying the general approach of PPERA euphemistically—as they might have done. That should be adopted, yet you are not specifically saying increases the scrutiny that will be applied here. I think that that is what should be adopted. Again, it is we have the framework, however, that will make sure coming back to a question of trust. There is a certain we get the right type of referendum. lack of trust about the SNP’s willingness to abide by fair rules. How do you know that they will actually Q1708 Lindsay Roy: There was a mention of follow PPERA if that is not specified in legislation? Michael Moore: The Deputy First Minister has been PPERA with particular Scottish circumstances. What at pains to set out that she wants to see a process that are they? is held to the highest international standards, Michael Moore: That recognises the fact that in conscious that the world will be watching as they Scotland the Electoral Management Board has been move forward with their proposals to the Scottish set up to oversee the running of the actual poll Parliament. They have signed up in a pretty serious process. I think we all accept that that has been a good degree of detail here to the PPERA framework, which way forward. The Scottish Government have also said is familiar to all of us and in which we can have that they will nominate as the Chief Counting Officer confidence, but the onus is on them now to deliver on the convenor of the Electoral Management Board, so the basis of that agreement and to honour the spirit of it is in those particular areas that we recognise that it, which they will now be responsible for taking there are different arrangements in Scotland that have forward. the confidence of people in Scotland and so we should use them, not reinvent the process. Q1705 Chair: Do you think you have been gullible in trusting them to apply this fairly without having Q1709 Lindsay Roy: How will the high standards legislative backing? alluded to in the memorandum of understanding be Michael Moore: I believe it is important that this is monitored and by whom? made in Scotland, that the Scottish Parliament is Michael Moore: They will be monitored by all of us, central to the legislative process. if I may say so, and by public opinion across Scotland. We care very strongly, all of us, as Scottish MPs and Q1706 Chair: When you say “made in Scotland”, those from other parts of the UK, about this process; you are part of Scotland as well, as am I. of course we do. That is why we are so intently Michael Moore: Indeed. We are all playing our part focused on it. But I think people across the country in this, but what I mean is that we have created a also care about it. There is going to be a lot of Scottish Parliament with powers over important attention focused on this. When you then drill down aspects of everyday life in Scotland on this particular to official bodies, it goes back to the Electoral issue, respecting that the majority of parliamentarians Commission and Parliament itself. I believe that, as were elected to Parliament on the basis of a manifesto David has said, it has established itself as a Parliament permitting them to hold a referendum on that will scrutinise and have robust debate and I independence. What we are doing here is empowering anticipate that with this as well. them to have that referendum on the back of their electoral pledge. That is making us all good democrats. Q1710 Lindsay Roy: There has been a great deal of discussion about spending limits in the referendum Q1707 Chair: I understand all of that, in general campaign. Can you explain what the draft order terms. stipulates? Michael Moore: By saying that this is “made in Michael Moore: The agreement, the memorandum Scotland”, I am not seeking to rule you, me or anyone here, essentially highlights the role of the Electoral else out of the script. Far from it. We have a big Commission in advising on those limits. What the important role to play in the political debates that Scottish Government have acknowledged is that, since surround this. We work with the Scottish Government they put forward their proposals back in the spring, day in, day out. We have a memorandum of there are two campaigns in place now, the Yes understanding with them. We work in a way that is campaign and the Better Together campaign, so they based on trust. We will continue to do that, but there need to be consulted, and the Electoral Commission, will be some political debates, challenges, backwards which offered evidence to their consultation and and forwards, and people will be concerned about published it, will also be brought into the process, as those, of course. That is why—I apologise I was not it would be elsewhere. This is another example of an able to be here to make the statement myself and I am area where, historically, UK Governments of different grateful to David for doing it—on the day, there were hues have followed the advice from the Electoral a number of questions that came from both sides of Commission. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG08 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o008_db_Corrected SAC 121031.xml

Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 231

31 October 2012 Rt Hon Michael Moore MP, Rt Hon David Mundell MP, Alun Evans and Chris Flatt

Q1711 Lindsay Roy: There is very much talk about Michael Moore: We did. We understood that it was a level playing field. How can the Electoral their public money that we would be talking about, Commission, in regulating for a level playing field, do so, to that extent, we could not necessarily instruct so when the regulated period is only 16 weeks? them to do it. If you consider what the provision of Michael Moore: That is an extension over what it public money has been for in the past, it is basically would normally be elsewhere. Bear in mind that there to set the campaigns up. It has not been for the are other bits of PPERA that apply to the donations to campaigns to be run. It has been a matter for them political parties which continue throughout the period. to raise the finance for that, which we have already The campaigns have, I believe, made public discussed. They took the view—and I think it is a fair statements about their desire to see transparency over point—that the campaigns were both already up and donations and the like, but, in the formal period, running and, considering what other public money is which has been extended under these proposals to 16 being spent on now, this would not be the right way weeks, the Electoral Commission will police that in to spend it. I thought that was a reasonable position the same way that they would— to have.

Q1712 Lindsay Roy: What is to prevent differential Q1718 Pamela Nash: For the record, can you make spending prior to that 16 weeks? it clear why it would be Scottish Government funding Michael Moore: That is a feature of all referendum solely that would potentially be used if it was campaigns. There is no formal bar to that, but I think campaign funds? the evidence on the ground shows that both campaigns Michael Moore: Anything that the Scottish are already getting on with their job very vigorously. Parliament legislates for has to be funded by the grant and other revenue that the Scottish Parliament Q1713 Chair: So, in that case, it has been agreed Government has at its disposal. If you look at the issue that there should be no control over spending outwith of the mailshot, in all elections we have a provision the regulated period? for a free mailshot for the candidates or, in a Michael Moore: The regulated period is the period referendum, for the designated campaigns. In the where the Electoral Commission has its formal role. order, we are ensuring that power is there but we are Otherwise, it is the normal rules that apply to party also explicitly clear that it is the Scottish Ministers campaigning in terms of the funding of political who have to pay for that. That will come out of the parties. Scottish Government’s budget.

Q1714 Chair: In terms of the amount of spending, Q1719 Jim McGovern: Could I go back a wee bit there are no rules. Is that correct? in terms of the franchise and who will be allowed to Michael Moore: In the meantime, there are no limits vote? There is a by-election coming up in Corby and placed on what either side might wish to spend. I am sure that everyone here will be aware that there is a very large Scottish population there. At the last census, apparently 10% of the population of Corby Q1715 Chair: Was it discussed whether or not there were Scottish-born. Does the Secretary of State have should be limits? a view on whether Scots who do not live in Scotland Michael Moore: We discussed the proposal from the should have a vote? For example, Sir Alex Ferguson, Scottish Government, which was to extend what one of the most famous Scots, as things stand at the would normally be a regulated period of 12 weeks to moment will not be allowed to vote in the referendum. 16 weeks. So we accepted that. We did not discuss Michael Moore: When we issued a consultation back extending it forward to the present day, for instance. in January, we addressed this issue and said that we Chair: We have a Division. Shall we adjourn for the believed that the Scottish Parliament franchise would moment? be the appropriate one, that that would follow from the fact that it was the Scottish Parliament elections Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. that were won and the mandate was secured through that. It was entirely consistent to follow that for this On resuming— referendum on the back of that election victory. That, it seems to me, is the important starting point. It then is about the fact that, in any case, around the world, if a part of any existing country wishes to secede, go Q1716 Chair: You were not in full flow in the its own way, it is the people in that part who have the middle of a particular sentence. I think I waited till vote, self-determination. It is two years away. the end of a paragraph. Anybody who wishes to come up to Scotland to have Michael Moore: You were generous, yes. A whole an influence over that has time perhaps to do chapter, I think, had spewed forth. something about it. But I do not think you can escape Chair: That is possibly true. from those fairly straightforward principles.

Q1717 Pamela Nash: The Scottish Government, in Q1720 Chair: Can I follow that up? One of the my opinion, have taken the view that there should not reasons for the date of the referendum being 2014— be public funding for any of the campaigns around the apart from Bannockburn—was the suggestion that referendum. Is that something that, in negotiations, Scotland would be in the middle of a triumph at the you agreed with the Scottish Government? World cup, but under the SNP leadership it looks as cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG08 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o008_db_Corrected SAC 121031.xml

Ev 232 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

31 October 2012 Rt Hon Michael Moore MP, Rt Hon David Mundell MP, Alun Evans and Chris Flatt if Scotland will not qualify. Do you know how many Michael Moore: Depending, as David made clear, of the Scottish football team will be eligible to vote where they are based and where their home base is— in the referendum at all? Michael Moore: It will depend on where they are Q1728 Chair: That is something that presumably the living at the time of the referendum. Scottish Parliament, if it has the wish to deal with it, can do. Q1721 Chair: Was that mentioned in discussions Michael Moore: They cannot change the electoral and dialogue at all? franchise in that respect in terms of who is eligible, I Michael Moore: I hope the Deputy First Minister am pretty sure. would not object to me saying no, we did not discuss the issue of the Scottish football team voting in the Q1729 Chair: If they can change the age to 16 and course of our discussions. 17-year-olds, presumably there are all sorts of things they can do. Q1722 Pamela Nash: Following up on that, was the Michael Moore: The Scottish Parliament is entitled Scottish armed forces’ eligibility to vote discussed? to set the franchise. The Scottish Government have Michael Moore: It has been discussed. David was indicated they want to go with the Scottish Parliament dealing with that when he was meeting with Bruce franchise as we have enunciated, but that is a debate Crawford. that could be taken to them, I am sure. David Mundell: The current position is that there are rules in relation to armed forces being able to vote Q1730 Pamela Nash: Chair, I am still not clear on and a register in relation to armed forces. There are that. Does the Scottish Parliament now have the still some issues in relation to members of armed power, as a result of this order, if it is passed by our forces who are Scottish who may be stationed and Parliament and theirs, to give Scottish members of the resident in England, because their status would be armed forces based in England the vote? different from members of the armed forces who were Michael Moore: Just so I can clarify again and get stationed overseas. But it was an issue that your this technically correct, they can apply for a vote at colleague Frank Roy raised at the time of the their home base through special service registration statement. Subsequently, I have undertaken with him under the rules that exist. Hence, if you are based in to look at that further. Catterick rather than in Paisley you will not get the vote, whether or not you regard yourself as Scottish. Q1723 Chair: The present position then is that That is clearly an issue for some people who would members of the British armed forces who would have want to be regarded as Scottish for these purposes. the opportunity to transfer possibly to the Scottish Navy, Air Force and Army and perhaps fight and die Q1731 Pamela Nash: I understand that. That is why for their country would not be eligible to vote in the I am concerned. If we wanted to change that and to referendum unless there was a change to the rules. Is ensure that Scottish armed forces based in England that correct? had the right to vote in this referendum, if this order David Mundell: It is certainly the case that not all is passed would that be a matter for the UK Parliament members of the armed forces who would regard or the Scottish Parliament? themselves as Scottish would be able to vote under Michael Moore: If I may say so, you would be the current rules. opening up the broader issue that Mr McGovern raised earlier about what the basis of the franchise is, Q1724 Chair: Secretary of State, you did mention whether it is distinguished Scots like Sir Alex that there were two years before the referendum and Ferguson who live in other parts of the UK or armed that people could do things about that. What sort of forces personnel who, regardless of whether they are things could they do? posted abroad or otherwise, might work at the Michael Moore: All I am saying is that the residency Ministry of Defence or may have been seconded over test is the key to this and, if people are going to be time and rebased themselves south of the border. We moving to or from Scotland, that will affect whether agreed with the Scottish Government that the Scottish or not they can get the vote. The critical thing is that Parliament franchise should be the basis on which it is people based in Scotland who will get the vote. they proceeded. That is the intent.

Q1725 Chair: But people who are living in Spain, Q1732 Chair: Clearly, there is a difference surely who had a Scottish address, are able to vote for up to, between Sir Alex Ferguson, who is a good boy from is it, 15 years beyond, but people living in England— Govan, and members of the armed services, because Michael Moore: That is for Westminster elections, not the members of the armed services can be transferred for the Scottish Parliament franchise. by the MOD, whereas, presumably, Sir Alex Ferguson chose to go to Manchester. People in the armed Q1726 Chair: Fine. So all the eastern Europeans services do not necessarily have the right to decide who are in Scotland at the moment would be eligible where they are based and, of course, members of the to vote if they are registered. armed services might very well be given the right to Michael Moore: That is correct. serve in the Scottish armed forces, whereas there is no guarantee that Sir Alex Ferguson will be given the Q1727 Chair: But Scots in the armed forces would opportunity to serve in the Scottish football team in not. any capacity at all. So there is a clear distinction there, cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG08 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o008_db_Corrected SAC 121031.xml

Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 233

31 October 2012 Rt Hon Michael Moore MP, Rt Hon David Mundell MP, Alun Evans and Chris Flatt surely, between members of the armed forces and Alun Evans: The restrictions are the same as they others. would be for a general election campaign on the use Michael Moore: There are a range of things. One can of Government money or civil servants. be a football manager of a club in one part of the country and live in another. Perhaps it is a stretch to Q1739 Pamela Nash: Before you finish, I would imagine you could do that from Glasgow to still like to clarify the issues around the armed forces. Manchester and commute. Nobody is seriously Minister, you said that, following your statement to suggesting that that can be done, but choosing an the House and the fact that questions were raised on occupation where you can, from time to time, be this, you are now looking at it again. Could you give based in some other part of the country does change us a bit more information on that? your rights. I do not think there is any question of David Mundell: We asked for, and I think the that. What I would be very happy to do for you and Secretary of State indicated that he would provide it the Committee, to get the technical detail of this right, to the Committee, a detailed briefing on the exact is write to you to specify what happens for people rules and whether there was anything that could be who are, for instance, to use the previous example, done in terms of the rules as they currently exist. based in Catterick but have come from, say, Paisley, and whether they can use special voter registration Q1740 Pamela Nash: Might it be the position of the procedures available to the armed forces still to vote UK Government now that they would like Scottish in Paisley. But I do not have chapter and verse about armed forces based elsewhere in the UK who are of that in front of me. Scottish origin to get the vote? David Mundell: I think, obviously, the intention in Q1733 Chair: Did the Scottish Government raise the recent times has been to ensure that members of the issue of the armed forces at any stage during the armed forces get to vote in elections. Members of negotiations? armed forces from Scotland would obviously want to Michael Moore: We did not discuss this, particularly vote within the referendum, but, clearly, in drawing as a subset of the broader point, which was that the up the rules which currently exist, the separate nature Scottish Parliament franchise should be the one that of the Scottish referendum was not within the applied. contemplation at that time. So what we need to do is to look at the rules as they are set out. The Secretary Q1734 Chair: That is right. The point I am making, of State will share them with this Committee and will though, is that they did not seek to raise this. look to see what can be done within the rules as they Michael Moore: We did not have the detailed kind of are set out. discussion that you and I have had just now. Q1741 Pamela Nash: I understand that the rules Q1735 Jim McGovern: Possibly to close that point, preceded thoughts about this particular referendum, it was put to me at the weekend, Secretary of State, which is why I am quite surprised that this was not that, if Sir Sean Connery chooses to maintain a flat in discussed when you were having discussions with the Edinburgh and use his name for the electoral register, Scottish Government in drawing up this order and he would get a vote, but Sir Alex Ferguson, because memorandum of understanding, particularly when it he lives in Manchester, will not. came up in this Committee and in the media several Michael Moore: You are inviting me to speculate on times and was part of major discussions for the last the property owning of two very prominent Scots who few months, in fact the last year, when people were might or might not have different views on the future talking about this referendum. This has not just come of Scotland. These are personal decisions for the up today or when the statement was made to the individuals concerned and they will determine how House. This has been a long-term discussion. that proceeds. Michael Moore: What we undertake for the Committee is to make sure that we give you chapter Q1736 Chair: Can I ask about the draft order and verse on the arrangements as they apply and providing for the, I think, 28-day period of purdah for which we would expect would apply consistently Ministers and public bodies? Are there any restraints through the adoption of the Scottish Parliament upon the use of Government money and staff for franchise as it exists at present and make sure that propaganda purposes by the Scottish Government people in the armed forces understand what that from now on? means for them and their entitlement to vote. Michael Moore: The normal rules applying to accounting officers and how they use public money Q1742 Pamela Nash: That detail would be very apply throughout, so it is for civil servants and— much appreciated, but I think the armed forces would also like to know that there is someone fighting for Q1737 Chair: So that is a no then. them to get this vote in the Scottish referendum. Michael Moore: There are no additional restrictions. Michael Moore: It is an issue clearly that will also be debated in the context of the Scottish Parliament’s Q1738 Chair: But there are additional restrictions consideration of the referendum. for that 28-day period. Michael Moore: That is entirely consistent with Q1743 Chair: Can I be clear about that? The other referendums. Scottish Parliament has the power to change the rules cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG08 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o008_db_Corrected SAC 121031.xml

Ev 234 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

31 October 2012 Rt Hon Michael Moore MP, Rt Hon David Mundell MP, Alun Evans and Chris Flatt for 16 and 17-year-olds. Does it also have the power Q1749 Chair: Was it referred to? Were you told to change the rules for the armed forces? anything of it? Was it mentioned? Michael Moore: I need to double check the specific Alun Evans: I can speak for myself. I cannot speak arrangements that are made through UK electoral law for all of my colleagues, but the fact that the as opposed to the devolved electoral aspects on that, consultation had happened, the fact that the results but I will make sure that that is clarified for you. were due to be published late summer, whatever that meant, was discussed, but no specifics of what was Q1744 Chair: Fine, okay. The final point I want, actually going to be said in the consultation were before I make a brief closing statement, is just to come given to us in advance. back, if I could, to this question of the Scottish Government’s consultation. We have been contacted Q1750 Chair: Goodness me, that really is amazing, since the session began by people who were watching isn’t it? Are there any final points that you want to the programme and we want to be absolutely clear mention to us? that at no stage did the SNP appear to have or to refer Michael Moore: I am grateful for the opportunity to to the results of their own consultation. Is that correct? be here again this afternoon. The key thing for all of Michael Moore: I apologise, but I didn’t— us is that we now have an agreement which will ensure that we have a legal, fair and decisive Q1745 Chair: The Scottish Government had their referendum on independence and independence alone consultation. I want to be clear that at no stage in the and I look forward to the further discussions we will negotiations did the Scottish Government have with you on all the different issues that that representatives refer to the results of their consultation debate now raises. as supporting evidence for anything that they put Chair: Right. Can I say, on behalf of the Committee, forward. thank you very much for expounding in such great Michael Moore: Correct. detail how the section 30 notice is intended to work? Obviously, we want to explore this in detail and we Q1746 Chair: They did not refer to the consultation are probably likely to call some further witnesses in any way, shape or form and the consultation did about the issues that they might be concerned about, not form any part of the dialogue and discussion that about how this operates. But we should not allow this took place. to pass without remarking on what a remarkable Michael Moore: I gave the answers earlier. It is change and transformation we have. correct to say that they did not share with us the We have now managed to come to an agreement that outcome of the consultation or discuss it with us in will allow the Scottish people to make a major the course of our negotiations. decision—the greatest for 300 years—about whether or not they wish to remain part of the United Q1747 Chair: But you do not know whether or not Kingdom. Our understandable anxiety, given they had it and were just keeping quiet about it. particularly what has happened recently, is that this is Michael Moore: I have no insight into the inner handled fairly, that there are no attempts to rig the workings of the Scottish Government, how they ballot and no false legal advice provided or anything handled this with their external advisers and assessors. else and that we maybe have one person, one vote. It What I do know is that within our own operation civil is not one man, one vote, with the one man being the servants did all the work and we minimised the cost First Minister. We want to make sure that the rules are by ensuring that we kept— fair on all sides and we will continue to investigate and pursue that. Q1748 Chair: Was this drawn to the attention of Could I thank you very much for coming along? I your civil servants at all? In dialogue between the civil think we have let you out three minutes early. servants were the results of the consultation mentioned in any way, shape or form? Alun Evans: The civil service team did not see any of the results of the consultation beforehand either. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [SO] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG09 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o009_db_Corrected SAC 121120.xml

Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 235

Tuesday 20 November 2012

Members present: Mr Ian Davidson (Chair)

Mike Crockart Pamela Nash Jim McGovern Lindsay Roy ______

Examination of Witnesses

Witnesses: Blair Jenkins, Chief Executive, Yes Scotland campaign, and Blair McDougall, Campaign Director, Better Together campaign, gave evidence.

Q1751 Chair: Gentlemen, thank you very much for allows for proper free speech and proper exchange coming along to this meeting of the Scottish Affairs of ideas. Committee. As you know, we have been conducting a series of hearings about the separation referendum and Q1754 Lindsay Roy: First, can I ask you for your looking at some issues to do with process and content. views on the credibility of the Electoral Commission Today, we want to concentrate with you upon issues given its track record on impartiality, fairness and relating to process, because I suspect that we wouldn’t integrity? Could you just sum up your view of the find much of a meeting of minds were we to discuss Electoral Commission in these terms? the actual merits of the case. I don’t know whether Blair Jenkins: I have no reason to differ from what this is the first time you have been on a platform you have just said. As far as I am aware, the Electoral together. Commission is a body of great credibility and Blair McDougall: No. NUS Scotland—we were authority. I have had a preliminary meeting with some together there. of the officials, which went very well. I happen to know personally the commissioner in Scotland, John Q1752 Chair: I am sure you will be sick of the sight McCormick. He is a former colleague from BBC days of each other by the end of this. First, could I ask you and a man for whom I have a great deal of respect. to introduce yourselves and explain what your The Electoral Commission seems to be a thoroughly professional and well-run body. position is, starting with Blair Jenkins? Blair Jenkins: I am Blair Jenkins, chief executive of the Yes Scotland campaign. Q1755 Chair: Do you have any reservations about the Electoral Commission being involved in this? Blair McDougall: I am Blair McDougall, campaign Blair Jenkins: None. director of Better Together. Blair McDougall: I have been involved in politics for the entire duration of the Electoral Commission’s Q1753 Chair: The Committee is of the view, as is existence. People and political parties complain this Parliament, that we want a referendum that is sometimes about the Electoral Commission, but the clear, fair and decisive. Do you have any comments truth is that they are the best source of expert opinion at the very beginning about how you believe this can and advice on electoral matters. If we didn’t have best be achieved, perhaps starting with Blair Jenkins? them, we would have to invent them. Blair Jenkins: I want to say right away that very good progress has been made already. The Edinburgh Q1756 Chair: To put the same question, do you have agreement between the two Governments has laid the any reservations about them? foundations for what should be a very good and, I Blair McDougall: None at all. hope, well conducted referendum campaign. I am very firmly of the view, as is everyone associated with Yes Q1757 Lindsay Roy: So you are happy with their Scotland, that this should be a positive campaign and role rather than a specially selected Scottish that all parties should engage with and treat each other commission? with courtesy, respect and professionalism. I think the Blair Jenkins: I think that that part of the agreement way has been laid clear for that to happen. We have a that was reached and the role that the Electoral very clear process, at least the signs of a definite date Commission has been allocated seems to be for the referendum and the prospect of an excellent thoroughly sensible. campaign over the next two years. Blair McDougall: I would agree with all of that. I Q1758 Lindsay Roy: As leaders of your respective think people wanted the two Governments to work campaigns, will you be content to accept all the together to come to an agreement on this in a mature Electoral Commission’s rulings and follow their way. They did and that was welcome. We are now in advice? a situation where we have to move on from that to Blair McDougall: Yes, absolutely. We are involved in ensure—I think you are right—that the rules are fair a process of consultation and engagement with them and transparent but also that they are set in a way that at the moment where we will put our arguments very enables a full debate over the course of the next two forcefully about what the playing field should look years and also during the regulated period. That will like, but when that is done we have to accept what be about ensuring a fair playing field but also one that they come forward with. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG09 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o009_db_Corrected SAC 121120.xml

Ev 236 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

20 November 2012 Blair Jenkins and Blair McDougall

Blair Jenkins: I would be very surprised if the professional assessment, and they would make their Electoral Commission came back with anything with reasons for that very plain. which I would fundamentally disagree. Q1763 Lindsay Roy: Do you think the Scottish Q1759 Chair: That is not the same point as asking Government should be bound by it? whether or not you would accept their rulings. Blair Jenkins: In the court of public opinion, if the Blair Jenkins: I would expect the advice of the Electoral Commission come back with a really well- Electoral Commission to be something that all parties presented argument for why there ought to be any found acceptable. I would not have any doubt that change to that suggested question, it would be difficult they will come back with thoroughly well-tested and for anyone to say that that ought not to be paid well-presented recommendations. attention to. I imagine the reason that their role is worded and presented in the way it is is that no one Q1760 Chair: That is not the same as saying, as Mr would wish to give them an absolutely blank cheque McDougall did, that you would accept their advice. so that whatever they came back with was to be Saying that you expect them to come back with things unequivocally accepted. I would be surprised by two you will agree with is not quite the same as saying things: first, if they made any substantive change to you would accept what they come forward with, even the question; and, secondly, if they put a well- if you disagree with it. presented case for why there should be a change, it Blair Jenkins: I imagine there is a reason why their did not find general acceptance. role is advisory rather than their having a mandatory or compulsory overview for Governments to accept. Q1764 Lindsay Roy: Blair, what is your view? There is always room left to disagree, but, as I say, I Blair McDougall: There is a sense that has crept into would be extremely surprised if there was anything the debate in Scotland that somehow the question the Electoral Commission came back with that I doesn’t matter. People talk in terms of hopefully would disagree with. everyone, after a two-year campaign, knowing what they are voting for when they go into the polling booth. For me, that is an argument for having a fair Q1761 Chair: This does seem to be a distinction question, not for saying it does not matter. The between you. What are the circumstances in which existing wording put forward feels like a push you believe you might disagree with the rulings of the question. My question on the question would be: Electoral Commission and, presumably, advise against would the Scottish Government be happy with a accepting them? question that said, “Do you agree that Scotland should Blair Jenkins: I cannot imagine those circumstances. remain within the United Kingdom?”, and I suspect I am sure they will do a thoroughly professional job they wouldn’t be. Of course, people will know what and come back with very thoroughly tested and very they are voting for when they go to the ballot box, but good recommendations. I was just making the the day after the referendum one of the two players distinction—I do not think it is an academic one—that will be going round the studios explaining why they it is advice on the issues rather than a ruling, isn’t it? lost. The principle of the process has to be that the Chair: That is absolutely correct. losing person has no legitimate process complaint that Blair Jenkins: I am just making that distinction. they can make. It is perfectly possible that this Chair: The UK Government have established that referendum could be as close as some of the they will take advice. The people who are elected referendums we have seen in Quebec, and it is really have the final responsibility to take the decision, but important that the loser gives consent, whoever that in the past they have always accepted rulings of the may be, out of the campaigners. There can’t be a sense Electoral Commission, even when, particularly in the of grievance or conspiracy coming out of it. case of the present Government, they didn’t like them. I just wanted to be clear if that was the position of Q1765 Lindsay Roy: To extend that argument a bit both of you, and, as I understand, it is. further, do you think it is right that the Scottish Parliament has unfettered power to determine the Q1762 Lindsay Roy: Just to be clear, on the details of the referendum—the question, the timing acceptance of the proposed wording of the question, and franchise—and, if so, why? that would also be the case. Blair Jenkins: In essence, what you are asking is: do Blair Jenkins: I would be very surprised if, in the I think the Edinburgh agreement is satisfactory in the next six months, the Electoral Commission came back powers allocated to the Scottish Parliament? Yes, I am with something that was not an extremely well- content with what is in the Edinburgh agreement. presented argument. For instance, on the point you are addressing, if they proposed a change in the suggested Q1766 Lindsay Roy: Would you say that is question, I am sure they would do it in such a way unfettered power? that they could say they had thoroughly tested it and Blair Jenkins: I am not sure it is unfettered. They on examination they were recommending a change. If have certainly been given particular powers in relation you are asking me to predict—I don’t mind doing to the conduct of the referendum, and those are laid that—I would be very surprised if the Electoral out in the Edinburgh agreement. Both Governments Commission made any substantive or substantial approved that. Both Governments, after quite a long change to the proposed question. If they suggested period of consultation and negotiation, got to an that, I am sure it would be based on a very honest and agreed position. It is greatly to the credit of both cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG09 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o009_db_Corrected SAC 121120.xml

Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 237

20 November 2012 Blair Jenkins and Blair McDougall

Governments that that position was reached, and that advice. I would be very, very, very surprised if it turns is good news for all of us. out otherwise.

Q1767 Lindsay Roy: Blair, what is your view on Q1773 Jim McGovern: So the organisation that you that? represent has a get-out clause? Blair McDougall: I think the Scottish Government Blair Jenkins: If you choose to phrase it that way. was elected on a mandate to have this referendum. They have been given the right to do that, and that Q1774 Chair: Maybe we want to come back to this. is correct. With that right comes the responsibility to This Committee and Parliament are pretty clearly of exercise that power fairly and to be seen to exercise the view that “Do you agree?” is a biased formulation. that power fairly for the reasons I have given. Indeed, we produced a report entitled “Do You Agree This is a Biased Question?” We would regard any Q1768 Lindsay Roy: So you think there are enough formulation that simply had “Do you agree?” and then checks and balances in the set-up that has been a yes or no as biased. Unless the Electoral agreed? Commission comes back with a change in that, there Blair McDougall: That remains to be seen, if I am would still be a lingering doubt about whether the honest. The fact that we are having this process of process was right or stacked against one side rather scrutiny is really important. My honest sense is that than the other. It is in that sort of area that we are we have seen a lot of media and parliamentary worried. There is a whole number of points, relatively scrutiny of this. The thing that will keep the Scottish small in themselves, which, if added together, could Government honest on this is that the Scottish people make collectively quite a big difference to the way the wouldn’t stomach a fix. If one side or the other was referendum is conducted. seen to be trying to fix the playing field in their favour, We will come on to finance later. Therefore, the it would backfire on them. question of the question and whether you are unequivocally prepared to accept the ruling of the Q1769 Lindsay Roy: So manipulation would Electoral Commission is an important one. I am backfire? disappointed in a sense that you have not said that, Blair McDougall: I think it would. yes, unequivocally, you will accept the ruling of the Electoral Commission on the question. Q1770 Jim McGovern: Mr McDougall seems to be Blair Jenkins: To be absolutely clear on the point, I quite unequivocal in saying that the organisation he find the current formulation of the question very clear represents will accept advice from the Electoral and straightforward. I don’t think it is an Commission. Mr Jenkins, you may or may not be unsatisfactory question. I accept that is a view that saying that. Could you make your position clear? you have. I have heard the view expressed that the Blair Jenkins: I will have another go at it. I would be verb “agree” predisposes people to say yes. I have yet astonished if the Electoral Commission came back to read a persuasive argument as to why that would with a finding on the question— be the case. If I say to you, “Do you agree that your salary should be cut by 50%?”, are you really more Q1771 Jim McGovern: But your organisation will likely to say yes because the verb “agree” is in the accept whatever the advice from the Electoral sentence? As someone whose degree is in language Commission is? and literature, I don’t necessarily see there is a Blair Jenkins: To be fair, you would have to look at predisposition to answer yes because the verb “agree” it first; it would not be the first time that a public body, is in the question. however responsible— But I know the Electoral Commission have a lot of Jim McGovern: Mr McDougall has said that his experience of testing questions and they will do a very organisation will accept it. good and thorough process. Because it seems very Blair Jenkins: I heard that. clear and straightforward to me, I doubt if there will be any substantial change to the proposed question, Q1772 Jim McGovern: You are saying you might but, if there is, I am sure the Electoral Commission not? will provide very good reasons for why that should Blair Jenkins: I didn’t say that at all. I said I would be. I would be very surprised if, in providing those be utterly astonished if the Electoral Commission reasons, they don’t come up with something that is came back with something I found unacceptable, but compelling and persuasive for all of us. But, in you do have to leave yourself just a sliver of doubt fairness, you cannot say with any advisory body, that an experienced and highly professional body “Whatever they advise, we are going to accept that in might come back with something that you would look advance.” You have to have a look at the advice first at and think, “You know what? That is not quite and then decide, “They have done their job and that right.” There is precedent for that, so I don’t think that is absolutely good advice.” is something you can completely discount. As I said, Chair: Before I ask Blair McDougall to come in, I would find it highly unlikely. It is not something I could I refer you to the report that we produced? If would expect to happen. Knowing the people you have not read it, it has within it a whole number involved, I am sure they will do a very thorough, of reasons why that formulation is unacceptable, not honest and professional job. When we all come to see from our perspective but simply from the perspective their advice based on the testing of the questions they of experts that we had in front of us. It does indicate have done, I think all parties will find it acceptable quite clearly that “Do you agree?” is seen to be a cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG09 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o009_db_Corrected SAC 121120.xml

Ev 238 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

20 November 2012 Blair Jenkins and Blair McDougall leading formulation. It comes back to the point I made you agree that Scotland should remain part of the before. In itself it will not necessarily determine the United Kingdom?” result, but I am sure you are familiar with the phrase Blair Jenkins: I think that in any referendum the onus “many a mickle makes a muckle” and that constant is on the side of the campaign that is proposing a shaving off at the edges can make quite a substantial change to make the case for change. I have always difference. accepted in this referendum that there is a fair onus, if you like, on the yes campaign to make the case for Q1775 Mike Crockart: I wanted to make the same change. Logically, the question should be about the point, Chair. Using the example that you gave of change; it should be the proposed change that is questioning someone with a strong view on the captured in the question rather than the status quo, if subject you are talking about, of course you are not you see what I mean. going to get the results that we are talking about here. Based on my experience in the police, if in Q1779 Pamela Nash: But if the word “agree” is questioning someone I had asked, “Would you agree neutral, what does it matter? that you did this?”, and, “Would you agree that you Blair Jenkins: It is not the verb I am talking about did that?”, it would have been thrown out of court, here; it is whether what you are being asked about is because it would have been seen as leading a suspect a change to independence rather than staying in the or witness to a particular conclusion. With that United Kingdom. With regard to the question, experience in mind, you have to accept that there is however it is formulated, and I do accept what people an expected result if you have a formulation of are saying, the Electoral Commission may very well wording in that way. in their wisdom come back and say, “We think we Blair Jenkins: So, if the wording was “Do you have identified a better formulation.” I would be very think?”, “Do you believe?” or “Do you support?”, that surprised if they came back and said that the question would be okay? Is that what you are suggesting? should not mention independence but staying in the United Kingdom. The question has to address the Q1776 Mike Crockart: We would have to test that change that is being proposed. Going back to where I and see, but plenty of testing has been done on started, I believe that it is a fair and straightforward “Would you agree?” Even adding just “or disagree” presentation of the question. I would be utterly seems to give a different statistical response from a astonished if the Electoral Commission came back given set of people, so the evidence is that it does with a finding or bit of advice, whatever that is, that I have an effect. would take issue with, because I am sure it will be Blair Jenkins: We are in the hands of the Electoral well researched and very well-founded. Commission here. They know what they are doing, and I am sure they will test it and come back with Q1780 Pamela Nash: How about, “Do you agree very good advice. that Scotland should be separate from the rest of the United Kingdom?” That still reflects the change that Q1777 Mike Crockart: I would love to say that we would take place. are. If everybody is agreeing they will go with Blair Jenkins: To my mind, “separate” is a slightly whatever they come out with, we would be in the loaded word, and “independent” or “independence” is hands of the Electoral Commission, but that sliver of a more neutral word. doubt has been raised. Blair McDougall: When these things are tested, they Q1781 Pamela Nash: Suppose the other side think are tested as opinion polls. We can argue that when the opposite? someone goes into a polling station, they will have a Blair Jenkins: I am sure that is true, but, again, who different frame of mind. You can argue that it is just knows? If the Electoral Commission come back and a marginal difference. It may not be the difference suggest that that be a change, that is something we between a 60–40 and 70–30 result either way. But we can discuss at that point. may be in a situation where we are talking about margins. The process needs to be beyond question in Q1782 Chair: Maybe we can move on. You made a case there is a situation where we are dealing with valuable point, Mr Jenkins, about its being up to those marginal situations. We don’t want to have a process who want a change to justify that case. Surely, one of that encourages us to get into a situation of turmoil in the problems with testing opinion about the the event of a narrow victory either way. I think we formulation that we have—“Do you agree that have got to plan for that. At the moment neither of us Scotland should become independent?”—is what is particularly planning for a result that has tens of independence actually means at the moment. My thousands of votes here or there; we both would like understanding is that the Scottish Government are not to win big for our respective sides, but you have to going to produce their paper on what independence plan for the worst in this. That may not seem like a would mean until November 2013 or so. If they are big deal; it may seem that it is marginal, but we have now testing that question without independence being to plan for those marginal circumstances. fully explained, to some extent it comes back to the issue of a pig in a poke, does it not? Before you test Q1778 Pamela Nash: I just want to put to Mr a question containing the term “independence”, there Jenkins a point that Mr McDougall raised earlier. ought to be a clear formulation of what independence Would you be happy with a question that said, “Do would mean. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG09 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o009_db_Corrected SAC 121120.xml

Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 239

20 November 2012 Blair Jenkins and Blair McDougall

Blair Jenkins: I see the point you are making. There contained in the White Paper and would form part of are probably two stages here that maybe address the their proposals. point. In general terms, the concept of what it is to be an independent country is pretty well understood and Q1784 Lindsay Roy: And interest rates? explicable. If you say to people in the UK that Spain Blair Jenkins: Do you mean on who sets interest is an independent country but Catalonia is not, they rates? understand the difference between a state that has total Lindsay Roy: Yes; who sets interest rates. autonomy for its own affairs—which treaties it is Blair Jenkins: Yes, that would have to be there in the going to enter into and how interdependent it wishes proposals for the currency. to be with other countries—and one that does not. Those are the hallmarks of an independent state. Q1785 Lindsay Roy: So proper testing of the The precise framework that is proposed that Scotland question means it would be beyond November 2013? would have at the point at which the independence Blair Jenkins: I am not sure what you mean by that. referendum is held is something the Scottish Government have to spell out in detail in the White Paper. You will be as familiar as we are with the list Q1786 Lindsay Roy: If we are testing the question of issues around the monarchy, currency, methods of and understanding of what independence means, we electing Parliaments and so on. Issues around what won’t have that detail until at least November 2013. framework you would propose for independence in Blair Jenkins: That addresses the point I made this particular case will be in the November 2013 earlier—and, as far as I know, the Electoral White Paper. Therefore, there is a year for people to Commission have expressed no anxiety on this—that understand exactly the terms and framework for an you can test the question about the concept of independent Scotland that are being proposed. independence and what it means to be an independent But the notion or concept of what it is to be an country. I think you can test that, because people have a fairly clear understanding of that or at least can be independent country is that you make all your own brought to a position of understanding the general decisions, whatever those are. Sometimes, those will concept of what it is to be an independent country. be decisions to do things in partnership, by treaty and The precise proposals that the Scottish Government in an interdependent way with other countries; wish to put forward in their own White Paper a year sometimes it will be a decision not to do things in that from now are a second stage. I agree that it will be way. You can pose and test a question on the concept incumbent on them at that point to spell out what their without having the detail, but I take your point proposals are in relation to currency and a whole entirely. I think the detail has to be fully spelt out well range of other matters. ahead of the vote. Blair McDougall: My concern wouldn’t be about whether independence is clearly defined before a Q1787 Lindsay Roy: Might not some people, question is tested. My question is more whether therefore, think that to be an independent country you independence is clearly defined at all. My worry is would set your own interest rates? that at the moment we have embarked upon a Blair Jenkins: I think you choose your currency and protracted pre-debate. We don’t seem to be getting the whether you wish to be in any form of currency prospectus until 2013, which is about a year from partnership with other countries, so the principle is now, and that might leave only about seven months one of self-determination. Whether you choose to between the prospectus being put forward and the start enter into agreements, associations or partnerships of the 16-week short campaign. I understand the with other countries is one of the hallmarks of an concern, but we need more debate sooner rather than independent nation. looking for additional reasons to pause and reflect on things. The good thing about the two-year period is Q1788 Lindsay Roy: So you could choose that we have two years to debate it, and we need to dependency and somebody else making a decision make sure that those two years are full of debate. about the interest rate level? Blair Jenkins: That is your interpretation. Q1783 Lindsay Roy: To take an example, would independence mean that you determine your own Q1789 Lindsay Roy: It is a question I am posing currency and interest rates? to you. Blair Jenkins: That is what will have to be spelt out Blair Jenkins: It will be spelt out in the White Paper. in the White Paper. The Scottish Government’s To put an interpretation like that on it would depend proposal in relation to currency should be there at that upon the precise proposals that are put forward. The point. You will know, as does everyone else in the general argument I have heard in favour of a sterling room, that the Scottish Government over a period of zone and a shared currency post-Scottish several months have been spelling out what they independence is very strong. I know a number of propose in relation to currency at the point at which eminent figures south of the border, let alone north of Scotland becomes independent. I believe they have a the border, whether or not they agree with Scottish fiscal commission sitting, which is due to come back independence, who have said that, if Scotland does and report in the spring with more details on this vote to become independent, it would make sense for point. My understanding is that the precise proposals all the component parts of these islands to have one of the Scottish Government about currency would be currency. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG09 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o009_db_Corrected SAC 121120.xml

Ev 240 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

20 November 2012 Blair Jenkins and Blair McDougall

Q1790 Chair: I have slight reservations about We just wanted to hear your view, because we will allowing this line of questioning, because, before we probably express a view on these questions. know where we are, you will be rolling about on the Blair Jenkins: My view is that I am content with the floor hitting each other and arguing about currency timetable. and all the rest of it. Sticking to process, I think your Blair McDougall: Two years is a long time for me; it position is fairly clear. Are you also clear that the is two years of steady employment. Maybe one would issue of testing the question and the use of the term say it is not terribly wise. This is the first political “independence” can be fairly and reasonably done conversation that everybody has in the playground in without having the detail of what independence might Scotland. People have fairly sophisticated and mean spelt out? developed views on this, and they will become more Blair McDougall: I think the Scottish people have a informed through the debate over the next two years, general enough notion of what independence means but, if we wanted to, we could have the referendum in order to test it, but my real concern with waiting sooner. Blair is right that by having those two years until that point is that that point may never come. we can have a proper and full debate. To link it to the previous line of questioning, at the moment every time Q1791 Chair: But that is a slightly different point, a question is raised in this debate we are told to wait isn’t it? We are trying to identify things about which until November 2013. There is an opportunity, but it we are concerned. I will come to the question of delay is one that needs to be seized rather than firing a in a moment. Neither of you is worried about testing starting pistol and we all jog on the spot for a year. taking place at the moment in isolation without everything else being spelt out. Q1795 Chair: Why is it reasonable to expect that in Blair McDougall: I don’t see where the point is in the 2013 all our questions will be answered, and, at least timeline towards the referendum where we would from the Scottish Government’s perspective, there have absolute confidence that we are getting a very will be no unanswered questions? For example, we clear proposition anyway. I don’t know when you produced a report recently on Trident entitled “Days would wait until. or Decades?”, where there is a clear choice. They can be disarmed in days and the weapons removed within Q1792 Chair: Fine. We are clear about that. months, or they could be held there for 20-odd years Can I come back to the question of the time scale? or so. That is a choice. Can we expect that the Scottish Two years seems to be quite a long time. A fair Government will answer that sort of question in the number of people have said to us, “Why don’t we just White Paper and that all the other issues coming up get on with it?” I can see that a timetable has been will be answered then, or, as Mr McDougall seems to constructed with a White Paper not coming out until be suggesting, will there still be a lot of known November; I can see the celebration of Bannockburn; unknowns? there are the Commonwealth Games. I can see a logic Blair Jenkins: I can offer you my best guess. I am to that timetable, but, on the other hand, it is almost not privy to exactly what the Scottish Government are as if you identify the time and look for a rationale for going to put into the White Paper in November of it. Why is it absolutely necessary to have such a long next year, but I imagine it would have to address all period? Surely, given your earlier point, Mr Jenkins, the framework issues that people have. What would about people understanding the broad sweep of what an independent Scotland look like in terms of the independence is, the vote can take place much earlier. structure and organisation of the country? Then a Blair Jenkins: I am one of those people who have distinction would have to be made in regard to policy always been very grateful for the fact that two years items, which would have to be put to voters in are available. There is a need to engage people in the Scotland in the first general election in an independent debate. There are a lot of questions that people want Scotland in May 2016. There is a distinction to be to raise and answer. I very much believe that in the made, and it is one the Yes Scotland campaign has to course of the next two years, by engaging people in make all the time. We do occasionally get asked conversation about what it is to be independent and policy questions such as, “Will the taxes go up or the benefits of independence, we will secure a down in an independent Scotland?”, to which the majority in 2014. Clearly, I am very happy with the answer is: it depends on who you vote for. There is a two-year timetable. You are perfectly entitled to ask clear distinction to be made between what people are the question. The timetable for the autumn is now voting for in 2014, which is the core principle that settled between the two Governments. Scotland should be an independent country, and the precise policies that people might wish an independent Q1793 Chair: No. It is my understanding that the Scotland to pursue, whether they are defence-related end date is settled and that the power is going to be issues or anything else. These two things have to be passed to the Scottish Government to determine the held and looked at separately. date. For instance, it is no part of my job and the yes Blair Jenkins: I see. campaign to put forward a manifesto or set of policy propositions as a campaign. That would not be Q1794 Chair: In my view it is up to them, quite appropriate. The campaign embodies a number of rightly, to decide the date. If they wanted, they could very different views on policy issues. I am not sure I respond to public opinion and say they will have it in could find a satisfactory way of reconciling all of the spring or autumn of next year, or the spring of the those. We aim to be a very big tent—a very broad year after, instead of the autumn the year after next. church. There are people in the campaign who have cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG09 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o009_db_Corrected SAC 121120.xml

Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 241

20 November 2012 Blair Jenkins and Blair McDougall right of centre and left of centre views on the elections in an independent Scotland or a matter for economy. The only admission ticket for Yes Scotland negotiation post-independence. My opinion is that, the is that you believe in an independent Scotland. more people hear that, the less they are likely to vote Provided that you believe in democracy and in an for independence, so it is a political rather than a independent Scotland, you are very welcome. process point. I do not think the Scottish people will just be willing to write a blank cheque on this come Q1796 Chair: Taking the example I gave of Trident, 2014, but clearly there is a balance between expecting are you saying that in November 2013 we will or will people to have a crystal ball and predict absolutely not get an answer about what the position of the yes everything versus giving them detailed information on campaign is? pretty fundamental things like interest rates, currency, Blair Jenkins: You wouldn’t get the position of the defence and their position in the world. yes campaign. I think you will get the SNP’s position in November 2013. Again, if I get this wrong, I Q1799 Chair: How do we try to overcome that apologise because I am not part of their decision- difficulty? Tell me if you think Trident is the wrong making process, but I understand that, in addition to example. We just picked on that because it seemed to what is formally in the White Paper in terms of the us to be clear that there were two identified framework for an independent Scotland, at that point parameters; there is obviously a grey area in between. they are publishing their own prospectus. I believe What we are trying to flush out from those who are in that sets out their own policy position on a number of favour of separation as well as the United Kingdom key areas, and the one you have identified is a very Government is what their position is in that event, in important one. Trident is a very big issue in this order that people in Scotland can realise that if they campaign. vote against separation this is the likely consequence, but, if they vote for it and the “days and months” line Q1797 Chair: One of our anxieties is about people is pursued, the UK Government will react in such and being asked to vote for a pig in a poke and not such a way. It seems to us that that is a much better understanding what separation will actually mean. way to proceed, because that is putting as much You are separating out a lot of this into two categories: information as we possibly can in the hands of the one is those things that would happen only if a Scottish people. Have you got an alternative particular Government is elected in 2016, which need formulation? not necessarily flow from separation at all, and the Blair McDougall: The only way you get to a point second is those things that will flow from separation. where the Scottish people have all the information Blair Jenkins: Yes. they need is by having a vigorous debate. It is a political rather than a process question, if you like. Q1798 Chair: That is obviously difficult, because, Again, I think the politics of it and my judgment on presumably, people could end up voting for separation it, and our experience from the thousands of on the basis that they might get rid of Trident very conversations our activists have had and from our own quickly, but, if a particular Government is elected and polling of focus groups, is that people in Scotland are doesn’t go down that route, it won’t happen and they incredibly aware that this is their decision and not one will then end up feeling deceived. It is the point about that politicians will take on their behalf that they can loser’s consent, isn’t it? There is an expectation that, then unpick after a four or five-year parliamentary if you vote for or against something, that something term. People are desperate for this information, and, either does or does not happen, but you seem to be if either of our camps is not furnishing them with that telling us that there would be no clear guarantees that some of the things being put forward as the benefits information, they will suffer, so this is a political of independence or separation would actually happen. rather than a process point. Blair Jenkins: I make two points in answer to that question. One is that I find it inconceivable that in any Q1800 Chair: Are you happy with that? parliamentary arrangement or outcome in an Blair Jenkins: Just to add, if it helps to clarify things, independent Scotland there would be a vote for I think what we very clearly set out for people in continuing to have Trident missiles based in Scotland, Scotland before we get to voting in 2014 will be the but there is an onus on all political parties in Scotland, structure, shape and framework of an independent including those that do not support independence, to Scotland. It is then for the political parties in the say what they would do about Trident in the event of normal way to set out their stall and say, “If you vote Scotland voting for independence. I think your own for independence, then here’s what we would do with party’s view on that would be very interesting. If those powers.” Most people in Scotland—certainly, Scotland votes to become independent, would the this will form part of the yes campaign—will be Labour Party in an independent Scotland be in favour anticipating what they might expect from an of retaining Trident missiles on the Clyde? That would independent Parliament and an independent Scotland. be something the public in Scotland would be very I think they will reasonably assume that they probably interested in knowing. have a better chance of protection of public services; Blair McDougall: The premise behind your question they will probably be attracted by the fact that they is that the Scottish people would vote for a blank are not going to get a Government they didn’t vote cheque come 2014. This is a political rather than a for. There are lots of things that can be presented as process point. Often, to our frustration, the response strong probabilities, certainties or great likelihoods, to questions is that that would be a matter for the first which will be part of the case that we are making. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG09 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o009_db_Corrected SAC 121120.xml

Ev 242 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

20 November 2012 Blair Jenkins and Blair McDougall

Blair McDougall: I am desperately trying not to slip other point about the difference between the into politics as well, but this is behind a lot of the devolution and independence debate is that the political debate in Scotland at the moment. If the other devolution debate had been around for a long time. I side of the argument is willing to be honest and say, am old enough to remember—I suspect you are as “Look, we don’t know what the situation is on this; it well—the 1979 referendum. The argument around will be a matter for negotiation”, that is fine, but it is devolution, given that there were different models and when that is camouflaged by an assertion that is not different formulations in play at different times, was a based on fact that it starts to become a problem. I very long-running one, with which I think the Scottish think that in the course of a vigorous two-year debate people had become very familiar. Until fairly recently, that should be exposed when it exists, but honesty as I doubt there were many people in Scotland who had to where the doubts exist is necessary. anticipated that they would face the prospect of an Chair: Having discussed this with my colleagues, that independence referendum soon. It required a is probably one of the areas where we see ourselves particular set of circumstances for that to become playing a role. There have been assertions, for possible. If you like, we are starting from a lower example, about membership of the EU. One side says, experience and knowledge base in terms of the debate. “Yes, definitely; no doubt at all”; the other side says, It is a hugely important decision. Lots of people on “It’s not certainly the case.” Somebody impartial both sides of the argument have said that this is the needs to weigh that up, and we will look at that. The most important decision the Scottish people are going danger in many ways is that a slogan emerges that to make in their lifetime, so two years is not really says, “Don’t know. Vote no.” It would not be in your too long to have a debate. own interest or the interests of the people of Scotland Blair McDougall: I think the difficulty arises and the that they ended up taking a decision because they did main thing is to set an example. There was a clear not know what was genuinely going to happen. It policy. We are now embarked on a process where it is comes back to the question of a pig in a poke. fairly obvious that there will not be a clear policy presented to us for another year. The question is about Q1801 Jim McGovern: On the timing of the the political wisdom of having embarked on the referendum, the Chair was quite correct to say that it process without having a clear policy and proposition has not yet been decided but it looks like it will be prepared. Again, at the risk of straying into politics, if the autumn of 2014. When Labour was elected in at the end of the two-year period we have that richer 1997, part of its manifesto was to have a referendum and more detailed image of what independence looks about a Scottish Parliament. I think that took place like—not just the why and principle of independence, within four months, and the Parliament was set up but the what and detail of how an independent country within a couple of years. Why do we need to wait two would function, what the costs would be and so on— years for this question of Scottish separatism? fine, but if we spend two years and at the end of it Blair Jenkins: You would expect me to say—it is we are still presented with a why rather than what objectively true—that a decision on becoming an proposition it will be two years wasted. It will be two independent country is different from a decision to years in which the independence debate will have have a form of devolution within the UK. crowded out all sorts of other pressing issues within Scottish society. Q1802 Jim McGovern: Do you think devolution was less important? Q1804 Chair: Surely, lots of the issues that people Blair Jenkins: This is not a controversial point I am would want to hear will be judged, according to what making. On a scale of magnitude of change, a decision Blair Jenkins said earlier, as issues for the first to have a system of devolution within the UK—which separate Scottish Parliament. Therefore, you will not most people would have said was long overdue, and get lots of answers to these sorts of questions. the UK was one of the most centralised and over- Blair McDougall: Taking it from the Better Together centralised countries in western Europe—had broad point of view, there are certain things we can argue support but was, while a very important matter, of a and present, and certain things that the constituent different scale of magnitude from a decision to parties within our coalition will present. Blair has set become an independent country. That is the first point. out that there will be certain things that Yes Scotland The second point would be this— will do, and it will be incumbent on the SNP and others to set out other detailed policies. The normal Q1803 Jim McGovern: Could I just interrupt you? business of politics will continue, certainly for the The latest polls seem to suggest that Scottish people three parties within our coalition. are more interested in employment, benefits, welfare I guess the difficulty I am talking about is the sense and the NHS than they are in separatism, so why that somehow politics stops with independence; that it should it take two years? means you don’t have to have politics and detail any Blair Jenkins: I am not sure that the point about how more and everything will be great. Whether it is interested they are relates particularly to how long it through Blair Jenkins or the SNP, there needs to be should take to have the debate. I am sure you would more detail at the end of that two-year period, agree that this will become the dominant issue in because, if, at the end of that, we are still being told Scottish political discourse over the next two years. that this will be a matter for negotiation and a matter Jim McGovern: No, I don’t actually. for the first elections, or even the slightly looser stuff Blair Jenkins: That is a small wager we might want we hear, such as, “Just imagine what’s possible”, we to have in terms of column inches and discussion. The can imagine what is possible but the business of cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG09 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o009_db_Corrected SAC 121120.xml

Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 243

20 November 2012 Blair Jenkins and Blair McDougall change does not stop with imagining what is possible. people out afterwards. The three parties within the You need a plan and detail. At the end of the two Better Together coalition will disagree, sometimes years we need that detail; otherwise, it will have been violently, on what the best way forward for Scotland a waste. or the rest of the UK is. They will continue to have that debate and make a virtue out of it for the reasons Q1805 Mike Crockart: It appears you are saying I gave about politics continuing and being a difficult that, because there is a divide between process and business. policy issues, we will get to the end of this two-year The challenge on the other side of the debate is that period and have a great deal more detail but no more they are not just selling a vision of Scotland or that certainty. I am not sure that leaves us in a great prospectus for a different sort of country and how it position for making such a major decision. It almost will operate. The detail has to be there. I say this not feels as if there is no real need for the yes campaign as a political point. I am trying to put myself in the to hold on for two years, because the stuff available shoes of a voter trying to make a decision on this, at the end of the two years is not relevant to the initial because they want to know what type of country they decision. You are making the point that the initial are going to live in. They know that once they have decision is about an independent state. Everybody made the decision there is no going back. There is a knows what an independent state is about, and all the need to provide a greater level of detail and assurance rest is for negotiation afterwards. Why not just get on in this debate than there would ordinarily be in a and make that decision and we can all have a barney Scottish parliamentary election. It is objectively a afterwards about what it actually entails leading up to different sort of decision that you are asking people the first election? to make. Blair Jenkins: I didn’t touch on negotiation, but I am happy to go into that if you wish. I think there is a Q1806 Chair: One issue that caused me a little clear distinction. My colleague put it on the basis of concern was about asking people to imagine or have the what and why. I absolutely believe that the what a vision of what Scotland could be. That allows a of independence has to be spelt out very fully. All the whole host of people to have mutually incompatible detail has to be there. People should ask all the tough visions, all believing, unless there is detail about what questions they want to ask, and they should have is going to happen, that their vision could be the one answers to those questions in terms of the what of an that prevails. I can understand why you would want independent Scotland and its framework and shape. to have that to maximise the vote for the position; it The classic example here would be around something would be long on vision and short on detail, and never like the monarchy. The position in relation to the tell anybody that they can’t have everything at once. monarchy in the event of Scotland becoming But does that not also run the risk of being a trifle independent is capable of being spelt out in a clear dishonest? Unless you spell out the detail of it so that and straightforward way. people realise whether that can be achieved in line The why to my mind is going to be the heart of the with everyone else’s objectives as well, you run the debate. People will want information on the what and risk of buyer’s remorse. they will want to scrutinise that. People always want Blair Jenkins: Suppose I did nothing to encourage different levels of detail and should have the levels of debate and people to put forward visions of what an detail that they require. That is a very important part independent Scotland could and should be. They of the campaign. But, to my mind, the most exciting would be doing it anyway over the next two years. part of the campaign, on which I want to spend a lot We have a lot of bright, imaginative and clever people of time, is presenting a vision of what Scotland could in our country. I am now meeting quite a lot of them. be and should be and the kind of society and country Some I knew before and some I didn’t know before. I want to live in. That, to my mind, is where the You hear lots of really good, interesting ideas about debate should lie. We are different parties and what we could choose to do. It is going to be a very different individuals. I don’t believe the referendum central part of the yes campaign that a lot of different campaign will be dominated by politicians to the voices are heard. Some of them will be saying things extent that some other campaigns have been. I believe that are quite different. If I think of parties on my own that the non-political voices in this campaign are advisory board, the Scottish Green Party have views going to be very forceful and powerful. about a future Scotland that would be different from Those different or competing visions, however you the views of the Scottish National Party. That is fine. want to present it, of what Scotland could and should As long as they are honestly setting out, “Well, here be will be at the heart of the campaign. This is about is what we would do and here’s our vision of what hearts and minds. People have to see that they are not an independent Scotland could and should be”, that voting here for a procedural change, process or some is okay. sort of tinkering. This is a fork in the road. This is a I do believe—this is going to be an important part of decisive decision to take a different direction and to the debate—that one of the things that underpins the believe there is a better future for Scotland as an yes campaign and the people we are now bringing into independent country. That is certainly what we will be it, like myself, who have no background in politics spending our time on. and just come into it without that kind of experience, Blair McDougall: I suppose the reason we are is the chance to rethink, reshape and improve Scottish circling this issue is that a referendum on life and society, and to take our opportunities and independence as a political decision is objectively address our problems in a way we have not as a different from a general election where you can kick society in the past. That is one of the things that is cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG09 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o009_db_Corrected SAC 121120.xml

Ev 244 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

20 November 2012 Blair Jenkins and Blair McDougall bringing in so many different people. That is the On spending limits, the question about the amount that exciting thing about this referendum and why I am political parties should spend has been debated. One involved. thing that has been neglected in the debate about the Blair McDougall: There are certain things on which Scottish Government’s proposals is the amount of people will accept a degree of doubt, and there has to money that trade unions and businesses would be able be honesty about what that doubt is, but for certain to spend in this. If the Scottish Government are things people will just want to know what the situation halving the amount that the umbrella campaigns is. Pensioners will not vote for an independence would be allowed to spend, we are talking about proposition unless they have detail about what is cutting a third on the PPERA basis of what unions going to happen to existing pension pots and all the and businesses are allowed to spend. It is a big rest of it. There are certain things where people accept problem for the umbrella campaigns and parties that there is doubt and they can be honest about it, but the amount of money they are able to spend is being there are certain things that they absolutely need cut. For those groups that do not have existing grass- detail on. roots networks in society, their ability to enter this Chair: That is helpful. Pamela, you have a number of debate and influence it will be severely curtailed. By questions about finance. cutting it to £50,000, you are effectively saying that the CBI or trade unions could put out a leaflet, which Q1807 Pamela Nash: I want to move on to campaign Nigel Smith calculates could reach about 40% of funding and regulation. To start off, I would like to Scottish households, or they could take out a hear each of your views on spending limits and the newspaper advert, but they certainly couldn’t do both. Scottish Government’s proposed spending limits for Blair Jenkins and I will do our best over this two-year the campaign. Is that something each of you is happy period to try to keep people interested, but most with, or would you change the limits? normal individuals will switch on in that last 16-week Blair McDougall: Taking the proposals of the period. There is a real concern that we will all Electoral Commission and the Scottish Government frontload our spending before that 16-week period and one at a time, I don’t know whether the Committee is it will tail off just as people are getting interested and aware of the paper by Nigel Smith, who ran the making their decision. To be arguing that we should Scotland FORward campaign in 1997, that went to the be spending more money on politics is not a good position to be in, but we are not talking of tens of Scottish Affairs Committee which looked at this issue. millions of pounds but the difference between the If you have not read it, I would commend it to you. Electoral Commission’s original guidelines and the He makes the point, which I think is well taken, that Scottish Government’s proposal of between 1p and 2p the PPERA framework is based on the amounts of per voter per week. Even if, as Nigel Smith suggests, money spent in the 1997 referendum, which was the you double what the Electoral Commission says, you one most immediate to that piece of legislation. He are still talking of only 4p per voter per week. It is a makes the point that, just with inflation, those amounts pretty challenging job to run the kind of debate that of money have now halved in real terms over that Scotland needs within that framework. period. So, under the PPERA guidelines, we would be talking of spending roughly half of what we spent in Q1808 Pamela Nash: I will come on to the regulated the 1997 referendum. As Blair says, that was a very period in a few minutes. different proposition from the one we have before us Blair Jenkins: The overarching principle and most now. This is a much bigger and more contentious important point is that there should be a level playing debate than that one. field between the two campaigns. The starting point It is difficult for someone to say that because you are and building block for the regulated period should be painted as defending the role of big money in politics, that the two campaigns broadly defined should have but the PPERA guidance for that 16-week period, equivalent funding available to them. from my calculations on the plane down, equated to In anticipation that this question might come up about 2p per voter per week over that period. For a today—coincidentally, there was a meeting of the Yes country the size of Scotland on an issue as important Scotland advisory board yesterday—we had a as this, with the cost of a first-class stamp being 60p, discussion about these limits. It was the first time we it does not seem to me to be enough to be spent on had had a discussion on the proposed limits. The view something like this. That is the PPERA starting point. we took was that we felt we could run a perfectly If you go from that to the situation where the Scottish decent campaign with the limits currently proposed by Government in their proposals suggest cutting that the Scottish Government. I noted what Blair said. My amount in half again, you are in a situation where we own view is that, from the point of view of our are spending a quarter of the amount that we spent on campaign, it will be the volunteers; it will be the fact the devolution referendum in 1997, so we are going that we will have a highly active and energised from 2p to 1p per voter per week in that period. volunteer base around the country that will be at the Both Blair and I have a similar vision of campaigns heart of our campaign. I believe that the referendum that bring thousands of grass-roots activists through will be won by people power and not by marketing the door and encourage and enthuse a generation of muscle, if you like. people in this campaign, but that in itself costs money We would be content with the spending limits as well. We risk losing that opportunity of bringing proposed by the Scottish Government during the people into politics for this campaign and having a regulated period. Equally, I accept it is possible that properly informed electorate out there. the Electoral Commission will come back and suggest cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG09 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o009_db_Corrected SAC 121120.xml

Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 245

20 November 2012 Blair Jenkins and Blair McDougall higher limits. If that is approved by the Scottish referendum where one would have to assume that both Parliament and we end up with those higher limits in campaigns are capable of generating quite a line with what the Electoral Commission propose, of reasonable level of revenue, a case can be made for course I will do my very best to raise and spend that not using public funds when there are great demands sum of money during the regulated period. being made on them, but it is not something on which I have a strong view. Q1809 Pamela Nash: Can I push you a bit further Blair McDougall: My understanding was that the on the conversation you had yesterday? On Mr Electoral Commission had backed away from public McDougall’s calculations, which I had not made, is it funding around referendums. I think there will be right that it would be 16p per voter for the regulated sufficient interest between our two campaigns to make period? It is 1p per week per voter. sure that certainly over the long period, Blair McDougall: Under the Electoral Commission’s notwithstanding my concerns about the short period, proposals. money can be raised to save the taxpayer having to Pamela Nash: The Scottish Government. fork out for this sort of thing. My concern is about the Blair McDougall: For the Scottish Government, it wider use of public money within this. If there was would be about 16p or 17½p, or something like that. some sort of information leaflet, it would make sense for the Electoral Commission as an independent Q1810 Pamela Nash: What criteria were you using arbiter to oversee it. For three quarters of that 16-week in the discussion yesterday to say whether that would period, the Scottish Government will still be able to be enough money to get your message across to each operate and make the case through public money for voter? independence. Only in the last 28 days will they not Blair Jenkins: I must admit we did not do a per capita be able to do that. There won’t be another body in calculation, which I commend Blair for doing. It is a Scotland that is able to balance that out, because different way of looking at it. Someone talked earlier within that 16-week period I feel that the limits have about known knowns and unknown knowns. What it been designed to handcuff us and other groups in would cost to do a leaflet delivery, to have a poster on society from being able to make that counter- the side of a bus, or put an ad in a newspaper, are argument. things that can be quantified and you can put a value against. I believe that by the time we get to the final Q1814 Pamela Nash: Do you think the period of 16 weeks of the campaign and the regulated period purdah should be extended? there will be a very strong sense around Scotland of Blair McDougall: That is up to the Scottish what the issues are. I agree that is the period during Government to decide. Again, were the period of which a lot of people will make up their minds. A lot purdah to remain as it is and the Scottish Government of people will make up their minds fairly late in the were actually or were perceived to have used public day, and it is true of electoral events, not just money to persuade people during that period in an nationally in the UK but internationally, that you get overt way, I think they would suffer for it. quite big changes in the later stages of a campaign. We believe that with the resources under the Scottish Q1815 Pamela Nash: In that case, could public Government’s proposals we could run a perfectly funding not be used to even up the goalposts? Mr satisfactory campaign. As I say, I don’t think I will Jenkins, you said that you would want each campaign have any trouble spending the money if it is a higher to be seen to be evenly funded and that no one should limit because you can always buy more ads. be at a disadvantage because of funding. Blair McDougall: I don’t see the need for taxpayers’ Q1811 Pamela Nash: I cannot see how for that money to be spent in any way on this campaign. There money you could even get a leaflet out to every will be a sufficient level of interest that people will household. If you know a printer who would do that, want to support it. please let us know. Blair Jenkins: As to people’s concern about Scottish Blair Jenkins: Within £750,000? Government announcements before we get to the 28- Pamela Nash: For 17p per person. day control period that might be intended to have a Blair Jenkins: I assure you that you could do quite a bearing on the outcome of the referendum, I am going lot of leaflet production and delivery within £750,000. to hazard a wild guess here. I suspect that there might be one or two UK Government announcements before Q1812 Pamela Nash: You would not be reaching we get to the 28-day period that might be intended to every voter. have a bearing on the referendum outcome as well. Blair Jenkins: No; you would reach every voter It’s a long shot, I know, but I suspect there might be within that sum of money. Absolutely you could. one or two.

Q1813 Pamela Nash: I would like to discuss public Q1816 Chair: So that is a yes. You expect the funding. It is in the Scottish Government’s proposals Scottish Government to be doing that. that they would not want any public funding of the Blair Jenkins: I would expect both Governments to campaigns. Is that the position of the yes campaign as be setting out their stalls in as attractive a way as they a whole? can for the electorate in Scotland before we get to that Blair Jenkins: We haven’t taken a view on it. I know 28-day period, when you are not allowed to say or that is what is proposed. I understand where that is announce anything that has a bearing. As you know, I coming from. When public money is tight in a spent quite a lot of time in journalism and I am always cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG09 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o009_db_Corrected SAC 121120.xml

Ev 246 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

20 November 2012 Blair Jenkins and Blair McDougall willing to be surprised, but I am sure that people in quarter of what was spent by campaigns on the 1997 Edinburgh and London will be thinking about what devolution referendum and extending that period and they can announce that would be well received by the further stifling the debate would be a fundamentally people of Scotland. bad idea, given that we seem to be heading towards that tightened debate. Q1817 Chair: Is that not an argument for saying that the Governments should be both extremely active in Q1819 Pamela Nash: Would you support any clarifying what should be done and what the results voluntary system of publishing expenditure and of negotiations might be and so on, but the period of donations up until the 16-week period? purdah should be extended to stop the cynical practice Blair McDougall: We have said—I think Blair has that you have already admitted the Scottish said something similar as well—that we are acting as Government will be prone to and to which you are if PPERA applies to us at the moment, so we are expecting that the UK Government might retaliate? carrying out checks on individuals who donate to us. Blair Jenkins: That is a very interesting interpretation We will disclose people who give more than £7,500 of my remarks. Again, realism is always a healthy as per PPERA within a calendar year. I would also thing to have. All Governments when they get close say categorically that we won’t accept any foreign to any electoral event try to position themselves in a donations. good light in relation to the electorate. Will that happen this time? Well, you know, I think it might. I Q1820 Pamela Nash: Do foreign donations include suspect that, even now, there are people in this city, British people living abroad? let alone Edinburgh, thinking, “What could we say in Blair McDougall: We do not believe that the United 2013 and 2014 that might demonstrate our love to the Kingdom is a foreign country, which you might not people of Scotland?” be surprised to hear. Chair: Why don’t we have big games in Blair Jenkins: As Blair said, we have made our commemoration of a battle against the English? I position fairly clear on this as well. Just to run through understand that completely. it, we will not accept a sum of more than £500 from any individual who is not on the electoral register in Q1818 Pamela Nash: The two of you are now firmly Scotland, and we will declare any donations received in your posts, which is relatively stable employment over a value of £7,500. I would expect to be disclosing in the political industry, as it were. I can’t remember on a voluntary basis donations received by the the last time I opened a newspaper in Scotland where campaign and donations received into the campaign there wasn’t a story about the referendum—or turned before we get to the regulated period. on Radio Scotland, for that matter. Do you think it is right that the regulated period is only 16 weeks before Q1821 Pamela Nash: Are you accepting any foreign it when we are two years away now and we are donations at all? already so immersed in the campaign? Should that Blair Jenkins: No. As I think I said, we will not regulated period be extended? accept more than £500 from anyone who is not on the Blair Jenkins: Do you mean from the point of view electoral register in Scotland. By definition, if you are of funding? not on the electoral register in Scotland, you would Pamela Nash: Yes, in terms of donations. not be able to donate more than £500 to us. I can say Blair Jenkins: Again, I can only speak personally; I have had to tell people who wish to give us more it is not something I have discussed with my board. than that sum of money that that is as much as we Speaking personally, I wouldn’t have had a problem would accept from anyone who is not on the if it had been a longer period than 16 weeks. I see electoral register. some of the merit in what you are saying. I believe that is now built into the Edinburgh agreement. I am Q1822 Pamela Nash: I have a friend in Ohio who trying to remember—I don’t have it in front of me— might want to donate to the campaign. What if he but I believe 16 weeks is specified in there, so I wanted to donate £499 tomorrow? Would he be able suspect that is a done deal, as it were. If there had to do that? been a proposal and it had been discussed that this Blair Jenkins: I will give you the address and I would should be a longer period, then I wouldn’t have be delighted to receive it. difficulty with that. I believe 16 weeks is quite long relative to other regulated periods. You could say it is Q1823 Pamela Nash: So you will be accepting already quite a lengthy period. You are right that it is foreign donations up to £500? unusual to have—well, they are not designated yet— Blair Jenkins: Up to £500, yes, absolutely. There are what will become the two designated organisations in Scots all around the world who want to signal their the field this far ahead, and it reflects the particular support. Clearly, at that level you are not having a circumstances of this issue. disproportionate effect on the campaign. If an Blair McDougall: I agree. Relative to other individual wants to give that sum of money, then I campaigns, this is a long regulated period that is being think that is fine, but the important thing—this is proposed anyway. I would say two things. It is where the two campaigns differ on the point—is that incumbent on us to behave responsibly anyway, we have decided to take money only from people on whether or not we are regulated, and the scrutiny of the electoral register in Scotland. We won’t take our campaigns will help ensure that anyway. To go money from companies or institutions; we take money back to what I said before, the notion of spending a only from individuals on the electoral register. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG09 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o009_db_Corrected SAC 121120.xml

Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 247

20 November 2012 Blair Jenkins and Blair McDougall

One of the important things about the legislation Q1828 Chair: Is the organisation taking steps at all surrounding donations to political parties, which is by any of its agents or supporters to raise any money essentially the framework within which we are abroad? Are you publicising the cause of Scottish operating, is that the wording was not to do with separation in any foreign countries? ethnicity, national identity or citizenship; it was to do Blair Jenkins: There is only one I am aware of. with whether or not you were on the electoral register Almost certainly I am going to get the name of the in the area where the electoral event was taking place. organisation wrong here and I haven’t been in touch We think it is appropriate for an electoral event taking with them myself, but it is something like Americans place in Scotland that you should be able to contribute for Independence. Almost certainly, I have got the title in any significant way to that event only if you are on wrong. They are Scots Americans who favour Scottish the electoral register and are part of that process. independence. I don’t know whether they are actively saying to people in America, “Send £499 to the Yes Q1824 Pamela Nash: We will go into that in more Scotland campaign.” I really hope they are, but I don’t detail in a minute. To be clear, is the £500 an annual know that they are. There is nothing in the revenue figure or per donation? box that would tell me that that is happening. Blair Jenkins: Gosh—I think that is the sum total. Over the two years, we would not take more than Q1829 Chair: That is right, but, as you £500 from any individual. acknowledged earlier, these are early days. To be clear, if the Electoral Commission come back and say Q1825 Pamela Nash: For the whole two years? they believe that the election should not be bought Blair Jenkins: That is right. and sold by foreign gold and money should not be Blair McDougall: We do not accept donations over taken from outwith the United Kingdom, would you £500 from overseas. We are currently going through abide by that? a check to ensure that none of the small online Blair Jenkins: If the Electoral Commission were to donations we have had, of which there are thousands, say that—it is highly unlikely that they would—we has come from overseas. We ask everyone, regardless would pay attention to that if that was their view. of the amount that they are spending, to declare that Attempts to buy or influence the outcome of the they are not from outwith the United Kingdom. referendum are likely to come in much chunkier sums from other parts of the UK rather than small donations Q1826 Pamela Nash: So the intent of the Better from individuals in Kansas. Together campaign is not to accept any such donations at all? Q1830 Chair: I understand that you want to move on Blair McDougall: From outwith the UK. to that, but we will come to it separately. To be clear as to what you mean by “we would pay attention to Q1827 Chair: This is an important point. Things that”, if the Electoral Commission come back and say, have been said about not being bought and sold by “We wish neither side to take money from foreign foreign money and all the rest of it. You are willing donors”, would you abide by that, or would you just to take an unlimited amount of small donations from take note of it—I think was the phrase you used—or abroad. Coming back to the point about “many a pay attention to it, which left it delightfully vague as mickle makes a muckle”, people in the United States, to whether or not you would abide by their ruling? Australia, the Soviet Union—sorry, the former Soviet Blair Jenkins: In the unregulated period I don’t see Union; that shows my age—or anywhere else, would the locus for the Electoral Commission to say that to be free to give the equivalent of £499 with no Yes Scotland. I think that if you asked them this questions asked. My understanding is that that is not question they would say, “It is nothing to do with us.” permissible under the existing PPERA rules for I am all for hypotheticals, but this is a fairly unlikely general elections. We will have to check that. Unless one here, Chair. I don’t think there is any prospect I am mistaken, that would be you going beyond the whatsoever of the Electoral Commission saying to us, existing rules and having a different rule of your own. “Don’t take foreign donations from somebody in If the Electoral Commission come back and say that Kansas.” only money from the United Kingdom would be acceptable, as is allowable at the moment, would you Q1831 Chair: In that case, you will have no abide by that rule? difficulty in saying that you would abide by it then. Blair Jenkins: I would find it highly unlikely that they Blair Jenkins: That is right; in those circumstances would. If I may put it this way, there is not exactly a I would. flood of cash in the form of small donations coming in from overseas. Q1832 Chair: You would abide by it? Chair: Not at the moment. Blair Jenkins: Yes. Blair Jenkins: There are people who have an emotional attachment to or connections with Scotland Q1833 Chair: If the Electoral Commission came and wish to give a small sum of money. It is no part back and recommended that for the regulated period, of my business plan for the next two years to be “We do not wish to have—or we recommend that inundated with £499 from millions of people around neither side takes—foreign money”, would you the world. I don’t think that is a likely outcome, to accept that? be honest. Blair Jenkins: Yes, absolutely. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG09 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o009_db_Corrected SAC 121120.xml

Ev 248 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

20 November 2012 Blair Jenkins and Blair McDougall

Q1834 Chair: Would you accept that as being PPERA, but particularly spending, that you would like guidance as to your behaviour for the unregulated to raise with us. period? Blair Jenkins: Just to reiterate a point—I wasn’t Blair Jenkins: It would depend on what the Electoral absolutely clear about what we were saying so to be Commission say. I would not want to anticipate that, clear—I think it is important that both campaigns are but whatever they say we would abide by it. very transparent about their funding sources. We will certainly be making clear where our funding has come Q1835 Chair: You would abide by it; that is helpful. from and publishing all the details of that, and I am Blair Jenkins: Yes. sure the Better Together campaign wish to do the Blair McDougall: From our point of view, we ask same thing. everybody who donates to us online to declare that they are not outwith the UK, and we check through Q1842 Mike Crockart: I take your point that it may our system periodically to make sure that nobody has well be a small number of donations; it may well not. acted dishonestly. Time will tell. My understanding of the Edinburgh agreement and the PPERA regulations would make Q1836 Chair: All that is easily doable. I have some me think that they are ruled out. The Edinburgh sympathy for you in the sense that we don’t want to agreement says: “As under PPERA, permitted end up putting an enormously burdensome weight of participants will not be able to accept certain administration upon any mechanism, but presumably anonymous donations or certain donations from it is relatively easily doable to identify what is and is individuals or organisations from outside the UK.” not foreign money. That seems to state fairly clearly in the agreement that Blair McDougall: I would not say it is easy. It is an donations from outside the UK would not be accepted. administrative task, but it is one that for reputational Blair Jenkins: I think you are talking about the reasons we have said we would undertake. regulated period. I believe you are talking about the regulated period here. I am sure that would be the case. Q1837 Chair: You accept that it is doable? Blair Jenkins: Definitely; you could do it. You could block people sending a couple of hundred quid from Q1843 Chair: Surely, you wouldn’t want to avail Kansas; yes, you could. yourselves of access to money that is ruled out during the regulated period by saying, “During the unregulated period we’ll do as we like.” It is not just Q1838 Pamela Nash: I think a lot of people would the letter of PPERA but also the spirit. I am sure I be quite offended when you say that a small donation have seen it before, but I didn’t remember it. Surely, won’t have a considerable impact on the campaign. I it is not acceptable to have a get-out of this by saying, can think of a few pretty successful campaigns that “Well, that would be for the unregulated period.” The have been built on small donations. spirit is that, if it is regulated during the regulated Blair Jenkins: Ours will be built on small donations period, which you accept, you would therefore accept in Scotland. the same sort of guidelines for the unregulated period. We will check this now that Mike has drawn it to our Q1839 Pamela Nash: In that sense, how can you say attention. That says “permitted participants will not be that donations under £500 won’t have a considerable able to accept certain anonymous donations or certain impact on the campaign? donations from individuals or organisations from Blair Jenkins: Of the totality of donations received outside the UK”. There is obviously an issue about by the Yes Scotland campaign, I confidently predict what “certain donations” means. I think Bill Clinton that a very, very small percentage of those will be said, “It depends on what you mean by ‘is’.” We from people overseas contributing a small sum of would ask you to go away and consider that, and we money. I suspect that both campaigns will consist, as will as well, and we will maybe correspond about this. campaigns usually do, of a large number of people Blair Jenkins: All I can say is that the fact we are giving small sums of money and a small number of willing to take donations up to £500 from Scots living people giving large sums of money. That is the way abroad was said back in May when the campaign these things tend to work out. In terms of the overall launched. It has been said openly and publicly, and I campaign income to the campaign, if I can put it that have said it myself on many public platforms. I must way, over two years, as to small sums of money from admit it has never been brought up with me before. Scots living overseas we are talking of a very, very small percentage of the totality of funds received. Q1844 Chair: We have never had the opportunity to meet you before. As soon as you said it, we thought, Q1840 Chair: There should be no difficulty giving it “We must ask him that when we get him in front of up then. us”, so we have been waiting to raise this with you. Pamela Nash: Yes. The other point is: how do you know that this money Blair Jenkins: If required to do so, yes; that would would only come from Scots abroad? not be financially burdensome. Blair Jenkins: That is not the issue.

Q1841 Pamela Nash: Finally, I want to give both of Q1845 Chair: But you did say that; you referred just you the opportunity to say whether there are any other now to money coming in from Scots abroad. There is issues regarding the regulation of the campaign under no way of telling whether money from a name is from cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG09 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o009_db_Corrected SAC 121120.xml

Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 249

20 November 2012 Blair Jenkins and Blair McDougall somebody who is genetically Scottish or originated in lots of ways of reaching hundreds of thousands of Scotland, is there? people, frankly, at very minimal cost over a broadband Blair Jenkins: Nor would we make that a connection. There are all sorts of ways of presenting requirement. I don’t see Scottish independence as an and distributing information that are relatively cost- ethnic issue at all. free, which were not there at the time of the devolution referendum. Q1846 Chair: Neither do I, but it was your point that you made about money coming from Scots abroad. Q1849 Chair: Are you concerned that your rivals are Blair Jenkins: In the handful of cases I know of, it is concerned by the low limit? It comes back to the clearly people who have a Scottish connection. They question of fairness and both sides being happy with are Scots who live abroad. You are right. If it was a the arrangements reached. We are suspicious and Swede living in Kansas who decided to send us four cynical—understandably so given what is being done hundred quid, then that is fine; that is okay. with the question—that the Scottish Government will try to seek to shave advantages at every point during Q1847 Chair: These are early days and money might the process. Do you not recognise that the fact your come in later. We will pursue this and come back to opponents are concerned with this limit is something you, but we have heard what you have said on that. that ought to give you cause for concern? To come back to finance, like many of the other rules, Blair Jenkins: I go back to what I said was the I think we are entitled to say, “If there’s a rule here, fundamental principle. Provided there is equal funding who benefits from it?” I wasn’t clear why the rules on available to both sides during the campaign period, restriction of expenditure were being put down so that protects the level playing field principle. You tightly until you mentioned to us that your vision was could fix the sum lower or higher, but the key point of people power, not marketing muscle. I presume, should be that we have equivalent sums available to therefore, that in these circumstances you see us. yourselves as requiring less money than the other side, Talking about the broader landscape within which the and presumably, therefore, the low expenditure limits referendum would be conducted, mention was made are designed, if not to benefit yourselves, at least to earlier of newspapers. On present analysis, one would handicap the others. Is that a fair reading of it? have to assume that at the time of the referendum the Blair Jenkins: No. The question put to the advisory majority of the national newspapers being distributed board was: if the limits for campaign expenditure, in Scotland, maybe not local ones, on present accepting that some items are not included in evidence, would perhaps be more likely to favour the campaign expenditure, were as proposed by the no rather than yes campaign. There is more to the Scottish Government, could we run from our point of landscape of how information is being presented and view a perfectly viable, decent and satisfactory how campaigns are being conducted than just this. campaign? The board took the view that, yes, we could. From my perspective, if there is more money Q1850 Chair: We will come later to the media, bias available during that time, no doubt I will find ways in the BBC and so on. We will come on to that in to spend it. a second. Blair McDougall: We both want to have campaigns Blair McDougall: Chair, could I pick up on one point that are powered by people, but that costs money. If there? Of course we will be fighting campaigns you have 20,000 to 30,000 people out on doorsteps on through vast distribution of e-mail; we will be fighting polling day, they need to be holding something; they them aggressively through the media, but a need to be delivering messages that you have newspaper—even a local newspaper—is unlikely to developed; they need to be feeding back the pick up on a lot of the issues on which people will be information into centrally-held computers and all the making decisions. The example I always have in my rest of it. This stuff costs money. The notion that we head is that of a woman who was giving her opinion can enthuse and engage a generation of Scots who of independence. She lived near the border in have not been involved in public life and civic Dumfries and Galloway and her post currently came activism before without spending money on it is from a sorting office in Carlisle. Her question was, nonsense. It isn’t altruistic to ensure that we don’t “Will it mean that I have to wait an extra day for my have big money campaigns but have grass-roots- mail from Glasgow?” That will never be front page in driven campaigns. I don’t think that is the motivation The Scotsman; it is not going to be on “Reporting behind it. I think it is an attempt to close down debate Scotland”, but it is an incredibly important issue to in that 16-week period. her. If you don’t have someone from your campaign and someone from my campaign addressing those Q1848 Chair: “An attempt to close down debate in personal issues of people, you will not have as that 16-week period”. Do you recognise that at all? informed a debate as you might have. If you are Blair Jenkins: During the 16-week period, I imagine always relying on the national media agenda to that the newspapers will be full of very little else other capture what people are interested in, a whole range of than the referendum campaign. Broadcasters will be very personal, specific and locally geographic issues dealing with the referendum campaign every single important to this debate will be lost to it. That is why day. One of the big changes in recent years in terms you need well-funded grass-roots campaigns. of how politics is conducted in this country is the growing use of the internet. We are now in a position Q1851 Chair: Why do grass-roots campaigns need where everybody has their own megaphone. There are to be well funded? cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG09 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o009_db_Corrected SAC 121120.xml

Ev 250 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

20 November 2012 Blair Jenkins and Blair McDougall

Blair McDougall: Because you need staff to organise honest and professional process will have been gone it; you need materials for them to hand out; you need through by the Electoral Commission to arrive at the infrastructure behind that for people to feed back figures. If they present a higher figure, perhaps one voter information, and all the rest of it. To take the they have currently identified as their own preferred notion of spending a couple of pence per voter over solution, with the reasons supporting that, I would that 16-week period, if you really squeeze yourself expect that to command support. I think that would be you can do a couple of leaflets and run your central the case. But the question we asked ourselves was: if campaign out of that, but for a decision of this the limit is at that level, could we do it? The answer magnitude that affects so many different aspects of is that, yes, we could. Scottish life, if you don’t have the ability to provide detailed, localised and targeted materials for people, Q1855 Chair: I understand that. I moved on from you are missing a trick. that in a sense by recognising that there was a disagreement. Q1852 Chair: Do you think this limit has been Blair Jenkins: Although it is a very important issue drawn up deliberately to disadvantage your side of the and no one believes that more than I do, a degree argument, or does this not apply equally? of restraint in how much is being spent is probably Blair McDougall: Were I a more paranoid person, I something that the public would welcome at that would say yes. I cannot honestly understand why it point. I was in the United States towards the closing has been set so low so that potentially it is a quarter stages of the presidential election. I was in Florida, of the limit of the much less contentious and wide- which is a swing state. There were four or five ads at ranging campaign in 1997. It is for the Scottish every break on every channel for presidential Government—this is a healthy process of candidates. Luckily, we don’t have political examination—to explain why it has been set so low. advertising on television in this country, but we could have overkill during those 16 weeks as well as a really Q1853 Chair: This is one of the issues where there good debate. One would not wish for overkill. is clear divergence between the two sides and where Blair McDougall: My sense is that we are a long way each has strong views. This raises the issue about the from overkill. We are in a situation where we are Scottish Government being the final decider on these looking at literally no political advertising in sorts of issues because they are also a participant in newspapers either from the campaigns or groups like the dispute. There is an issue about whether or not it business or trade unions. is reasonable in these circumstances for one team to This goes back to your opening question, Chair, about be able to pick the referee as well. Notwithstanding whether section 30 was the right vehicle for this. the points you make about not abdicating There is a consensus, which I think is right, that there responsibility to an unelected body, there is also an should be a referendum made in Scotland. The fear is issue, is there not, about fairness and the appearance that, if you continue to strip away at every possible of fairness where the nationalists, with a majority in tactical advantage you can claim as the Scottish the Scottish Parliament, are able to decide the rules Government, it starts to look a bit more like a when they themselves are directly involved? Is there referendum made in Florida. You have to have that not potentially an issue here—of which this is perhaps loser’s consent; you cannot have a sense going into the most prominent example we have discussed, but this referendum that one side or the other has been it also applies to the question—of the whole thing disadvantaged, partly because you want to avoid being seen to be skewed because the referee is not turmoil at the end of the day. If I were sitting in the impartial? other Blair’s chair, I wouldn’t want to project to the Blair Jenkins: Even if the spending limit is lower Scottish people from my side of things any sort of than some people may think appropriate but it is the sense that this was about trying to fix things in their same for both sides, I can’t see how that advantages favour, because our sense is that Scots won’t like that. one side or the other. Q1856 Mike Crockart: I have a few questions about Q1854 Chair: You seem to be perfectly happy with the franchise for the referendum, which to all intents the spending limit; the other campaign is not. The and purposes to a large extent has been agreed by both question is: who decides? If those who are deciding Governments as being based on the Scottish are themselves involved directly in one of the parliamentary and local government elections. I would campaigns that are in favour of retaining the spending still welcome the views of each side as to whether you limits, it would appear they are not an impartial body. feel that is a fair basis for the franchise for the It comes back to the issue about having a decision on referendum. this that is clear and decisive and having loser’s Blair McDougall: The main issues that remain around consent. the question of the franchise are about 16-year-olds, Blair Jenkins: I would venture a prediction. If the child protection and all the rest of it. Electoral Commission, having consulted the campaign Mike Crockart: I will come on to that. and having consulted widely, came back to the Blair McDougall: There is also an issue around the Scottish Government—the Scottish Parliament, rather, 800,000-odd Scots who live and work in the rest of more appropriately—with a recommendation on a the United Kingdom. Our campaign—perhaps this higher spending limit than the Scottish Government also goes for the campaign of Blair Jenkins—is currently propose, there is a very good chance that inundated with people from the rest of the UK who that is going to be accepted, on the basis that a good, are frustrated that they won’t have a vote in this. I cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG09 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o009_db_Corrected SAC 121120.xml

Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 251

20 November 2012 Blair Jenkins and Blair McDougall sympathise with the Scottish Government on this, Q1859 Pamela Nash: We are talking about members because it is very difficult to find a way of extending of the armed forces posted abroad. What about that franchise, but it is an issue that needs to be Scottish armed forces that are permanently posted in respected and reflected in the debate. There are a large English cities? Do you think they should have the number of Scots living in the rest of the UK who are vote? pretty angry about not being part of this debate. Blair Jenkins: I know there are circumstances in Broadly speaking, the main issue that is outstanding which that is possible. You can elect to remain on the within the question of franchise is 16-year-olds and electoral register. Clearly, service personnel who have various issues around that. elected to remain on the electoral register in Scotland Blair Jenkins: I am satisfied with the decision that would be entitled to vote. I am not aware of the electoral register will be the one that is used for circumstances beyond that where people who had Scottish parliamentary elections. That seemed logical. been away from Scotland for quite a number of years, Had it been something different we would have lived to take one category, would have the right to vote and with that, but that seems perfectly logical to me. not other categories. I think the residential qualification remains the right one. There are special Q1857 Mike Crockart: We have already talked exemptions for service personnel in certain about the potential for a Swede living in Kansas to circumstances, and I believe those should be applied contribute towards campaign finances to try and make in this referendum, yes. it go one way or the other, but we are talking about a Swede living in Comrie who is able to vote. Do you Q1860 Chair: My understanding is that there are think that is reasonable when so many Scots, for different rules for service personnel based in Germany whatever reasons—for example, they are working for as distinct from service personnel based in the rest multinational companies—end up being outwith of the United Kingdom, which seems to be an unfair Scotland and are excluded from that franchise? anomaly. It is easier to get a vote in Scotland if you Blair McDougall: My grandfather was an Englishman are based in Germany than if you are based elsewhere who moved to Scotland and became a Scot by virtue in the United Kingdom, because you are then eligible of living there. Blair mentioned earlier that if you live to vote in a general election by virtue of where you in Scotland, you are a Scot for all intents and purposes are. We have always encouraged the forces’ leadership on this. That said, were I a Scot who had transferred to have their people registered locally where they are from working for Standard Life in Edinburgh to in order that they don’t miss out at all, particularly for working for Standard Life outside Scotland, taking my general elections, but in these circumstances, it means family with me, and I suddenly found that I was that you have a base within the United Kingdom and disenfranchised, I would be angry. It is difficult to see therefore you would not be eligible to vote in Scotland what you do about that. We all need to be sensitive to in this referendum. the fact that those Scots in the rest of the United This is an immensely complex area. If both of you are Kingdom, while they may not have a vote, have a saying, as I think you are, that you would welcome, voice in this campaign and it needs to come out in if it was at all possible, arrangements to be made that the debate. would maximise the number of Scottish service voters based furth of Scotland being able to vote in this referendum, we would want to reflect that and in turn Q1858 Mike Crockart: One area that has been hope that the Scottish Government and Scottish raised particularly is those members of the army that Parliament would reflect that in the detailed are based outwith Scotland. It is taking the Standard arrangements that they make. Is that a fair assessment Life example but to another extreme where you have of both your positions? been posted; you have not made a choice to move Blair McDougall: There are about four units recruited outwith Scotland. Is that an area that needs a bit more from Scotland based elsewhere in the United focus to make sure that fairness is achieved in that? Kingdom. You are right; you are testing the limits of Blair McDougall: Absolutely. We spent a bit of time my knowledge, but if they are then posted overseas it looking into this. Service personnel and their families is easier for them to vote in Scotland than if they are very particular circumstances. There are remain on a home UK base, as it were. This will arrangements by which certainly some service rightly be an emotive issue for people. If there was personnel can still register back in Scotland. If it is something that the Scottish Government could do to annoying in the Standard Life example, it is examine how to make sure that service personnel particularly annoying if you are in Helmand province, could be caught within that—probably we are not and you would not get to vote for the future of your talking of a huge number of people—it would be a country. worthwhile exercise. Mike Crockart: You are nodding in agreement. Blair Jenkins: I always hesitate to express an opinion Blair Jenkins: I am aware there are technical issues where I don’t feel that I am master of all the facts. around this. On the face of it, I see the argument that, This is one of those cases. I am not master of all the if there is a way to allow people who are stationed detail here, but it sounds to me like something that overseas in that way to vote, that should be provided ought properly to be explored, and if there was a way for, if there is a way of getting round it technically. I of resolving it, that would be a very good thing. know there are issues; I won’t pretend to be expert in Chair: We will check some of this stuff with the all of them. If a solution can be found, that would be MOD, but we will feel much happier in making a a good thing. recommendation on it given that there seems to be a cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG09 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o009_db_Corrected SAC 121120.xml

Ev 252 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

20 November 2012 Blair Jenkins and Blair McDougall consensus between the two of you on the principle. former employee of Standard Life, I am sure they We might end up with some disagreement about would be very happy that they have had four mentions detail, which is fair enough, but, in terms of the in this session already. I am going to use the phrase general principle, that incentivises us to pursue it. It “Do you agree?”, so you will obviously want to say would also apply to RAF personnel and naval yes in response. Do you agree that the one departure personnel who move down to Portsmouth and stuff from the franchise based on the Scottish Parliament like that. We will look at that. franchise at the moment is to do with 16 and 17-year- olds? Do you agree that, in order for that extension of Q1861 Jim McGovern: On the franchise and who is the franchise to be fair, all 16 and 17-year-olds must allowed to vote, one example put to me is that Terry end up being added to the electoral roll? Butcher, a former England captain, will be allowed to Blair Jenkins: Yes. I know these are early days, but, vote, whereas one of the most famous Scots in the as I understand it, the Scottish Government have put world, Sir Alex Ferguson, won’t be allowed to vote. forward proposals by which everyone who is 16 and Does that seem fair? 17 at the time of the referendum would be able to Blair McDougall: Or, for that matter, only one of the vote, and they are pushing that change through. I am Scottish Olympians would be able to vote because the personally delighted that 16 and 17-year-olds will be others are based elsewhere in the UK. It is not fair. To able to vote. I will be honest and say that, again, from go back to my previous answer, it is a difficult journalistic experience, I thought it might be one of question to understand. If you are that person from those things that got negotiated away in the course of Standard Life and you have just moved down, most the negotiations between the two Governments and people would think that seems dramatically unfair; if might have been traded off in the eventual settlement. you are a second generation Scot living in Corby, I was personally very pleased that it wasn’t. It is a people might think that is pushing it slightly. It is very important point of principle that 16 and 17-year- difficult to see where you draw the line on that. olds get to vote in this referendum. I believe that steps Chair: Possibly we could extend it for Olympians. should be taken to make sure that everyone who meets the age requirement should be able to vote. Q1862 Lindsay Roy: There is also the supreme irony Blair McDougall: I will say yes in terms of the that, for example, a number of people who represent debate. There are clearly some 16-year-olds who, for Scotland in the national football team won’t be able child protection issues, you can’t have on the electoral to vote either. register. The principle of having a transparent Blair Jenkins: At the end of the day, all sorts of electoral register is an important one, but in terms of anomalies are thrown up, but the residential the number of people you are talking about across qualification seems to be the right one, and that is the Scotland, it will probably not breach that principle too precedent applied in every other referendum of this much. I was similarly delighted that we had votes at kind that I am aware of. As things currently stand, 16 as someone who had campaigned for it for many two of my three children are unlikely to be able to years. I think it will be one of the things that typify vote in the referendum because neither lives in this. The whole contest will be viewed through the Scotland at the moment. There are undoubtedly lots lens of those 16 and 17-year-olds participating in of cases where people are living abroad for different democracy for the first time. reasons, usually to do with employment, and would like to vote, but I can’t see any way round the Q1865 Chair: Can I be clear about the child residential qualification and the electoral register and protection aspect of it? Are you saying that for child I don’t know of a precedent where something else has protection reasons some of these people should not been applied. be on the register or that they should not be on the public register? Q1863 Chair: Would you be willing to accept Blair McDougall: I don’t know what the solution is, changes to that in principle, if one could be found? Is but you clearly need one. Children may be vulnerable that the position of both of you? for all sorts of reasons. There may be an unstable Blair Jenkins: I think the residential qualification and parent trying to get back in contact with them and that being on the electoral register seems to me to be the sort of thing whom you would not want on the only criterion because it gets you round all the issues register. that none of us wants to get into about what it is to be a Scot and that kind of thing. If you live in Q1866 Chair: On the publicly available register? Scotland, are a citizen of the EU and you have decided Blair McDougall: Publicly available, yes. that this is where you want to base yourself and have your life, you are entitled to a vote. If you were born Q1867 Chair: But the principle would be that they in Scotland and you decide, for perfectly valid should be on a register somewhere in some way? reasons, that your life will be in another country, you Blair McDougall: I think we need to find a way so vote in that country. That seems reasonable to me. that they can still vote. Chair: So we can have Swedes for separation and Chair: I wasn’t entirely clear what you were saying. things like that—groups set up—when they are not It is helpful that that is clarified. in Kansas. Q1868 Jim McGovern: We talked a couple of Q1864 Mike Crockart: I am afraid I have to go off minutes ago about anomalies. Do you both agree that to another meeting. I will quickly point out that, as a there must be an anomaly? A couple of weeks ago I cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG09 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o009_db_Corrected SAC 121120.xml

Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 253

20 November 2012 Blair Jenkins and Blair McDougall was in a supermarket that sold fireworks. It said that involved in this debate should share is that resources you had to be 18 years of age to buy fireworks. I are being so drastically diminished, particularly in would regard it as an anomaly that you could vote on BBC Scotland, at a time when we depend on them the future of your country but you can’t buy a packet to be one of the cornerstones of a really good, well- of sparklers. Do you agree? conducted referendum campaign. Blair McDougall: On the surface, it is an anomaly, As someone who held a senior role inside BBC but there are lots of such anomalies. To take the old Scotland until five or so years ago, I am very aware principle of no taxation without representation, if you of the strength of feeling within the journalistic are 16 and are employed you end up paying taxes, so community about the fact that they are overstretched I think you should have the right to vote. and they don’t have adequate staffing resources and Jim McGovern: But you can’t buy sparklers. budgets to do the kind of journalism they would wish Blair McDougall: No, you can’t buy sparklers. to do. Until I joined the yes campaign I looked at Blair Jenkins: You can’t drink; there are lots of things everything from a purely journalistic, broadcasting you can’t do. The taxation point is an important one. perspective. At the moment I suppose I am more I left school at 16 and moved hundreds of miles away aware of opportunities being missed where from where my parents were. I was earning my own programmes could be made to help explain issues and income and paying taxes. As a 16-year-old, did I feel provide information and context to people where I I should be able to vote? I absolutely did, and I think don’t think the issues have perhaps been treated with it is absolutely right that 16-year-olds get the right enough depth or given enough context and to vote. perspective. We will meet with the broadcasters, as I am sure the Better Together campaign will, and make Q1869 Lindsay Roy: To go beyond the referendum, sure that they understand where we are coming from is it your belief that they should be able to vote in and the way in which we would hope the campaign general elections and local elections as well? would be reported. Blair McDougall: Yes. I agree with you that the press in this country is to a Lindsay Roy: It is mine. very large extent unregulated. We wait to see what Lord Justice Leveson has to propose in terms of Q1870 Chair: But that is not a question for us today, whether there should be a different system of regrettably or otherwise. Blair Jenkins, can I come to regulation, but at the moment there is an unregulated the point you are touching on about the media? How press, which largely reports as it sees fit and without are we going to make sure that there is a media that any need to demonstrate impartiality or objectivity. As transmits information as distinct from solely gossip someone once said, that is the sea in which we swim. and opinion? It is not so much a problem, in my view, That is just the landscape in which we operate. in terms of the press, because everybody knows the Blair McDougall: I don’t have much more to add on press is biased, as it were, one way or the other. You top of the guy who wrote the book on this stuff. The go through all the papers and identify whose side they difference between, for example, the BBC and a print are on. It is perhaps more of a difficulty for the journalist is that there is a rule book written broadcast media where there is the appearance of somewhere to which you can hold people accountable. impartiality but, particularly in the case of the BBC, We have already had those meetings with a degree of bias. How do you think that is to be management. I am sure the BBC have had them, or regulated and covered? are about to have them, as well. They will have clear Blair Jenkins: If I can jump in, it is an area I know guidance on language, the balance of panels and all something about. The fact is that broadcasters are that sort of stuff. The confidence we take from the absolutely required to show impartiality in the way BBC, given that the director general resigned, is that they report affairs. There are particularly onerous someone will always eventually take responsibility for requirements in how they report what are regarded as something within the BBC. The flipside of it is that, major issues and matters. This certainly falls into that from our market research of what the Scottish people category. The answer would be that, if either side in want from this debate, the importance of the BBC the referendum debate feels it is being unfairly treated cannot be overstated on this; it is an incredibly trusted by any licensed broadcaster, in every case there are message carrier, and people will take their opinions avenues one can take to register complaints. There are from the BBC much more than they will from other very serious consequences if broadcasters are found sources. It is incredibly important that that process is to be in breach of the impartiality requirements. there and there is that process of engagement. Like Broadcasters make mistakes. As you might imagine, you, I think that most times when there is a big debate there is no shortage of people on the yes side of this people on either side take to Twitter and call the BBC debate who are inclined to see in various broadcast hopelessly biased one way or another, which probably items things that they regard as unhelpful or means they are roughly in the right place. There needs unfavourable to them. I have no shortage of people to be that process of engagement when those mistakes telling me that we should be firmer in our happen or that guidance and policy is not picking up representations to broadcasters about being treated an important point in the debate. fairly. Having an inside perspective, I very rarely see Blair Jenkins: I wouldn’t wish former colleagues and anything that I regard as deliberate bias. I certainly friends at STV to think I was ignoring them. I do see mistakes being made. Mistakes are usually made obviously believe that STV has a very important role because people are not adequately resourced. to play in the election campaign as well. My personal Programmes have lost resources. A concern everyone view, which is as a broadcaster and journalist, is that cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG09 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o009_db_Corrected SAC 121120.xml

Ev 254 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

20 November 2012 Blair Jenkins and Blair McDougall the half-hour programme that STV now do at 10.30, Q1874 Lindsay Roy: Blair’s point was that he “Scotland Tonight”, is a very good and welcome wanted some additional resources. Is that the case? addition to the available sources of debate and Blair McDougall: My point is that you can have a information in Scottish life. I am very glad they did grass-roots network but you need to be able to that. It seems to me to be doing a really good job. resource it. Important as the national media are, they Chair: I was not sure whether or not you were going will never cover the full range of issues. The to say that STV are just as bad, but possibly not. campaigns themselves need to be able to put their case directly to the people without the sometimes helpful Q1871 Lindsay Roy: I find it a bit ironic that you and sometimes unhelpful filtering of the media. rightly highlighted the diminution of resources for the broadcast media and yet you didn’t seem to feel Q1875 Chair: Blair, I recall an outrageously concerned about the reduction in resources in global deferential interview that you had with the BBC, and terms, compared with the devolution campaign, for then it transferred over to some poor Labour grass-roots propagation. spokesman, who got a proper hammering. It was the contrast between those two that struck me at the time Blair Jenkins: I think I see the comparison you are as being reflective of bias. Neither of the interviews drawing. As to BBC Scotland, at the point I left, could be seen in themselves to be particularly wrong; which was 2006 I think I am right in saying, but it was just the juxtaposition. There is still an issue technically in 2007, already at that stage some of the about what is seen as bias, in particular the use of programmes I was responsible for as head of news presenters who are identified publicly as partisan and and current affairs were pretty thinly stretched. yet are presented as if they were impartial experts. Staffing and resources were tight. Things have got These are issues that both sides will probably want to significantly worse since then. We are talking about pursue with the broadcasters. It distorts the position an organisation that has a key role to play in the quite considerably if people are being given somebody referendum campaign, where there is a great risk that as a talking head with the impression that they are editorially it will not be able to do the job that impartial and yet they are coming from a particular journalists want to do because it does not have background. sufficient capacity to do that. I hope that can be Blair McDougall: I suspect people in Blair’s office rectified, and I think there is enough of a public debate were watching the same interview and thinking the going on in Scotland about this at the moment. I think exact opposite. Magnus Linklater wrote a column on it in The Times today. Q1876 Chair: Oh, no. It couldn’t possibly be the one There is enough concern being flagged up that it is I am thinking of. not too late to do something about it, but I agree with Blair McDougall: There is always a subjective Blair McDougall. We all have an interest in a strong element in these things. Blair Jenkins rightly made BBC journalistic presence through these two years, the point earlier that what will be different about this particularly as we get closer to the referendum, not referendum campaign is that both sides will bring in just in the scheduled news and current affairs non-politicians, experts and academics, as programmes but in spotting opportunities to construct spokespeople for their campaigns. Last week we had special programmes, debates and ways of getting the Hugh Pennington, an eminent microbiologist, electorate engaged in this. The BBC have a special delivering a message for us about science. For those role. I wouldn’t quite make the comparison or draw journalists, the key thing is to recognise that when the parallel that you did. those people are deployed by our campaigns they require the same level of scrutiny as would a Q1872 Lindsay Roy: The proposed amount of politician. Perhaps it is not the Paxman test of lamp money available for campaigns is reduced. What was posts and dogs in terms of their treatment, but, if you the figure per head you gave, Blair? are going on to make a political point on behalf of a Blair McDougall: It is either 1p or 2p per head. political campaign, you deserve a level of scrutiny that you wouldn’t have if you were just a talking head. That is something broadcasters in particular will need Q1873 Lindsay Roy: Your plea was that you wanted to come to terms with over the next two years, further funding to disseminate information at grass- because both of us will be putting up increasingly roots level. That was the point I am trying to raise. large numbers of normal people, for want of better Blair Jenkins: If the BBC could conserve programme terminology, into the debate. budgets to position them where they were a few years Blair Jenkins: I suspect I know the interview to ago, that would be adequate. I am not suggesting they which you are referring. The perception might have should be increased beyond where they were a few been due to the very persuasive way in which I was years ago. answering the questions. I worked in newspapers for To go back to the spending limits in the regulated a little while before I went into broadcasting. The period of the campaign, I believe in our volunteer professional etiquette or conduct of people within network as the primary means of delivering our broadcasting is such that you very rarely know where message during that period. I could live with those any individual is coming from politically. Usually, limits. If you give me more money, great, I’ll spend anyone who has a political agenda in broadcast it, but, if I am being asked whether I can work within journalism can be spotted a mile off. Their colleagues those limits, yes, I can. are the first to spot them. To take my own case, in the cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG09 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o009_db_Corrected SAC 121120.xml

Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 255

20 November 2012 Blair Jenkins and Blair McDougall last six months people I have worked with points that you want to make that we have not covered professionally for 30 years have said to me, “I had no at all so far and you would not want us to omit? idea that you were in favour of independence”, and Blair Jenkins: One thing is perhaps to say in different I said, “Well, why should you?” Professionally, the terms what I said right back at the beginning. I think etiquette within broadcast journalism is that you don’t the eyes of the world are on us over the next two talk about your views on any subject. Anyone who years, not just in Scotland but in the UK as a whole. comes with a political agenda you usually do see It is very important that the UK, Scotland and all of them coming. us who live here conduct ourselves in a very open, Sometimes, I slightly regret professionally the over- courteous, tolerant and civilised way over the next two use of the over-aggressive or over-adversarial years. At the end of the day I hope and am confident interview. I sometimes think it produces more heat that the people of Scotland will vote yes to than light, and it is something the profession probably independence in two years’ time, but, whatever the needs to address a little bit. Broadcasting is the key outcome of the referendum, we then move on as a information source for most people. I mentioned society and both sides have to be accepting of the earlier how important the internet was. In spite of the result. rise of the internet, the percentage of people who I made very clear on day one of taking over this job identify television as their main source of news that I, for instance, would not get involved in personal increases year on year. About 81% of people now say attacks on anybody on the other side of the argument. that their main source of news and information is I have been invited on and off the record by journalists television, so it is enormously important. It is in all to say things about various individuals associated with our interests that there is a good range and diversity the no campaign. That is not a game I play and I am of programmes and presenters. Over the years I have not going to do that. The day after Scotland votes for had complaints from all political parties from time to independence, the people who have a different point time about different programmes and presenters. of view from my own will be citizens of an Usually, if something has gone wrong in an individual independent Scotland just like the rest of us and I am circumstance, you say, “Okay; we didn’t quite get that sure will be trying just as hard as I will be to make right.” But I don’t think there is systemic bias and I Scotland everything it could and should be. That is don’t honestly believe that most people looking at the spirit in which I come into this, and it is the only either of the main broadcast services in Scotland political campaign I am ever going to be involved in. would see systemic bias. It is the spirit in which I have entered into it and it is the way the yes campaign will conduct itself over the Q1877 Chair: The final point that we want to raise, next two years. I really do honestly think this is a unless there is anything else on this, is the question of tremendous opportunity for all of us, whatever our moving forward. We have made it clear on a whole point of view, to begin to think in a new, imaginative number of occasions that we want to try to shed light and fresh way about what kind of society and country on a number of unknown areas. That was why we we want to be. It will be a fantastic experience for produced a report on Trident. We are doing a number Scotland, and I am really looking forward to it. of things on defence. Blair McDougall: I agree with almost all of that, apart Are there any particular areas on which you think it from the bit about how we will all be citizens of an would be helpful for us to focus or to bring in expert independent Scotland. The scrutiny of this is really witnesses to give us their views on particular important. There is sometimes a reluctance in politics questions? I don’t think we would necessarily find to ask some of the big questions or delve below the ourselves in a position where we produced something surface of some of the superficial stuff. As Blair says, that was agreed by all parties, but it would certainly this is an opportunity to take a big, long look at help to raise the standard and quality of debate. ourselves as a country and have that debate. I hope I know that Dundee university is doing some of this; that the collateral damage to your process, if you like, we ourselves have identified a whole number of as well as having decided our constitutional future, is questions in a previous report. I just wonder whether that fresh ideas will have come forward for the future there is anything in particular that springs to mind as of Scotland. I am really pleased that through Better a suitable subject for examination. You mentioned the Together we have got thousands of normal people, lady and the post office. We are looking at that. using that terminology again, involved in politics who Pensions were mentioned at one point. We are also wouldn’t have been involved before, and I think there getting something drawn up on that. If you can’t think is a chance to revive Scottish participative democracy of anything just now but something does spring to through this. That is a really exciting possibility. mind, by all means let us know and we will follow it Chair: Thank you very much for coming. I hope you up with our well-known partiality—impartiality. That feel you have been dealt with courteously and politely. was almost a Freudian slip there. Thank you for the Good; I am glad to see that you are nodding your heckle from the gallery. heads. Nodding heads is not recorded, but we will say The final point we always want to put to people is, for the record that both the witnesses did nod their are there any answers that you had prepared for heads in agreement. questions we have not asked? Are there any particular cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [SE] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG10 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o010_db_Corrected SAC 121121.xml

Ev 256 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

Wednesday 21 November 2012

Members present: Mr Ian Davidson (Chair)

Mike Crockart Simon Reevell Jim McGovern Mr Alan Reid Iain McKenzie Lindsay Roy ______

Examination of Witnesses

Witnesses: Ian Godden, Chairman, Farnborough International, Professor Trevor Taylor, Professorial Research Fellow in Defence Management, Royal United Services Institute, and Dr John Louth, Director, Defence, Industries and Society Programme, Royal United Services Institute, gave evidence.

Q1878 Chair: Welcome, gentlemen. I am sorry In particular, what are its strengths? I am not quite about the slight delay in starting. I understand that one sure how we want to work this out. of you had a hold-up. I apologise also to those Lindsay Roy: They are all being deferential. members of the public that are here. Professor Taylor: First of all, the visibility of the Gentlemen, as you know, this is the Scottish Affairs smaller companies is not so great to us, but maybe Ian Committee. We are conducting an inquiry into the can help more in that regard. There are some very impact of separation upon Scotland. In particular important and significant defence plants in Scotland, today we are looking at the impact of separation on particularly in the areas of airborne radar, a little bit defence in Scotland, defence industries and defence in optronics, obviously shipbuilding, and then there is manpower. an important American armed plant in Scotland that It would be helpful if you could start by identifying does electronics design and manufacture. In addition, yourselves and tell us the background that qualifies there are other facilities that people here will be you to be experts in this subject. You are here to cast familiar with. There are the ranges that are operated enormous light upon these subjects. Because Mr by QinetiQ and obviously there is a nuclear base at Godden is out of breath, maybe we will start at the Faslane, about which you have already had an inquiry. other end with Dr Louth. We think this adds up to probably north of 15,000 jobs Dr Louth: Chairman, I would never describe myself or something like that—it is very difficult to pin down as an expert in anything. There lies madness. I am the exactly. That is our calculation. Director for Defence, Industries and Society Ian Godden: To reinforce that, if you start with a wide Programme within the Royal United Services view, in an industrial sense you can never narrow Institute. I also teach at Roehampton Business School. defence down to a specific set of companies, except Much of my research and writings are on the rarely, because, generally speaking, the large primes condition of defence industries as a component of the in the world have aerospace, defence and some have military instrument. security as well. If you start with a wide view of Professor Taylor: I am Trevor Taylor. I am a 40,000 jobs within aerospace, defence and security in Professorial Fellow at the Royal United Services Scotland, including marine, you narrow it down to Institute. I also look after the Defence, Industries and defence and you get to the number that was just Society Programme. Wearing another hat, I am Emeritus Professor at Cranfield university based at the mentioned, which is around 15,000 or thereabouts. In Defence Academy. I have written quite a lot about terms of its importance to the economy, it clearly has defence acquisition over the years and the links to been a growth industry for the last two decades. In defence economics and defence politics. With a Scottish terms, that has come from growth associated colleague who is not here, I did write a book on the with both UK and international markets. It has British defence industry in 1992. I think it remains the positions, for example, that serve the whole supply only book on British defence industry, so that is a chain in the world but are clearly focused quite rather dated qualification but I have tried to keep up heavily on the UK. to date. In terms of its position, that is the size of it. In the Chair: To be fair, I don’t think we have read the book; context of the UK there are around 600,000 jobs in we have all been waiting on the film coming out. aerospace, defence and security, and in defence Ian Godden: I am Ian Godden, former Chairman of around 300,000 jobs. It is approximately 5% to 7% of ADS, the trade association for Aerospace, Defence the UK’s economy and job count in defence, and in and Security. I remain as Chairman of Farnborough the wider context a bit more perhaps for the other International, which runs the Farnborough Airshow, economy. In that sense it is a significant part but the Bahrain Airshow and a few others round the proportional to what you would expect it to be in the world. I am passionate about the subject of airspace world. The UK is No. 2 in the world industrially. It defence and security and I am also passionate about beats France, Germany and others. It is No. 2 in the the subject of the Scottish economy. world despite being the No. 6 economy in the world. Defence as such is a very significant part of our Q1879 Chair: I will start by asking you how you heritage and industrial base, of which Scotland plays would characterise the defence industries in Scotland. a key part. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG10 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o010_db_Corrected SAC 121121.xml

Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 257

21 November 2012 Ian Godden, Professor Trevor Taylor and Dr John Louth

Dr Louth: I would think the piece missing would be Scotland as a foreign country until the Scottish annual turnover or annual sales for Scotland defence. Government produced it. It seems unlikely to me that We would calculate that annual sales would be about goodwill would take you very far until the Scottish £1.8 billion to £2 billion. That is just for defence, not Government produced it. the wider position. As some of the Committee members may be aware and certainly as everybody on this side of the table is Q1880 Chair: Our general impression is that the aware, the Americans are extremely sensitive about vast majority of these jobs are high-tech specialist the protection of their intellectual property. From the jobs, well paid, cutting edge. It is not just simply point of view of the regulatory risk of a new bolting things together; it is very much top-end Government, that is a relatively visible thing. That employment in the main. Is that a fair assessment? would be one point that I would put on the table Ian Godden: Yes. Part of it is construction; it is high- quite early. end construction. You could argue that shipbuilding is Ian Godden: May I add a couple of points? They live high-end construction. The guts of most of the defence with uncertainty all the time about contracts—the industry is very high technology. There are multiple nature and timing of the contracts. That is a types of technology. The only thing that I can think of worldwide phenomenon. If you go to the US there is which is not really is biological, but, even in parts of uncertainty about whatever contract you can imagine the military, that biological research and technology is at the moment, whether it is the joint strike fighter or in there. It has all the physical, electronic and IT this, that and the other. There is uncertainty in terms technologies. of contracts all the time. The way that people deal with that at the high company level is to have a Q1881 Chair: We have been to visit a number of portfolio. They manage it through the ability to major defence employers in the area. Obviously, one operate in multiple countries or with multiple thing that comes up all the time is the uncertainty customers. facing the country because of the forthcoming BAE Systems is a good example of a large company separation referendum. How do you believe that that has declared that it has five or six home markets normal defence employers would react to that sort of because it knows that the UK is not enough to rely on uncertainty? as a demand. Secondly, the uncertainty of any Dr Louth: Intuitively, most defence businesses like individual country, even for the UK, is such that they certainty or degrees of certainty, but in the real world have to manage that away. They have invested in the they have to work in conditions of significant US, Saudi Arabia and so on. uncertainty. A range of risk registers and The big question on uncertainty is where you put your methodologies is in place to try and manage out some investment in technology, people and skills. If there of the complexities associated with defence and is long-term uncertainty about a particular market— security environments. I would intuitively think that meaning more than a few years—then they will tend sophisticated defence businesses can handle to invest where they have some certainty. That means uncertainty but they would not necessarily welcome it. where the policy, the growth and the contracts are Professor Taylor: With defence businesses, first it is clear. Uncertainty over a one, two or three-year period obviously Governments that are the customers. It is a is probably enough for them to cope with in terms highly political business because of the dependencies of where they make long-term investments. If it gets and importance of technology to armed forces. A beyond that, they start thinking, “Wait a minute; we question such as Scottish separation, I would imagine, need to go somewhere else.” There are some examples would clearly rank as a significant risk to defence of European companies, which I will not mention, companies that operate in Scotland because the who have looked at the UK and said, “There is a lot political context in which they operate would be of uncertainty in the UK. I think we will take our changing so drastically. investments to the US.” These are the large companies now. I will come back to the small companies. They Q1882 Chair: How might people react to that measure certainty. They can cope with uncertainty for uncertainty? a period of time, but after a while, if it lasts too long, Professor Taylor: I don’t know how they would react they will start investing somewhere else. to that uncertainty. There are dimensions that one can For the smaller companies it is very difficult because consider. The first is the legal regulatory dimension, they have shorter-term contracts. They have shorter- which is among the more predictable, if you like. term horizons. They are reliant on uncertainty not only Defence companies operate and can only operate with Government contracts but also with the primes. under a significant regulatory framework, which is to They are the ones that usually suffer from uncertainty. do with classified information, security clearances, Although the balance sheets of most of the defence clearance arrangements for companies and export companies have been okay in this last recession, they controls. That has to have the machinery and are the ones that have struggled the most because they processes, in terms of people and organisation, to don’t have access to finance to bridge any uncertainty make those regulations work. of timing and contracts, and they typically will have to The kind of governmental machinery that is associated diversify. There are about 850 companies in Scotland with issuing forms for export licences, giving across aerospace, defence and security; I don’t know clearances to people and all those sorts of things is the exact number, but let us call it 100 to 200 SMEs very extensive. It is legally based and so it needs in defence. If they have uncertainty for more than a legislation. That just wouldn’t be in place with couple of years, they are in real trouble and they have cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG10 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o010_db_Corrected SAC 121121.xml

Ev 258 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

21 November 2012 Ian Godden, Professor Trevor Taylor and Dr John Louth to diversify and do something else. Whether that is Q1886 Chair: They can follow the bookmakers. The going into the oil industry or some other industrial odds there are quite clear on the result of the industry, they have to take the decisions faster and referendum, but that is not necessarily the best way of they will move faster. It depends where you are in decision making, is it? the chain. Ian Godden: No; I am not going to comment on the political aspect of this. I am trying to reflect what Q1883 Chair: Before I bring in some of my industrialists would think, do, say and believe about colleagues I want to seek clarification on this question uncertainty, and they are used to that. of uncertainty. At the moment there clearly is Dr Louth: It is a balanced argument as well, but I uncertainty between now and the period of the would be tempted to suggest that, on the balance of referendum. the range of possibilities, there would potentially be Ian Godden: Yes. more nervousness on significant capital investment with all the hanging questions associated with a yes Q1884 Chair: It is scheduled for autumn 2014. If it vote than otherwise. It may be a constraint on large is a yes vote for separation, then, presumably, by that capital investments, but it would also be smart to think analysis there would be a considerable period of about the uncertainty around existing contracts and how that works with a separation. I do not think any uncertainty after that about what the arrangements of of us have given enough thought to that. Potentially, establishing a new state were and then what the there would be trade between two separate states policies of that new state were. On your analysis, any running through existing contracts. That could be major company—and I understand the point about the quite interesting. smaller ones—would have to look then at there potentially being six years or so of uncertainty in the Q1887 Jim McGovern: I have a point for event of one particular option being accepted. If it is clarification. I can see that Professor Taylor and Dr a no vote, then presumably a lot of that uncertainty Louth come from the same organisation. In the disappears because it remains within the United introductory remarks Professor Taylor said “we are of Kingdom. We are potentially then talking about quite the view” and “our view is”. Has there been some sort a long period of uncertainty. Am I right in thinking of pre-meeting? Do you speak for the three witnesses? that what you are really saying to us is that that is Professor Taylor: Certainly not. We both work side by likely to act as a disincentive to capital investment by side in the same think tank. We have rather different these large firms? backgrounds. I am a career academic, who has worked Professor Taylor: I would add to that. You said that occasionally with Government. John has an Air Force there would be uncertainty about the policy of the new background and has come relatively recently into Government towards this field. There would also be academic life. He also has an industrial background. considerable uncertainty, which would matter more, about the policy of external Governments towards the Q1888 Jim McGovern: So when you say “we”, who new entity. Your overall diagnosis is correct that a yes do you mean? vote would probably raise many more questions than Professor Taylor: We discuss some of these issues a no vote in this field, but it would be folly to think even when we are not called before this Committee. that the only source of uncertainty would be whatever We have had discussions on these topics. We the Scottish Government thought. The Scottish market sometimes speak with the same voice but not always. for defence equipment is unlikely to be very large, so As the afternoon progresses, I am sure you will find much would hinge on the attitude of other parties. a departure. Ian Godden: In terms of the actual time frame, if I was sitting in a strategy department in a corporation— Q1889 Jim McGovern: Chair, I do not know if you which I am not—such as Boeing, Finmeccanica, agree, but, normally when we have witnesses here at Thales or BAE, they would probably have in their any given Scottish Affairs Committee meeting, we minds four to five years of political uncertainty. It is regard them as individuals with their own opinions. not two. But you say “we” and “our view”. Secondly, they are used to political uncertainty every Professor Taylor: We are from a think tank and a election. They have to live with changes in defence think tank does not actually have a collective view at policy and so on. They are used to the idea of four- any stage. They have individuals who work for the year uncertainty periods anyway. This is potentially a think tank and put forward ideas. You can safely treat more dramatic political uncertainty, but they are used us as separate individuals. I promise to say “I” for the to planning and thinking around four-year cycles of rest of the afternoon. political uncertainty. Chair: Sometimes we just assume that people, particularly from academic life, say “we” when they Q1885 Chair: For the large companies, would this mean “I”, but it sounds grander to say “we”. It is like, four or five-year period of uncertainty deter “We are a grandmother” and things like that. We investment or not? would certainly prefer it if you argued among Ian Godden: I don’t think you can say it is black yourselves because that gives us much more light. or white. They know it, so therefore they may delay investment decisions. They may have to predict what Q1890 Iain McKenzie: I want to come in again on is going to happen. So they may predict what is going the theme of uncertainty. I wonder if the panel would to happen and remove their own uncertainty. agree that this is possibly the longest period of cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG10 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o010_db_Corrected SAC 121121.xml

Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 259

21 November 2012 Ian Godden, Professor Trevor Taylor and Dr John Louth uncertainty that has faced the defence industry north Ian Godden: I agree. I think they haven’t done of the border. If we take the two years in the run-up enough. There are some that have done some, but I to the referendum and then being in the position of an don’t think they have done enough. That is what I was election, it could extend to four or six years. We have saying. They have taken it seriously in the last year. heard about it being really difficult, if not impossible, for small businesses to span that length of uncertainty. Q1895 Lindsay Roy: Either that or they have done Even for the large businesses, that will surely test their enough but they haven’t told us. ability to keep afloat over that length of time. Ian Godden: It could be, but I don’t detect that Ian Godden: I am not an historian of defence actually. They may have hidden it from me as well. uncertainty in Scotland so I cannot comment further Professor Taylor: If you take guidance on corporate back than about 12 or 15 years. I am sure there were governance generally, companies should try to assess other periods and some historian will pop up and say the major risk to their activities and look at ways to that there was another period of uncertainty post- mitigate and monitor those risks. Therefore, if the second world war or something that I am not aware companies are prudent, it would seem that they have of. Certainly in the last 15 years there have been two this on their risk register and are doing things about levels of uncertainty that have affected defence it, including some kind of scenario planning. thinking. One was the last four years in the UK. I will come back to Scotland. I have argued publicly, and Q1896 Lindsay Roy: From your experience, how been shot down for it, that there has been an awful lot much of the defence business is reliant on Ministry of of uncertainty in the UK defence policy for the last Defence orders from the evidence you have? Is it four years. We have had x number of Secretaries of 70%, 80% or 90%, roughly? State. We have had U-turns of policy on various Professor Taylor: That is a difficult question. contracts and we have had uncertainty about the structure of forces and so on within the UK context. Q1897 Lindsay Roy: That is why we are here. A lot of the companies have already been facing four Professor Taylor: Even export orders that are to five years of uncertainty in the UK context. ostensibly for foreign customers actually came about Some of that has spilled over into Scotland. Some of because of a Ministry of Defence commitment to that that uncertainty has been taken away with some piece of equipment. A relatively safe assumption is decisions made about two or three years ago, but I am that almost all Scottish defence business rests either not sure that Scotland has had more than its fair share directly or in a fairly close relationship with work until quite recently in terms of the thinking on this. from the Ministry of Defence. I meet the leaders of the top 10 companies, including Ian Godden: The theoretical answer is 100% on that those in the US and so on. My own assessment is that basis, but that is not quite right because I know of it is only in the last year that they have really got contracts that are direct exports to other countries— their minds around this subject. Whether they did have the US in particular—where that is not dependent on uncertainty for longer than that, I don’t think they a UK backing as such. It is not 100%. I don’t have a considered it at a level until quite recently. In theory, number. It is going to be less than that but it is going yes; in reality, it has been a year in the making of to be more than 50%; that’s for sure. I can’t give you uncertainty in those large companies and they have a precise number, but my gut feeling says it is in that suddenly woken up to the fact that there are some big range. issues here. Q1898 Lindsay Roy: We want an indication. Q1891 Lindsay Roy: We have been very privileged Dr Louth: A number that I would be comfortable with to meet with management representatives and trade is 50% to 80%. union representatives at Babcock, BAE and Raytheon, Lindsay Roy: That is helpful. for example. They acknowledge that they are aware of the forthcoming referendum. They don’t want to be Q1899 Chair: 50% to 80% is directly dependent drawn into any of the politics of it. Do you think it is upon the MOD; and then, on top of that, things that unrealistic that they have not engaged in some kind of are based on having sold to the MOD are then sold to scenario planning? somebody else. Dr Louth: Yes, absolutely. It is totally unrealistic. Dr Louth: Absolutely. Professor Taylor: It depends on the nature of your Q1892 Lindsay Roy: So you think they have. question. There are parts of Typhoon that get sold to Dr Louth: Yes, of course. Saudi Arabia that are made in Scotland. That Typhoon exists because of, in that case, a four-country Q1893 Lindsay Roy: Do you all agree? commitment to that project. That is what enabled the Ian Godden: Could you repeat the question? I had a export in the first place. If you take the longer-term little trouble with it at the end, in the last sentence. view—in other words, if you are interested in the possibilities for the Scottish defence industry that are Q1894 Lindsay Roy: Do you think it is unrealistic not tied to the Ministry of Defence—I think it is a that they have not engaged in some kind of scenario fairly small proportion. I would certainly be nearer the planning? What they have said to us is, “We are aware 80% than the 50%. of it. We don’t want to get involved in the politics of it, but there is likely to be some scenario planning on Q1900 Lindsay Roy: As you are probably aware, in ‘What if Scotland becomes independent?’” terms of the process of the referendum, we are very cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG10 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o010_db_Corrected SAC 121121.xml

Ev 260 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

21 November 2012 Ian Godden, Professor Trevor Taylor and Dr John Louth much into the question of the question; so that is not naturally flow any more that there are national helpful. What are the chances of the MOD contracts. But there are some—the prime contracts. withdrawing its contracts to the residual UK if Scotland becomes independent? Presumably it Q1903 Lindsay Roy: How successful have defence depends what it is. How much of what is here already companies been in diversifying away from defence would you say, as an indicator, might be withdrawn contracts? We have visited a number where there have to the rest of the UK because Scotland is a foreign been newer challenges and where, for example, 90% country? is MOD-related and they are trying to diversify but Ian Godden: I am afraid I cannot answer that question have not had a great deal of success so far. Are you because it depends on the negotiations between the aware of any companies that have diversified into two nation states about how that is done. For example, other markets? if you asked me that question on US to UK, I couldn’t Dr Louth: It depends in a way on the company or the answer it either because they change industrial policy technologies in question. Shipbuilding, ship design and policy on contracts all the time. Genuinely I am and maintenance have their own specific set of issues not trying to duck it, but it is a matter of negotiation that perhaps make it difficult to move away between two nation states. Industrially, I could try a automatically. scenario on it, but I wouldn’t be able to predict that. Q1904 Lindsay Roy: We are not just talking here Q1901 Lindsay Roy: We are looking for candid and about internal diversification and internal markets; frank responses, so that is very helpful. there is also export. Ian Godden: I am sorry; I can’t do any better. Dr Louth: That is quite interesting. If you think of a Professor Taylor: It would be a matter of international company like Gore in Livingston, for example, that is politics and not national politics, which it currently is. a very multi-faceted company. It is a very interesting That would change the equation significantly. It would company. It has very important UK defence contracts also be a matter of the amount of feeling and emotion and very important relationships with UK DSTL—the of the whole position, which might be tied to money. science and technology lab—but the majority of its You have done your inquiry into the nuclear weapons turnover is probably associated with sophisticated position, so the Committee might at least ask itself protective equipment for non-military customers. how whatever the London-based country is called will There is probably more margin in that going forward react to being saddled with a significant extra bill for than chemical, biological or radiological protective its nuclear weapons. suits. If you add that physical protective capability to I would feel fairly confident in saying that there would detection capabilities, then the margin grows. That not be an increase in orders from London north of the may be something that is a very attractive strategy. It border. My suggestion is that it would be a diminished is not a one-size-fits-all or simple answer. It goes to number, but Ian is quite right about what the the heart of the strategies that the companies are diminished number would be. employing. It sweeps in their investment decisions. It Ian Godden: May I come back, Chairman, because I is very difficult to give an A or a B, frankly. would like to refine my answer a little by reminding Ian Godden: There are examples of companies that everybody that most big defence contracts, with the have gone into the adjacent commercial aerospace exception of ships, are international programmes? For security markets. The one that has been looked at in example, Typhoon, or whatever you want to call it the last two years, although there is a bit of a hiccup now, is 67% French/German. The ownership of around the policy on nuclear, is the nuclear industry Typhoon is 33% British. There is a big competition because there is an expectation there. for flight control or flow systems between France, Germany and the UK—or there was—and Germany Q1905 Lindsay Roy: Are there any specific was competing with the UK for bits and pieces. The examples in Scotland? nature of the big defence contracts these days means Ian Godden: There are long-term examples like the that the UK is too small to think about. Weir Group, but that is a 100-year view. I am not up There are exceptions. We have a big exception called to speed on ones that claim they have got there yet. a construction aspect of ships. If you look at the guts of a ship, the rest of it is all international with French Q1906 Lindsay Roy: I know that Raytheon has companies, Thales and so on. Babcock is a somewhat diversified, for example, into components for electric unique UK-centric company but is internationalising cars, but still 90% of it is defence-oriented. as we speak, very successfully. In the end, there is no Ian Godden: They are all looking at it. They all had such thing as a national contract that means you get a look at security markets. That has been quite a 100% of it in a nation—no way. popular one, both at the SME level and on a large- scale level. Commercial aerospace is booming. We are Q1902 Lindsay Roy: We were very privileged to in the middle of a five-year boom, with 6% growth see a Typhoon, to be told which parts came from worldwide and 26,000 aircraft. Everybody is looking where, how sophisticated each component was and at that again. BAE Systems, which exited that, is how they test-bedded all these things together. looking at it again. Obviously the recent merger Ian Godden: We have come from a period of 25 years proposal has fallen away, but they are all looking at going from 100% content of a nation to more like diversification. 20%. Airbus is a good example. The UK has 20% of Professor Taylor: Historically, when we go back to the contract and France has maybe 30%, so it does the end of the cold war, when there was a big look at cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG10 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o010_db_Corrected SAC 121121.xml

Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 261

21 November 2012 Ian Godden, Professor Trevor Taylor and Dr John Louth conversion of businesses, many businesses That is about as far as it has gone, because, generally particularly at the top end of defence struggled for speaking, countries normally fund defence projects perhaps two reasons. Defence tends to be about because they expect to put them into their armed manufacturing highly sophisticated things in small forces and they expect work from it. numbers, whereas the manufacturing processes in Dr Louth: The numbers are important, though, and many civil areas are in large numbers of not quite so can be helpful here. A number of recent publications sophisticated things. The other point, of course, is that have been estimating the size of the defence budget defence businesses are often set up in terms of their for an independent Scotland. On average, those papers marketing to a particular customer—often just one have been talking about a defence budget of about £2 customer, but certainly a small number of billion per annum. If we assume that both states spend customers—rather than marketing to a large number about 25% to 50%, depending upon who we are of companies, let alone consumers. talking about, with a defence industrial base—whether The experience of the 1990s was really that national or broader—you are talking at most of about conversion was pretty difficult. What happened was £1 billion of that dropping into the industrial base. that a lot of businesses that had a mixed portfolio That is not a significant prize for companies opted to sell their defence arms to someone that was necessarily to pursue. When we start splitting that going to focus on defence. Conversion is pretty tricky between maritime, air platforms and land platforms, it for the reasons I have explained. becomes very difficult through the numbers to have a sensible conversation around mid to long-term work Q1907 Chair: I want to follow up on one point that share or contribution within these complex was made relating to Typhoon and how it is not a international programmes. I would always be tempted national project, it is international and so on. My to keep an eye on the money as well, to be frank. impression is, though, that the work is divvied out among the partners on the basis that they are buying Q1908 Simon Reevell: I want to go back to one. A separate Scotland is unlikely to be buying and Typhoon as an example. Let me be clear that I flying Typhoons, and in the circumstances they are understand what you are saying. The UK Government therefore unlikely to be able to claim a work share. There is obviously a difference between going have responsibility for particular aspects of that forward and historic contracts, but I would have aircraft. Is that correct? thought the principle would be that a separate Ian Godden: The companies have negotiated with the Scotland would be too small to be operating high-tech, three original countries—Italy, Germany and the cutting edge equipment and would not be able to UK—and now France is in as an ownership of EADS claim or negotiate as of right shares of the projects and therefore has a position now. The companies in themselves. Therefore, there would be a natural the end have to compete to decide who does what in process of attrition over time as orders went to the terms of the work share. companies in the countries that were buying the high- tech items. Is that a fair assessment? Q1909 Simon Reevell: As a very crude example, Ian Godden: With regard to your comment about the somebody makes the wing, somebody makes the work share and so on, there is a move away from engine and somebody makes the whatever. that but it is still there. It is still relevant even in the Ian Godden: No. It does not quite work that way, but commercial aerospace world. There is a sort of at the sub-level the engines are Rolls-Royce engines. allocation of amount of work to a country that has put the investment money in. It is the investment money Q1910 Simon Reevell: Who decides which that counts. Could an independent Scotland put companies are, between them, going to produce investment money in? Yes, it could, but it would Typhoon? Is that a Government decision? require that almost as part of the process to capture it. Ian Godden: Ultimately it is a Government decision, It would not get a free lunch in the future. You say, but it is a negotiated company/Government well, there is no free lunch to a work share. The negotiation. answer is, if you are willing to invest, then there is. In the Typhoon and other programmes, there are small Q1911 Simon Reevell: Are any of the companies minority investments made by certain nations that are involved from countries that are outside of the partner not buying the equipment but they put the money up, countries responsible for the aircraft coming into and therefore they get business out of it. It is partly dependent on whether the country is prepared to put being? some investment in, which is a national decision. Ian Godden: There are suppliers from not those Chair: That is helpful. three countries. Professor Taylor: The “juste retour” arrangement, as Ian says, is fading but the furthest that it has gone in Q1912 Simon Reevell: The three predominant defence for collaborative projects is through the countries we are talking about are UK, Germany and framework of an organisation called OCCAR. In France. OCCAR, the agreement is that, although on individual Ian Godden: Originally in the Typhoon. EADS projects there won’t be a fixed work share for the ownership is a part of this, but it was originally UK, players, there is a monitoring of all the projects in Germany and Italy. which the players are involved so that you get your Professor Taylor: And Spain. fair share once you bundle all the projects together. Ian Godden: And Spain. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:15] Job: 022508 Unit: PG10 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o010_db_Corrected SAC 121121.xml

Ev 262 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

21 November 2012 Ian Godden, Professor Trevor Taylor and Dr John Louth

Q1913 Simon Reevell: What other countries are The UK has had a systematic capture, because of the involved in the process? supply chain relationships with Rolls-Royce, BAE Ian Godden: At Government to Government level— Systems and others, that is disproportionate to what you would expect. Coming back to your question, it Q1914 Simon Reevell: No; from which countries is your supply chain relationship with the primes that are there also companies who were involved in the will determine very often where the business flows manufacturing process? down, but all competed. Ian Godden: Goodness; that would be just about every industrial company in the world. It usually Q1920 Simon Reevell: Is this fair? If the UK is depends on security as to whether— responsible for the front third of the aircraft, the likelihood is that what you find in the front third of Q1915 Simon Reevell: So the involvement of a the aircraft will have come from the UK? particular company is because of its— Professor Taylor: A chunk of the radar comes from Ian Godden: Supply chain. the other partners because there is a work share on the radar. There is a work share on the undercarriage. Q1916 Simon Reevell:—supply chain link. Is that Every collaborative project tends to be sui generis and to a country or to a company? things are done slightly differently. In the case of Ian Godden: To a company. Typhoon, you have a multinational element to pretty much all of it, but the lead responsibility for the big Q1917 Simon Reevell: So a company in England chunks lies with particular countries. has links to a company in AN Other country and, if A question to which I don’t know the answer is the security agreements are satisfactory, its satellite whether the partnership as a whole—that is to say the company may produce something that goes into a consortium of the four Governments and the project such as Typhoon. consortium of the four companies, Eurofighter and the Ian Godden: Yes. It has to get clearances for it, but, Eurojet company—collectively vet the supply chains yes, the Governments in the end have to decide. of each other. Let us take an extreme example. If Professor Taylor: If you go to components and Rolls-Royce were to decide to source parts of an components of components and then down to engine from China, then I think the other materials, there are tens of thousands of bits in a Governments would have something to say about it. Typhoon. On the basic question that you asked, there There may well be a vetting of the supply chain. are lead countries for different parts of the aircraft. The UK is the lead for the front of the aircraft and the Q1921 Simon Reevell: I am sorry to interrupt. I Germans are the lead for the middle of the aircraft. In don’t want to go down that route necessarily because terms of what goes in there, in the case of Typhoon it is not really what we are concerned with. If we there was competition with Government agreement on contrast that to shipbuilding, looking at something like many of the sub-systems. The rule of the competition Type 26, which on the face of it would appear to be was that you actually had to have work share in your much more of a solo UK project simply because there bid. The competition for the radar, for instance, which aren’t international partners, to what extent would you is very sensitive to this debate because it is the expect to find UK components in a UK complex airborne radar that is made in Scotland, was won by warship or does the UK shop around? Ferranti against a consortium led by GEC at the time. Dr Louth: I can probably answer that more for the Later on, because of Ferranti’s difficulties, GEC Carrier than Type 26 at the moment, if that would bought Ferranti and therefore inherited that contract. be helpful. If GEC had won the contract, then I think it would have been Rochester that GEC’s airborne radar was based at. Q1922 Simon Reevell: Yes; I just take Type 26 as an example. The Carrier is just as valid. Q1918 Simon Reevell: But in terms of the front of Dr Louth: Because Type 26 is at a certain stage of its the aircraft, for which the UK has responsibility, is programme, whereas the Carrier has been there anything going into that that is not coming from manufactured. From what I understand of the Carrier the UK? and looking at the Carrier, there is literally a basket Professor Taylor: Yes. of millions upon millions of components. Some of Ian Godden: Yes. them are major and heavily constrained in terms of size, shape, functionality and performance. An awful Q1919 Simon Reevell: So there is no link between lot of them are minor consumables, if you like. The the country that has responsibility and the origin of programme director and his or her staff will be very the component parts that go into the area it has conscious that the consumables—the things that can responsibility for. be regularly changed and constructed—can be sourced Ian Godden: No, but you have to look at the supply pretty much from anywhere. A lot of that is based chains. The natural thing is for that company to rely on market price at the time, but the main, purposely- on a set of supply chains. Historically, if you look at designed components are banded in a much more the UK as a total including Scotland—and I have said closed and considered way. this many times—the number of SMEs in France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Sweden in the defence Q1923 Simon Reevell: By “closed and considered” industry is lower as a sum than the whole of the UK. you mean they are more secret. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:16] Job: 022508 Unit: PG10 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o010_db_Corrected SAC 121121.xml

Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 263

21 November 2012 Ian Godden, Professor Trevor Taylor and Dr John Louth

Dr Louth: They are usually more national, if you like, Ian Godden: It is an inevitability that it loses that but with partners. Part of those components will be niche status. Whether that leads to losing the business generated perhaps by overseas partners of existing is a very different question. companies or principal companies. Ian Godden: Thales, for example. Q1926 Simon Reevell: That is my next question. Let me ask you the question before you answer it. Q1924 Simon Reevell: Taking that point and Ian Godden: It does change the status on the something, Professor, which you said earlier about assumption that there is not some negotiated status as international and not national politics in the future part of becoming independent. That is where I go back being perhaps important with procurement, one to saying I don’t know because I cannot predict what sometimes gets the impression that decisions about the negotiation is. It could negotiate a status as part who makes what and where in defence have been of a new country. If it did that, then it would not lose affected by domestic politics. If we look at the status, but a natural progression, if it was not able shipbuilding, for example, sometimes there is a to get a niche status for the matter of defence, would concern that a particular yard stays and a particular be that it no longer has that status. yard goes for political reasons. There were similar Professor Taylor: I do not understand but would not concerns raised about the manufacturing of armoured underestimate the difficulties of the transition process. vehicles. For political reasons, a particular factory The UK security clearances and the UK control stayed open and a particular factory did not close. system that currently govern and allow foreign In general terms, would you agree that that has been companies, including American companies, to operate a factor and that some of what we have is where it is comfortably in Scotland would disappear. I simply do because of domestic political decisions? not know how the transition process would work. That Ian Godden: Yes. really opens up the possibility that, in a way, firms Professor Taylor: The quick way to think about this based in Scotland might cease to be eligible and cease is that defence equipment spending affects three to have access to the technology that they currently dimensions of value that matter to Government. A get. I do not know the answer to that. very important and central one is obviously military Dr Louth: I am desperate not to agree with my capability. When you spend money on equipment you colleague now, for very good reasons. It seems to me expect that to lead to military capability. The second that there is a very strong correlation between the size one is the economic front, which is about of the nation’s defence budget and the size, scale, employment, technological knowledge, managerial capability and capacity of its defence industrial base. skills and so forth. The third on occasions are political That can be tracked through the numbers. Most relationships. There is a negative side. You obviously companies are located in a region because there is a tend not to buy from countries that you feel are likely demand from the national Government and/or a very to be your adversaries or are not assured sources of beneficial export regime. In logic, we would have to supply. The other part of it is that sometimes defence ask whether both of those parts of the equation are in decisions can be made for wider political place post a yes vote. relationships. If we go back to Concorde and Jaguar, I can remember that they were projects that linked the Q1927 Simon Reevell: On your figure of £2 billion, UK and France at a time when the French were how many Typhoons could Scotland afford if they keeping us out of the common market, as it was then spent all the money on Typhoons? Would they get called. one? If you think of politics, economics and military, those Dr Louth: Not with the through-life cost, no. three strands are pretty much always present with major defence projects. Q1928 Simon Reevell: It is just an easy way for people to visualise it. Q1925 Simon Reevell: Obviously this concerns our Ian Godden: Another way of visualising it is that if Committee, but, if we had a situation where Scotland Scotland needs F16s and F18s in the future and buys was a separate state, then, in relation to the things that them—and there have been debates about whether that are sourced within the UK, for the sorts of reasons is actually what they need—then how does that affect that you have described, Scotland would fall out of industrial policy in Scotland? It will affect it because that bracket because it is no longer in the UK. With the US will wake up and the English Government the things that are manufactured and made available would go to sleep. In that sense there is a need to by companies in Scotland that can be bought on the consider all the political things connected with buying open market but at the moment are sourced from F16s and F18s. Scotland because it is in the UK, the Scottish manufacturers would have to compete with anybody Q1929 Simon Reevell: Especially if Scotland wasn’t else that we currently trade with and those a NATO country as well. To ask the last question, international political considerations would then which was the one you almost answered before, become a factor. I suppose what I am really saying is presumably the reason that the important American- that Scotland loses its niche status once it stops being owned company that you referred to, Professor, came part of the UK because it is competing with everybody to Scotland was because there is lots of business to be and it doesn’t have the advantage of doing the UK had as a result of lots of MOD originating business stuff that it gets to do because it is currently part of going on in the defence industry in Scotland. I am the United Kingdom. Is that fair? just wondering, with the scenario we are looking at— cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:16] Job: 022508 Unit: PG10 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o010_db_Corrected SAC 121121.xml

Ev 264 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

21 November 2012 Ian Godden, Professor Trevor Taylor and Dr John Louth

Scotland is not part of the United Kingdom, it has not or views about the relationship between universities got that in there, and it is competing with everybody and the defence industry in Scotland. else that the UK currently deals with, so it is losing Dr Louth: It is probably best to think in terms of one its niche status—whether it remains an attractive place or two examples; that might be useful. We know that for a large American company to come and set up, or BAE Systems is very committed in terms of its senior whether they are likely to go to the sort of place that people, time, effort and even money in the broader they thought Scotland was when they first arrived. UK skills agenda. The BAE Systems’ programmes for Ian Godden: I think we are missing one factor. We apprentices right across the country is very strongly have not talked about capability, skill and investment. endorsed by a number of organisations and thinkers. I There is an incredible defence capability in Israel, think I am right in saying that they have very strong because of its defence policy, and South Africa. South relationships with a number of departments in Africa has let it die a little bit. It came out of the Dundee. I don’t know so much about Aberdeen. sanctions; it is a small country requiring to understand Jim McGovern: No, Abertay. its own technology and has some, because America Dr Louth: Abertay; I am sorry. There has almost been and others had said, “No arms there”. a direction of travel of the larger defence prime as My attitude is that, if a country is serious about being more and more committed to relationships with investing and serious about the engineering skill base the universities and not the usual suspects, as it were. that is required and maintains that, it can maintain a There is a much broader range of engagement with position in the defence industry and be industrial the university sector. I don’t think we have enough because of a capability, and I believe very strongly data yet to say how that will be played out mid to that Scotland has an engineering capability that is long term, but there is certainly evidence of significant quite attractive to others. It is not just policy and support from the larger defence businesses into the politics that determines the work; it is where the skill universities, and Scotland is no exception. base is. There are periscopes in Glasgow. Q1934 Jim McGovern: In terms of R and D in Q1930 Simon Reevell: But isn’t there a fundamental Scottish universities, do you have any idea how much difference between Israel and South Africa, which are funding comes from the UK Government to Scottish universities for R and D? two countries that have sophisticated defence industries and have demonstrated continually the Dr Louth: For defence? sophistication of their defence industry, and a country Jim McGovern: Yes, on defence. like Scotland that would be manufacturing something Professor Taylor: I don’t, I’m afraid. As far as but not in circumstances where it was demonstrating research and technology is concerned—that is to say use? before a specific project is being considered—then universities across the piece in the UK are Ian Godden: Yes. I was just making sure that you significantly involved with companies in doing some understand there is something else at work here as of the very early research work. That is quite well. There is an industrial policy and a building of common. In smaller countries, which do not, frankly, engineering capability that means you can buck the spend almost anything on research on defence—and trend if you choose to do that. That was all I was the European Defence Agency has the numbers if you saying. want to check them out—universities sometimes serve the function of technical advisers to the Ministry of Q1931 Chair: If you choose to do it. Defence about individual technologies. Ian Godden: If you choose to do it. If the policy of a If a small country wants to buy a piece of equipment new country is not to do that, then we are back down and it has two companies coming along both offering the loop of discussion. I am saying that there is a way a piece of equipment and guidance as to what it will out if the country chose to do so and it has a capability do, and you would like to have an expert view, in engineering that has the possibility of attracting sometimes universities are the only place in the American, maybe German and Italian investment over country that have any kind of technical expertise. time. It had a Ferranti base, for example. Basically, your question jumps on a bit. In smaller countries there is almost no R and T spending at all. Q1932 Simon Reevell: In theory, you could have a There is very little R and D, but there is almost no R scenario where an independent Scotland that was not and T. That is one of the unfortunate features of a member of NATO decided to concentrate on its Europe. Most of the research and technology work defence industry, perhaps in conjunction with the that is done in Europe in the defence sector is done Americans, but there are perhaps logical by the UK, France and Germany. I don’t know inconsistencies. exactly, but it is north of 90% of all the work that is Ian Godden: Yes. done in Europe. Chair: I am conscious that Professor Taylor has to leave at 4.30. While I have nothing on until nine Q1935 Jim McGovern: I didn’t mean to spring that o’clock, we do have to start moving things on a little question upon you. Could you get back to the bit. Committee with some sort of figures? Ian Godden: Yes, we will try. I used to run a little Q1933 Jim McGovern: I have two universities in network called the Knowledge Transfer Network— my constituency—Dundee and Abertay university. I KTN. I would imagine it has those numbers and I can just wondered if you had any comments, observations get them for you. I would just make one comment. I cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:16] Job: 022508 Unit: PG10 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o010_db_Corrected SAC 121121.xml

Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 265

21 November 2012 Ian Godden, Professor Trevor Taylor and Dr John Louth don’t know about Dundee and your area. I am on the “Whoops.” Peter Luff and others said, “No, we are campaign board for Edinburgh university, so I not going to cut it. We are going to keep it flat.” understand Edinburgh university from the other side. Out of £400 million, if you did your back-of-the- I would say that the likes of Thales, the old Ferranti envelope analysis, Scotland should be spending and now Finmeccanica, and SELEX Galileo, something like £30 million or be associated with £30 Caselle—I have a cousin that works there and he says million of research to have its fair share of the defence he has been doing the same job for 30 years and they industry. I don’t know what the number is; you have have changed their name seven times— asked for it. The context is that the Government, if they were going to be serious about it, would have Q1936 Jim McGovern: Is that SELEX? to continue to spend at that sort of level to stay in Ian Godden: SELEX, yes. the game. Professor Taylor: The two examples that Ian gave Q1937 Jim McGovern: We visited there recently. were of smaller countries, although South Africa is Ian Godden: SELEX still has a very strong link to not a smaller country because it is four times the universities in Scotland of course, as has Thales in population of Scotland. Israel gets a massive amount Strathclyde. Heriot-Watt in Edinburgh is associated of external financial help from the United States, and with those, and there are relationships and key account both of them were spending 5% or 6% of their GDP programmes involving Finmeccanica and Rolls- on defence. Royce. But, having said all that, Scotland, in an engineering sense, became oil at one time. A lot of Q1940 Jim McGovern: I want to clarify something. the universities—and I was involved with that back in When you say “smaller countries”, do you mean the 1970s—jumped on the oil bandwagon. There was smaller than the UK or smaller than Scotland? Aberdeen in particular and to some extent Heriot- Professor Taylor: Smaller than Scotland. South Africa Watt, Strathclyde and so on, and they kind of switched is about 20 million people. They were both spending off. They switched off automotive because that was 5% or 6% of GDP on defence. The average in Europe, dying and they switched off defence because if you take the numerical average of the number of somehow or other it was all somewhere else and a bit countries divided by what they spend, is about 1.8%. too difficult. These countries that have done this have made an In terms of the Scottish universities themselves, I exceptional effort. believe there should now be increased emphasis on this, but politically it is unacceptable in certain circles Q1941 Chair: I want to move on now to some issues and therefore it has stopped some things that the universities have not done because there has been this about shipbuilding and so on. One question for the belief that defence is a bad thing. I am afraid some of Clyde yards is about the prospects of the T26. I the Cabinet members in political circles have said that wondered whether or not you have any observations quite publicly. It has affected the attitude of Scottish as to whether or not the UK, who have said that they universities to the sector. They like marine, but when have not ordered a warship outside the United the word “defence” comes in a lot of people say, “Oh, Kingdom in the last 200 years or so, are likely to place I don’t like that word; it is politically unacceptable.” an order on the Clyde before any referendum is held. It has had some effect. Do you have a view on that? Dr Louth: I would even go back to a slightly more Q1938 Chair: Unless I am mistaken, what you are basic question perhaps, Mr Chairman. It seems fairly saying is that, unless a separate Scottish Government self-evident that there is overcapacity in the UK as a decided to put substantial amounts of money into whole for shipbuilding. There is a very clear research in Scotland’s universities, you would not then programme of work with a gap in it that includes the have the intellectual base to support any high-tech Carrier and then the F26. The decision, which seems defence companies operating in Scotland. to be both a political and programme decision, is Ian Godden: I would take out the word “substantial”, where that new ship will be essentially manufactured. but certainly, unless it is committed to significant and There is a choice of three plants and two sites: the sustained investment where companies believe they Clyde and Portsmouth. are going to get expertise out of Scottish universities, It seems that the political and programmatic decision I agree with you. It will not be perceived as the place is entwined with the referendum. It seems very to go. difficult to decouple the two. I find it very difficult, given the history of shipbuilding in the UK and how Q1939 Chair: We are not talking loose change here, the MOD has made its decisions on where and how though, are we? There are all sorts of things that to place orders, that a future surface combatant would Scotland could do, but they can’t do them all, if you be manufactured outside the UK, whatever the see what I mean. There would be opportunity costs, territorial boundaries of the UK would be. That is not wouldn’t there? to say it couldn’t happen; of course it could happen. Ian Godden: Let me put it into context. Forget the There could be a whole range of negotiations that are numbers and the £2 billion we spend on research. The undertaken to make it happen, but I find it difficult. true R and T in this country is £400 million a year on One thing we do know is that the UK has to defence. It has been going down. It was £800 million rationalise its shipbuilding. It must make a decision 15 years ago and it is now £400 million. The last two on where it will anchor tomorrow’s shipbuilding—no Governments were about to cut it again and then said, pun intended. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:16] Job: 022508 Unit: PG10 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o010_db_Corrected SAC 121121.xml

Ev 266 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

21 November 2012 Ian Godden, Professor Trevor Taylor and Dr John Louth

Q1942 Chair: Presumably, if the UK was deciding Ian Godden: Or buy them. This is a political football, to place an order in a separate Scotland, it could not I am afraid, rather than an industrial one and therefore do that directly. Our understanding is that that would it is very difficult for me to comment. Nation states then have to be competed. It could place the order can buy wherever they like and have done. possibly before Scotland split, before the referendum, and then it might be that the order remained or did Q1946 Chair: Let us just be clear about that. not remain. That would be a political decision. It Ian Godden: Only to use it—not as an industrial base. would not be able, after separation, to decide to place We bought Chinooks from the US because we don’t the order directly in Scotland because under EU rule have any. 346, if I remember correctly, it would have to be competed Europe-wide and there could be no Q1947 Chair: That is right; because they were the guarantee that Scotland would win it in those only people making them. circumstances. Ian Godden: They were the only people making them. Dr Louth: That is absolutely right. The UK What I am saying is that this is a political decision. Government can make an argument on national security that it has to protect its own industrial Q1948 Chair: Surely it is not a political decision in capability for national security reasons, but it is very a sense because it would be illegal, would it not, under difficult to make that argument pan-European because 346 for the UK to continue to place an order with a they would be taking on the legal position. It is very separate Scotland without advertising that in the difficult to see that working. European Journal? As I understand it, the rule Professor Taylor: I am not a lawyer, but warship specifies that, if you are ordering outwith your own building has traditionally been seen as exempt from country, it has to be European-wide advertised. You 346. My understanding of the terms of business couldn’t just simply specify that it was going directly agreement that exists on shipbuilding is that the intent to Scotland. If they decided to do that—go furth of of it was that the country controlled from London or UK continuing—Scotland might win it, but they the sovereign state that had London as its capital couldn’t place it. Is that not correct? should have a capacity to design, build and support Professor Taylor: With academics and maybe warships. I would have thought it was the case that, if industrial people we always get wary when we are the territory that made up the sovereign state with its asked legal questions, which is the point you are capital as London changed, then the terms of business making. But you might put it the other way round and agreement would apply to the smaller entity that say, what would the advantage be to the UK of not resulted. competing it? Dr Louth: I am not a lawyer but my understanding is Q1943 Chair: Which means that, under the TOBA, your understanding. BAE would be obliged to place the order for the ship within the United Kingdom continuing, as it were, or Q1949 Chair: If that is not competing it— RUK or whatever the term is, rather than have it in Professor Taylor: Why not compete it? If you are not Scotland. The only caveat about that is whether or not going to give national preference, you might as well the order would be placed before the referendum was compete it. held. Presumably in those circumstances an order placed might very well continue to be binding. Q1950 Chair: Yes; if you are not going to give Dr Louth: But then we would have to understand the national preference. export architecture from the new state to the old state, Ian Godden: If you are not going to give it, why as it were. We would have to understand that that is wouldn’t you compete it? in place and that there are no political/quasi-judicial Chair: Yes. This obviously relates back to the whole constraints on that relationship and thereby that order. question of what would happen in these That becomes a number of hoops that perhaps we circumstances. I think Iain has a couple of issues have never really had to jump through before, so it is relating to shipbuilding as well. very difficult to comment on that. Q1951 Iain McKenzie: With the Carrier programme Q1944 Chair: Would it simply be easiest of all in bringing employment to several parts of the UK and these circumstances for the UK Government, which with it now tailing off, especially at Clyde and Rosyth, might end up being the UK Government continuing, what do you think the opportunities are of continuing just simply to delay placing an order until the day that level of employment with the Type 26 coming after the referendum? on board? Dr Louth: Yes. Ian Godden: Let me describe what the nature of that Professor Taylor: That course of action would not be is. This is a very high-tech construction project. It is a source of surprise to me. an infrastructure project like the Olympic Village or a Ian Godden: I agree with my panel members on this new railway line or airport. These projects are bound one but not because I have pre-discussed this. There to be massive ramp-ups and massive ramp-downs. is one other statement I would make. Clearly, nations That is the nature of the project. We have talked about buy sensitive equipment from other nations. I have Type 26, but, unless there is something on the horizon plenty of examples in the UK. that I am not aware of, the inevitability of that thing ramping up and ramping back down again is huge. It Q1945 Lindsay Roy: Under licence. is inevitable. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:16] Job: 022508 Unit: PG10 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o010_db_Corrected SAC 121121.xml

Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 267

21 November 2012 Ian Godden, Professor Trevor Taylor and Dr John Louth

Can that skill base be applied in other markets? It Q1954 Lindsay Roy: I said “nucleus”. It is a nucleus is well known that we are not really competitive in of capacity of a high-skilled base that can deliver. commercial shipbuilding worldwide except for very Dr Louth: The programmatic problem is that the small and specific vessels. Could anybody diversify people concerned with the design and development of into commercial? I would like to see risk money the F26 are, at some time in the very near future, signed up for that; I doubt it. When I say “construction going to have to have some kind of certainty around people”, I don’t mean bricks and mortar; this is much where it is going to be constructed. Unfortunately, more sophisticated than bricks and mortar. I do not these sorts of programmes have to take into account mean it in that way, so I don’t want anybody who is location of manufacture and fit because the facilities listening to misinterpret. Can that sophisticated aren’t identical. That could complicate the construction be used on other things? Of course it programmatic considerations. could, but we have a declining oil industry. That Ian Godden: You are back to the very question you would be a natural place for some of that skill base to started with on uncertainty. It is a good example of it. go. Unless there are infrastructure projects that require that skill in other parts of the UK, Scotland or Q1955 Chair: That almost pushes the MOD to place anywhere else, then the answer is that I can’t see how the order into Portsmouth because Portsmouth will that could be easily replaced. certainly be there and available after a referendum, Professor Taylor: I think a slightly different approach whereas the Clyde might not be within the United to it is that the Carriers represent a real peak, as Ian Kingdom. says, but the Government have said, and have stayed Dr Louth: That is right. with it, that they want to keep a capability to design, Ian Godden: Unless they change their policy. develop, build and support warships in the UK. They Dr Louth: They may possibly take the view that it recognise in part, because of the experience that we would be too insensitive to take that programmatic had with Astute and nuclear submarines, where we decision, but there is a cost associated with that left too big a gap and allowed a skill run-down to “delay” that would be very visible. How programme occur in Barrow, that a work force needs to be fed and politics play together becomes remarkably with work in order to keep a satisfactory skill base. I forceful in that scenario. don’t know whether it would be the same level of jobs but it would be a broad portfolio of work that enabled Q1956 Chair: If we are also moving into a situation you to keep the skills there. where certainly the work force on the Clyde are Like all these things, they are subject to affordability, starting to get anxious about whether or not they will but the Government have stood by that commitment. have enough work to see them through to the start of The feeling is that there is enough work to support the Type 26 order, that is likely to be visible fairly one major warship building yard in the UK. There soon, so you are likely to have both of these. How probably isn’t enough to keep two shipbuilding yards possible is it that the Government might, for example, going. The other one is in Portsmouth. So that is the make a choice between the yards and, if they chose position. The submarine experience has probably had the Clyde, break the order so that they would place, an impact on our attitude towards warship building. say, the first ship on the Clyde to keep the Clyde going and then, if Scotland votes for separation, decide that Q1952 Chair: If the UK Government decide that the others would be built somewhere else such as they want to delay the placing of the order for the Portsmouth? Type 26 until the day after the referendum, that does Dr Louth: I will answer that from a programme sense mean that the beast has to be fed in order to keep the rather than a political sense. It was recognised in 2009 or even before 2009 that there was just too little work shipbuilding work force there in place until they start for three main facilities. All of us—politicians, ramping up the Type 26. In these circumstances they academics and programme directors—have fudged the also have to keep the beast at Portsmouth fed just in correct response around that reality to keep everything case there is a decision for Scotland to leave the UK, going, for a whole range of reasons that my colleague because, otherwise, the capability there will have alluded to earlier. That decision is now facing us but collapsed. The UK is therefore either going to have to perhaps in a much more complicated political and make an estimate before the referendum as to what structural manner. How we respond to that need for a will happen in the referendum or keep both options decision is going to be incredibly interesting. If we open right until the decision date of the referendum. followed the programmatic logic of keeping costs to Professor Taylor: There is a proposal for a £150 a minimum and a nice affordable programme, that million contract to be placed at Portsmouth for two decision should be made sooner rather than later. If it smaller ships to have the impact of keeping the work is being taken programmatically through the lens of an force together in a significant form. That proposal has effective risk and opportunity plan and register, then it not been accepted but it is being debated. probably points towards the south coast, but there are Ian Godden: It has been thought about but it has not consequences to that thinking. been decided on. Of course these things don’t just happen through a programme lens. There is a hard political and broader Q1953 Lindsay Roy: But it is to retain that nucleus economic reality as well. Whichever way it cuts, the of skilled capacity so you can deliver. Government or Governments are going to have to Chair: Sorry; not nuclear capacity. explain that. It will be remarkably visible through Ian Godden: Not nuclear; it is shipbuilding. work that the Defence Select Committee will do and cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:16] Job: 022508 Unit: PG10 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o010_db_Corrected SAC 121121.xml

Ev 268 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

21 November 2012 Ian Godden, Professor Trevor Taylor and Dr John Louth the NAO will perform. They are faced with some very Ian Godden: A bomber and a fighter aircraft are difficult options here. completely different skills and have completely different capabilities. It is the same with submarines Q1957 Chair: Indeed. To follow up, I want to ask and ships. whether or not you believe there is any alternative Professor Taylor: I would refer to the position of work that would be available for the shipyards in Belgium and the Netherlands, which are two other Scotland. One thing that the SNP has mentioned is small countries, which have found it necessary to the possibility of having frigates themselves but also merge their naval forces virtually. They share their submarines. A separate Scotland might wish to have training and so on. The cost of training a sub-mariner diesel-electric submarines. What is your view on captain from scratch is going to be significant. The using the Clyde shipyards to build diesel-electric cost to keep doing it is going to continue to be submarines in order to keep them fed? significant because it is on such a small scale. The Dr Louth: If an independent Scotland’s defence Belgians and the Dutch have recognised that they policy is to have a submarine capability or range of cannot run independent fleets. They have had to merge sub-surface capabilities, intuitively its defence budget their activities. is not £2 billion. Look at the Australian efforts with the Collins submarine to adapt a design somewhere else and make Q1958 Lindsay Roy: It is much more than that. that submarine work. They have had enormous Dr Louth: That would be the logic of it starting a sub- problems. There are sources of non-nuclear submarine surface capability programme from scratch. I don’t expertise in Europe. In particular, the Germans have know what the opportunity cost would be in terms of had some very successful products, but, with the other public expenditure, but it seems to me that it notion of starting that from scratch, you are talking would be significant. about a very large investment indeed and a significant Ian Godden: It would probably be the most expensive period of time in order to be able to do that. submarine in the world. Q1965 Chair: With respect, all of these sums are Q1959 Chair: Why? large. How large is this large? If you cannot give it to Ian Godden: Imagine all the associated fixed costs. us just now, can you send us a note on it? Maybe I should make it clear that part of the objective of these Q1960 Lindsay Roy: And the skill base. hearings is to put information in front of the people Ian Godden: We have a problem with six submarines of Scotland so that they are aware of what the keeping the drum beat going over time. You need to alternatives are. In these sorts of circumstances, given be buying six. You are just postponing the problem if that one set of proposals is to construct submarines in you don’t have a drum beat continuing. You need at these shipyards, we need to spell out to them what the least six submarines to order to keep the drum beat cost of this would be. That is why we want to press over a period of time; otherwise, the fixed costs of you on this. I am not entirely clear how much this both design and manufacture of a one-off or two might be to have four or six. In a country the size of things are enormous. Scotland what would be a realistic number for them to have? Q1961 Chair: This is being suggested and we want Lindsay Roy: It is to move beyond assertion to an to get this on the record. I don’t know if you saw the evidence base. It is not just the cost but the skills base resolution that was passed at the SNP conference, and all the infrastructure that would be required if that where they mentioned about having frigates and non- were to be the plan of action. nuclear submarines and so on. Professor Taylor: That would be a significant Ian Godden: I am not saying that it can’t be done as research task. long as there is a complete stream of things that continue for a long period of time. We are back to the Q1966 Chair: You could do it in an afternoon, budget problem. surely. Dr Louth: You can do the numbers, rough order of Q1962 Lindsay Roy: Is there not an issue here too magnitude, in an afternoon. A back-of-a-fag-packet about skill transferability? It is not the same skill sets analysis would probably give through-life costs that you would require to build a submarine as for greater than the whole of your GDP for a couple of ships. years or an independent Scotland’s GDP for a couple Ian Godden: That is right. You build a submarine in- of years. In terms of proportion of GDP per annum, out and you build a ship out-in. Basically, the you would probably be on a par with the United States fundamentals are very different. In fact, in the US rather than NATO averages of 1.5%. they discovered— Professor Taylor: The first thing for me would be that whether or not an independent Scotland needed Q1963 Chair: Why is that? Most of our viewers and conventional submarines at all would be a function of most of my voters would think, “Boats is boats.” the defence policy, which is yet to be written. It is the Ian Godden: It is not. defence policy that would have to come first rather than a solution. Q1964 Chair: They are made out of metal, they travel through water, and if you can do one you can Q1967 Chair: No, not entirely. A resolution was do the other. passed at the SNP conference. It was the one that said cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:16] Job: 022508 Unit: PG10 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o010_db_Corrected SAC 121121.xml

Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 269

21 November 2012 Ian Godden, Professor Trevor Taylor and Dr John Louth they would stay in NATO. It said that they would Q1971 Mr Reid: What about Norway, Sweden and build frigates and would have submarines. The SNP’s Denmark? Do they have submarines? position is that they will have submarines. What we Professor Taylor: Sweden had a submarine but I think are seeking clarification on from you is how much you they have sold it. think that would cost and what the time scale would be because, as I understand it under their scenario, the Q1972 Mr Reid: Is there any evidence of other submarines would be used to feed the shipyards. I am small countries in Europe buying or building not clear how long it takes to set up submarine submarines? manufacturing and whether the work force can be kept Ian Godden: Let me check, but off the top of my head occupied until they start building submarines. We no. Sorry, buying or building? would seek guidance from you on this. Dr Louth: BAE Systems’ core competencies in Q1973 Mr Reid: Building or buying. maritime, in surface and sub-surface submarines, are Ian Godden: Well, there are two different things viewed as very different. There is not that much there. transfer between the south coast and Barrow. Certainly, on the programme and the technical Q1974 Mr Reid: We want to find out what other specialist levels at Barrow, those guys and girls would small countries in Europe are doing. hardly ever, if at all, touch the surface capabilities in Ian Godden: I think the Collins submarines— Portsmouth and vice versa. They are separate entities. In terms of developing the suite of skills and Q1975 Chair: We can check that. The SNP have competencies at Barrow for Astute and the successor committed themselves to having submarines. What we programme, there is quite a strong evidence base that are trying to clarify now, in order that we can put BAE Systems could not just raid surface competencies it in front of the people of Scotland in time for the and skills because they were not a neat enough fit. referendum, is what the costs of that are. We are not They had to have time to develop, plan and refresh the professional submarine builders ourselves. You are skills and competence base for the Astute programme. closer to that than we are. Indeed, much of the cost overruns and the delays with Dr Louth: It is very dangerous—I would even say Astute were in some ways associated with the foolhardy—to disconnect defence industrial policy regeneration of that skills base. It is very difficult to from notions of purposefulness and defence conceptualise surface off, sub-surface on, in the short capabilities. If we have defence industrial policy running defence policy because it is jobs-based rather term; over the long term maybe, but only with than capability-based, that is pretty dysfunctional and significant investment. very unusual given the responsive nature of sovereign states. Q1968 Chair: What does “the long term” mean in that regard? Q1976 Chair: We understand that and we appreciate Dr Louth: Beyond five years. It is five to 10 years. that we are not necessarily dealing with people who Professor Taylor: As an offer, I would think it is not are rational. The policy is clearly there as a too difficult for us to collect some information about commitment that a separate Scotland under an SNP the costs to Australia of the Collins Class submarines. Government will have submarines. They have said Relatively speaking, that is a matter of public record that they would intend to build them in the Clyde and the Australians are relatively open. We could yards because that would be a way of keeping the probably find something, if you want to buy, on the Clyde yards occupied. We are seeking to clarify costs of a Scorpène, which is a French but exactly the scale of rationality from one to 10 and collaborative submarine, and the more recent German how much this would cost in order to let people in submarines that are available. They are available on Scotland see that maybe it is not quite as sensible an the international market and it should be not too idea as it appears. difficult to give you a sense of what those things Ian Godden: There is a very big difference between would cost. having the capability to design and build versus When you say what it would cost to set up a capability construct. What I would imagine we can give are to design and build submarines in Scotland, our figures on what it would cost to buy and modify from inclination would be to think of a number because I a capability that is elsewhere. The idea of creating a have no idea and I am pretty confident that the people capability on the submarine side is a ballpark to my right and left have no idea. difference. It is never off the shelf, but it is as off the shelf as you can get. Q1969 Lindsay Roy: Can you say categorically that Q1977 Chair: I am conscious that we have seven it would be more than buying them off the shelf? minutes. Professor Taylor: Yes. Ian Godden: We will come back to you with an attempt to answer that. Q1970 Mr Reid: What about building under Professor Taylor: When I say it is a ballpark licence? Do the likes of France or Germany allow difference, what I am saying is that one is relatively other countries to do that? known because sales have been made and things have Professor Taylor: Yes; that is the sort of information been manufactured. The amount of risk that is which might be available. associated with a capacity to develop, build and cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:16] Job: 022508 Unit: PG10 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o010_db_Corrected SAC 121121.xml

Ev 270 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

21 November 2012 Ian Godden, Professor Trevor Taylor and Dr John Louth construct it yourself is an order of magnitude or two going to look at assurance of supply and that should orders of magnitude greater. Therefore, I would say be, as I say, part of the equation. That is all I want that the variance of possibilities is very large. There to say. is so much more risk in trying to design and build it yourself. Q1980 Chair: What does that mean in the context of Scotland? Does that mean that the UK continuing Q1978 Chair: I am conscious that you want to is unlikely to order anything from Scotland or that disappear in five minutes. It would be helpful if you Scotland will not in itself have a sufficiently large could therefore come back to us with something, defence base to be able to guarantee that flexibility? either collectively or individually, and it might be that Presumably a separate Scotland would not be we have another hearing specifically on this area in stravaiging around the world doing various things, order to clarify that. where a responsive defence base would be essential. I did promise that at the end we would ask you Professor Taylor: Correct. It would not necessarily be whether or not there were any questions for which you an issue for Scotland but it might well be for the UK. had prepared answers that we have not asked you in That goes back to what kind of defence policy and order that you could get off your chests anything you wider stance an independent Scotland would adopt. thought we ought to be hearing. I am not sure if the As things stand, it is a defence policy that is relatively other two have to go. different from that of London in particular because of Ian Godden: No. its anti-nuclear dimension. It is not a matter for me Dr Louth: No. to make that call. I am simply highlighting it as a consideration that ought to be included in the debate. Q1979 Chair: You can both stay until nine. Professor Taylor, at this stage do you want to tell us Q1981 Chair: Thank you very much for coming whether or not there are any points that you want to along and we look forward to hearing from you. We add? will hold your two colleagues prisoner for a little Professor Taylor: The one dimension that is relevant longer. to Scotland and to the question of Scottish Professor Taylor: Excuse me; I have a meeting with independence but actually applies to defence in the a senior figure in a major defence company. round is that we lived in a very different world as far as the defence industry was concerned during the cold Q1982 Chair: I am glad you are not just going out war. During the cold war we were entirely interested and enjoying yourself. I will raise one other topic and in deterrence. Deterrence was about forces in being then I will let my colleagues in with the two that and about stocks that you held. There was no question remain. One of the issues that we are much less clear of mobilising industry. In a way it didn’t matter where about than maybe we should be is the whole question your stocks came from as long as they were sitting of official secrets, access to confidential information there. The name of the game was deterrence. and the extent to which there are internal barriers in We live in a world now where unexpected military companies and so on for all these things. How does operations are the order of the day, when the precise all that play out potentially for a separate Scotland? location and nature of those operations when they set What are the sorts of issues that will have to be taken off has tended to be a bit of a surprise, and often those into account and of which we ought to be aware at operations have either gone better or worse than the the moment? people who launched them initiated. Some went Dr Louth: Defence businesses are regulated better, some went worse, and some finished just in businesses and they are regulated by the state in which time. they operate—their host countries, if you like. They The characteristic of these military operations is that are regulated in terms of the technologies, in terms of they all involved, when they were of any scale, some the deep research and development and the utility of kind of mobilisation of the industry on which you those technologies, the skills, competencies and the relied. Therefore, an assurance of an agile and knowledge that the individuals hold and what those supportive supplier who was ready to go the extra elements, when they are combined into this notion of mile for you has become a feature of defence in a way military capability, go off and perform and how they that it wasn’t during the cold war. This is reflected in are exercised. the fact that security of supply, as it is referred to, is The key common denominator, though, is regulation. acknowledged in the European procurement directive As you quite rightly said, there are official secrets; on defence as a valid consideration. there are individuals who are assessed as being One thing that is bound to have some impact—I am suitable to work on defence programmes within a not saying it has huge impact but some impact—is nation state and some that are not for a whole range about the way that any Government in London would of reasons, from both nationality and behaviour be thinking about assurance of flexible, timely, agile perspectives. and sometimes off-contract support from any of its An independent state on inception has to deal with suppliers. If we take the operation in Libya, it is true all of that and has to set that up. It is an enormous to say that several British companies worked off bureaucracy. As somebody who has security clearance contract in order to support that operation. That has to going between two different departments, for be part of the future defence equation as far as London example, I don’t arrive and wave my security ticket. is concerned. I do not know if it is a big variable or a A security officer talks to another security officer and large variable—it depends on the cost—but people are in I go. There is an infrastructure associated with cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:16] Job: 022508 Unit: PG10 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o010_db_Corrected SAC 121121.xml

Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 271

21 November 2012 Ian Godden, Professor Trevor Taylor and Dr John Louth national security. That is before that new sovereign The second point I make is that there are two elements state moves on to the whole regime of licensing for to Farnborough Airshow. First, there are 72 military exports and offshore sales and purchases, which, delegations from around the world that come and visit again, is another bureaucracy. Farnborough every two years. There are 42 countries If that new state is having an industrial policy for and typically seven for delegations, so there are 400 defence before a capability policy for defence, then or 500 military buyers coming to Farnborough. There intuitively it is thinking perhaps about exports. One is an organisation, as you know, called DSO—the old would think it would want salesmen or women in DESO. They have, in total, worldwide 120 people. various capitals around the world, which is another Those people are all security cleared and so on, and, bureaucracy. There is quite a significant effort in terms excuse me for saying it, but it is like speed dating of recruitment, training, development, standards, between 72 military delegations and 100 UK communications and documentation to go into the companies. It is sponsored and developed very space of defence and security, which is very difficult exclusively by 100 or 200 people who are security to start from scratch. cleared under the Official Secrets Act and so on, and Ian Godden: I will come back to the very specific they are regulated fully. Those relationships and question, but at a high level I would say there is dialogues are very important for the future of both relationships and regulation. There is an extra aspect defence industrial purchasing and relationships and to this. I will not repeat what has already been said, also military discussions that are in closed settings. but, in addition to that, it is a three-level relationship. With regard to the Official Secrets Act at one level, I There is Government, military and industrial. There is cannot comment on the legalities of how fast it would no doubt that between the UK at the moment and the be to create that, but I know that the relationship US the military, industrial and political connections building that goes alongside that is equally important are there to be able to operate at a certain level of and would need to be absolutely in place immediately sharing of information and joint programmes. with places like the USA; otherwise we will A new nation state, if it were one, would have to potentially lose business and certainly our capability establish relationships immediately and at least three to do some of the existing contracts that we are levels that are very strong. You would think they were currently involved in. An absolutely crucial part of naturally strong because of the heritage, but there is any move to independence would require a very a risk, going back to the professor’s statement about strong increase in bureaucracy—that is a slightly international policy, that the US would not trust a new pejorative statement—and in people associated with nation state that does not have a bilateral with the this industry. They would then have to set up a whole US—a relationship at these three levels, so military, series of dialogues with other nation states because, in political and industrial—and the regulation that goes my mind, this would trigger a very significant with it. difference. I have to say that the US is very suspicious Those four would be required, for example, for about anything new and it would take it, I am Scotland to continue with the existing programmes guessing, two or three years to get comfortable with that it already has. That would have to be established the people it is even dealing with. extraordinarily fast. It has taken Australia, for Dr Louth: There are perhaps two points to add. The example, many years to get a bilateral relationship US itself is going through a significant period of with the US. One of the worries I have is that we are change over the next few years as well in relation to over-focused on the Scotland to England relationship, its own defence and national security postures. That but actually the Scotland to America relationship in is associated with budget reductions as well. It is not terms of defence is as important, if not more the sense of a new entity engaging with the status quo important, for the very short term. Without the in terms of its relationship with the US. It will be a relationship—military, industrial and political—with very new and dynamic beast in terms of that narrative. the USA, I worry that Scotland might be barred The second point is that on defence industrial co- immediately from certain things it is currently doing. operation between states there is a strong correlation You have to factor that in. with military co-operation between states as well. In a recent example, the Anglo-French relationship as it Q1983 Lindsay Roy: Can you give us some is emerging and changing over the past few years is examples of what they might be barred from? very much driven by the happy relationship between Ian Godden: The trade agreements and triple X the military during and post-Libya. We are just ratings and so on. We have them within Scotland and starting to understand fully how much the two America because of the national programme. If you militaries benefited from working together. It is very said, “Okay, everything that belongs to the UK is difficult to think of defence industrial policy in adopted by Scotland”, then you could probably isolation without understanding how a new Scottish maintain it. For example, triple X ratings down at military force would operate with its partners as well. Crewe Toll in SELEX would be re-examined instantly by the US. There may be 25 or 30 people suddenly Q1984 Mr Reid: We know that the SNP policy after barred from doing any more work by the US on x independence is that Trident would be deactivated programme, which is a joint UK-US programme. It immediately and the residual UK Government would gets down to that level of granularity and detail. It have to remove it south of the border. How do you reinforces the point about the regulation; it requires, think the United States Government would react to therefore, a bureaucracy. that? cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:16] Job: 022508 Unit: PG10 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o010_db_Corrected SAC 121121.xml

Ev 272 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

21 November 2012 Ian Godden, Professor Trevor Taylor and Dr John Louth

Dr Louth: We are moving, in a way, into politics the US attitude is during the transition. In fact, if rather than— anything, to protect against the US attitude, you might say you have to do it on day one even if it is not Q1985 Mr Reid: It arose from your previous capable of it. answers about the relationships. Dr Louth: I struggle hugely with the notion that Q1989 Mr Reid: The paper that we produced everybody gets out of Faslane and Coulport almost suggested that the residual UK would lose its ability immediately. I just do not think that is realistic or to have a nuclear deterrent for possibly something like credible programmatically. It makes for a nice 20 years while it reconfigured the facilities somewhere soundbite politically, but, just from a safety south of the border. Would it bother the United States perspective, I struggle with how everybody can just if one of its allies lost that capability for 20 years? walk out of the gate within a couple of days. I think Dr Louth: It is hard to say whether it would bother there is a real tension between what is said politically them, but the indicators are that it would bother them and the real programmatic realities of operating at enormously. I am in Washington on Monday and sites such as Faslane and Coulport. I am not sure pretty much all anybody wants to talk to me about is about that. just that sort of scenario. Ian Godden: It worries them what they do about it. Q1986 Chair: Could I recommend that you read our report? It is a very fine report, if I may say so, entitled Q1990 Chair: I hope you will take over several “Terminating Trident—Days or Decades”. We took copies of our report and use it as a source document. evidence from a whole number of people who said Dr Louth: I have sent it in advance. that you could pull the plug out of the warheads within days. You could then ship the warheads down to Q1991 Chair: I am very glad to hear that. I want to England and have them in the stores down there come back to a couple of the points you made. Let us within a matter of 24 months. Yes, you are right that that leaves all the rest of the infrastructure of the base take Raytheon, for example, as one of the companies and so on, but it does mean that the nuclear weapons that we met. Surely existing contracts will be were away quite speedily. We have had nobody saying honoured. If it is the same company with the same that that is not doable. There might be a discussion as people doing the same things, even though the state to whether or not it was desirable, but they were has changed, surely the relationship with the United saying that technically that was actually doable. States, to whom they export most of their material, Dr Louth: As somebody who worked in that space will not change on day one. It is not as if there is a for a while—and I agreed mostly with the report—it big bang and everything starts afresh. As I say, it will is doable, but not on day one. It would take a couple be the same Raytheon company in the same location, of years to move from the current to a sensible with the same people working on the same contracts. programmatic timeline for that policy initiative to Surely that will not require a complete rejigging of all come to fruition. That is the point I am making. the security arrangements. Ian Godden: Defence policy is the issue. If there is a Q1987 Chair: I want to finish this point. If we change in defence policy, then it will change things. assume that day one after the referendum will have a certain work-through, people will then know that is Q1992 Chair: Why should it? If this factory, happening and there will come a point where you Raytheon, which is in my colleague’s constituency, know what you are working towards and then the plug has a contract and is producing bits of something for gets pulled or the fuse is removed and you start the American military, how is that affected by the fact moving the warheads. As I understand it, nobody has that the policy of the state has changed? disputed with us that the warheads could not be Dr Louth: That theoretical contract exists today removed within that time scale. within the regulatory framework that is enforced in Dr Louth: Two years. law between the UK, the US and the international Chair: Yes. legal system as well. We are now inserting an Dr Louth: No, I agree with that. additional member of the party, so we are presupposing that on day one that new nation state has Q1988 Chair: Fine, good; you see, you did read the the regime and the regulatory framework in place, that report. That is excellent; I am glad to hear it. it is on a par and parallel with that which currently Ian Godden: Coming back to the American attitude exists, that it is acceptable to everybody else and that to that, it says that the nuclear capability is still sitting this narrative and this discussion is played out in a in Scotland, a new nation state. It reinforces my point nice steady state world. Other entities will see an that the relationship with the US for Scotland on opportunity perhaps, given that uncertainty, to defence policy is rather crucial. Although it is an contribute towards that new discussion. It is a stretch interim solution, they will get extremely nervous— to say that everything will be okay on day one given even in an interim solution—understanding what the this new regulated requirement. defence policy is and what the attitude is to this new Where people quite often get confused, to my mind, Government. It is used to having nuclear on other is in the theoretical sense that it is a perfect market. territories—that is not the issue—or it is used to Defence is not a perfect market. Defence is a hugely having partnerships that have the capability in nuclear. regulated market. If things have the capacity to kill Again, you need an emphasis on understanding what people, then they need to be properly licensed. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:16] Job: 022508 Unit: PG10 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o010_db_Corrected SAC 121121.xml

Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 273

21 November 2012 Ian Godden, Professor Trevor Taylor and Dr John Louth

Q1993 Chair: I do understand that, but what I am achieve with our defence and what is the capability still struggling with, in a sense, is that there seem to we require to do that? If we do this backwards, it be two partners to the relationship between Raytheon would be incredibly confusing for everybody, and the United States. I mean, they are Raytheon and including industry. the United States. When the order gets placed from Secondly, the defence industry is determined, as we the United States to Raytheon, Raytheon carry that have said already, by the amount of investment that out. They have their own internal mechanisms and all the country is willing to put in, in terms of both the rest of it. I do not see how the change from a UK research and technology and capability. That is the Government to a Scottish Government would directly second point for me. Is the country seeking to invest impinge upon that. in this industry? In UK terms, the industry itself Dr Louth: Because there are a number of people in looked at that £400 million out of a total budget of the relationship. You have the nation state’s billions. They said, “If that moves one way or the representatives in Washington, in the regulatory space. other, that is a key indicator to me about whether this You have the representatives in Washington in the country is a good place to come and do business in order space, with the guys and girls making the order. the defence industry.” So there will be a sliver of R You have the programme director and his or her staff and D that will be a signal to the rest of the world within Raytheon satisfying the order and you have the about Scotland’s intention to maintain and establish regulator in London agreeing that this thing can be an industrial base. It will not be an argument about exported from the UK to the US. We are potentially Clyde shipbuilding, I am sorry. It will be that number taking out one of those parties and inserting another for the long-term view. one in Edinburgh, with all the bureaucracy associated For me, unless somebody has thought through what with that. It may well be in place and absolutely the spend is of this new nation in the future in research parallel, but we have no evidence in place at the and technology and signalling and whether it is moment to say that that will be so. growing, shrinking or whatever it is, and the universities associated with it have collectively Q1994 Chair: Our difficulty is that we do not want decided, “This is a policy that we are going to invest to pursue issues that might not turn out to be of in this industry”—that is a political decision. It is not enormous concern. We have so many issues that are an industrial decision, but, to me, that is the biggest so obviously of difficulty, such as the question of signal. building submarines and so on. I can see that that is I have been tasked by all the large international enormously difficult. I would have thought that this companies to expose what that number was for the one, with goodwill and the right bureaucracy, could UK because that was the most significant number for easily be overcome. The Scottish Government would them to decide whether to invest or not in the country say that they would not be unreasonable in this. for the future. There was a real wobble when we cut Dr Louth: In many ways they are just one part of the it by 23% between 2008 and 2010. Everybody said, equation. Will the US Government be reasonable? “Is this a place to invest for the future?” Will the UK Government be reasonable? I would like The third thing is that without active industrial to think that everybody would be—I am an optimist— intervention—and “active” is some of the things we but there is still this narrative. Whichever way you have talked about today—a defence industry in a cut it, the regulatory framework within the defence country will naturally decline. It requires positive industrial space is enormously significant and industrial policy rather than no policy. With no policy, enormously important. it will get sucked into both larger countries and people that spend more. If the defence industry is to be Q1995 Chair: That really brings us back to the protected or encouraged, then an active industrial reasonableness of expelling Trident without the policy is required. consent of the United Kingdom on a relatively short The last thing I would say is that, inevitably, as a period of notice. result of a policy shift, there will be an industrial shift Dr Louth: Yes. that goes with it. You can’t assume anything until you have that defence policy in place, but the shape of Q1996 Chair: I think we are just about at the Scottish industry will be affected very seriously by the conclusion of this. As we said with Professor Taylor, defence policy itself in the future. Whether companies are there any answers you had prepared to questions can predict or understand that, it is more important to that we have not asked? Is there anything you feel the the UK Government that all parties in this debate have urge to get off your chests? a clear and stated defence policy for Scotland. We Ian Godden: It is probably not a new point but an cannot just assume that everything is status quo emphasis perhaps. From my point of view, defence because that is unlikely in the scenario. The most is a politically motivated industry. Meritocracy is not important thing to give certainty is for the parties in enough. We have to recognise that the game, in terms this debate to state their defence policy for Scotland of an industry and a policy around industry, relates to and then the industrialists can get a bit of certainty Government, to Government defence policy and about what is likely to happen. purchasing. You start with defence policy. You don’t Debates about whether Type 26 is in Clyde, start the other way round, which is how we protect Portsmouth or wherever are a distraction to the jobs by doing this. You have to start with the defence industry in terms of what it is going to do with policy. For me, assessing it as an industrialist, defence Scotland in the future. Politically it is very important, policy comes as number one. What are we trying to and I am not underestimating that, but it is a cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:16] Job: 022508 Unit: PG10 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o010_db_Corrected SAC 121121.xml

Ev 274 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

21 November 2012 Ian Godden, Professor Trevor Taylor and Dr John Louth distraction to the long-term industrial base in Ian Godden: In practice, I have found it has never Scotland. been done that fast but that’s why I am being— Those are the points I want to make, plus one other, which says that Britain is too small to have a defence Q2002 Lindsay Roy: You are being an optimist. industrial policy. This debate about what is going to Ian Godden: It could be done, but it has to be done happen between England and Scotland is not at a big in the context of the policy. The defence policy has to enough level because the USA, France and Germany come first. It is not a parallel process; it is a have to be brought into this thinking. My attitude is sequential one. that, if Scotland can decide what its attitude to Germany, France and the USA is, as well as England, Q2003 Chair: You see, any time anybody raises then we might have a decent industrial defence anything as being a possible difficulty they are perspective about how to run that. Those supply accused of talking Scotland down. If you have the chains are as important as the English ones. faith that this can be done, then you are not talking Scotland down and we can therefore realistically Q1997 Chair: I want to respond and seek expect to have this. clarification on a couple of points there. You Ian Godden: I have faith that it can be done and it mentioned in particular about needing the defence helps if it is more focused, in my opinion, than policy clarified as well as the industrial policy. Is it Westminster. reasonable for us to expect all that to be done in the Scottish Government’s White Paper that they are Q2004 Chair: Excellent. The second point is just producing in autumn 2013? for clarification. You mentioned about the scale of the Ian Godden: On a practical level, no. investment needed being a signal and so on. What is the figure? Q1998 Chair: Why not? If not then, when? Ian Godden: I don’t have a figure. I wasn’t able to Ian Godden: Having lived through two industrial answer the question, “How much do we spend in policy processes within the UK Government—in Scotland on defence research already?”, but I gave Scotland, maybe, it will be a lot faster—it took them you an order of magnitude that said— two or three years and they changed their mind. In theory, yes, it is possible. In practice, given that Q2005 Chair: £30 million to £40 million. Government policy changes and there are creations, it Ian Godden: You start with a view that says, “We takes longer— have a £400 million budget as a larger country.” As a small country I can’t give a figure, but it has to be a Q1999 Chair: I am conscious that people have to significant sum to attract the type of investment and leave because of other commitments—as I say, I am type of supply. I am talking in tens of millions a year. here until nine—but surely in many ways that is almost a doctrine of despair. What we are trying to Q2006 Chair: I jotted down £30 million to £40 avoid is people going to the polls with a pig in a poke. million as my estimate of what you were meaning. I was getting ready to argue that in our report we Ian Godden: Don’t pin me too high to a number. It is should say, “We expect to have this by 2013 as part tens of millions; it is not £1 million and it is not of that White Paper in order that it can be debated hundreds. This is on pure research and technology at before people vote in 2014.” But you seem to be the heart of what Scotland does currently and what it saying that that is not realistic. is prioritising for a future position. There are some Ian Godden: No; for the translation of a defence attractions at the moment because defence technology policy to a defence industrial policy that is too fast. If is shifting rapidly. It does not need to say, “We will a defence policy itself is not clear—“What is the spend huge amounts of money on this.” The amount purpose of our defence? Is it to defend oilfields? Is it of money and a commitment to either expanding or coastal? Do we have an army at all?”, and all those keeping that— sorts of things—industry does not have a starting base. That is possible. Q2007 Chair: I understand the principle quite clearly. Maybe you could reflect on that. If you feel Q2000 Chair: But that should be clear by 2013. able to give us a figure in writing, that would be Ian Godden: I believe that is possible. The next stage helpful. We would want to have something in our for industrialists is, “Are we going to buy F16s”, if report. that is the new nation state, “or are we going to Ian Godden: I will consider it and see if I can refine buy”— that. Dr Louth: I am probably more comfortable taking a Q2001 Chair: Why should that not also be available punt on some of the numbers, if that would help. I am in 2013, like the question of, “We are going to build sure that between ourselves we can put some things submarines”? I see no reason why the issue about, in writing that would clarify it as well. “We are going to build submarines” shouldn’t be There are two points that I wanted to make, if available along with the defence strategy in November possible. First, in the coverage of the debate so far, 2013. I am looking to you to tell me whether there are one hidden assumption is that the rest of the world is any reasons why that can’t be done. standing still and that industry in the broader sense Ian Godden: In theory it can be done. will be standing still as well and just watching what Chair: Excellent. goes on. Within the defence industrial space, the BAE cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:16] Job: 022508 Unit: PG10 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o010_db_Corrected SAC 121121.xml

Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 275

21 November 2012 Ian Godden, Professor Trevor Taylor and Dr John Louth

Systems-EADS failed merger has changed the game. quite constrained. I would urge people to anchor the There are very few people assuming that we will all discussion in the reality of the numbers perhaps. go back to where we were at the beginning of the summer. I think there will be significant Q2008 Chair: I would just ask for some further rationalisation and change now within the defence information. We mentioned F16s earlier on. If we industrial space. Some companies are thinking bigger have a £700 million capital budget, how much is an rather than smaller. I would urge participants in the F16? debate not to assume that the rest of the world is Dr Louth: Through life I wouldn’t like to put a watching. The rest of the world is acting and changing number on it, but it is in the billions. The through-life just as fast as this debate is being undertaken, if not cost is huge. faster. Ian Godden: The individual outlay is about £100 Secondly, I have a point on some of the numbers. If million or so. That is the initial purchase. it is right that an independent Scotland will come in roughly on NATO average of percentage of GDP, Q2009 Chair: So you would need the whole budget then, as we have said, the annual budget for an if you wanted seven of them. independent Scotland is about £2.1 billion. That is Ian Godden: But then if you have seven that is your significantly smaller than Denmark, Belgium and annual capital. For the through- life costs you would roughly half of Norway’s at the extreme. That is not spend the rest. You would have seven aircraft that attractive in terms of the league table of defence basically. spending of independent nation states. Scotland has to Dr Louth: It is a magnitude of about 20 for through- be cognisant of that. life costs. If those numbers are reasonably right—and there Ian Godden: Some are cheaper than that. I am not seems to be some consensus around that on the promoting others, but you are talking about those sorts literature published so far—then, based roughly on the of numbers. NATO norms of expenditure, you are talking about £700 million per annum on capital expenditure, there Q2010 Chair: It is just to give us a feel for what or thereabouts. There is another £400 million or so on you can get for your £700 million. If you had said you operational expenditure, keeping the lights on and that could get 700 for that, that is obviously different from sort of stuff. There is about £800 million or £900 saying that you can get seven. million on payroll and associated expenses such as Ian Godden: It would be seven to 10. pensions and so on. Chair: That is helpful. As colleagues have no It is very difficult to think of large through-life capital response to that, can I thank you very much for programmes with those numbers. Intuitively there coming along? This has been a valuable learning would be some kind of international partnering, where experience for us. I wouldn’t like you to think that we the regulatory framework and the raw politics become knew all about this before you came along, but we incredibly important. If the argument is had on the certainly know a lot more about it now. Thank you numbers, the options open to an independent Scotland very much. and the ability to manoeuvre significantly may be cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [SE] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:16] Job: 022508 Unit: PG11 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o011_db_Corrected SAC 121219.xml

Ev 276 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

Wednesday 19 December 2012

Members present: Mr Ian Davidson (Chair)

Mike Crockart Pamela Nash Mr Iain McKenzie Mr Alan Reid ______

Examination of Witnesses

Witnesses: Philip Dunne MP, Minister for Defence Equipment, Support and Technology, Vice Admiral Andrew Mathews CB FREng, Defence Equipment and Support, Chief of Matériel (Fleet), and Les Mosco BSc FCIPS, Defence Equipment and Support, Director Commercial, Ministry of Defence, gave evidence.

Q2011 Chair: I welcome everyone to this Scottish Q2014 Chair: I mean, ‘11 and ‘12 are at the Affairs Committee meeting. May I start by asking our beginning of the decade, and ‘18 and ‘19 are at the guests to introduce themselves? end of the decade. Is ‘13 at the beginning or in the Mr Dunne: I am Philip Dunne, the Minister for middle of the decade? Defence Equipment, Support and Technology. On my Mr Dunne: I think you will have to form your own right I have Vice Admiral Andrew Mathews, the Chief conclusions on what we mean by the middle of the of Matériel (Fleet). On my left is Les Mosco, the decade. MOD commercial director. Q2015 Chair: Clearly it is the interaction between Q2012 Chair: I am conscious that we do not have the date of the referendum and the placing of the order much time, so I will speed on. Last time we had a that causes us some concern, as does the possibility hearing on defence we were visited by Nick Harvey of the shipyards running out of work between now and Peter Luff, both of whom soon thereafter and the placing of the order for the Type 26. Can you departed. Hopefully, that will not happen to you— clarify how that will be handled to make sure that we possibly it will depend on how well you answer our do not have a repeat of the difficulties seen in Barrow, questions. where one set of submarines were finished and there First of all, we want to ask about the Type 26. We are was a big gap until the next set were started, so all hoping for a decision on placing the order as soon as the skills dissipated? possible. Can you tell us a little about the process for Mr Dunne: As you know, we inherited a Terms of that and, in particular, how it ties in with the timetable Business Agreement with the prime contractor, BAE for the referendum on separation? Systems, which was entered into in 2009 under the Mr Dunne: The Type 26 will be the first 21st century frigate designed and made available to any navy in previous Administration. The objective underlying the world when it is commissioned. The Strategic that agreement is that for shipbuilding across the UK, Defence and Security Review set out the intent for the which had been ramped up to accommodate the Type nation to build 13 of these vessels. The work began 45 destroyer programme and the aircraft carriers, on the assessment phase and the design of the which are now in the midst of their build programme, prototype, and we are working up towards a main gate and leading on into the frigate programme, it was business case to be decided in the middle of the expected that there would be a significant increase in decade. shipbuilding employment during the peak period over We cannot give you the precise timing at this stage. that long duration. Once the aircraft carriers ceased to We are determined that, when we come to place the be in the manufacturing stage, that employment would contract, we have a mature design for the vessel. One start to decline because you don’t need as many of the lessons we have learnt from previous people to build a frigate as you do an aircraft carrier, procurements is that one of the major inflators of cost particularly of the scale of aircraft carriers that are and delay in the construction of any of these complex being constructed at the moment. So it was always platforms is changes to specification or design once envisaged that the capacity that was being built up to the project has got underway. We are determined to cope with that programme would have to reduce and ensure that we have a mature design, which will allow this was the way that the Government of the time a more rapid build and minimise excuses for the decided to manage that flow of work. contractors to delay or overcharge the MOD. In relation to the flow between the carrier cessation of build and the commencement of the Type 26, we Q2013 Chair: Do I take it that the main gate anticipate there will be a gap. The company is decision will be after the envisaged date for the working on how to best manage that, and we are referendum on separation in autumn 2014? leaving it to the company to come forward with Mr Dunne: We have not been specific about what we proposals. We will consider those proposals and we mean by the middle of the decade, and I am afraid will then be in a position to respond and move that you are not going to be able to persuade me to be forward. Essentially, where the work is placed is a more specific than that today. matter for the company in the first instance. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:16] Job: 022508 Unit: PG11 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o011_db_Corrected SAC 121219.xml

Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 277

19 December 2012 Philip Dunne MP, Vice Admiral Andrew Mathews CB FREng and Les Mosco BSc FCIPS

Q2016 Chair: Can I clarify whether it would be the of the MOD. Ladbrokes are now quoting that they intention of the British Government to place an order anticipate the yes vote being 35%, so much of this for a Type 26 outside the United Kingdom? might well be hypothetical, but you can understand Mr Dunne: Other than during the world wars, we why people want a bit more reassurance from you on have never placed an order for a warship outside the this. Is there nothing that you can say about what United Kingdom. It is not our intention to do so with might happen in the event of separation, so that people the Type 26. can be clear about the consequences of a yes or no vote? Q2017 Chair: So in the event that Scotland voted Mr Dunne: I completely understand that uncertainty for separation, obviously it would then be outside the is bad for the work forces involved. I had a meeting United Kingdom. How would that affect the placing with five of the relevant trade unions two weeks ago of the Type 26 order? and I have undertaken to meet them again when the Mr Dunne: As the Vice Admiral has just reminded company has made proposals to us about the future of me, within the TOBA we have a commitment to build shipbuilding, so that we can discuss it and seek to Type 26 in the UK. You raise an interesting reassure them. Uncertainty is bad and it is important hypothetical. As you know, the Government’s position to try to get these things resolved. on the referendum issue is that we are not planning There are two aspects to the uncertainty. The first is for the referendum to lead to an independent Scotland, about when the contract will be placed. That is the so we are not working up plans for that eventuality. It point when traditionally we indicate where the ships will be for the company to decide where it proposes will be built and where they will be based, so that is to build the ships. In the event that the decision took a degree of uncertainty which will be out there until place after the creation of an independent Scotland, such time as we place the contract. The second we would be in a very different environment from that uncertainty is what will happen in the event of an which we are in today, and we would clearly have a independent Scotland, which would inevitably strong view about that. I think it is relatively unlikely introduce a great deal of uncertainty into the whole that the interval between a referendum and achieving procurement process for the MOD in a residual UK, independence would move us to the point where the and about whether Scottish companies would be able placing of a contract for Type 26 had not already to be given the favourable treatment that they are at taken place. the moment.

Q2018 Chair: So the placing of the contract for the Q2020 Chair: Can I press a little more on this? 26 might have taken place after the referendum but Many of your answers seem to be predicated on the before separation took place, in that timetable. Would basis that the MOD does not expect this to happen it then be your intention to have a for-convenience and is therefore making no plans, but presumably the clause or a break clause in some way, so that if an job of the MOD is to run various scenarios and to order is placed and the company puts it on the Clyde, anticipate what happens if, and so on. Britain has been in the event of separation that order is then switched caught napping before—I need only remind you of the somewhere else? Falklands, for example. Surely there is somebody— Mr Dunne: I am not going to speculate on what the even a wee man in a cupboard—in the MOD who is terms of the contract will be at this stage because we thinking the “what if” in the event of separation or a have not got to that point. We will have to take into yes vote. account the facts as they arise. The date of the Would it be helpful to this decision and safeguard the referendum is not influencing the date of the placing position of the Clyde yards if the referendum date was of the contract for the Type 26. That is being not as late? If the referendum was in 2013, or at least determined by the maturity of the design, and that is took place before the middle of the decade— being driven by the defence operational requirements, depending on how you interpret “middle”—would not the political requirements of the Scottish that make things much easier and reduce a great deal Government. of the uncertainty? Mr Dunne: My understanding is that the decision has Q2019 Chair: I am sure you can understand why been taken that the referendum will be in the autumn people on the Clyde are anxious about this; they are of 2014. completely uncertain as to whether they have a future in shipbuilding. As I understand it, the company is Q2021 Chair: No. The decision has been taken by probably moving towards choosing the Clyde as its both sides that it should be not later than the autumn builder of choice for the Type 26, but over it hangs of 2014. As I understand it, the Scottish Government the spectre of separation, which might result in that would be free to make it earlier if they wished. The contract being switched elsewhere. That is why I am more we discuss this with business, the more the trying to explore the question whether the order might uncertainty leads us to the view that it would be much be split. better if it took place earlier. Do you have any intelligence that we don’t about the Mr Dunne: My personal view is that the shorter the result of the referendum? I have been following period to the referendum, the better. As I said, we are Ladbrokes this morning. Ladbrokes are refusing to not basing our decision on when we commission the take bets any more because they think it is cut and Type 26 or sign the contract around the date of the dried—I see that one of your staff is writing that referendum. We will make our decision when the down, so he is obviously from the intelligence wing design is mature. The decision will be the company’s cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:16] Job: 022508 Unit: PG11 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o011_db_Corrected SAC 121219.xml

Ev 278 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

19 December 2012 Philip Dunne MP, Vice Admiral Andrew Mathews CB FREng and Les Mosco BSc FCIPS on which of the British yards are used and in what Vice Admiral Mathews: We have to decide how we configuration to complete the contract. get to the best place in terms of best value for enterprise between the carrier and the Type 26 Q2022 Chair: The other point—you sidestepped this programme— so neatly earlier on that you should be playing for the parliamentary rugby team—is the question of splitting Q2024 Chair: Yes, but the best deal could then the order so that some section of the order is result in the ships actually being built on the Clyde completed or placed, say, on the Clyde and then, in and potentially outside the United Kingdom. the event of separation, it is split and transferred Vice Admiral Mathews: I think that is absolutely the somewhere else, presumably down south. Is that case. It depends on the outcome of the referendum something that is presently being explored? and the timing of the Type 26 order. Mr Dunne: That is something that is happening on the aircraft carrier construction, as you know. The Q2025 Chair: Let me be clear. You are saying—this frigate is a much smaller vessel, and I will ask Vice is new—that it might very well be the case that if the Admiral Mathews to answer. order is placed and Scotland becomes separate, the Vice Admiral Mathews: When we let the Terms of order would continue in the Clyde for the entire run Business Agreement with what was then BVT, which of the 13 Type 26s. was a joint venture between BAE Systems and Vosper Vice Admiral Mathews: What I am saying is that that Thornycroft, the deal was predicated on the fact that is one of the options open to us. we were building the Type 45 destroyers, so around 2,000 people would be employed in shipbuilding. We Q2026 Chair: Sorry, I thought that you did not have were then going to go up to between 5,000 and 5,500 options in the event of separation. employed in shipbuilding during the carrier phase, and Mr Dunne: Clearly, in the event of separation, that then come down to the Type 26 frigate, which would will be a new factor that we will have to take into employ about 1,500 people. The whole point of the account. We will be looking at all MOD contracts at deal was to allow us to get to a sustainable that point that are in existence and all those that are shipbuilding capability in the UK to build the Type in the planning phase, and we will decide what to do 26. We were going to manage that through that boom about them. In some cases, that might involve and bust period with the company, to rightsize the withdrawing the contract, which would have some business so that it was sustainable leading into the cost implications for the MOD that would then be Type 26 and so that we got a smooth transition in, and factored into any separation discussions, and we might not the problems that you articulate around Astute. conclude for some that it is acceptable for the contract The purpose of that deal was to rationalise the to continue until termination for those bits that are business. We wanted BAE Systems to be a high- already under way, because it may then be inefficient performing yard when we got to the Type 26. We to remove them. However, it will depend on the capability and the security sensitivity of each contract. wanted them to have reduced their overhead. The deal is predicated on them coming down to the equivalent overhead of one complex warship-building yard. It is Q2027 Chair: In that case, you are essentially saying that if the company decides, as I anticipate for them to decide how they achieve that, whether that that—given a choice—they would, that they would is with two yards—building in Portsmouth and on the prefer to build the ships on the Clyde, then, because Clyde—or one yard. That is their decision. The of the cost of disruption, if the order is placed before purpose of the deal was to get them to a place where a ballot on separation and if separation takes place, we had an affordable shipbuilding industry, high you would allow that contract to continue, so the ships performing and benchmarked across world class, that would be built in a separate Scotland. delivered us the future warships that we wanted Mr Dunne: I will not make that determination today. without getting that loss of capability. That was the That is something that we will have to consider at purpose of the deal. the time.

Q2023 Chair: I understand all that. However, the Q2028 Chair: Surely people in Scotland are entitled great unknown in all this is the other point, which is to know this as part of the decision that they are that, apart from in wartime, the British Navy or British making on separation. We cannot have a position Government have never built a warship outside the where people are voting for a pig in a poke. United Kingdom. We potentially have a situation Mr Dunne: We have a period of time until the where Scotland would become outside the United referendum. During that time, things may happen. We Kingdom. What I am trying to clarify is how you may have matured the design for the contract. By the propose to deal with the interaction of those two time that people come to vote, we may or may not particular issues, and clarification comes there none. have placed a contract. In either circumstance, we will Vice Admiral Mathews: The company comes to us be making it clear, to the extent that we are able to, with a proposal as to where they wish to build the what the situation will be regarding future contracts, ship, and we decide whether that is achievable and in the event of an independent Scotland, being placed whether that is the best deal for defence. At the outside an independent Scotland. We will have to moment, we have the carrier, which is being make some statements about what we will do. assembled in Scotland and part built in England— As to those contracts that are in progress at that point, Chair: I understand that. it would be a matter for negotiation with an cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:16] Job: 022508 Unit: PG11 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o011_db_Corrected SAC 121219.xml

Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 279

19 December 2012 Philip Dunne MP, Vice Admiral Andrew Mathews CB FREng and Les Mosco BSc FCIPS independent Scottish Government as to what would BAE’s spokesman, but either way, it is fairly soon that happen to those contracts, the financial implications, BAE will come to a choice. Surely this idea that you who would bear them and where completion would will get lots of time doesn’t necessarily apply in these take place. As I have said earlier, this is one of the circumstances. You will have to think fairly quickly. options we would then have to look at with all If BAE comes back to say, “We want to build them existing contracts that are in progress: whether or not on the Clyde,” you will have to be ready, I would have they will be terminated and the work relocated—if it thought, pretty quickly to say that will or will not be is going on in Scotland—to the remaining UK. acceptable in the event of separation. That thinking surely needs to be done now, so that at least the work Q2029 Chair: Can I just clarify whether or not a force are certain of what the impact of separation decision by a separate Scottish Government to expel would be upon them. Trident from the Clyde would make it more or less Mr Dunne: As I have said already—I am sorry to likely that you would continue with any order to build repeat myself—we are expecting the company to ships on the Clyde? come up with proposals. When it has come up with Mr Dunne: That is another hypothetical question proposals, we will respond to them. We would be looking forward. I think we owe you a response from happy, if you wish, to come and discuss our one of my ministerial colleagues, the Minister for the conclusions with your Committee. As I have already Armed Forces, for your Trident review publication, undertaken to the trade unions, we would be happy to which will be available before the House rises this discuss our conclusions with them. week. You should receive that. Q2034 Chair: As part of my research this morning Q2030 Chair: All will become clear then? I learned that, as well as offering odds of 100 to one Mr Dunne: You will find some information that that Julian Assange will leave the Ecuadorian embassy should be helpful to the Committee. in a jet pack, the odds were four to one against a yes Chair: Fine. Iain, you wanted to come in? vote. You can be fairly reassured, but none the less these things have got to be taken more seriously. Q2031 Mr McKenzie: It is just on the confusion Again, the same sorts of issues apply to the carrier surrounding the order once it has been placed and refit. My understanding is that there is potentially an where, if separation takes place, that order will be order for 50 years of work to maintain the carriers. fulfilled. Surely you would stipulate in the terms and What issues will be uppermost when determining conditions of the contract that that would need to be where that work should be done and how would a fulfilled in a UK yard, therefore putting the onus on referendum on separation impact upon that decision? to BAE, should separation take place, to take that Mr Dunne: I am glad you raised the carriers, because order to a UK yard, rather than on the Clyde. clearly that is where most of the work is being done Mr Dunne: We are trying to anticipate something that at the moment. I think you are right in saying that the is some distance away. Here we are, at the end of cost of providing support to the carriers is likely to be 2012. We are not talking about negotiating the terms as significant as the construction cost. The carriers of a contract that will be placed— will have a very substantial life; they are being built to have a 50-year life, as you say. So this is very Q2032 Mr McKenzie: But would that be a way of significant. covering your risk factor? It would take the risk from We are undertaking an assessment phase for the the Government picking up or proposing to move it, support package, and it is probably best if I ask Vice and BAE would pick up that risk. Admiral Mathews to comment on that. However, I Mr Dunne: The sequence will be that the company will say at the outset that what we are seeking to do will make its proposals to the Government, and the is to build carriers that will allow quite a substantial MOD will consider at that time how those proposals amount of routine maintenance to be undertaken while fit in with our plans. One of the considerations at that the vessel is at sea. Each carrier is a very large ship, time, depending on whether we have or have not had and maintenance capability will be built into the ship, the referendum and which way it goes, will be the so they will require complete overhauls less frequently consequences in the event of a change in circumstance than other ship designs in the past. of the Scottish yards, in the event that that is where Vice Admiral Mathews: Where we are at the moment the company proposes to build the ships. There are a is that we are just about to start what is called the great many conditionalities within that. We have to support development phase; that is gathering the take these things a step at a time. Sitting here today evidence with industry about how we will support this in December 2012, we are not in a position to be able carrier. That will enable us, in about two years’ time, to predict precisely when we will have those to make an investment decision. So we will present a contractual negotiations and therefore what the terms set of options about how we support this carrier to the of those clauses will be. MOD centre. We will seek approval for our preferred option, and that will then lead to us letting a support Q2033 Chair: If you read The Telegraph in contract. November—if it is in The Telegraph, it must be true— It will probably be a transitional first phase, where we BAE said that it was originally intending to make a will let an initial support phase, to understand the real decision by the end of this year on which yard should requirements for supporting this new and very large build the Type 26 and then come to the Government. carrier. So we will have the first ship at sea; we will I understand that that was a mistake on the part of sustain that through an initial transition phase; and cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:16] Job: 022508 Unit: PG11 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o011_db_Corrected SAC 121219.xml

Ev 280 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

19 December 2012 Philip Dunne MP, Vice Admiral Andrew Mathews CB FREng and Les Mosco BSc FCIPS then we will go into a much longer-term support will not be taken until after the referendum. Would it contract thereafter, as the second ship comes into be your intention to put this out to international service. That is the sort of concept that we are tender—presumably Scotland could not claim a looking at. special deal—or would it be your intention to claim As the Minister has set out, this is a very large ship. 346 exemption and do this work within the reduced Our options for docking her in the UK are quite United Kingdom? limited. So we have to look at how we support her Mr Dunne: Again, we will not make today a decision and how we minimise the number of dockings we do. about how we support these vessels based entirely on Whether we do something that looks like continuous the outcome of the referendum. It will be primarily engineering support—as the Minister said, we will driven by the criteria of value for money. Security support the ship at sea, maintaining her at sea and in will clearly play a part. As to whether we choose to a base port, and avoid those big peaky maintenance undertake the dry docking abroad or within the UK is periods. However, we will have to dock her. So part a matter that we will be reflecting on over the next of this work will look at options for docking in the couple of years as we work towards preparing for this UK, and we will have to look abroad as well, to contract. My understanding is that there are dry dock understand when that docking will happen. Then we facilities outside Scotland but within the UK. will find the support. Cammell Laird is potentially one and Harland and Wolff is another. The best I can say in helping to Q2035 Chair: Some of the more detailed issues address your concern is that by the time we come to about the maintenance are obviously matters for the be supporting these vessels post the referendum, it Defence Committee rather than for ourselves. If I am would undoubtedly add to the uncertainty if Scotland correct, you were saying there that you envisaged that were an independent country because they would be it will be about two years from now before these treated like other independent countries that are decisions are taken. That would actually be post- partners and allies if we were looking at a docking referendum. So, from our point of view, there is not site external to the UK. They would not be able to the same difficulty as before. benefit from our current position, which is that we Can I just clarify something? You mentioned at the would wish to do so within the UK. very end there the possibility of having this work done abroad. In those circumstances, are you saying that it Q2037 Chair: May I move on to the question of 346 might very well be possible for a separate Scotland to exemptions in general? Perhaps you could outline to get the contract for maintaining the aircraft carriers? us what you believe the position of Scotland and Vice Admiral Mathews: I need to define what work is Scottish industry would be in relation to the change going abroad. It is that docking. Essentially, there is a that would occur with separation, and where you core maintenance programme running for the ship. We would want to use 346 exemptions and where you support her in a base port, which is Portsmouth. That would not. is where most of the engineering interventions will get done. Mr Dunne: The 346 exemption is regularly and However, we have to dock ships, for obvious reasons. routinely used to procure equipment across the MOD I mean that we have to put them in a dry dock, paint domains in the UK. Les might like to comment on the hull and maintain shafts, bearings, etc. So it is for that a little bit more and on how frequently we use that work that we have to consider where we place it, them. We have used the exemption more than 200 because we cannot dock the ship in Portsmouth unless times this year alone, so it is regularly and routinely we make a major investment and build a dry dock for used. The position in the event of an independent her. There are limited options to dock a 65,000-tonne Scotland is that there would be some projects that we carrier in the UK. There are obviously other places would wish to maintain with UK eyes only where we can dock her. construction. Undoubtedly, some of the activities and The support costs are not a big part of the package, projects that take place in Scotland—I am thinking in unless we want to make them a big part. Just doing particular of some of the sensitive radar equipment the physical work in the dry dock is not a huge cost; procurement—we would be most unlikely to seek to the money is in supporting the combat systems and procure outside a UK eyes only environment. I should various other things. like Les to elaborate a bit. Les Mosco: As you said, in the first 10 months of the Q2036 Chair: When the Committee visited Babcock year, we had just over 200 cases of 346. As we place in Rosyth, the unions told us that they envisaged that about 5,000 contracts a year, it is in a minority of our each of the ships would go in roughly every 10 years contracts that we exercise 346, but there is a or so. Since there were two of them, that meant a big reasonable flow of them. Obviously, it applies where ship being there every five years over the period of there are particular security considerations that cause the 50. They were of the view that it was much less us not to be comfortable with a competition that could likely that that would take place in Rosyth if Scotland go to a supplier in any country. Normally, exercising were outside the United Kingdom. Again this is a 346 would take us down the road of awarding a coming back to the question of whether people are contract to a UK supplier. You can conceive of being asked to vote for a pig in a poke or whether we circumstances—they are pretty unusual—where you are providing clarity about what might or might not would exercise a 346 and say, “We are not happy happen. We would seek some clarification from you about open competition globally, but we can think of on this, because a decision has not yet been taken. It some countries other than the UK where you can place cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:16] Job: 022508 Unit: PG11 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o011_db_Corrected SAC 121219.xml

Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 281

19 December 2012 Philip Dunne MP, Vice Admiral Andrew Mathews CB FREng and Les Mosco BSc FCIPS contracts under a 346”. That is pretty unusual. By and munitions that presently are mostly handled at Beith, large, a 346 would mean a UK supply. which could be moved to the south. You are asking how we would approach the asset Q2038 Chair: In the event of international deployment of what is currently in Scotland. That collaboration, presumably there must be some would be a matter for negotiation with the Scottish situations—a joint production—where for example, Government as to which assets would go to Scotland planes are being produced for the UK by somebody and what would stay with the residual UK. The basing else. It does not go out to international tender. How is consequences of that would need to be worked out. that dealt with in these circumstances? Les Mosco: We have a number of multinational Q2043 Chair: There are two slightly different collaborations. Aircraft are a particularly good things—one is an asset in the sense of buildings, and example. Typhoons, for example, are manufactured the other is activities. across a European consortium. Different parts of the Mr Dunne: I was thinking of capability. plane are assembled and manufactured in different countries and are then bolted together in several Q2044 Chair: Beith, as we understand it, does not different locations, including some in the UK. That is just store these things. With the torpedoes, for a fairly normal course of business in those example, we saw them putting all the bits together. It multinational collaborations. is a bit more complicated than that, but that was the gist of it. As an activity, I think they were making it Q2039 Chair: So a 346 could be extended to third clear that they envisaged that that would no longer countries, as it were, where they are part of an remain outwith the UK in the event of separation, international collaboration and are themselves because the UK would then want to have control over purchasing the weapons, and so on and so forth. Okay, that. I think the same applied to Harpoon and a I understand that. number of other weapons that were being worked on there. How would you process that? Would you decide that Q2040 Mr McKenzie: Before we move off that this, this and this had got to move, and then make the point, once a contract has been placed under the 346, move, or would there be a period of grace? Have you has it ever been challenged by another country saying ever done anything like this before? The admiral is that they should have been considered? shaking his head. Unfortunately Hansard does not Les Mosco: I cannot think of an example, off the top record shakes of the head. of my head. Mr Dunne: Perhaps we should let the admiral respond to that. Q2041 Mr McKenzie: Does that mean there has Vice Admiral Mathews: I think the question you are been no challenge through agreement, or because it really asking is, if we map the capability of what we has been recognised across the countries in Europe have in Scotland, whether we have to map it across that it will not win the contract? with what remains in the residual UK and say, “Well, Les Mosco: First of all, the way that a 346 works is do we want to transfer this business?” It is another that we do not apply for a 346. We satisfy ourselves one of these hypothetical questions, because we would internally in the MOD that the requirements of 346 have to understand where we are—what an are met, under the kind of circumstances described in independent Scotland means and what this the European procurement regulations that define independence is about—before we would make a when you can and cannot use 346. If we think it is a decision. There are options for us in the residual UK. 346 case, we satisfy ourselves of that internally and Would we want to move that work? Would it be cost- then proceed. That kind of example and, indeed, other effective to do that? What are the security implications cases—not 346—where we choose, for example, not of it being in a foreign country? We would have to to compete but to sole-source are subject to challenge. work all those things through. I am struggling to think of a 346 case where we have said, “We think that this is a 346” and we have then Q2045 Chair: I am disappointed in the sense that had a challenge to that. I cannot say that there have you seem not to be doing that, though. not been any, I just cannot think of any immediately. Understandably—if the bookmakers are saying it is four to one against a yes vote I can understand why Q2042 Chair: Some of the locations that we visited, you might not want to face up to that, but the fact is for example, the armaments depot at Beith, struck us that people in Scotland have got to understand what as doing work that the United Kingdom would want the choices are and the what-ifs. Therefore, even with to have done within the United Kingdom in the event a one in five chance it seems to me not unreasonable of separation. Can you clarify what would happen in that you should actually consider it and start drawing those circumstances? Would you take the decision that up a list of what you would want to move south. it had to be moved? How would that change be I think you already gave us an indication that the brought about? complex radars of Selex Galileo would have to move Mr Dunne: That is a munitions issue on where we south. I think we understand that, and I think the store and handle munitions. We have, I believe, 11 company and the unions, when we spoke to them, separate sites across the UK for munitions, from the understood that. We are looking at some of the others, most simple to the most complex. We have facilities like Thales, the optronics and periscope masts, and so south of the border to handle the sort of maritime on and so forth. We need to know these things. When cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:16] Job: 022508 Unit: PG11 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o011_db_Corrected SAC 121219.xml

Ev 282 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

19 December 2012 Philip Dunne MP, Vice Admiral Andrew Mathews CB FREng and Les Mosco BSc FCIPS might you be in a position to give us a list of the items Government in due course. We want to be clear that that you believe would have to be relocated? there is going to be a process by which the future of Mr Dunne: The Government as a whole are places such as Beith, Thales in my own constituency, undertaking work on what the consequences might be Raytheon and Babcock in Rosyth is spelled out, so were the referendum to go the wrong way, but that is that they are clear what the consequences of a vote presenting cases by Department of the potential will be and how the UK Government will respond. I implications on that Department. I do not have a look forward to receiving the report that you indicated timetable for when the MOD will be making its is under way, because if that spells out which things representations into the Cabinet Office, but a great will be moved down south, that will be enormously deal of work is going on, on the implications.1 helpful. As to the separation of capability, which I think is Mr Dunne: What we can say is that undoubtedly the what you are driving at in your question here, we are future would be more uncertain for all those not undertaking work on how capability might be businesses in Scotland that rely on UK MOD spend, separated to create two armed forces out of one. That because we cannot be assured that the security would be something that we would contemplate considerations would not lead to some of those doing—it would have to be done—if the referendum decisions to place work in Scotland being less certain. result went the way that we do not expect it to; but to do all that work in anticipation of a result that we do Q2048 Chair: I think we would go slightly beyond not anticipate happening would not seem to be the that. There is an uncertainty over everything, to some best use of MOD resources. extent, but there is a degree of certainty over some of these things. You have already mentioned the complex Q2046 Chair: I think the Committee would radars, which, unless I am very much mistaken, you undoubtedly disagree with that, having discussed this indicated would be moved. That gives a degree of in the past. I think the Committee quite clear that there certainty. That is what we understood, and we is a responsibility not only upon the Scottish welcome that clarity. Those other areas where you are Government to make it clear to the people of Scotland able to establish that things would be moved— what they plan for subjects such as defence, but on Mr Dunne: I was using that as an example of the kind the UK Government to make it clear what the of manufacturing capability that we would find might consequences will be. People do not want to find that be likely to require UK eyes. I am not making any they voted one way or the other and then the kind of direct commitment to what would happen to unexpected occurs. People have got to be given a clear a specific facility. choice with all the implications and consequences spelled out on both sides. Q2049 Pamela Nash: I would like to touch briefly Mr Dunne: It is quite clear to the people of Scotland again on security concerns within the bidding process. at the moment, and will become increasingly clear For the record, could you explain to us the relevance during the course of a referendum campaign, that of List X and how a British company at the moment Scotland benefits from being within the UK for gets itself on the list? defence purposes. The security umbrella that is Les Mosco: List X is essentially a set of site-specific provided through the whole-UK spend and security accreditation. If there are sensitive defence commitment to defence is very much more substantial and security things going on or being required of a than would be available to an independent Scotland. I supplier, they would need to be List X-approved. am sure your Committee is looking into asking There is a mechanism for the facilities, the security, questions of the Scottish Government as to what a the data security and all of that kind of thing—the £2.5 billion defence and security budget could fencing, if you like. All that kind of site security stuff actually procure by way of capability in the event that is assessed via the List X protocols. That applies to they were to be independent. That, as a focus of your those parts of our acquisition that have security Committee’s efforts, if I may be so bold, would be considerations attached to them. very fruitful. If you compared the Scottish population There is a security vetting process to look at the or GDP with other comparable independent nation company facilities, and then companies proceed. populations, and how much they spend on defence and Largely, that is done by UK authorities who will what they can get for it, I think you would find that examine the facilities and check that they are very instructive. By way of example, Norway, which compliant with the List X standards and protocols. has a population of 5 million, spends £3.9 billion on There are some multinational bilateral reciprocal defence as opposed to the £2.5 billion that Scotland is arrangements that would, for example, allow the US intending to spend on defence and security. authorities to assure us that if we are buying from a US company, they were appropriately security and site Q2047 Chair: I think we understand much of that, controlled. That, essentially, is the way the List X Minister, but you are with us today, and we will be process works. discussing many of these things with the Scottish 1 Note by witness: As announced by the Secretary of State for Q2050 Pamela Nash: You mention specifically US Scotland on 20 June 2012, the UK Government is involvement. Are there any other processes for undertaking a programme of work, which is being companies outside the UK in getting a place on List coordinated by an HM Treasury team, to inform and support X? the debate on Scotland’s future within the UK. This programme will analyse Scotland’s place in the UK and how Les Mosco: I am thinking theoretically now. I am not it contributes to and benefits from being part of the UK. saying that the only companies that can be List X cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:16] Job: 022508 Unit: PG11 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o011_db_Corrected SAC 121219.xml

Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 283

19 December 2012 Philip Dunne MP, Vice Admiral Andrew Mathews CB FREng and Les Mosco BSc FCIPS accredited are UK or US companies. There may well and operations in Afghanistan at the moment both be other countries that we could go to that would have under NATO and with the US national forces. It would the relevant security protocols agreed, and they would be fair to say that it is a significant relationship, and be covered by whatever the relevant protocol is for one from which, again, there can be no certainty that that specific country. I do not know what would be Scotland would be able to benefit. Would you like to the case for an independent Scotland, because that is add anything on that? not a situation that we have at the moment, but there Vice Admiral Mathews: No. would presumably have to be an agreement between the two Governments as to how List X accreditation Q2054 Pamela Nash: As of the last SNP conference would be made to work. it has been the policy of the SNP Scottish Government to remain as a member of NATO, or to apply for Q2051 Pamela Nash: I am thinking not just of NATO membership should Scotland leave the UK. If companies applying from Scotland, but Scottish they do not stay in NATO, or if they stay in NATO companies that have List X status at the moment but but as a non-nuclear partner—if they kick out Trident, that might find themselves outside the UK in 2015. Is which is their current policy—how do you think that there any precedent for that? What would you expect will affect the relationship with the US? Could that to happen with those companies? have a knock-on effect on the UK’s relationship with Les Mosco: I cannot think that there is a precedent, NATO and the US if, for instance, Trident were shut because the regime that has applied so far is a UK List down and our nuclear capability were removed for a X accreditation. If Scotland becomes independent, the period of time? UK Government accreditation system would Mr Dunne: We are determined to maintain a nuclear presumably not apply in Scotland. There would have deterrent. There is no change in that position. That to be a Government-to-Government agreement as to relies on continued co-operation with the US. The how that is to work in the future, and that might mean servicing of the fleet currently takes place in Scotland. that the existing List X status no longer applied and How that would continue would have to be negotiated. the facilities would have to be reviewed again. It That was the subject of your previous inquiry, and the would all depend on the terms of the Government-to- Government response to your report will be coming Government agreement as to how List X approvals out later this week. would happen in the future. Pamela Nash: I would like to ask a lot of questions, but we are very short of time so we may write for Q2052 Pamela Nash: I will not ask you to predict additional information. the result of those conversations, but is it fair to say that this would not be automatically transferred, but Q2055 Chair: Can I clarify whether the United would be likely to involve negotiations between a States has relationships with any other European future Scottish Government and the rest of the UK? country that would preclude them putting nuclear Les Mosco: I believe so. It would have to be weapons either in the air, waters or earth of that negotiated and sorted out, case by case. country? My understanding is that the SNP are saying that there should be no nuclear weapons at all in Q2053 Pamela Nash: I would like to move on to Scottish air, water, and so on. Does that apply the relationship with the United States. In a previous anywhere else with US allies? Is that sort of policy White Paper, the UK Government said that it favours likely to help or hinder the relationship of a separate bilateral co-operation and, obviously, our main partner Scotland with the Americans? is the US, but we heard evidence suggesting that Mr Dunne: I am not equipped to answer that Scotland might not automatically share this level of question. co-operation with the US; it might have a different Vice Admiral Mathews: No. standpoint. Could you explain just how much the relationship with the US benefits the UK defence Q2056 Chair: No, or no, you are not equipped industry at the moment, and how it might affect the either? Scottish defence industry if it were to have less of a Vice Admiral Mathews: I don’t know the answer to relationship with the US? that question. Mr Dunne: Our working assumption is that all bilateral and multinational relationships that the UK Q2057 Chair: Right. And the staff behind don’t has with other Governments would need to be know either. Oh good. Well, we are always glad renegotiated by a Scottish Government. Scottish when— participation in any of those agreements would be Mr Dunne: Chairman, you are asking us to interpret something for the Scottish Government to seek to whether treaties between the United States and other secure. countries allow them to do things. We are not party to In relation to the US, we have a specific bilateral co- those treaties, so I am afraid it is not a question that operation treaty and it is fair to say that the British any of us would be able to answer. MOD is a substantial beneficiary under those arrangements, which cover procurement and Q2058 Chair: Could I just come back to one point capability. Quantifying that is not easy, but it ranges that Pamela mentioned—UK eyes only? How is that across intelligence through to the deterrent dealt with in the event that Scotland becomes separate programme—clearly a major beneficiary of that and there is the possibility of either dual citizenship or relationship—to operational exercises, joint training people being able to choose? In, say, Northern Ireland, cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:16] Job: 022508 Unit: PG11 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o011_db_Corrected SAC 121219.xml

Ev 284 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

19 December 2012 Philip Dunne MP, Vice Admiral Andrew Mathews CB FREng and Les Mosco BSc FCIPS some people have dual citizenship or Irish citizenship. maintain the presence of a defence industry, or is that You are obviously thinking about how this would just not enough money? work through. Are there any pointers you can give us on that? Q2064 Mr Dunne: You are testing our knowledge. Mr Dunne: You are raising an interesting question. We tend to get involved in the procurement further The definition of UK eyes only applies to UK citizens. down the chain. I don’t know whether Les can Is anyone able to discuss the defence vetting answer that. procedures we use? That is really a matter for the Les Mosco: I can only speculate. That size of spend Minister for the Armed Forces. on R and D is only going to buy you a small amount of activity. The UK’s spend is quite sizeable, as the Q2059 Chair: It is in the context also of Minister said. That is to maintain a decent, critical procurement, obviously. If some things are UK eyes mass of ongoing activity. A small amount of spend only, then we are not clear who would be responsible like that will clearly be a much less significant volume or who would determine who would have access to of activity. that. Mr Dunne: It would be instructive to look at some Mr Dunne: Perhaps we could take that away and then respond to you. smaller countries in Europe such as Croatia, Slovakia Chair: That would be helpful. or Denmark that have a similar proportionate spend on defence to see how much they spend on research and development and the scale of their domestic Q2060 Mike Crockart: I should like to ask first about research and development. We have had defence industries. I suspect that you would find that evidence from people in the defence industry that it is very small. basically the industry follows the budget, so the size Vice Admiral Mathews: That is a very good point. of spending on research and development in our This is speculative, but I suspect that there is quite a country will pretty much decide the size of the strong correlation between high-end manufacture, in defence industry that is based there. What is the size terms of defence equipment, and the amount that of research and development for the UK? nation spends on defence R and D. Mr Dunne: We spend, in round figures, £1.5 billion on research and development through the MOD. Of Q2065 Mike Crockart: You mentioned that that approximately £400 million is for the science and spending is not on a geographical basis. Do you have technology budget through the Defence Science and any feeling for whether a change in the budget for Technology Laboratory. That ranges from very, very residual UK R and D spend would have a knock-on early stage conceptual work through to placing some effect on the prevalence of defence industry more specific research contracts, normally with contractors in Scotland? I imagine that a lot of the R academia or companies. Beyond the science and and D stuff that is going on, going back to the UK technology aspect, most of the residual budget is spent eyes point again, is going to be stuff that you do not on research for specific equipment procurement, so it necessarily want to have happening outside the UK. is to do with early stage research into a capability, Would the change necessitate a withdrawal of defence which then gets developed into subsequent industry from Scotland to be based more in the UK? procurement in most cases, hopefully. Mr Dunne: As we said earlier, the scale of the MOD spend is substantial and leads to the UK-based Q2061 Mike Crockart: That is quite substantial. defence industry having a significant advantage over Mr Dunne: It is very significant. I wouldn’t say it other nations that do not have such a large customer is totally geographically based, but in terms of the on their doorsteps. It is a reasonable assumption that, capability of the UK, the R and D budget is very significant in helping to maintain industrial capability in the event of Scottish independence, it would be less to support our military capability needs. likely that cutting-edge research projects, where we feel that there is a particular security dimension, Q2062 Mike Crockart: How does that size of would be placed outside the UK. We do not direct our budget compare internationally—with our European science and technology budget outside the UK. I am neighbours, for example? not going to give an absolute commitment to that Mr Dunne: I believe that it is comparable to the because there are quite a number of examples of French, who are our closest comparator in terms of collaborative projects with other nations. We are the scale of armed forces and what we do. The pure working with Australia, India and France on some of science and technology spend is comparable in scale our S and T spend, but I am not aware—and I stand to what the Australians are spending in that area. to be corrected—of any individual projects that are placed with no UK involvement. Q2063 Mike Crockart: Do you have any Chair: That is helpful. knowledge of the type and size of budgets for research Mr Dunne: On the geography, I may have slightly and development that exist in smaller European misled you. The £400 million science and technology countries? If we do a straight ruler, if you like, from budget is directed through DSTL. Of that, 40% is a UK-type budget to a budget the size of Scotland, we retained and spent within DSTL’s facilities, which are would be looking at about £30 million for research mainly at Porton Down and Fort Halstead in Kent. So and development. What is the experience in other, there would be a disproportionate share of that going smaller European countries? Is that sufficient to to Wiltshire and Kent. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [22-01-2013 11:16] Job: 022508 Unit: PG11 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_o011_db_Corrected SAC 121219.xml

Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 285

19 December 2012 Philip Dunne MP, Vice Admiral Andrew Mathews CB FREng and Les Mosco BSc FCIPS

Q2066 Chair: On that happy note, are there any final Mr Dunne: I think we have had a good canter round points that you want to make to us. I usually ask the issues, so I don’t have anything specific. people whether they have answers prepared for Chair: Well, thank you very much for coming. We questions that we have not asked or any points you are very much look forward to receiving the additional bursting to tell us that you feel we have not included. information you have promised and the Government’s papers on defence and related matters. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [SE] Processed: [18-01-2013 13:16] Job: 022508 Unit: PG12 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_w013_michelle_RSS 017 - RUSI.xml

Ev 286 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

Written evidence

Written evidence from Professor Bernard Ryan, Law School, University of Kent Introduction If Scotland were to become independent, its relationship with the United Kingdom would have to be defined in the fields of nationality law and immigration law and policy. This note offers a summary of the relationship between the Irish state1 and the United Kingdom in those fields, and some thoughts on possible implications for Scottish independence.

1. Nationality Law 1.1 The Irish case A new nationality The nationality law of a new state must necessarily provide for two matters: an initial population of nationals on the date of independence, and the acquisition and loss of nationality on an ongoing basis. In the case of the Irish state, the initial population was defined by Article 3 of the Irish Free State Constitution of 1922. Article 3 conferred Irish Free State citizenship upon a person if they were domiciled in the “area of the jurisdiction of the Irish Free State” on the date the state was founded (6 December 1922), provided (a) they had been resident in that area for the previous seven years, or (b) they or one of their parents had been born in “Ireland”.2 A full framework of nationality law, covering all aspects of acquisition and loss of nationality, was not then adopted until the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1935. The reason for delay was a disagreement between the London and Dublin Governments concerning the nature of the new citizenship.3 The British Government conceived of Irish Free State citizenship as a local citizenship, within a wider international status of British subject. The Irish state authorities preferred instead to consider Irish Free State citizenship as autonomous from British subject status, and to be capable of being relied upon internationally. Nationality legislation was eventually adopted in 1935, before a resolution of this fundamental question.

Irish nationality law and Northern Ireland The treatment of Northern Ireland within Irish nationality law has historically been a controversial issue.4 Initially, special provision for Northern Ireland within Irish nationality law was primarily a consequence of the Irish state’s claim to the whole island of Ireland. Latterly—especially since the Belfast Agreement of 1998— special provision has reflected the Irish state’s wish to uphold the Irish identity of a minority in Northern Ireland. In the early years of the Irish Free State, its authorities took the view that Article 3 citizenship applied to those who were domiciled and resident in Northern Ireland on 6 December 1922. That was based on the theory that, on that date, the “area of jurisdiction” of the Free State was the whole island of Ireland, as Northern Ireland did not exercise its right to opt-out of the new state until the following day. The United Kingdom Government would later acquiesce in this theory, when it neutralised its effects in British nationality law.5 The Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956 went further, and provided that a person born in Northern Ireland would automatically acquire Irish citizenship if either of their parents was an Irish citizen. That was unlike the position for births elsewhere in the world, where registration was a precondition to the acquisition of Irish citizenship for the second and subsequent generations. For persons born in Northern Ireland, but who did not have an Irish citizen parent, there was an entitlement to Irish citizenship, which the individual could freely take up. More recent developments began with the recognition by the Belfast Agreement of 1998 of “the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves, and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose …”6 That statement legitimised the application of Irish nationality law to Northern Ireland, but also implied that it should be based upon individual choice, rather than arising automatically. 1 The official name of the state is “Ireland”. To avoid confusion, the term “Irish state” is preferred here, unless the context permits “Irish Free State” or “Republic of Ireland” to be used. 2 There was an exception for persons who held the citizenship of another state, who could elect not to become Irish Free State citizens. 3 See Mary Daly, “Irish nationality and citizenship since 1922” (2001) 32 Irish Historical Studies 377, 377–384. 4 For a detailed account, see Bernard Ryan, “The Ian Paisley Question: Irish Citizenship and Northern Ireland” (2003) 25 Dublin University Law Journal 116–147. 5 See Ireland Act 1949, section 5. 6 In the British-Irish Agreement reached as part of the Belfast Agreement, the two Governments set out their “understanding” that, for this purpose, “The term ‘the people of Northern Ireland’ … means … all persons born in Northern Ireland and having, at the time of their birth, at least one parent who is a British citizen, an Irish citizen or is otherwise entitled to reside in Northern Ireland without any restriction on their period of residence.” cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [18-01-2013 13:16] Job: 022508 Unit: PG12 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_w013_michelle_RSS 017 - RUSI.xml

Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 287

The Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 2001 then introduced an apparent element of choice into Irish nationality law for persons born in Northern Ireland. All those born in either part of the island of Ireland continued to be entitled to Irish nationality by virtue of their place of birth. The acquisition of Irish citizenship was automatic for those who were entitled to Irish citizenship alone. In other cases—including persons born in Northern Ireland who became British citizens—Irish citizenship would be acquired only if positively asserted. The rules as regards citizenship by descent remained unaltered, however, so that a child born in Northern Ireland to an Irish citizen continued to acquire Irish citizenship automatically. That had the effect of removing much of the element of choice introduced into the provisions concerning the acquisition of citizenship through place of birth.

The scheme set out by the 2001 Act remained unaltered by the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 2004, which introduced a parental pre-condition to entitlement to Irish citizenship by birth. Children born on the island of Ireland since 1 January 2005 have been eligible for Irish citizenship by virtue of their place of birth only if, on the date of the birth, at least one parent is an Irish citizen (or entitled to become one), is a British citizen, is entitled to reside in a permanent basis in either Northern Ireland or the Republic, or has been lawfully resident on the island of Ireland for three of the previous four years.

British nationality law and Irish citizens

The possibility of continued access to forms of British nationality by Irish citizens arose as a result of the overhaul of British nationality law by the British Nationality Act 1948. Previously, British subject status had primarily been conferred on persons born in any British territory, including dominions such as the Irish state. Under the 1948 Act, British subject status was based instead upon possession of the nationality of a Commonwealth state. In recognition of the Irish state’s lack of enthusiasm for membership of the Commonwealth by this time, the 1948 Act excluded the Irish state from the list of states covered by the new principle.7 Instead, Irish citizens who had been British subjects prior to the coming into force of the 1948 Act were permitted to give notice that they wished to retain that status on the grounds of an association with the United Kingdom.8 Irish citizens were not however given a general entitlement to the separate citizenship of the United Kingdom and colonies (“CUKC”) introduced by the 1948 Act, which was the forerunner to today’s British citizenship.

1.2 Implications for Scotland

Were Scotland to become independent, parallels to a number of the questions posed in the case of Irish nationality might arise. The following are speculative examples of such possible questions.

A new nationality

In general terms, an independent Scotland would presumably be free to define both its original population of citizens and the rules on the acquisition and loss of nationality. That would not however preclude specific agreements on the content of its nationality law with the United Kingdom, either before or after independence.

In defining Scotland’s initial population of nationals, a key question would be whether prior possession of British citizenship, or eligibility for it, was to be a precondition. In both the 1922 Constitution and the 1935 Act, the Irish Free State defined its nationality law without reference to British subject status. While that approach would be one option for an independent Scotland, it would equally be possible for Scottish nationality to be limited to a sub-set of actual or potential British citizens thought to have a sufficient connection to Scotland.

Beyond that, it is to be expected that Scotland would legislate for the whole of nationality law more rapidly than the Irish Free State did. It is difficult to imagine a fundamental disagreement with the United Kingdom over the nature of Scottish nationality, or the content of its nationality law, which would preclude such legislation.

Scottish nationality law and the United Kingdom

There is no general parallel in the Scottish case to the position of Northern Ireland within Irish nationality law. Nevertheless, an independent Scotland might wish to favour the acquisition of Scottish nationality by some persons born in the post-separation United Kingdom, much as the Republic of Ireland does for births in Northern Ireland. That could potentially lead it to a more generous approach to acquisition of nationality by descent for those born in the United Kingdom than applied to the rest of the world. 7 In 1936, the Irish Free State unilaterally re-defined its relationship to the Commonwealth as one of “external association”, rather than membership. That re-definition was not however accepted by the United Kingdom at the time. The Irish state would proclaim a republic, and definitively leave the Commonwealth, in 1949. That new constitutional position was recognised by the United Kingdom through its Ireland Act 1949, which nevertheless declared that “the Republic of Ireland is not a foreign country for the purposes of any law in force.” 8 British Nationality Act 1948, section 2, and now British Nationality Act 1981, section 31. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [18-01-2013 13:16] Job: 022508 Unit: PG12 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_w013_michelle_RSS 017 - RUSI.xml

Ev 288 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

British nationality law and Scotland Scottish independence would also presumably lead to questions for the nationality law of the post-separation United Kingdom, especially if a proportion of the post-independence Scottish population continued to identify themselves primarily as British. One parallel here is with the provision for the retention of British subject status by Irish citizens after the 1948 Act. Potentially, the United Kingdom might wish some or all persons who were alive at independence to have the option of retaining British citizenship, in addition to acquiring the new Scottish nationality. The question might also arise whether persons born in post-independence Scotland—in particular, those born to British citizen parents—should have the option of acquiring British citizenship on more favourable terms than persons born elsewhere in the world. There is again a parallel with the favoured position of Northern Ireland within Irish law on the acquisition of citizenship by descent.

2. Immigration Law and Policy If Scotland were to become independent, questions would arise concerning its participation within what is termed the “common travel area”. That phrase is used in the Immigration Act 1971 to refer to two distinct sets of arrangements.9 The first concerns the relationship between the United Kingdom on the one hand, and the Channel Islands and Isle of Man on the other. Travel between these places is not subject to immigration control, and there is mutual recognition of immigration permissions granted by each jurisdiction in the others. If Scotland were to become independent, the more relevant parallel would be with the second aspect of the “common travel area”: the relationship between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland.10 The core elements of that relationship are elaborated here.

2.1 The British-Irish common travel area Foundations For most of the period since the establishment of the Irish Free State in 1922, there has not been immigration control on travel between the United Kingdom and the Irish state, in either direction. The main reason has been the presumed impracticability of immigration control at the Irish land border. Exceptionally, for a period between 1939–52, immigration control applied to journeys between Great Britain and both parts of the island of Ireland. In peacetime, however, the United Kingdom government has accepted free movement between the two states, and has sought to co-operate with the Irish state in immigration control. It is known that agreements on the terms of their co-operation were entered into when the Irish Free State was founded in 1922, and again when immigration controls were lifted in 1952. The terms of those agreements, and of operational co-operation between the United Kingdom and the Irish state in immigration maters, have not generally been publicised by the two states. That has presumably reflected the political sensitivity of this co-operation, as it may be thought by some to call the two states’ sovereignty over immigration matters into question. Recent years have seen a more open discussion of the arrangements between the two states. In 2008, the Labour Government launched a consultation concerning the e-borders project and the common travel area, which referred to the fact of “administrative agreements” between the two states in 1922 and 1952. Details of discussions between the two Governments concerning the common travel area were also given publicity through a “joint statement” in December 2011 by the Ministers involved.

Partial immigration control The absence of immigration control between the United Kingdom and the Irish state has come under pressure since the mid-1990s. The initial impetus to change was the Republic of Ireland’s having experienced significant immigration for the first time in its history. In 1997, it introduced selective immigration control upon persons arriving from the United Kingdom, by air, land or sea. Since 2004, it has required persons arriving by air or sea, other than British and Irish citizens, to obtain permission to enter the state. In addition, there are selective checks upon immigration status on board bus and rail services from Northern Ireland.11 In 2008–09, the free movement principle was also questioned by the United Kingdom Government. It proposed the introduction of immigration control on air and sea arrivals from the Republic of Ireland, and of selective controls on persons and vehicles crossing the land border from the Republic of Ireland. While these proposals were ostensibly motivated by the e-borders project, the British authorities had presumably learned from developments in Irish border control. In order to permit these reforms, in the Borders Immigration and Citizenship Bill in 2009, the Government proposed to remove the provision in the Immigration Act 1971 which exempts arrivals from elsewhere in the “common travel area” from immigration control. That proposal was 9 Immigration Act 1971, sections 1(3) and 9. 10 For a fuller account, see Bernard Ryan, “The Common Travel Area between Britain and Ireland” (2001) 64 Modern Law Review 855–874. 11 These checks has been criticised for giving rise to racial discrimination, as officials make appearance-based assumptions concerning nationality: see Migrants Rights Centre of Ireland, Singled Out: Exploratory study on ethnic profiling in Ireland (2011). cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [18-01-2013 13:16] Job: 022508 Unit: PG12 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_w013_michelle_RSS 017 - RUSI.xml

Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 289

however defeated in the House of Lords, largely because of the belief that restricting free movement from the Republic of Ireland would lead to greater control on travel between Northern Ireland and Great Britain.

Mutual recognition?

British and Irish citizens, and other persons with rights under EU free movement law, have a right to enter either state from the other. In the case of the United Kingdom, persons with leave to enter or remain may rely upon that leave in order to enter the United Kingdom from the Republic of Ireland, while persons who are visa-exempt may enter the United Kingdom and stay for up to three months. In the case of the Republic of Ireland, persons who are not British, Irish or covered by EU free movement law, may enter the state without obtaining permission only if they possess a visa or are visa-exempt, and only if they enter by land from Northern Ireland.

What is lacking in the British–Irish relationship is mutual recognition of immigration permission. The effect is that persons with a visa or residence permit issued by one state may not rely upon that to travel to the other, even for a short period of time. The absence of mutual recognition causes particular problems on the island of Ireland, where it impedes cross-border travel by non-EU nationals who are lawfully present in Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland.

The two Governments have begun to consider forms of mutual recognition in recent years. The 2008 consultation document referred to the possibility of a common visa for the common travel area, and to the possible recognition of some Irish immigration decisions by the United Kingdom. In 2011–12, in order to promote tourism, the Irish Government began to recognise short-stay visas issued by the United Kingdom to nationals of 16 states. Finally, the December 2011 joint statement referred to the intention to explore “further co-operation in the area of mutual visa recognition, possibly up to a fully common short stay visit visa”.

Co-operation in immigration control

The common travel area arrangements have led to co-operation in immigration control between the two states in a variety of ways. For example: — Each state’s immigration law provides for the exclusion of persons considered undesirable in the other. This implies a practice of communication between the two states in relation to foreign nationals who are undesirable, or who have previously been excluded. — There has been operational co-operation in relation to immigration enforcement, including at ports in Northern Ireland (known as “Operation Gull”). — In parallel with e-borders, the Republic of Ireland is developing an “Irish Border Information System”. The December 2011 joint statement was explicit that the two governments have been “working together” on the two projects. — Ireland has generally followed the United Kingdom’s lead in introducing visa requirements for given nationalities. Building upon that, the December 2011 joint statement committed the two governments to “co-operating to the fullest extent possible to align the list of nationals who are visa required for travel to the two countries.”

2.2 Implications for Scottish independence

Were Scotland to become independent, it is to be assumed that both it and the post-separation United Kingdom would wish to have an open immigration border between them. Much as in the case of the Irish land border, the social, economic and organisational costs of imposing immigration control on the Scottish-English land border would argue against any other course of action. The close social ties between Northern Ireland and Scotland would be a further reason not to have immigration control on travel between the two states.

The British-Irish case shows that the question would then arise as to how much publicity to give to the details of any arrangements between the two states. The greater openness in recent years concerning the British- Irish common travel area suggests that the terms of any Scotland-United Kingdom arrangements would also come to be openly acknowledged.

The British-Irish case also shows that a number of questions might arise for the content of the arrangements between Scotland and the post-separation United Kingdom. It is not inconceivable that full or selective immigration control would apply to journeys by air and sea, or that selective control might be applied to land journeys. The question of mutual recognition of immigration permission would also arise, particularly to facilitate short-term travel for tourism, business and personal reasons. Finally, forms of operational co-operation in immigration control between Scotland and United Kingdom could be expected to emerge. 29 August 2012 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [18-01-2013 13:16] Job: 022508 Unit: PG12 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/022508/022508_w013_michelle_RSS 017 - RUSI.xml

Ev 290 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

Written evidence from Francis Tusa, Editor, Defence Analysis Outline 1. This memorandum is provided to support testimony provided to the Scottish Affairs Committee of the House of Commons on the topic of the impact of the prospect of Scottish independence on defence. 2. More specifically, it is to provide some extra depth to the subject of the relocation of the nuclear deterrent force in the event of independence being followed by electoral victory by the Scottish National Party, whose manifesto has stated that an independent Scotland would be “nuclear free”.

The Issue 3. When the topic of the deterrent, its current basing at Faslane and associated facilities, and what might happen in the event of independence and an SNP electoral victory is raised, a number of reactions are stated immediately, almost as matters of faith: (a) “The movement of the deterrent would be immensely difficult to consider, and would take decades to achieve”; (b) “It would cost many billions of pounds to replicate the facilities that are at present in the Faslane/Coulport area, and it would take well over a decade to do so”; and (c) “There are no realistic options for the deterrent in the event of a non-nuclear Scotland”. 4. These views are, and have been treated as a form of gospel truth, with heavy backing from the Royal Navy, but also from other areas of the defence world. 5. There are some signs that these dogmas have also taken on political overtones, as it is widely believed that an independent Scotland would have the rump UK over a barrel in the event of independence, with the ability to bargain, to Scotland’s advantage, on what happened to the deterrent. 6. However, simple examination of the subject suggests that the issue is not as complex as might have been thought, and that the dogma has muddled clear thinking. 7. What is strange is that one of the major source of the type of views expressed in point 3 is the Royal Navy. This has given the dogma a degree of momentum which is not backed up by more rational thinking.

The Resolution 8. A major source of the belief that the deterrent relocation is an insoluble problem results from the fact that the issue is looked at in its entirety, and on such a basis, things can look incredibly complicated and difficult to resolve. 9. But by breaking the whole into its constituent parts, it is far easier to see how the deterrent re-location problem can be tackled, and in easy steps. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [18-01-2013 13:16] Job: 022508 Unit: PG12

Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 291 Notes 16+ nuclear berths available, compared to 10HMNB at Devonport. HMNB Clyde. elsewhere in the UK.into However, place, as there the would Explosive seem Handling to Jetty be is little floating, reason and why was it towed couldn’t be facility at new missilefacility. loading HMNB DevonportKing’s Bay, Georgia, USAAWE Aldermaston King’s Bay, Georgia, HMNBRNAD USA Devonport Coulport No evidence of AWE any AldermastonRNAD plans Coulport to change this bilateral arrangement. ?AWE Aldermaston? All Satellite the facilities for The the issue current is and not future about SSN/SSBN replicating fleet TBC RNAD No support Coulport—see evidence will below. of be any based plans at to change this arrangement. The one element of the current cycle for which there is not an automatic facility available Current LocationHMNB Faslane Future Location HMNB Devonport A fully licensed nuclear submarine base. Homeport of the nuclear fleet since the 1960s. Missile Mating Warhead build/maintenance Warhead storage Submarine maintenance Ballistic missile storage Deterrent Segment Submarine basing cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [18-01-2013 13:16] Job: 022508 Unit: PG12

Ev 292 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

10. The analysis shows that for four out of the six stages of the SSBN support/operational cycle, there is either an easy, readily available alternative, or there would be no change in the status in the event of Scottish independence.

11. In one of the six stages, there is an existing option—the storage of nuclear warheads at AWE Aldermaston—one that could readily be changed in status from a maintenance role to a storage one.

12. In only one state of the cycle—missile/warhead mating—is serious decision making required. But as seen by the fact that the current piece of equipment is floating, and thus re-locatable, this is not as insolvable a problem was might be considered.

The “Coulport Question”

One of the biggest misconceptions with the debate—or lack of it—about the issue of where the deterrent would go to, is that people talk about “replacing Coulport”. This has muddied the water, as there is no direct requirement to replace Coulport.

Coulport was designed, scaled, and built to support the original Trident deterrent systems. This saw a Vanguard-class SSBN able to carry a maximum of 192 warheads. In theory, the 58 Trident missiles that the UK has access to as part of a shared pool of weapons with the US Navy can carry in the original design, some 700 warheads.

However, in the 1998 Strategic Defence Review it was stated that: “The single Trident submarine on deterrent patrol at any time will carry 48 warheads”;

and: “We will maintain a stockpile of fewer than 200 operationally available warheads”.

The Strategic Defence and Security Review announced that the current Vanguard-class SSBNs would carry a maximum of eight Trident missiles, and around 40 warheads.

The intention is that the entire stock of nuclear weapons will be certainly no more than 160 by the 2020s. If there is to be one deterrent SSBN on patrol at any one time with eight missiles, with four to six warheads each (the issue of decoys brings the mathematics into a different area!), then this could see the maximum requirement for warheads down to around 100. It is difficult to imagine the Successor-class handling: (a) More missiles than the eight that the current Vanguard-class SSBNs carry; and (b) More warheads than the current Vanguard-class SSBNs carry.

The point here is a simple one: Coulport, as a storage facility, was scaled to stock and handle hundreds of Trident warheads, but the current and future requirements are for far smaller stocks. The current licensed facilities could readily store and handle such numbers, and could do so almost immediately.

As a result, there is no need to replace, in all aspects, least of all size, Coulport as a facility. This means that the cost of Coulport wouldn’t have to be replicated in the same magnitude. This would make the “replacement” of Coulport substantially easier.

In practice, most warheads could be stored at the current maintenance/support facilities at AWE Aldermaston/ Burghfield, with a small satellite facility required for the process of mating to the missiles.

Summary

People, especially the Royal Navy, have become “comfortable” with the current situation regarding nuclear submarine/warhead basing and operations—it is easy to show that of the options available, it was at the time, the best selection.

However, the factors that made Faslane (and RNAD Coulport) the optimal solution in the 1960s-70s would be irrelevant if there was a vote in favour for Scottish independence, followed by a demand for the withdrawal of deterrent systems from Scotland—the suitability or otherwise of Faslane would no longer be open for discussion.

But substantial elements of the deterrent—arguably, most of them—could be moved with little trouble to existing facilities in the rump UK. The one element that requires planning would be for the missile/warhead mating facility, but as this is a floating edifice, it could be moved to another location.

It is true that the resulting operational construct might be less convenient than the current one—but it would be entirely workable. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [18-01-2013 13:16] Job: 022508 Unit: PG12

Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 293

NOTE ON COMPARATIVE SIZES OF NUCLEAR AND CONVENTIONAL SUBMARINE BASES AND WORK FORCES Outline This paper intends to lay out, as far as is possible, the difference in the size of the current Royal Navy ballistic submarine (SSBN) base, and those of conventional submarine (SSK) operators in other European countries. It also intends to show the size of the industrial workforce used to design and build conventional submarines in European shipyards.

Current Situation The submarine facilities at HMNB Faslane employ some 1,000–1,100 people, excluding civilian workforce employed by Babcock as part of the contract to manage the base, and also to support the submarines. RNAD Coulport employs an extra 600–700 staff.

Differences between SSBNs and SSKs The workforce to support SSBNs/SSNs is substantially larger than that required to support SSKs. The principle reason for this is the safety aspect of nuclear reactors, but the complexity of extra systems carried by larger SSNs/SSBNs also adds to the total. The crew size for nuclear submarines also tends to be higher, typically 80–95 for SSNs, 110–130 for SSBNs, as opposed to 30–40 for many SSKs. As SSBNs, too, tend to operate on a “Gold-Blue” double crew systems, to allow for longer, and more manageable deployments, the overall size of the crew required for a fleet of four SSBNs will be six plus complete crews.

European SSK Bases It has to be noted that most European navies operate their submarines from the same bases as surface ships, so some jobs are common across the piece. This is true for Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, and Norway. Some figures for naval base size are: — Sweden: Karlskrona naval base 1,250 personnel (1,000 military, 250 Submarine support element: c300 civilian) — Netherlands: Den Helder naval base 11–1,350 personnel Submariner support element: 350–400 Although it is difficult to get precise triangulation, some of the SSK support services of southern European navies (Spain, Italy, Greece) seem to be larger at 600+ personnel or more.

Conventional Submarine Construction There are three to four shipyards in Europe (Germany, Sweden, France, and potentially Spain) where there are the complete design and construction skills to undertake all aspects of conventional submarine building. There are then several other yards (Italy, Norway, Greece, Turkey) which have the capabilities to build-to-print conventional submarines. The Thyssen Krupp Marine Systems yards in Kiel employ around 1,800 personnel, although there is some non-submarine activity here. It should also be pointed out that TKMS is a world leader in submarine design and construction, so has a large customer base to support from Kiel, which means that there is a larger workforce than would be the case in other countries. The Kockums yard, also owned by TKMS, but based in Sweden, employs directly 3–400 people in support of Swedish national programmes, and the small export business that requires on-going support services. The Navantia yard at Cartagena employed about 400–600 at the peak of the S-80 build programme, but is down at 2–300. Conclusion: The smallest sensible size of a conventional submarine flotilla (on the basis of operation and affordability) is four boats. For manpower, there would be 20–25% of the crew required to man these as opposed to a 4 boat SSBN flotilla. The support of a four boat SSK group would be 40% of that required today for four nuclear SSBNs at a maximum of 400 personnel. The workforce required to build, and then provide longer term in-service support for a four boat SSK fleet in Scotland would be a peak of 5–600 in the middle of construction, falling to 100–150 for support. 14 August 2012 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [18-01-2013 13:16] Job: 022508 Unit: PG12

Ev 294 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

Written evidence from Professor Jo Shaw, Salvesen Chair of European Institutions, University of Edinburgh These notes are based on the points made in my oral presentation and on my responses to questions from members before the Committee at the hearing on 5 September 2012, but they include a number of points that were not emphasised during the Q&A and which deserve closer attention or clarification. They are not detailed explanations of all the issues raised, but rather key points that could usefully be followed up during any future debate. It deals solely with the issues of citizenship and nationality which arise. Issues relation to immigration law and immigration policy should be dealt with separately.

The Purposes and Nature of Citizenship Laws 1. Citizenship laws have a number of purposes, including the assurance of a stable population, and the transmission of “membership” across generations. Factors such as patterns of immigration and emigration are amongst the historical and demographic contingencies that tend to affect the choices that states will make on such questions. Questions of identity and how a nation defines itself—eg by reference ethnic belonging or by reference to a sense of civic belonging within a pluralist and multicultural community based on residence (which seems to be the current Scottish Government’s proposal)—are also important. Typically a mix of factors affects the rules under which citizenship is acquired and lost, and the fact that a state is a “new” state will be another variable that is likely to be influential over a period of time after independence as citizenship definition “beds in”. The “death” of national citizenship is often announced (ie that it is becoming unimportant), but never in practice seems to occur. Citizenship continues to be practically and symbolically important for states, even in the context of EU membership. Citizenship encompasses several key elements around status, rights and identity. In relation to rights, many states now routinely give most rights historically associated with citizenship only to all those who are lawfully on the territory, and increasingly the boundary lines between citizens and non-citizens are blurred. However, rights to vote in national elections are retained in most states by citizens alone, although the UK and Ireland with their now reciprocal arrangements are an exception to that pattern.

Initial Determination of Citizenry and Rules of Acquisition and Loss 2. A distinction needs to be drawn between the initial determination of the citizenry and the rules of acquisition and loss of citizenship after independence. One of the tricky questions is who determines who are the citizens? In the absence of a state, there is no “demos” (ie people) to say who are the citizens in the future, and who can vote—as well—in which elections (resident citizens? non-resident citizens? resident non- citizens?). Clearly, therefore, these are issues that need to be a part of any pre-referendum debate. Comments about the franchise for the referendum and the intersection between this and the initial determination of the citizenry and the subsequent determination of both the franchise and the ongoing rules on acquisition and loss of citizenship follow below. 3. Initial determination raises two questions, namely who votes in any referendum that might drive a process of separation forwards, and second, who would be defined as citizens at the moment of separation and would thus participate in the first and subsequent democratic elections (assuming that these are confined to citizens). In states where a concept of citizenship has evolved over centuries (eg out of concepts of subjecthood) there is no memory of establishing the citizenry. 4. Rules of acquisition and loss are those that all states must have, whether new or old, but they have a particular meaning in the context of newly established states, and in some cases have been the subject of various types of manipulation or “engineering”. Experience, for example in the new small successor states of the former Yugoslavia, has highlighted that political elites can continue to manipulate the rules of acquisition and loss, and consequential political and socio-economic rights attached to citizenship, in problematic ways many years after a state is first established. This can be a particularly difficult question where there are many, or potentially many, external citizens who are not resident in the territory. For states with relatively small electorates, these issues of electoral calculus can be challenging waters for new states to navigate if they want to avoid making the limits of citizenship too inclusive or too exclusive. 5. Substantively, any new state must make certain choices about defining the new citizenry ab initio and then determining—for the future—how citizenship is acquired and lost. There are various factors to be taken into account in establishing both sets of rules, if the decisions about who will become citizens are not to be seen as being over inclusive or over exclusive. We could identify the core elements of the menu of options, across which choices would be made about the scope of the citizenry, as follows: (a) For the initial determination of the citizenry, what degree of connection with Scotland will be demanded for a person to be defined as a Scottish citizen? (i) Birth in the territory (but what about long residence away?). (ii) Residence in the territory (when? how long? must it still be subsisting?). (iii) Consanguinity to those born or residing in the territory (how close? across how many generations is citizenship transmitted to the children of expatriates?). cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [18-01-2013 13:16] Job: 022508 Unit: PG12

Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 295

(iv) Is prior UK citizenship an underlying condition to be included in the initial body of Scottish citizens, or can either EU citizens or third country nationals resident (or born) in Scotland acquire Scottish citizenship (eg by long residence) despite the fact that they (may) have chosen not to take UK citizenship? (b) For the rules on acquisition and loss of citizenship after independence, a distinction needs to be drawn between acquisition: (i) At birth (whether on the basis of birth in the territory, or birth to parents to hold Scottish citizenship, or a combination of the two factors). (ii) After birth (naturalisation of immigrants; possible facilitated naturalisation for returning diaspora). Citizenship acquisition at birth tends to be an automatic, involuntary and unconditional process, although in some circumstances a registration process may be required. But acquisition after birth is not only a voluntary act (one must apply for citizenship) but tends to be conditioned. So, for example, immigrants must satisfy conditions such as time of residence, probity tests, integration/language tests, possible oaths of allegiance or loyalty tests, and fees. There is also generally a discretionary element for most naturalisation processes. (c) One of the peculiarities of the process of creating a new state which needs to be emphasised is that it is (for the new citizens) a case of citizenship acquired after birth, but with the element of automaticity (because of the operation of the definitions contained in the law) which is more akin to the acquisition of citizenship at birth. It is therefore important to point out that the determination of the first generation of new Scots on independence would normally happen automatically by law (or because it is so stated in a new Scottish constitution), but there would be no necessary implication that any individual would have to choose to exercise their Scottish citizenship (eg by registering to vote in an election as a Scottish citizen, by taking a Scottish passport, or by exercising some other (eg socio-economic) right that was exclusive to Scottish citizens). The interaction between new Scottish citizenship and old UK citizenship is discussed in more detail below. 6. In Scotland, because of high levels of mobility (and large numbers of cross-national families) between Scotland and the rest of the UK, both recently and historically, as well as emigration outside the UK over many generations, determining the first generation of Scots will involve very tricky choices about the level of connection to be needed. A large number of external citizens can be a de-stabilising factor for a new state, but in any event the existence of a potential pool of external citizens, even if they not granted citizenship in the first “cut” (if the first cut is entirely residence based which seems likely to be the proposal emanating from the Scottish Government), can also have an influence on party politics and political interests after independence, because they often lobby to be included or to be given facilitated naturalisation rights (with or without residence), and are seen as likely to reward, electorally, those who respond to the lobbying by campaigning for citizenship laws to be more externally inclusive. By the same token, it is worth noting that the UK would face having a large number of (potential) external citizens as a result of the changes to the territory of the UK and this could have significant impacts because of the interface with external voting rights (limited to fifteen years in the UK at present). 7. Internal inclusivity is influenced by Scotland’s putative membership of the European Union, and also by the subsisting electoral rights (to vote in Scottish Parliament elections) enjoyed by EU citizens resident in Scotland at the present time and the proposal that this group should also be included in the referendum franchise. The Scottish Government consultation document suggests that this inclusive franchise should be derived by the principle under which it suggests that the people of Scotland are those who are resident in Scotland.

Constraints: the EU Factor and International Human Rights Law 8. A Scottish separation would be a unique event in the history of new state creation. The factor that makes it unique is that it would be the first case of the break up of an EU Member State, with both states aspiring— we assume—to EU membership. It is, of course, true to say that some of the state break-ups that have occurred in Europe since 1989, such as the dissolution of Czechoslovakia, the independence of the Baltic states, and the break up of Yugoslavia, have occurred under the shadow of EU law. But it is clearly going to be a different type of situation where the existing state is already a member of the EU, both succeeding states are likely to aspire to continued and uninterrupted membership, there are EU citizens exercising their EU citizenship rights in both states (and citizens from both those states who are exercising their rights elsewhere), and where EU law has now—as it has since 1993—stepped into the political domain by requiring that EU citizens should be able to vote in local elections under the same conditions as nationals on the basis of residence in the host state. 9. The issues of how continued EU membership might occur can be left to one side, but for these purposes let us assume that Scotland and the rest of the UK will both be members, with separate citizenship regimes, where such citizens would then in turn also (continue) to be EU citizens. EU law does not as such constrain the new state in relation to the choices that it makes about who are the new citizenry and how would citizenship be passed on through the generations, but the broader EU context, and the rights that are held by current EU citizens (both UK citizens and citizens of other Member States resident in Scotland) does have significant cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [18-01-2013 13:16] Job: 022508 Unit: PG12

Ev 296 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

potential to influence key issues, including the relationship between the status of citizen and the exercise of various kinds of voting rights. Here in brief are some of the issues: (a) EU citizens would vote in the referendum under the current franchise proposals. One reason why the local/Scottish parliament electoral franchise is being chosen is doubtless because it is wholly residence based and avoids the question of external voters (unlike the Westminster franchise). Unless a new franchise/register is invented (eg to exclude EU citizens and perhaps also Commonwealth citizens) then this seems to be the most likely outcome. The question arises as to what happens to this group after independence. Would they be included in the franchise either by (a) being included within the definition of a Scottish citizenship based on residence or (b) being given the right to vote in national elections? While it seems entirely plausible that such rights would be given to Irish and Commonwealth citizens, by extrapolation from the current state of UK and Irish electoral law, both of which give the citizens of the other state the right to vote in national elections, it would be a novelty for an EU Member State to give the right to vote in national elections to all other resident EU citizens, under the same conditions as nationals. (b) If Scotland does decide on an inclusive residence base, this could include also lawfully resident and settled third country nationals who at present may not yet qualify for UK citizenship, or who may have decided not to take it. If Scotland effectively “naturalises” through an inclusive approach to residence a large group of third country nationals, it thus gives them the right to exercise EU citizenship rights, including the rights of free movement and residence, and the right to work, in all other EU Member States. Similar issues could also arise were Scotland to be externally inclusive with its citizenship acquisition, giving citizenship to descendants of emigrants who do not currently qualify for UK citizenship because of limits on intergenerational transfer of UK citizenship. Such issues are a matter of concern to other EU Member States, and states are under an obligation to consult with each other on such matters. (c) In the recent case of Rottmann, the European Court of Justice has stepped into the tricky territory of national sovereignty in relation to the determination of acquisition and—in that case—loss of citizenship. The Court has made it clear that while this is in principle a matter for national law, none the less states must act in such a way that a person who is an EU citizen is not deprived of substantially all the rights of EU citizenship. This could affect decisions about limiting the scope of Scottish citizenship to external citizens, in case the UK also takes action to try and limit the number of external citizens that it might acquire as a result of Scottish independence and the moving of the boundaries of the state. This issue would need to be carefully managed in order to avoid possible cases of statelessness, which is also a factor in relation to the application of international law (see below). 10. There are two principles of international law that constrain both the ab initio and the ongoing citizenship regimes, and these concern the avoidance of statelessness and the prohibition on discrimination (especially as established in the European Convention on Human Rights). Scotland would have a free choice as to whether it wished to sign up to various treaties on nationality matters to which the UK is not a party, such as the European Convention on Nationality.

Citizenship and Relations across these Islands 11. Existing UK citizens in Scotland would continue to hold UK citizenship unless the UK government changed the rules on holding UK citizenship (it has not hitherto been the UK’s practice to deprive people of citizenship because they leave the UK territory; the question is whether it is different because the UK territory leaves them). Experience with the creation of new states highlights that whether people choose to “adopt” new citizenships that they are given after birth as a result of the establishment of a new regime of citizenship tends to be the result mainly of pragmatic considerations based on access to travel documents, access to political rights and access to socio-economic rights such as the right to live and work in more than one state or to welfare rights, perhaps with dash of “identity” thrown in. For those who voted against independence, would taking a Scottish passport be seen as ex post facto approving separation? 12. Obviously there have been precedents when the Dominions and the colonies (as well as Ireland) became independent from the UK (although these almost all predate the modern conception of UK citizenship), but the physical co-location of Scotland with most of the rest of the UK on the same island, the high levels of mobility, the factor of common EU membership, and the arrangements that have been made in relation to citizenship in Northern Ireland (where persons can opt for either or both UK and Irish citizenship) suggest that similar types of arrangements might need to be made for Scotland and the UK. A mass deprivation of UK citizenship from Scottish residents who are Scottish citizens by operation of law might prove to be politically tricky and legally problematic for the UK authorities. In practice, an arrangement based on choice for individuals (hence seeing citizenship as a voluntary act), plus resolution of how electoral rights might play out are likely to be the options taken forward in intergovernmental negotiations between the two states which would then be enshrined in legislation. In that context, dual citizenship may help to maintain flexibility. The UK has a strong tradition of tolerating dual citizenship both for the children of mixed citizen parentage and for migrants (immigrants and emigrants). This would be a useful principle for it to continue to adhere to, and for Scotland also to adopt, although this would be at the cost of significant numbers of external citizens over a number of generations. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [18-01-2013 13:16] Job: 022508 Unit: PG12

Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 297

How is Citizenship Determination (and the Transition to the New Citizenship Regime) Managed? 13. The majority of the examples of state dissolution in post second world war Europe have involved either federal states (Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia) with a “state” level as well as a “federal” level of citizenship on which to base the allocation of citizenship or states where there is a historical tradition of statehood to which reference can be made. Scotland does not fall into either of these categories. This complicates the process of determining the substantive principles on which determination of who to include should be based (see above), but also the pragmatic issue of the process of determining who the citizens actually are, eg through a registration process which would not necessarily be seen as being in the bureaucratic traditions of the UK. It might be seen as partially akin to the electoral registration process, or indeed—more controversially—to the poll tax registration process that was so controversial in Scotland in the 1980s. However, because—unlike Yugoslavia—where there were republic level registers of citizens (however incomplete and inaccurate) to fall back on as a first cut to determine who are the citizens, in Scotland this would not be the case. This would become particularly complicated if any element of external citizenship were to be permitted, because while it might be reasonably certain to determine the current residents (with or without UK citizenship), the task of determining external citizens claiming Scottish citizenship on the basis of birth would be a challenging one and would leave open huge questions as to exactly how many Scottish citizens there really might be. One might suggest that nothing need to be done until a person “claims” Scottish citizenship by seeking to vote as a Scot or to obtain a Scottish passport, but a new state is likely to want to know what the pool of actual and potential citizens might be in order, for example, to be able to say how many votes or MEPs it should or could lay claim to within the European Union. It is worth noting that the history of Yugoslavia and its successor states indicates that it is often the bureaucratic processes of registration (eg for people who do not clearly fall within the new legislative definitions), rather than the legislative statements about the scope of citizenship themselves, which have been the most contentious and fraught aspects of the whole process. It is to be hoped that these can be avoided in the event of Scottish independence by careful future planning and by cooperation between the relevant authorities of the two states.

Sources 14. This briefing paper is based upon my own and colleagues’ research on EU citizenship, the rules of acquisition and loss of citizenship in European states, and the specific of citizenship in the successor states of the former Yugoslavia. Further information can be obtained, in particular, from the following websites: EUDO Citizenship Observatory (co-directors Prof Jo Shaw and Prof Rainer Bauböck of the European University Institute): www.eudo-citizenship.eu CITSEE (the Europeanisation of Citizenship in the Successor States of the Former Yugoslavia) (Principal Investigator Prof Jo Shaw): www.citsee.eu and www.law.ed.ac.uk/citsee 7 September 2012

Written evidence from Dr Phillips O’Brien THE FUTURE OF FASLANE/COULPORT: COMPARABLE TEST CASES The purpose of this paper is to compare the naval facilities of comparable countries to an independent Scotland to see if a facility along the lines of Faslane/Coulport (HM Naval Base Clyde) could be reasonably kept in service if Scotland were to leave the United Kingdom. The comparable nation’s chosen are Norway, Denmark, New Zealand and Ireland. They have approximately the same populations and incomes per capita as Scotland. All have considerable coast lines with numerous islands and all of them stress a strong maritime component in their national defence doctrine. Two of them are NATO members, Norway and Denmark, whilst Ireland and New Zealand are now not formally allied to a United States, UK-backed international alliance structure. Moreover they have enacted a range of “non-nuclear” policies from New Zealand’s strong position requiring all visiting ships to declare that they are not carrying nuclear weapons to Norway and Denmark, who operate what is best termed a “Don’t Ask-Don’t Tell” nuclear policy.

Comparable Equipment At present Faslane/Coulport is the home of the UK’s nuclear deterrent and its new generation of hunter- killer submarines. None of the comparable countries with the exception of Norway, maintain a submarine force. Indeed the move has been against maintaining submarine forces with Denmark deciding in 2004 to decommission its remaining two submarines and discontinue it plans to purchase four new submarines from pan-Scandinavian “Viking” project. Neither New Zealand nor Ireland have any plans to deploy a submarine force at present. Norway does maintain in service six ULA class submarines. These are small boats of 1,040 tons with a crew of 21. Even if Scotland matched this appropriation it would not need a facility nearly as large as Faslane/ Coulport. In terms of basing submarine forces, there seems to be no comparable facility. Even assuming that cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [18-01-2013 13:16] Job: 022508 Unit: PG12

Ev 298 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

an independent Scotland wanted to maintain a submarine force as large as Norway’s (a precarious assumption), it would need a far smaller facility.

An All-Inclusive Naval Facility

Turning again to the Norwegian example, it is here that we have the closest comparison to a base with the personnel needs and modern facilities to Faslane/Coulport. According to the public statements of the UK MOD, HM Naval Base Clyde employs approximately 6,000 personnel in total, including military and civilian workers. The naval base at Haakonsvern, eight kilometres west of Bergen, Norway’s second largest city, is the combined home port for the entire Norwegian Fleet including submarines, surface vessels, command structure, and naval officer training school. It has a publically stated personnel component (again both military and civilian) of approximately 4,000. Outside of the new Norwegian coast guard complex being constructed in Sortland much further to the north, Haaksonsvern contains all of Norway’s naval assets. These include five frigates, six submarines, six new fast attack craft as well as a large number of diverse smaller craft.

Therefore if an independent Scotland maintained a naval force as large as that of Norway, and decided to base this entire force in one facility, it would be a facility smaller but roughly comparable to HM Naval Base Clyde. However this begs the question of whether such an all-inclusive facility should be located in Faslane/ Coulport. Bergen is ideally located to cover Norway’s strategic needs. It is ice-free year round with relatively quick access to cover both the entrances to the Oslo fjords and also the northern coast. Faslane/Coulport is everything that Bergen is not in terms of location. It is located on a difficult to reach extremity of the Scottish coast, with a very long sailing time to the East Coast where most of the Scottish oil fields are located.

If Scotland were not to maintain as large a naval force as Norway, it seems impossible to see how the new country could maintain a naval facility more than 25% as large as Faslane/Coulport is at present. Of the comparative countries, the next largest naval force is Denmark’s. The Danish Navy is composed of seven frigates and a number of different patrol and specialized craft. The Danes have divided this force into two squadrons. The first in Fredrikshaven specializes in domestic security and has a total of 600 personnel, military and civilian. The second, which specializes in Denmark’s international responsibilities including its NATO maritime operations, is based in Korsor and contains about 500 personnel. This basing model might make a great deal of sense for an independent Scotland in NATO, but it certainly would make it impossible to maintain a facility comparable to Faslane/Coulport.

The non-NATO countries Ireland and New Zealand have, like Norway, opted for one major naval base. However they maintain such small naval forces that each of their central facilities is at most around 20–25% as large as Faslane/Coulport. Ireland bases its entire force of eight large patrol boats at Haulbowline in Co Cork. However, even with this concentration the authorised maximum personnel strength at Haulbowline is 1,144. New Zealand has a navy based around two frigates and a number of smaller craft. This force is concentrated at Devonport, though as the entire New Zealand Navy employs less than 3,000 personnel in total, including civilian employees, it is much smaller than Faslane/Coulport. It must also be mentioned that these concentrated facilities are well located to cover Ireland and New Zealand’s maritime interests unlike Faslane.

It is conceivable but perhaps not particularly logical that a non-NATO Scotland could maintain a naval force considerably larger than New Zealand or Ireland. If it did so, it would represent a completely new and much more expensive model.

A Mixed-Use Facility

If an independent Scotland decided to concentrate its either a large element of its ground and air forces as well as its entire naval force then it would be conceivably possible for it to maintain a facility similar in size to HM Naval Base Clyde. When it comes to rebasing aircraft to Faslane/Coulport there is a major issue to consider and that at present there is no airstrip or air basing facilities nearby, and these can be extremely expensive to construct. Moreover, the terrain in the area of Faslane is extremely hilly and does not lend itself to the construction of an airstrip.

Rebasing army units to Faslane might be logistically easier and represent the most sensible option to maintain a facility approximately as large as at present. However this would require the closure of different existing facilities now in Scotland. 10 September 2012 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [18-01-2013 13:16] Job: 022508 Unit: PG12

Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 299

Written evidence from the Electoral Commission

This note provides additional information requested by the Committee to supplement the Commission’s oral evidence on 4 July 2012. It deals with the subject of possible arrangements for voluntary disclosure in respect of the funding of and spending by campaigners at a Scottish referendum in the period before the regulated referendum period.

The Commission has made clear that we would welcome a statutory regulatory role at a Scottish referendum, and that the statutory regulation period should begin at least 16 weeks before polling day. However, we do not believe it would be appropriate for us to have an oversight role for any voluntary disclosure arrangements in the period before statutory regulation begins. Without legal powers to monitor and regulate, we would not be able to take steps to check the accuracy of any returns made to us under such arrangements, which would in turn mean we were unable to vouch for the accuracy of any data we were to publish. We would not want to risk the high levels of public confidence in the data we currently publish on a statutory basis being undermined by our publishing potentially less reliable data in this context. In addition, a voluntary agreement overseen by the Commission would also create the inaccurate and undesirable perception that should it be breached, we would have the power to act.

Background

1.0 For referendums held under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA), campaigners are subject to controls on the sources of funding they can accept for campaigning during the regulated referendum period and on the amount of campaign spending they can incur during that period. The length of the referendum period for each referendum is set in the enabling legislation.

1.1 Prior to the start of the regulatory controls for each referendum, donations to political parties and other regulated organisations and individuals continue to be regulated as normal under PPERA.

1.2 At referendums where the PPERA rules apply, during the referendum period: — campaigners that want to spend more than £10,000 must register with us; — registered campaigners can only accept donations of more than £500 towards spending during the referendum period from sources with specified connections to the UK; — registered campaigners are subject to spending limits set depending on the type of organisation—PPERA sets the limits for UK-wide referendums whilst the relevant Secretary of State sets the limits for referendums in parts of the UK; and — after the poll registered campaigners must report donations and spending to us for publication. The report must include details of spending, information about permissible donations over £7,500, and all impermissible donations. We have recommended that at future PPERA referendums the rules should be amended to provide for some donation reporting before polling day.

1.3 The enabling legislation for a Scottish referendum will set out the applicable rules for the referendum, including the length of the referendum period, the spending limits, the controls on the sources of donations and the reporting requirements in respect of donations and campaign spending. We have said the regulated referendum period should be at least 16 weeks long.

Possible Voluntary Arrangements

1.4 The Committee has invited our views on the issues that campaigners would need to consider if they wish to set up voluntary arrangements for disclosing information about funding and/or spending before the start of the referendum period.

1.5 The remainder of this note summarises our view of (i) the general scope of any voluntary arrangement, in terms of the range of requirements that could be included in the arrangement, (ii) the detailed information and/or controls that would need to be reported or applied in respect of each requirement, and (iii) the supporting processes that would be need to be put in place to enable any voluntary arrangement.

Overall Scope

1.6 The requirements that might be included in a voluntary arrangement are: — reporting on funding (donations and potentially also loans) accepted by campaigners; — restrictions on the sources of funding accepted by campaigners; — reporting on spending by campaigners; and — restrictions on the level of spending by campaigners. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [18-01-2013 13:16] Job: 022508 Unit: PG12

Ev 300 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

1.7 It would in principle be possible for a voluntary arrangement to include some or all of these requirements. Campaigners would need to agree both the set of requirements to be included in the voluntary arrangement and the detailed rules that would apply in respect of each requirement that is included. 1.8 As discussed in our oral evidence to the Committee on 4 July 2012, for any arrangement to be effective it would be important for reporting by different campaigners to be in a consistent format. We have set out below our initial thoughts on how this might be achieved.

Reporting on Funding 1.9 The issues that would need to be agreed include: — Whether loans as well as donations should be covered. Loans are not covered by the generic PPERA referendum rules, but they were regulated at the UK Parliamentary voting system referendum in 2011 and we have recommended that they should be regulated at future PPERA referendums. — Which campaigners should report on funding. We would not anticipate a need for registered political parties to report since they already report donations and loans to the Commission on a regular basis. — The threshold above which funding should be reported. PPERA applies a £7,500 threshold for donations to parties, third party campaigners at elections and referendum campaigners. — The information to be published in respect of each donation, loan etc. PPERA requires us to publish the names of individual donors, but not their addresses (which are reported to us for permissibility checking purposes). We publish the names, addresses and where relevant registration numbers of non-individual donors such as companies. — How frequently campaigners should report funding received. PPERA requires registered parties to report donations and loans every three months; other regulated individuals and members associations must report donations and loans as they accept them. Referendum campaigners and third party campaigners at elections are required to report donations after the poll, but as noted above we have recommended that an element of pre-poll reporting should apply at future PPERA referendums.

Restrictions on Sources of Funding 1.10 The issues that would need to be agreed include: — The threshold above which funding should be restricted. PPERA applies a £500 threshold above which donations and loans can only be accepted by parties and regulated campaigners if they come from a permissible source. — Which sources should be regarded as permissible. PPERA sets a standard framework for this, and we publish guidance on the requirements and how to check whether donations and loans are permissible. Our guidance on this for regulated referendum campaigners is published on our website: http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/105615/sp-permissibility- pvs-rc.pdf — Associated process issues, including how long campaigners should have to check, and decide, whether to accept a donation, and whether donations that campaigners have rejected because they have identified that they are impermissible should be reported.

Reporting on Spending 1.11 It would be necessary to agree what spending should be reportable, and at what frequency. PPERA sets a framework for what spending by regulated referendum campaigners is controlled and reportable, and our guidance on this is published on our website: http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/105607/to-spending-pvs-rc.pdf

Restrictions on Level of Spending 1.12 It would be necessary to agree what voluntary limits, if any, should apply to spending before the regulated referendum period begins. We have described our views on the spending limits during the referendum period for a Scottish referendum in our response to the UK Government and Scottish Government consultations which is available at: http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/146927/The-Scottish- referendum-Response-to-consultations.pdf cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [18-01-2013 13:16] Job: 022508 Unit: PG12

Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 301

Supporting Arrangements 1.13 Issues for consideration include: — whether an external facilitator should be invited to enable discussions between campaigners; — which campaigners and prospective campaigners should be invited to agree the arrangement; — whether there should be a process for new campaigners to join the arrangement over time, and how that could happen; — where and how the information should be published and updated; and — what should happen if a party to the arrangement does not comply with it. For example: — Whether there should be a process for correcting mistakes in information provided. — What should happen in the event of a disagreement about the nature of the requirements or an allegation that a requirement has not been complied with. 25 July 2012

Letter from the Rt Hon Michael Moore, Secretary of State for Scotland to Ian Davidson MP, Chair I would like to thank the Committee for inviting the Rt Hon David Mundell and me to give evidence on 17 September. Whilst giving evidence, I promised to write to the Committee to provide further information on foreign donations in relation to the 2011 referendum on the law making powers of the National Assembly for Wales. The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (“PPERA”) sets out rules for general and certain local elections and certain referendums held in the UK or a particular part of the UK. PPERA sets out rules on donations for elections and referendums regulated under PPERA. These rules apply to Scottish Parliament elections by virtue of PPERA and the Scottish Parliament (Elections etc) Order 2010. The Order for the 2011 Wales referendum did not modify PPERA in relation to foreign donations, and the usual rules on permitted donors therefore applied. Section 54(2) of PPERA sets out a list of permissible donors, which applies to elections or referendums regulated under the Act. Permissible donors include an individual registered on a UK electoral register (including overseas electors), and most UK-registered companies. In the 2011 Wales referendum, donations from within the UK but outside Wales were permitted. September 2012

Written evidence submitted by the Ministry of Defence Following the evidence session with the Minister for Defence Equipment, Support and Technology and Minister for the Armed Forces on 13 June 2012, further background information is attached. Also included is a summary of the defence footprint in Scotland, which is part of an integrated, overall defence footprint organised, resourced and managed on a UK-wide basis. The establishment figure for a regiment does not include officers.

Procurement Spend Exemptions From EU Regulations (Including Article 346 Exemptions) While the majority of exempt procurements come under the auspices of Article 346, and this particularly applies to high value procurement, there are other exclusions that the Department may use from time to time. These are: — disclosure of highly sensitive classified information; — intelligence activities; — cooperative programmes based on Research and Development (R&D) between European Union (EU) Member States; — local purchases during military or security operations outside the EU; — international procedural rules of international organisation or international agreement; — acquisition of land; — government to government sales; — arbitration or conciliation services; — financial services except insurance services; — employment and other contracts of service; and — R&D services exempt where the Authority takes exclusive rights cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [18-01-2013 13:16] Job: 022508 Unit: PG12

Ev 302 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

The Department does not hold information on the percentage of procurement spend that is exempt from EU regulations following the application of Article 346 specifically. The MOD does, however, collect data on all exemptions from EU regulations relating to the contract expenditure that is contained on the Department’s Defence Bills Services (DBS) database; this database covers approximately 95% by value of the Department’s contract expenditure, excluding that which is set up, for example, by Trading Funds and Executive Non Departmental Public Bodies, which lie outside the MOD’s accounting boundary. It also excludes miscellaneous contracts (ie where the payment method employed does not require an actual contract number to be generated) and expenditure on Government Procurement Cards. This is shown in the table below for payments made in the last two financial years: Exempt Marking 2010Ð11 Payments 2011Ð12 Payments* Unknown £1,220,274,134 6.2% £1,064,250,460 5.4% Non-Exempt £5,985,040,642 30.5% £6,050,706,867 30.4% Exempt £12,402,191,407 63.3% £12,761,099,921 64.2%

*Provisional date awaiting confirmation from DBS Finance There is one further important caveat to the data contained in the table. EU regulations do not apply for contract expenditure below certain defined thresholds. It is not possible from the data collected to determine the amount of payments which have been declared “exempt” where they fall below the threshold, rather than the application by MOD of a particular exemption, such as Article 346.

Contractual Obligations You asked, should Scotland become independent, whether or not we would have the ability to tell a company to move its production from Scotland to the remainder of the UK, if it was in the best interests of the remainder of the UK taxpayers. In short the answer is that it would depend on the terms of the particular contract and the importance, with regard to performance of the contract, that it be carried out in the remainder of the UK. My officials are trying to arrange a briefing for you on commercial issues and will be in contact when they have some dates to offer.

Difference between Officer and Soldier Training Soldier Training A soldier’s basic training is 14 weeks long and is military based with training in fieldcraft, skill at arms, fitness, military knowledge etc, after which they move on to their specialised trade training, ie infantry, engineering etc.

Officer Training The 44-week Commissioning Course for Officers, spread over three terms, is designed to develop leadership potential and an Officer Cadet’s character, intellect and professionalism in addition to military training. At the end of the course a newly-commissioned Officer will be qualified to lead and manage soldiers while at the same time upholding the British Army’s core values of selfless commitment, respect for others, loyalty, integrity, discipline and courage. Military training is infantry-based so that everyone, no matter what their eventual regiment or corps, will have mastered the core essentials before they go on to more specialised training after Sandhurst. Overall, the core objectives of the Commissioning Course are: — To develop commanders of courage and willpower, with the temperament for decisive action in difficult and dangerous circumstances. — To foster attitudes to integrity, selflessness and loyalty which set the soldier apart from others. — To teach Officer Cadets how to think and communicate as commanders and to foster a deep interest and care for the individual. — To achieve a grounding in British Military Doctrine and its significance in all forms of conflict. — To encourage the analysis of strategic and war studies as a foundation to military thought and wisdom. — To train Officer Cadets in the basic skills and battlefield disciplines of soldiering.

Process for an Officer to Join the Black Watch Officer Cadets are not allocated, nor have they applied, to any regiment or corps when they begin their training at Sandhurst, although they probably have a preference in mind. It is in Term 2 that Officer Cadets have to make a final decision about which regiment or corps they wish to join. They must narrow their choices cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [18-01-2013 13:16] Job: 022508 Unit: PG12

Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 303

down to just two—or three if they are applying to join the Army Air Corps, which has strict medical requirements. Selection interviews start in Week 12, when a regiment or corps selects which candidates to accept, and by the end of term most people know which regiment or corps they will be joining after Sandhurst. Whether they get their preferred choice depends on if the regiment or corps wants them, vacancies and on their level of performance at Sandhurst. An Officer Cadet who wishes to join the Royal Regiment of Scotland (SCOTS) will be interviewed and either offered or declined a commission with them dependent upon the number of commissions available for that year. During the Senior term, those Officer Cadets who have been offered a commission with SCOTS will be then be informed which of the battalions/regiments have Platoon Commander vacancies available to be filled. The Officer Cadets can indicate their preference that they wish to go to 3 SCOTS (Black Watch) but there are no guarantees that this is where they will go. This is standard practice across all cap badges.

Referendum Franchise Officials in the MOD remain in contact with Scotland Office officials on a wide range of issues in relation to the referendum, including the franchise. Members of HM Forces and their spouses or civil partners are entitled to vote in an election providing that they have registered to vote, either as an ordinary voter, an overseas voter (if applicable) or a Service voter. As an ordinary voter, the Service person would register at their permanent address, which can be a private address or if living in Service accommodation, the address of that accommodation. A Service voter can register an address where they currently reside in the UK, an address where they would be living if they were not in the Services or an address where they have lived in the past. In the latter case this could be a parent’s address, or a previous private or Service residence. As a Service voter, someone who was resident outside of Scotland but registered to vote there would be able to vote in the independence referendum if the franchise for a referendum on Scottish independence were to be the same as the devolved legislature franchise. We encourage all members of the Armed Forces to register to vote and advise them on the registration and voting options available. The way they choose to register is a personal choice and very much influenced by their own personal circumstances. Together with the Electoral Commission we run an annual campaign informing personnel and their families about voting matters.

Defence Footprint In Scotland Overview 1. As at 1 April 2012 there were 15,880 regular armed forces and MOD civilian personnel based in Scotland: 11,190 regular armed forces and 4,690 MOD civilians (full-time equivalents). 2. There were also over 3,000 volunteer reserves and 17,000 cadets. 3. As at January 2012 MOD had over 50 locations in Scotland. As at 1 April 2011 MOD had land holdings (owned, leased or with legal rights) totalling 146,000 hectares.

Naval Service 4. As at 1 April 2012 there were 4,530 regular naval service personnel based in Scotland. There were also some 300 maritime reserves and 1,300 cadets. 5. Most naval service personnel are based at HM Naval Base Clyde, which includes the submarine port at Faslane and the RN armament depot at Coulport. In all, over 6,000 naval service, MOD civilian and contractors’ personnel work at the base. The base is the home port of the UK’s nuclear deterrent and on current plans will become home to all RN submarines by 2017, including the nuclear powered fleet of attack submarines. It is also home to: Flag Officer Scotland, Northern England and Northern Ireland/Flag Officer Reserves; Flag Officer Sea Training Director (North); 43 Commando Fleet Protection Group Royal Marines; First Mine Countermeasures Squadron; and the Northern Diving Group. Vessels based there are: — four Vanguard Class SSBN submarines; — one, to be followed post-build by a further six, Astute Class SSN attack submarines; — in the meantime, and by 2017, at least three Trafalgar Class SSN attack submarines; — seven Sandown Class mine countermeasures vessels; and — two patrol boats. 6. 45 Commando RM is based at RM Condor, Arbroath. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [18-01-2013 13:16] Job: 022508 Unit: PG12

Ev 304 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

7. There are two RN Reserves units in Rosyth (HMS SCOTIA) and Greenock (HMS DALRIADA) and a detachment in Inverness. HQ RM Reserves is in Glasgow, with detachments in Dundee, Aberdeen and Inverness. 8. There are also seven Combined Cadet Force RN sections and one Combined Cadet Force RM section and 38 Sea Cadet units (three of which also have RM Cadet detachments) in Scotland.

Army 9. As at 1 April 2012 there were 3,250 regular army personnel based in Scotland. There were also some 2,500 volunteer reserves and 12,250 cadets. 10. General Officer Commanding Scotland and Headquarters 51 (Scottish) Brigade, which have responsibility for the Army across the whole of Scotland, are based at Stirling. The Army Personnel Centre is based in Glasgow. 11. There are four regular light role infantry battalions based in Scotland: — The Royal Scots Borderers, 1st Battalion Royal Regiment of Scotland (1 SCOTS) at Dreghorn Barracks, Edinburgh; — The Royal Highland Fusiliers, 2nd Battalion Royal Regiment of Scotland (2 SCOTS) at Glencorse Barracks, Penicuik; — The Black Watch, 3rd Battalion Royal Regiment of Scotland (3 SCOTS) at Fort George, near Inverness; and — 3rd Battalion The Rifles at Redford Barracks, Edinburgh. 12. 39 Engineer Regiment (Air Support) is scheduled to move to Kinloss later this year. 13. There are also five Scottish-recruited regular units based outside Scotland: — 1st Battalion Scots Guards, an armoured infantry battalion based in Catterick as part of 4 Mechanised Brigade; — The Royal Scots Dragoon Guards, an armoured regiment based in Fallingbostel, Germany with 7 Armoured Brigade; — The Highlanders, 4th Battalion Royal Regiment of Scotland (4 SCOTS), currently a light role infantry battalion (having re-roled from armoured infantry to support operations in Afghanistan) based in Fallingbostel, Germany as part of 7 Armoured Brigade; — The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, 5th Battalion royal Regiment of Scotland (5 SCOTS), an air assault battalion based in Canterbury as part of 16 Air Assault Brigade; and — 19th Regiment Royal Artillery (The Highland Gunners), an artillery regiment equipped with light guns and AS90 based in Tidworth with 1 Mechanised Brigade. (Note: 40th Regiment Royal Artillery (The Lowland Gunners), a light artillery regiment based in Lisburn as part of 19 Light Brigade, has been disbanded along with 19 Light Brigade as part of the restructuring of the Army following the Strategic Defence and Security Review). 14. There are seven major Territorial Army (TA) units under command of 51 (Scottish) Brigade: — 105 Regiment Royal Artillery; — 71 Engineer Regiment; — 6th Battalion Royal Regiment of Scotland (52nd Lowland) (6 SCOTS); — 7th Battalion Royal Regiment of Scotland (51st Highland) (7 SCOTS); — 225 Medical Regiment; — The Scottish Transport Regiment; and — Regional Training Centre (Scotland). 15. There are a further two major and seven minor TA units based in Scotland but under command of brigade headquarters outside Scotland: — 32 Signal Regiment; — 205 Field Hospital; — A Company 4th Battalion The Parachute Regiment; — 243 Company RMP; — 52 Military Intelligence Company; — Two Signal Squadron (38 Signal Regiment); — 125 Ration Squadron (159 Supply Regiment); — Personnel Recovery Unit Edinburgh; and — Personnel Recovery Centre Edinburgh. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [18-01-2013 13:16] Job: 022508 Unit: PG12

Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 305

16. There are four Officer Training Corps in Aberdeen, Edinburgh, Glasgow and Tayforth (comprising Dundee, St. Andrews and Stirling), eight Army Cadet Force battalions, two independent sub-units (Orkney and Shetland Islands) and 15 Combined Cadet Force Army sections.

RAF 17. As at 1 April 2010 there were 3,420 regular RAF personnel based in Scotland. There were also some 300 volunteer reserves and 3,300 cadets. 18. There are currently three main RAF stations in Scotland: — RAF Lossiemouth, which is home to: three squadrons of Tornado fast jet aircraft, a search and rescue helicopter unit, and an RAF Regiment field squadron; — RAF Leuchars, which is home to: a squadron of Typhoon fast jet aircraft, an RAF Regiment field squadron and a military mountain rescue team; and — RAF Kinloss, which used to be home to Nimrod maritime reconnaissance aircraft but ceased routine flying operations last year. The station is also home to the Aeronautical Rescue Co- ordination Centre and a military mountain rescue team. 39 Engineer Regiment (Air Support) is scheduled to move to Kinloss later this year. 19. There are four Royal Auxiliary Air Force squadrons in Scotland, as well as two University Air Squadrons, two Air Experience Flights, 87 Air Training Corps squadrons and 10 Combined Cadet Force RAF sections.

Estate/Infrastructure 20. MOD owns outright some 29,000 hectares of land in Scotland. The Department also holds rights over 117,000 hectares. 21. Apart from the main bases, much of the MOD estate in Scotland consists of training areas for infantry and armoured vehicles, air weapon and air defence trials and training, test ranges for missiles and ordnance and other specialised training environments. 22. Other MOD sites include: Defence Support Group at Stirling; radar heads; and specialised research and development centres, such as the underwater test and evaluation centre and a seismic monitoring station. July 2012

BRIEFING FOR THE SCOTTISH AFFAIRS SELECT COMMITTEE FOLLOWING THE EVIDENCE SESSION ON 13 JUNE WITH MINISTER(AF) AND MINISTER(DEST) The Committee asked for further information about the structure of the UK’s Armed Forces. This is set out in the Annexes. The Committee also asked for further information on possible scenarios for future Armed Forces presence in Scotland. As agreed with the Committee providing any information of this type would be purely speculative and, as we are not undertaking any contingency planning, we have not provided this information.

Annex A DATED 22 JUNE 2012 Royal Regiment of Scotland—Personnel Below are the numbers of service personnel in each battalion of the Royal Regiment of Scotland.

Regulars Soldier Officer 1 Scots 517 33 The Royal Scots Borderers 2 Scots 448 29 The Royal Highland Fusiliers 3 Scots 520 35 Black Watch 4 Scots 460 28 The Highlanders 5 Scots 465 33 Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders Total Regulars 2,410 158 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [18-01-2013 13:16] Job: 022508 Unit: PG12

Ev 306 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

Reserves Soldier Officer 6 Scots 253 25 52nd Lowland 7 Scots 327 25 51st Highland Total Reserves 580 50

Annex B DATED 22 JUN 2012 How the Army is Constituted Introduction The British Army is comprised of a number of Arms and Services that perform different functions which are all aimed at producing what we call force elements at readiness. These Arms and Services are comprised of Regular and Territorial Army elements. The information below explains in outline the purpose of the Army (the concept of force elements at readiness), how it is organised to meet that purpose when on deployments and during peace-time, and the Regimental System.

Force Elements at readiness The Army Headquarters commands all Army activity, the purpose of which is to provide the Permanent Joint Headquarters (which commands all troops on overseas operations) with Force Elements at Readiness. A force element is an organisation or group of organisations that is tailored to a particular operation, it can vary in size capability and endurance. This force element will require an effort to be made in order to place it where it can provide operational effect in line with the purpose of the deployment, and the measure of this effort is defined by the “readiness” of the force. A force element with low readiness might need to be re-roled, organised, assembled and trained before it can deploy, and a high readiness force may only need the briefest of preparation periods before deployment. The force element that deploys to an operation is grouped from the basic organisations of the peace-time British Army: arms and services that are organised into regiments and corps.

Arms and Services Arms are the elements of the British Army that fight adversaries in the field of battle, Services are the elements that support the preparation and sustainment of the Arms. Arms and Services are divided up into Combat Arms, Combat Support Arms and Combat Service Support Arms. The Combat Arms are organised and trained to conduct close combat with adversaries, they are the Household Cavalry and Royal Armoured Corps, the Infantry and the Army Air Corps. The Combat Support Arms are providing direct support to the Combat Arms and include the Royal Artillery, the Royal Engineers, the Royal Signals and the Intelligence Corps. The Combat Service Support Arms provide sustainment and support for the Combat and Combat Support Arms. Whilst Combat Service Support personnel are not intended to close with and engage opposition forces, the fluidity of the modern battlefield means that these personnel are likely to be engaged in close combat at times and will need to be trained to operate in this environment, they include the Royal Logistic Corps, the Corps of Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, the Army Medical Services and the Adjutant General’s Corps. The Territorial Army is constructed in a similar manner with particular posts being held by regular personnel in order to support the command, and administration of its constituent organisations.

Peace-time Army hierarchy The Army is commanded by the Chief of the General Staff, a four star general and organised into three functional areas each commanded by a three star general (Lieutenant General): Land Forces, Force Development and Training (which includes the various training schools, equipment programmers and capability directorates), and the Adjutant General’s area responsible for managing the Army’s personnel. The bulk of the Army is under command of the Commander Land Forces. This is the area where the Divisions, Brigades, Regiments and Battalions are organised during peace time. Land Forces also includes organisations with support and administrative command roles that are linked to the geographical area within which they reside; they include London District, British Forces Germany, the Regional Brigades and Headquarters Scotland. The geographically defined support and administrative command organisations are fairly small organisations that are usually limited to headquarters areas. The Field Army Divisions, of which there are two, and the Joint Helicopter Command, contain almost all of the Combat Arms, about half of the Combat Support Arms and a significant proportion of the Combat Service Support Arms. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [18-01-2013 13:16] Job: 022508 Unit: PG12

Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 307

The Field Army Divisions and the Joint Helicopter Command

The British Army has 2 Field Army Divisions, 1st (UK) Armoured Division based in Germany, and 3rd (UK) Division based in the UK, and the Joint Helicopter Command. Each of these organisations is commanded by a 2 Star officer (for example a Major General) and contains a number of deployable combat Manoeuvre Brigades of which the Army has seven in total commanded by a Brigadier (1 Star). They are not organised on geographical lines, they are organised in accordance with their varying capabilities to produce the most balanced force on which to base an operational deployment.

These Brigades are comprised of Regiments and Battalions from the Arms and Services and when deployed or preparing for a deployment, will re-organise these Regiments and Battalions, commonly referred to as “units”, specifically to support the operational effect that the commander wishes to achieve. In peace-time, they remain organised along exclusively regimental or corps lines, for example the Light Dragoons is a Royal Armoured Corps Regiment (or “unit”) commanded by a Lieutenant Colonel that is based in Norfolk, commanded by Commander 12 Mechanized Brigade, a Brigadier based with his Headquarters in Wiltshire, who in turn is commanded by the General Officer Commanding the 3rd (UK) Division based in Wiltshire. Another example, is 1st Battalion, the Royal Irish Regiment is an Infantry Battalion (or unit) commanded by a Lieutenant Colonel that is based in Shropshire, commanded by Commander 16 Air Assault Brigade, a Brigadier based with his Headquarters in Essex, who in turn is commanded by the Commander of the Joint Helicopter Command Division based in Hampshire.

The historic Regimental System of the British Army

Underpinning all of this regional and operational based command groupings, is the Regimental system. This is similar to a college system within a university; you might represent the university at sport, but you are from a particular college and always will be. A solider or officer enlists into a particular parent regiment, corps or “cap badge” and remains of that denomination throughout their military service. During the course of their Army career, they may be posted between a number of organisations either outside their parent “cap-badge” or within it; according to their skill-set. For example, a Royal Signals soldier who completes training may be posted to 207 Headquarters & Signals Squadron in Hohne, Germany where he will support Headquarters 7th Armoured Brigade. After a couple of years he may be promoted and posted to 3rd Divisional Signals Regiment in Bulford, Wiltshire to do a similar job supporting Headquarters 3rd (UK) Division. Alternatively an Infantry officer, Commissioned from the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst into his parent Regiment, the RIFLES, may serve for five years as junior officer in the Second Battalion in Northern Ireland, but may then be posted to a Regional Brigade Headquarters in Southern England where he is the only representative of his Regiment working in that organisation. Later on in his career, he might be posted back to another Battalion in his Regiment to be the Operations Officer. He will spend his career wearing the RIFLES beret and uniform, and serving in RIFLES Battalions and other larger organisations.

As a result of the histories of the various corps and regiments, and the requirements over the years to raise and disband many parts of the British Army, not all parent regiments and corps are the same size. For example, the Royal Irish Regiment currently has only one Regular Battalion and one Territorial Army Battalion, however it has reached its current shape and size as a result of the various amalgamations and disbandments of its antecedent regiments and battalions, which number over 15. This can be contrasted with the Royal Regiment of Scotland, which in its current guise has a much larger number of five Regular and two Territorial Battalions, all of whom reached their current shape and size due to particular amalgamations and disbandments of its antecedent regiments and battalions peculiar to past Scottish Infantry regiments.

The net result of these amalgamations and disbandments is that some Infantry Regiments (or cap-badges) have more Regular and TA Battalions than others, but each Battalion is the same size. There are some minor variations in the sizes of units (Infantry Battalions, Royal Armoured Corps Regiments, Royal Engineer Regiments etc) dependent upon their specific role, for example an Armoured Infantry unit that operated from Infantry Fighting Vehicles requires up to 100 more soldiers than a light role Infantry Battalion whose primary means of transport is by foot. This is because there is an extra requirement for specialists to command and maintain the Infantry Fighting Vehicles in an Armoured Infantry Battalion (or “unit”). In the Royal Engineers, a Close Support Engineer Regiment such as 26 Engineer Regiment based in Hampshire supporting 12 Mechanized Brigade has over 600 soldiers in it, but a specialist Force Support Engineer Regiment such as 39 Engineer Regiment which is configured for airfield damage repair, rapid runway provision and delivering the lead air support squadron (a rapidly deployable infrastructure support squadron that supports the RAF when it is deployed abroad) has over 100 fewer soldiers in it. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [18-01-2013 13:16] Job: 022508 Unit: PG12

Ev 308 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

Open source British Army website http://www.army.mod.uk/structure/structure.aspx

Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_of_the_British_Army

Annex C DATED 22 JUN 2012 HMNB Clyde As of June 2012, there are approximately 6,300 personnel working at Her Majesty’s Naval Base (HMNB) Clyde, including the Royal Naval Armaments Depot Coulport. This consists of approximately: 3,350 service personnel; 1,300 MOD civilians; and 1650 civilian contractors. This number includes all lodger units at the Naval Base, and excludes contractors and subcontractors who are not resident on site. It should be noted that the total number of personnel will fluctuate on a daily basis as staff are posted in and out of the Naval Base, and contractors’ taskings vary. Furthermore, these numbers will increase gradually in the run up to all RN submarines being based at the base from 2017.

Annex D DATED 22 JUN 2012 RAF in Scotland The number of RAF Personnel as at 1 April 2012 located in Scotland was around 3,400 personnel. There were also some 300 volunteer reserves. There are also around 550 civilians at RAF bases in Scotland. The exact number of Tornados based at RAF Lossiemouth varies on a day-to-day basis depending on the tasking that they are given, but there are nominally 46 airframes allocated to squadrons there: 13 to each of the two operational squadrons and 20 to the Operational Conversion Unit. In addition, there will be a number of airframes on the unit undertaking maintenance, being prepared for, or recovered from, deployment to Afghanistan, or else in temporary storage. There are currently no Typhoon aircraft based at Lossiemouth, however, it is planned over the 2013–14 period to transfer the Typhoon squadrons currently at RAF Leuchars to RAF Lossiemouth.

What are the other bases that provide fast jests in the UK There are a number of military bases in the UK with Fast Jet aircraft, with some covering operational roles and the others training roles; each location varies greatly in its size, capacity and infrastructure. There are Tornado GR4 aircraft based at RAF Marham and Lossiemouth, and Typhoon aircraft at RAF Leuchars and Coningsby. Additionally, Coningsby is home to a small number of Tornados of the Operational Evaluation Unit. RAF Leeming has Hawk aircraft, as does RAF Scampton (the Red Arrows), RAF Valley (fast jet training) and RNAS Yeovilton and Culdrose for the Royal Navy. Finally, a small number of aircraft are operated by the Test Pilot School at MOD Boscombe Down.

How long would it take to fly from that base (Lincolnshire) to Lossiemouth? Transit times will depend on the route and speed of the aircraft and whether it is authorised to fly at supersonic speeds.

Essentially what is the advantage of being able to launch fast jets from a base in Scotland? It would be best to answer this question by describing the role of the Quick Reaction Alert (QRA) aircraft. QRA are launched to intercept unidentified aircraft because the aircraft cannot be identified by any other means, ie the aircraft is not talking to civilian or military Air Traffic Control, has not filed a flight plan and is not transmitting a recognisable secondary surveillance radar code. QRA procedures entail aircraft and crews being held at continuous ground readiness, so that they can take off within minutes to protect UK sovereign airspace. Under current plans, we hold a continuous ground readiness posture at RAF Coningsby in Lincolnshire (Southern QRA), and RAF Leuchars (Northern QRA (NQRA)) in Fife (it is planned that in future the NQRA will be supplied by RAF Lossiemouth). Aircraft are available at each base allowing us to provide a good response across the country. Typhoons at RAF Coningsby and RAF Leuchars are held at high readiness 24/7 to intercept any aircraft approaching or in NATO-monitored airspace or National airspace without prior approval or not having identified themselves. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [18-01-2013 13:16] Job: 022508 Unit: PG12

Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 309

Aircraft could also be redeployed to other airfields to counter specific threat(s) if required. However the routine basing of QRA aircraft in Scotland and Lincolnshire allows the provision of a rapid response across the UK and its Flight Information Region/Air Policing Area. June 2012

Written evidence submitted by Babcock Correspondence Following a Visit by the Committee to Faslane and Rosyth Q—Do you have a rough breakdown on the proportion of your work force that lives in the immediate area, Dumbarton or across Scotland? A—The total Babcock Clyde workforce is 1,470, engaged in a range of tasks from submarine engineering to hard and soft facilities management. Of that 1,470, 35% live in Argyll and Bute (generally in Helensburgh, Garelochhead and the Rosneath Peninsular), 15% in West Dunbartonshire, 15% in Inverclyde and 15% in Glasgow.

Q—Do you have information on the proportion of your staff by wage? A—Of the Babcock Clyde staff, 40% are earning a basic rate between £21k and £30k, 32% between £13k to £20k, 15% between £31k and £40k, 9% between £5k and £12k and 5% over £40k.

Q—Do you have a description by skill level or qualification? A—32% of the Babcock Clyde workforce are in the managerial/professional category, with 8% in associate professional/technical grades. Of the industrial workforce, 28% are skilled.

Q—Could you provide examples of the positive impact of partnership working between Babcock and the RN at Faslane and Rosyth (I am thinking in terms of the economic impact from long term ventures such as the TOBA) A—The local economic impact of Babcock’s presence is outlined in the attached paper. The overall impact is driven more by the size and shape of the whole Clyde operation (MoD and Babcock), which is defined by the output it is required to deliver rather than the commercial construct through which it is managed. That said, at Clyde, Babcock has an annual budget for donations to local charities of around £10k, with the distribution of funds decided by the employee led Community Investment Group and consideration given to charities that fall into the areas of Education, Regeneration and Environment. We also sponsor groups participating in sporting and community activities to the tune of £20k to £25k per annum, and provide a considerable amount of help “in kind” to local organisations, such as carrying out mock interviews; being involved with enterprise activities within schools; providing catering for events and getting our apprentices to advise on career days.

Babcock Marine (Clyde) 1. Can you provide a breakdown of the job type/skills levels of your employees? (A description of the type of qualifications and training required for each category is attached.) % Managerial 6.2% Professional 26.3% Associate Professional/Technical 8.1% Admin. & Secretarial 6.4% Skilled Trades 27.6% Other Service Sales & Customer Service 18% Process, Plant, Machine Operatives 7.4% Elementary Occupations Total 100%

2. Can you provide a breakdown of the Scottish local authorities in which your employees live? Local Authority % Argyll & Bute Council 35% Dumfries & Galloway Council 0.6% Fife Council 5% Glasgow City Council 15% Inverclyde Council 15% Renfrewshire Council 10% cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [18-01-2013 13:16] Job: 022508 Unit: PG12

Ev 310 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

Local Authority % South Ayrshire Council 0.6% East Ayrshire Council 0.6% South Lanarkshire Council 3% Stirling Council 0.2% West Dunbartonshire Council 15%

December 2012

Written evidence submitted by Bryan Buchan, Chief Executive, Scottish Engineering Scottish Engineering is a wholly apolitical organisation, whose primary responsibility is representation of our member companies (circa 400 at present) whose interests are certainly affected by the question of Independence. As you know, several thousand individuals are directly employed in defence-related industries under Babcock alone; however, it should be borne in mind that those direct jobs also result in a support infrastructure which would extend that number at least two-fold. I am not at liberty to directly quote any of the member companies; however, I can cite the example of one prominent organisation in the east of the country, which will certainly lose three of its key defence-related product lines should Independence go ahead. Concerns have been directly related to this organisation by members across all sectors as to the uncertainty around the potential question of forthcoming Independence. Where organisations are either owned by a foreign parent or, as is the case with many, operate throughout the UK, there is reluctance to commit to either basic investment or substantial capital projects, due to the aforementioned uncertainty. The very strong message which we are receiving is that members feel many of the key questions remain unanswered, from fiscal arrangements through regulatory affairs, and indeed the budgetary process should we retain a common currency with the rest of the UK. In a recent address by Alistair Darling to the 15th Annual State of the City Economy Conference (Glasgow), he posed the question of how this would in effect be executed, ie a Scottish budget would have to be prepared for submission to Westminster for approval. The question of EU rules on procurement would be interesting, in that we could expect an extension of the protectionist behaviours referenced in the recent Chatham House Paper on the subject. It would seem unlikely that the rump UK would offer support or opportunities to the remnants of the defence industry in Scotland. A further concern to members was the recent indicator from the Credit Rating Agency, Fitch, that whilst the rest of the UK would retain its Triple A Credit Rating, that Scotland almost certainly would not, placing further pressure on the cost of borrowing for indigenous Scottish operations, including those in the defence sector. Of the specific questions which you cite, we are not in a position to offer responses on the detail of the business agreements between the MoD and BAE Systems, or other specific member companies. November 2012

Supplementary written evidence submitted by Ministry of Defence Questions arising from Committee session on Wednesday 13 June 2012—Impact of Scottish independence on Ministry of Defence contracting: Q397 David Mowat: Is article 346 a geographic thing or an ownership of the company thing? For example, if an American company or a Russian company builds stuff in England under a 346 contract, that would be fine? Is it who owns the company or where they do the work? Response: Article 346 is neither specifically geographical in nature nor connected to ownership of the economic operator in question. It applies to member states (as opposed to companies) and is intended to provide an exception to the general Treaty principles in respect of free movement of goods, services and capital. At first glance it appears to give the MoD carte blanche to do whatever it wishes to do with regard to procuring armaments. However, given the nature of the exemption, Article 346 has been construed by the Court of Justice of the European Union as one which must be interpreted very strictly and which is subject to the principles of proportionality. This approach has been reinforced by the EU Commission in particular with Directive 2009/81/EC on defence and sensitive security procurement (transposed into UK law by the Defence and Security Public Contracts Regulations 2011—the DSPCRs). The consequence of the various court judgements and regulations is that, in order for the MoD to take action which it would justify by the application of Article 346, it requires to satisfy itself that the action is needed to protect the essential interest of national security, not just, for example, a convenience to protect a national industry. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [18-01-2013 13:16] Job: 022508 Unit: PG12

Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 311

Q424 Mr Reid: Would the legal advice be such that, if you felt it was in the best interests of the residual UK taxpayer, then legally you would be able to tell that company they must transfer the work to within the rest of the UK? Response: The assumption in responding is that the MoD has already placed a contract with a company in Scotland and then, post independence, requires the company to transfer that work to part of the remaining UK. If the contractor only had an operation in Scotland then to move the work elsewhere would, in all likelihood require the contract to be broken with the consequences inherent in doing so. If the contractor did have facilities in the remaining UK which could accommodate the requirement then it could choose to accept such a direction or to stick to the original contractual conditions, noting that such a change to the contracting requirement would amount to a significant amendment to the contract. Where significant amendments are made to contracts placed by the MoD, they are considered new contracts for the purposes of the Regulatory regime and, accordingly, must be competed unless there is a legitimate ground for not doing so. It would seem most likely that the bulk, if not all the costs inherent in these situations would fall to the MoD. In either of the scenarios above, we would be back in the territory of Article 346. That is to say that such action could be taken only where the MoD had legitimately taken the view that it was a step necessary for the protection of the essential interests of the remaining UK. November 2012

Additional written evidence submitted by Philip Dunne MP, Minister For Defence Equipment, Support And Technology, Ministry of Defence I regret to inform you that an error has been identified in the written briefing provided to the Scottish Affairs Committee on 22 June 2012, regarding the structure of the Armed Forces, following the evidence session held on 13 June 2012 with my predecessor as Minister for Defence Equipment, Support and Technology (Mr Peter Luff MP) and the then Minister for the Armed Forces (Sir Nick Harvey MP). The error concerns the number of personnel who work at Her Majesty’s Naval Base Clyde, and was in Annex C of the briefing material. The original text reads as follows: As of June 2012, there are approximately 6,300 personnel working at Her Majesty’s Naval Base (HMNB) Clyde, including the Royal Naval Armaments Depot Coulport. This consists of approximately: 3,350 service personnel; 1,300 MOD civilians; and 1,650 civilian contractors. This number includes all lodger units at the Naval Base, and excludes contractors and subcontractors who are not resident on site. It should be noted that the total number of personnel will fluctuate on a daily basis as staff are posted in and out of the Naval Base, and contractors’ taskings vary. The correct information should be as follows (with corrections in bold text): As of June 2012, there are approximately 6,700 personnel working at Her Majesty’s Naval Base (HMNB) Clyde, including the Royal Naval Armaments Depot Coulport. This consists of approximately: 3,400 service personnel; 1,600 MOD civilians; and 1,700 civilian contractors. This number includes all lodger units at the Naval Base, and excludes contractors and subcontractors who are not resident on site. It should be noted that the total number of personnel will fluctuate on a daily basis as staff are posted in and out of the Naval Base, and contractors’ taskings vary. I apologise for the error, and I hope you will understand that it was not the intention of the Ministry of Defence (MOD) or its Ministers to mislead the Committee in any way. The error was primarily a result of a misunderstanding when compiling the figures. In addition, it is now apparent that the precise figures had not been rounded consistently when the evidence was prepared. The error came to light when MOD officials were preparing an answer to written parliamentary questions to the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), answered on 30 November 2012, Official Report Col. 560W. This written answer now provides the latest manpower figures available for Her Majesty’s Naval Base Clyde. I have enclosed the written answer for your information. I hope this rectifies the situation, and I look forward to appearing before your Committee on 19 December.

Enclosure 1: Extract from Official Report 30 Nov 2012: Column 560W Jeremy Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what change there will be in the number of military or civilian personnel employed across the Royal Navy due to the transfer of hunter-killer submarines from HM Naval Base Devonport to HM Naval Base Clyde; [128976] (2) what change there will be in the number of military and civilian personnel employed at HM Naval Base Devonport due to the transfer of hunter-killer submarines to HM Naval Base Clyde; [128977] (3) how many of the jobs which will be moved to Faslane with the transfer of Astute and Trafalgar class submarines are for (a) service personnel and (b) civilian staff. [128978] cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [18-01-2013 13:16] Job: 022508 Unit: PG12

Ev 312 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

Mr Francois: The number of jobs at Her Majesty’s Naval Base (HMNB) Clyde is forecast to increase from around 6,700 now to around 8,200 by 2022.

This change is primarily due to an increase of around 1,500 in the number of Royal Navy jobs at the site, of which around 630 will transfer from HMNB Devonport due to the move of the base-port for the Trafalgar Class submarines to HMNB Clyde. There are no plans to transfer any Ministry of Defence (MOD) civilian jobs from HMNB Devonport.

It is not possible to determine the impact on civilian jobs at HMNB Devonport caused solely by the move of the base-port for the Trafalgar Class submarines. It is anticipated, however, that it will not lead to any significant changes in either HMNB Devonport civilian numbers, or in the total number of civilians employed by the MOD. It is also anticipated that it will not lead to an increase in the overall size of the Royal Navy.

The decision to base-port the entire Astute Class at HMNB Clyde was taken before any of the submarines in the class entered service. As a result, no transfers of jobs from HMNB Devonport are planned. December 2012

Written evidence submitted by BAE Systems

Over the last decade, BAE Systems Maritime and its legacy businesses designed, built and exported 17 ships and 20 small boats in contracts worth £2.093 billion. Combined with £835 million worth of technology transfers and the reactivation of five frigates once used by the Royal Navy, this creates a total value of £2.928 billion.

During this period, Scottish ship yards were involved, at least in part, in £1.487 billion worth of export contracts with BAE Systems. This includes the export of eight ships for Malaysia, Brunei and Brazil and the reactivation of five frigates for Romania and Chile respectively. Of these eight ships, only one was not built in Scotland, which was the first in class OPV originally for Trinidad and Tobago, but resold to Brazil. The physical reactivation work on the frigates was completed in Portsmouth, but the projects were led by teams in Glasgow who also managed the complex combat systems work. No. of Export Scottish Technology Ships Order destination Order involvement Transfer exported Value (£m) date Malaysia Frigates 01–02 Entire build in 2 400 1992 Glasgow Oman Qahir Corvette 01–02 2 240 1992 Qatar FAC Barzan Class 4 200 1992 01–04 Brunei F2000 OPV 95m Entire build in 3 700 1998 01–03 Glasgow Greece FAC Roussen Class Yes, built in 0 184 2000 01–03 Design and TT Greece build Greece Oman CG Police boats 20 20 2002 Romania Reactivate ex UK Project and 2 117 2002 Type 22 Frigates (2) combat systems work in Glasgow Greece FAC Roussen Class Yes, built in 0 135 2003 04–05 Design and TT Greece Chile Reactivate ex UK Project and 3 137 2007 Type 23 Frigates (3) combat systems work in Glasgow Oman Khareef Corvette 3 400 2007 01–03 Trinidad and CG OPV 01–03 Two of the 3 *Settled by 2007 Tobago three ships arbitration were following completed in cancellation Glasgow Greece FAC Roussen Class Yes, built in 0 130 2008 06–07 Design and TT Greece Saudi Arabia Refit MLU Al Jawf Work 0 130 2009 minehunters completed in Saudi Arabia cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [18-01-2013 13:16] Job: 022508 Unit: PG12

Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 313

No. of Export Scottish Technology Ships Order destination Order involvement Transfer exported Value (£m) date Thailand OPV Krabi 90m Yes, contract 0 2 2009 Design only for build was for design Thailand only Brazil Reactivate ex T+T As above for Yes, 0 133 2012 OPV Trinidad and manufacturing Tobago, two of licence the three ships transferred were completed in Glasgow

December 2012

Supplementary written evidence submitted by Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) A Submarine Construction Capability for Scotland The Committee asked for information pertinent to the idea that an independent Scotland might build a conventional submarine fleet.

European Fleets Conventional submarines are operated by 10 countries with extensive coastlines in Europe. Table 1 (see annex) gives the fleet sizes, with Denmark, Finland and Belgium notably not having boats.12 Most of current European fleets comprise German origin submarines which have evolved through the Type 207, 209, 210, 212 and 214 classes. The German submarine dockyard is Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft (HDW) which is in turn owned by Thyssen-Krupp.

Industrial Capabilities France, Germany, Spain and Sweden can design and build conventional submarines in Europe although the Swedish dockyard (Kockums) is owned by Thyssen-Krupp. The boats in production in Europe essentially comprise: — The Scorpene variants (originally Franco-Spanish but with Spain having withdrawn). Scorpenes have been sold to Brazil (4), Chile (2), India (6) and Malaysia (2). — The T.212A and its export variants (the T.214 and the Dolphin class being sold to Israel). — The A.26 in development in Sweden, with the lead firm involved (Kockums) being owned, as noted, by a German firm. — The S-80 Spanish boat with an Independent Propulsion System. The first boat should put to sea next year and the last of Spain’s four boats will be completed in 2018. Submarine building capability in the Netherlands has faded/disappeared with Rotterdam Droogdok Mij (RDM) going into bankruptcy in 2004 due to lack of orders for its offering of the Moray-class diesel or air- independent propulsion concept. Netherland four Walrus class submarines came into service in 1990 and are to be kept in operation until 2025. Italy appears to have beglected its capability to develop submarines since for its last purchase it opted to use the German 212A design for two boats built in Italy. The boats entered service in 2006 and 2007.

Costs and Prices We could not estimate the costs of establishing a capacity to design, develop and build submarines in an independent Scotland. The key feature of any purely Scottish product would be the significant technological and financial risk involved, given lack of Scottish background in this field. However it is possible to say something about the costs of other submarines built in Europe, obviously by countries with more extensive experience. The capabilities and features of submarines vary and the costs of conventional submarines can only be estimated by the prices quoted in the media. These, however have broad consistency. Based on examination of a number of media sources available electronically, an “off-the-shelf” diesel submarine of broad T-212A/ Scorpene capabilities would appear to cost around €350 million at today’s prices although it is not clear which weapons would be included in such a figure. Tables 2 and 3 (see annex) provide some data on European fleets and European exports, although the numbers cited would have to be adjusted for inflation. 12 International Institute for International Studies, The Military Balance 2012, 06. March 2012, London, Routledge. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [18-01-2013 13:16] Job: 022508 Unit: PG12

Ev 314 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

The most modern submarine variants are powered by an Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) system which requires a larger boat and extra cost in the area of 20%. Adding a licensed production/technology transfer arrangement with associated technology transfer can add at least 25% to the cost, although the cost of the Scorpenes being bought by India are reported to have risen significantly in cost due to delays and technical problems.

The Requirement There is not yet draft defence policy to explain the need for a Scottish submarine fleet and the capabilities they might need.

Affordability In trying to estimate what money might be available for defence in an independent Scotland, according to the European Defence Agency, the average share of GDP allocated to defence in Europe was 1.6% in 2010. Only France, Cyprus, Greece and the UK spent 2% or more of their GDP on defence.13 Currently the UK spends about 2.5% of GDP on defence so much would rest on whether Scotland opted for a figure nearer the UK level or the average European. Malcolm Chalmers’ recent analysis suggested that the most likely possibility was that the government of a sovereign Scotland would be an allocation of around 1.45% of GDP, yielding a defence budget of £1.7–2.1 billion at 2010 prices.14 Scotland would have to decide on the broad share of its defence budget that it wished to invest in new equipment. NATO published multi-year data on this for NATO members and the share taken by equipment does vary from year to year and from country to country.15 The 2010 figures for those operating submarine fleets in Europe are included in Table 1 (see annex). If Turkey and Greece are discounted because their security situation leads to a particular stress on defence, the average for NATO countries on the Western littoral of Europe is 15.8% and the median figure was 16.4%, so an estimate of 16% might be thought reasonable. That would yield an annual equipment spend for Scotland of between £272 million and £336 million, roughly speaking the cost of one submarine.

The Scottish Situation and Risks There is currently in Scotland a significant capability to design, develop and build surface ships. Any assessment of Scotland’s potential to develop submarines would depend significantly on estimates of how much of that capability would opt to remain in Scotland in the event of independence, and the transferability of skills and expertise from surface ships to submarines. Any calculation should recognize the high degree of risk in any such venture. Any more lengthy analysis of risk should make reference to the prolonged difficult experiences that Australia has had with its Collins class submarine programme. In 1987 after a competition Australia order an enlarged version of the Kockums Västergötland class for six vessels to be built in Australia: the programme has been problematic at each stage, including the current in-service phase. Scotland would be engaged in a programme both to establish expertise and to exploit that expertise to generate a new product. There can be significant confidence about the cost of buying submarines from an external supplier but cost and risk grow the more work is planned to be done in the customer state. The financial and technological risks of developing a submarine nationally without a proven home industrial capability would be large indeed. Professor Trevor Taylor is Professorial Research Fellow in Defence Management and Head of RUSI’s Defence, Industries and Society Programme (DISP), augmenting the Institute’s work on UK Defence Policy as well as giving particular high level expertise in defence management issues. He is also a member of the Acquisition Focus Group (AFH) hosted by the DISP. Dr Henrik Heidenkamp is a Research Fellow for RUSI’s Defence, Industries and Society Programme (DISP). Before joining RUSI he conducted research and lectured at Queen’s University and at the Royal Military College of Canada. He also worked for the military policy branch of the German Ministry of Defence, Berlin. November 2012

13 European Defence Agency, ‘Defence Data: EDA participating Member States in 2010’, 07. March 2012, , accessed 23 November 2012. 14 See: Malcolm Chalmers, ‘Kingdom’s End?’, in The RUSI Journal (Vol. 157, No. 3, June/July 2012), p. 10, , accessed 23 November 2012. 15 NATO, ‘Financial and Economic Data Relating to NATO Defence’, Press Release, PR/CP(2011)027, 10. March 2011, , accessed 23 November 2012. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [18-01-2013 13:16] Job: 022508 Unit: PG12

Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 315 Annex The Military Balance 2012 , 06. March 2012, London, Routledge. and: Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft/TNSW, Germany Type 212A: Fincantieri in cooperation with HDW/TNSW/FS Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft, Germany Rotterdam Dry Dock Company,Type Netherlands 207: Rheinstahl Nordseewerke GmbH in Emden, Germany Kockums AB shipyard in Malmö, Sweden (ownedMultinational by Production: HDW) Design, AttackNordseewerke, Sonar Emden) and in Assembly Germany;Sonars (Thyssen Combat in Systems France; in HullHowaldtswerke-Deutsche Norway; Sections Werft, Flank in Germany Norway Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft, Germany Table 1 4 GER Type 212A 4 ITA Nazario Sauro2 Class GER Type 212A 3 FRA Type Agosta2 Class GER Type 214 4 NL Walrus-Class Nazario4 Sauro GER Class: Type Fincantieri 207 in1 Monfalcone, RUS Italy Orzeł (ex3 Cartagena Kilo-Class) SWE dockyard Type (licensed Gotland production),2 Spain SWE Type Sodermanland 6 GER Type 210 Orzeł: Shipyard Krasnoe Sormovo in Gorky, Russia 6 GER Type 209/1200 8 GER Type 209/1400 4 GER Type 209/1200 3 GER Type 209/1100 1 GER Type 214 OVERVIEW OF SSKS IN-SERVICE IN EUROPE 2 5 6 8 4 6 3 4 5 14 Equipment share of defence 27.1 11.2 13.7 16.4 27.9 NATO, “Financial and Economic Data Relating to NATO Defence”, Press Release, PR/CP(2011)027, 10. March 2011, , accessed 23 November 2012. International Institute for International Studies, Nuclear Threat Initiative, “Submarine Proliferation Resource Collection”, . cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [18-01-2013 13:16] Job: 022508 Unit: PG12

Ev 316 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence − (Vol. 136/6/1, No. 288, June 2010), . defenseindustrydaily.com OVERVIEW OF CURRENT/FUTURE SSKS PROCUREMENTS IN EUROPE defenseindustrydaily.com GER Type 212A SWE Type A26 GER Type 212A ESP Type S-80 GER Type 214 2 3− 5 2 Sweden − CountryGermany Order SizeItaly 2 Spain Type Poland 4 Turkey 6 Table Notes 1 German Federal2006–04–26-marine-stellt-neue-schiffe-in-dienst.html>. Government Press Release,2 “Italy “Marine Submarine stellt Capabilities”, on neue nti.org3 (07 Schiffe August German in 2012), Federal . 2006–04–26-marine-stellt-neue-schiffe-in-dienst.html>. Dienst” Government (26. Press April Release,4 2006), “S-80: “Marine 5 “Polish Navy To Acquire Vessels, Submarines: MoD Report”, on Navy-Acquire-Vessels-Submarines-MoD-Report>. and: “Polish20120222/DEFREG01/302220013/Polish-Navy-Acquire-New-Submarine>. Navy to Acquire New Submarine”,6 Milan on Vego, “The defensenews.com Right (22. Submarine for February Lurking 2012), in . and: Larsmotor/fartyg/article251811.ece>. Anders Karlberg, “ÖB vill ha7 Kockums “Today’s Special: nya Turkey tysta Subs”, u-båt on A26”, in Ny Teknik (01 March 2007),

Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 317 Origin Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft/TNSW, Mazgoan Docks in Mumbai (licensed then jumboized in BrazilianSepetiba Navy Shipyard, Boots 2,3 and 4Brazilian entirely Navy built Shipyard, in Sepetibaproduction) (licensed Admiralty Shipyards in St. Petersburg, 2 3 5 (03. May 2012), . defenseindustrydaily.com (08. November 2012), . delivered.html>. 3 “India’s Multi-billionscorpene-sub-contract-updated-01194/>. Dollar Scorpene Sub4 “Brazil Contract”, & on France in Deal for SSKs, SSN”, on More-U-214-AIP-Submarines-05242/>. 2 “HDW Delivers the Fourth Dolphin Class Submarine to the Israel Navy”, on Table Notes 1 “KSS-II: South Korea Orders 6 More U-214 AIP Submarines”, on