CORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC 371-iv HOUSE OF COMMONS ORAL EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE POLITICAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM COMMITTEE DO WE NEED A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE UK? THURSDAY 4 OCTOBER 2012 WILLIE RENNIE MSP NIGEL SMITH and PROFESSOR JAMES MITCHELL RUTH DAVIDSON MSP JOHANN LAMONT MSP Evidence heard in Public Questions 179 - 295 USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT 1. This is a corrected transcript of evidence taken in public and reported to the House. The transcript has been placed on the internet on the authority of the Committee, and copies have been made available by the Vote Office for the use of Members and others. 2. The transcript is an approved formal record of these proceedings. It will be printed in due course. 1 Oral Evidence Taken before the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee on Thursday 4 October 2012 Members present: Mr Graham Allen (Chair) Sheila Gilmore Andrew Griffiths Fabian Hamilton Mrs Eleanor Laing ________________ Examination of Witness Witness: Willie Rennie MSP, Leader of Scottish Liberal Democrats, Scottish Parliament, gave evidence. Q179 Chair: Welcome. Willie Rennie: Thank you for inviting me. Chair: I think you know why we are here. We are looking at the case for a constitutional convention, obviously in terms of the issue of what is going to happen before, during and after the referendum campaign. Today we are asking each of the parties and some expert witnesses for their opinions, comments and a general chat to try to understand these issues a bit more and whether there is in fact a feeling, among the political parties and others, that it would be useful to have a constitutional convention, and timings, content, before or after the referendum, who might be on it, what it might do and how it might work. This is a very general opening salvo from the Committee. We are going to be on this, I suspect, for three or four months. Willie, did you want to say something to start us off, or do you want us to jump straight into questions? Willie Rennie: One of the frustrations—as I am sure that Sheila recognises—is that in Scottish politics we have a passion, to a greater or lesser degree, for constitutional change. It has previously been described as the democratic deficit. We have moved on from that now but there is still a desire for a further change and we, as federalists, are hoping for that change. We want the Scottish Parliament to be able to control much more of its own destiny and have more control of its own finances, and we have a report coming out at the end of October, which will set that out in a bit more detail, under the chairmanship of Menzies Campbell. The big missing link in all of this is the same passion and desire for change in England and, as much as we want it, in order to get a truly federal system we need to have change south of the border in terms of that passion. There is some desire and partly it is a reaction to what is happening in Scotland—“Why do we have these Scottish MPs running their affairs?” That was always the accusation that I would get, as well as: “Why are you interfering in our education system when we have no influence at all over yours?” So that is the kind of start. It is not a positive thing; at least it is something that indicates that there is perhaps some degree of support for change, but it needs to go much further than that. 2 I suppose the way that I would put it to the English voter is that if they are content for the whole of the UK to run their affairs then that is fine. It is up to them, but if I was them I would want the change. I would want their democratically elected representatives to control their own domestic affairs, whatever form that is, whether that is an English Parliament or regional assemblies and parliaments below that. I recognise, having lived in Cornwall for a few years, the difficulties with that in terms of regional identities within England. As long as people do not grasp that issue then we will continue to have that problem and, therefore, we will not get the further change that people like me desire. I think that is the big missing link and it is how you inspire that, which I am sure you as a committee are trying to get to. Q180 Andrew Griffiths: Thank you, Willie, for a very interesting way to start the debate. We are looking at the constitutional convention. Clearly it is something that is exercising our minds. Everybody’s mind in Scotland is exercised about the referendum. Until the referendum has been settled, do you think it is feasible or worthwhile to engage in these discussions, to talk about a constitutional convention, or indeed press ahead with a constitutional convention? Willie Rennie: I think you should do it beforehand. The Scottish referendum is actually an issue for the whole of the United Kingdom. Even though they do not have a vote, people should have a say because it means the future of the United Kingdom is about the continuing existence of it as it currently stands, so there is an important role for people throughout the UK to have a say about what they want the UK to look like in the future. I think the referendum will be a good opportunity to inspire greater interest in the run-up to that, because there will be debates throughout the UK, I would imagine, on television and in the newspapers, about the Scottish issue. That is a great opportunity for a constitutional convention to try to shape that for the wider UK interests and look at some of the more detailed rather than just the superficial stuff. So, yes, I think it should be done beforehand. Q181 Andrew Griffiths: Do you think that work before the constitutional convention could proceed if one of the regions of the UK or one of the political parties in the UK decided not to take part in that debate? Willie Rennie: You should not have a lowest-common-denominator approach to these things. If you wait for everybody to come on board then you might be waiting forever. I would hope everybody would come on board, and if people who perhaps might be reluctant to join in see that other people are moving ahead anyway that might encourage them just to realise this is where the show is and they should be participating. I think you have to show intention and desire and, with a bit of luck, everybody will come on board. I think it is really important. This is not a final decision-making body. This is really about engendering a debate, because ultimately Parliament would have to decide and the people would have to decide if you did go to a referendum, which I am sure will come. It is about stimulating a debate, and you should not allow anybody to stop that debate from happening. Q182 Andrew Griffiths: You used the word “passion”, people in Scotland are passionate about, I think you said, constitutional change. Willie Rennie: Maybe they do not talk about it in the pubs, but yes. Q183 Andrew Griffiths: Do you think that Scottish people are passionate about the Union? Willie Rennie: The Union is an odd word just now because it has been described in negative terms. The Nationalists tried to remind people of the Empire and all the negative aspects of these things, but the United Kingdom, partly through things like the Olympics, can 3 do things pretty well. When people think about the good things, the United Kingdom can inspire some passion but probably not in a political sense, but probably in softer terms, for example, family, in relation to the army, because the military is very important. The recruiting grounds in Scotland for the military is quite strong so that engenders some passion and belief, but it is probably not in the terms that we would like it to be passionate. So, yes, it is there in some cases. Chair: Sheila, and before you start thank you for letting us come to your place. Fabian Hamilton: She could have refused. Q184 Sheila Gilmore: That is right, yes indeed. That is the good bit about representing the historical bit, as far as the political bit—if I could slightly follow that up. Is there a danger that the debate in Scotland is conducted in such a way that it excludes the rest of the UK, and is that a problem in getting interest in it? It is quite sort of negative. You mentioned the negative associations of the Union, but there is also the negative chippiness that perhaps has grown in recent years, the bit about people complaining endlessly if some poor BBC commentator happens to use the word “English” when it should be “British” or whatever, and people get very agitated about that. Is it a negative interest or passion, and does that have an impact on the rest of the UK? Willie Rennie: It can be negative, and it varies from person to person. Some people view Scottishness as purely a positive thing and some people view it as anti-English, so it varies from person to person, but I think it is our role to try to shape it in a positive way, to try to lead the debate.