3 Lessons from the referendum
25. The constitutional scholar A.V. Dicey wrote that
referendums could "by checking the omnipotence of partisanship,
revive faith in that parliamentary government which has been the
glory of English constitutional history".[26]
The historic vote in Scotland tested some people's faith in government
and the Civil Service and has given cause to consider how the
Government should administer referendums in modern Britain.
Background
26. Our Report Truth to power, how Civil Service
reform can succeed, said that the impartiality of the Civil
Service remained "the most effective way of supporting the
democratically elected Government and future administrations in
the UK, and of maintaining the stability of the UK's largely uncodified
constitution."[27]
27. The Constitutional Reform and Governance Act
2010 confirmed the Civil Service Commission's long-standing responsibility
for promoting and protecting the Civil Service's impartiality.[28]
In its written evidence to us, the Commission explained that it
is responsible for investigating and considering complaints under
the Code. Civil servants can complain to the Commission if they
believe they are being required to act in a way that conflicts
with the Code value of impartiality, or if they are aware of the
actions of another civil servant that breach impartiality.[29]
The Commission does not have the power to initiate investigations
itself.[30]
Acting with impartiality?
28. John Swinney MSP, the Deputy First Minister of
Scotland and formerly the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Constitution
and Economy, acknowledged to us that the referendum had created
a "very sensitive political environment" but he went
on to defend the work of civil servants in Scotland who were "simply
acting for their ministers in the fashion that civil servants
in the United Kingdom Government are working for United Kingdom
Government ministers".[31]
He insisted that there was "no difference in the approach
they have taken".[32]
29. Professor Jim Gallagher told us that political
impartiality is "quite difficult to define". He explained
that it required civil servants to behave in a manner that would
sustain "the confidence of the minister you presently work
for and an alternative minister. That is what impartiality means".[33]
30. In a debate on Civil Service reform in the House
of Commons on 3 April 2014, the Rt Hon Francis Maude MP, Minister
for the Cabinet Office, explained what he believed impartiality
to mean:
The essence of impartiality is not indifference
to the Government of the day but the ability to be equally passionate
and committed to implementing a future Government's priorities
and programme. It is important that this impartiality does not
turn in to a cold indifference. It must be a passionate commitment
to delivering the Government of the day's priorities. This is
hugely important.[34]
31. Evidence submitted to this inquiry by Sir Bob
Kerslake, then Head of the Home Civil Service, stated that civil
servants were obliged to serve and support ministers as fully
as possible with their objectives, in a way that maintains political
impartiality and the other core values in the Civil Service Code.[35]
With specific reference to the Scottish independence referendum,
he told us:
Civil servants working for the Scottish Government
have a duty under the Civil Service Code to support the Scottish
Government regardless of which party or parties make up that government
and future administrations. The current Scottish Government's
policy is to have an independent Scotland. The obligation to support
and serve elected administrations, which is imposed by each of
the Civil Service Codes in all of the parts of the United Kingdom,
extends to issues where those governments may take conflicting
positions and to matters of constitutional change.[36]
32. In written evidence to us in 2013 the Scottish
Government Permanent Secretary Sir Peter Housden cited the "two-fold"
responsibilities of civil servants in Scotland, which include
both acting with impartiality, but also delivering the policies
of the elected Government of Scotland.[37]
IMPARTIALITY AND POLITICISATION
33. The political impartiality of the Civil Service
is highly valued. As the Better Government Initiative explained
to us:
If the civil service is not politically impartialand
seen to be soit will become impossible for it to serve
governments of different political complexions and public confidence
will be undermined.[38]
Akash Paun, Fellow at the Institute for Government,
has examined the challenges facing the Civil Service in coalitions,
some of which relate to politicisation and impartiality. His report
Year Five: Whitehall and the Parties in the Final Year of Coalition,
published in May 2014, focused on how the Civil Service should
work with the two Westminster coalition partners as the next election
approaches. The report concluded that, without effective action
and clarification of the rules, there were growing risks including
"public perceptions or accusations that Civil Service resources
are being used improperly, or that particular officials or teams
have become politicised for one side or other of the Coalition".[39]
34. Keith Howell, a member of the public, wrote in
evidence to this inquiry that the referendum had presented a challenging
situation for both the Scottish Government and the Scottish Civil
Service, "in which their integrity, objectivity and honesty
were always going to be tested".[40]
He also said that "the impartiality of the Scottish Civil
Service should have provided fundamental checks and balances that
the people of Scotland could have relied upon".[41]
However, University of Edinburgh Professor and former Minister
Susan Deacon put accusations of politicisation into context for
us:
I want to take issue with the suggestion that
civil servants are engaged in political campaigning in either
Government. They are not standing up advocating particular positions;
they are not going knocking on doors or out in the streets at
the weekends or whateverall the things that we recognise
as bone fide political campaigning. I think the issue comes back
to how much they are engaged in advocacy.[42]
35. Simon Johnson of the Telegraph had "some
concerns" but told us he thought it would be "going
too far to say the entire Civil Service is corrupt or politicised".[43]
The Rt Hon Peter Riddell, Director of the Institute for Government,
said of impartiality that:
The protection of the impartiality of civil servants
is the responsibility both of senior ministers and of civil service
leaders. During the pre-election period, it is in everyone's interests,
politicians and civil servants alike, that the guidelines are
both publicly known and have been applied fairly. It is time to
be transparent and clear.[44]
IMPARTIALITY OR NEUTRALITY?
36. During our inquiry we discussed whether civil
servants were expected to be politically impartial or politically
neutral. The Minister for the Cabinet Office, told us that:
It is really not so much about a definition as
what it connotes. Neutrality connotes indifference. Impartiality
connotes an ability to serve Governments of different political
persuasions, and thus not being so identified with one approach
that the level of trust of an incoming Government and incoming
ministers would be jeopardised.[45]
37. We asked Mr Maude if there was an injunction
on civil servants not to be as passionate about a Government's
policy as to lose the potential trust of a minister of a different
political persuasion. He replied:
One of the things you look for in a civil servant,
regardless of what their political views actually are [
]
is an ability to promote by action as well as by words where that
is appropriate, the policy and programme of the Government of
the day. I would much rather have a civil servant who has been
diligent and effective in promoting the programme of my opponents
in government than someone who has been so neutral and impartial.[46]
38. The Civil Service Code states that "impartiality
is acting solely according to the merits of the case and serving
equally well Governments of different political persuasions.[47]
The Code does not define 'neutrality'.
MAINTAINING IMPARTIALITY
39. Both the UK Government and Scottish Government
circulated guidance to their civil servants on the Scottish independence
referendum. Intentionally, the two sets of advice closely follow
each other, and were the subject of close consultation at official
level.[48] The advice
was rooted in the Civil Service Code and offered guidance on the
Code's application in the run-up to the referendum. The Cabinet
Office guidance says it is "both legitimate and necessary
for civil servants to support ministers as fully as possible in
pursuit of those objectives".[49]
The Scottish Government's advice states that the requirements
of the Code "apply to work on constitutional reform as much
as in any other area of the respective Governments' work".[50]
This advice applies whether the two Government's objectives are
aligned or opposed.
40. The Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Constitution
and Economy (and now Deputy First Minister) John Swinney MSP explained
to us that "the Scottish Government has a policy position.
The United Kingdom Government has a policy position. On this they
happen to be different. Our respective civil servants work to
provide advice to us in respect of the policy positions that we
respectively take and ministers make decisions accordingly".[51]
However, Simon Johnson of the Telegraph described a blurring of
Government, campaign and party on both sides of the campaign,
saying that a change happened in 2007 following the success of
the SNP in the Scottish Parliament elections:
The Scottish Government would put out a press
release about something, and then immediately afterwards it would
just so happen that you would get the SNP press release on the
same thing praising it. So, no, I think the line is very much
blurred on both sides, on both the "Yes" and "Noes",
about what is Government, what is campaign and what is party.[52]
41. The Deputy First Minister told us that, during
the referendum campaign, the Civil Service were asked to operate
within the terms of the Civil Service Code and to "fulfil
their responsibility to their respective ministers where their
priorities were different."[53]
This method of operation was "what the Civil Service Code
envisages" and also:
It is what the Memorandum of Understanding envisages
between the United Kingdom Government and the three devolved Administrations
and I think that is what we see being fulfilled in the way in
which the respective agendas of different Governments are taken
forward.[54]
White Paper: Scotland's Future
42. In November 2013 a White Paper was published
by the Scottish Government titled Scotland's Future: Your guide
to an independent Scotland.[55]
David Clegg of the Daily Record told us that, "if you lined
up all the White Papers over the last 15 to 20 years and put them
in a row, the one on Scotland's future would feel very different
in content and style".[56]
The paper made the case for an independent Scotland and was consequently
labelled by commentators as a Scottish National Party "manifesto".[57]
John McTernan, a political adviser, was among those who criticised
the document, in an article in the Scotsman. He confirmed in his
written evidence to us his view that civil servants had written
a party political manifesto in contravention of the Civil Service
Code.[58] He set out
the logic for this assertion:
In the words of the BBC: 'As well as making the
case for independence, the White Paper also set out a series of
policy pledges which the SNP said it would pursue if elected as
the government of an independent Scotland.'
The problem is that the current Scottish Government
cannot set out a programme for an independent Scotland. That would
be a matter for political parties in a contest in the event of
independence. So, the Civil Service have written and the taxpayer
has paid for a party political manifesto.[59]
43. It was heavily criticised for having been written
and produced by Scottish civil servants and at the taxpayers'
expense, and this resulted in complaints to Sir Peter Housden,
Permanent Secretary of the Scottish Government. The FDA, a trade
union for senior public servants, said the White Paper controversy
demonstrated the awkward position in which civil servants, especially
senior civil servants, can find themselves.[60]
Alan Cochrane, Scottish Editor at the Telegraph, for example,
wrote that there was a "continuing and growing unease about
the part played by Scotland's civil servants" and the alleged
use of the Civil Service by the SNP.[61]
He said that "many [civil servants] are deeply unhappy about
the way their work has been politicised".[62]
The Sunday Herald published a letter on 20 April 2014 from a member
of the public, Brian McGarry, who had worked in the Scottish Civil
Service for 40 years. In it he wrote that he had often "had
to assist with the development and implementation of certain government
policies that I personally found disagreeable [
] But that
was the nature of the job and the choice was either to accept
the situation and get on with it or to find another career."[63]
44. The use of civil servants to write and produce
the paper was raised in the House of Lords in December 2013, in
which Lord Forsyth of Drumlean asked why civil servants had been
asked to write the document, "putting the bill for an SNP
manifesto on to taxpayers."[64]
In a later House of Lords debate in January 2014 Lord Kerr of
Kinlochard suggested that "we have not yet lost the apolitical,
independent, expert public service but it is in danger".[65]
45. During our inquiry we questioned whether Scottish
civil servants had in any way abandoned impartiality through supporting
the Scottish Government in producing its White Paper on independence.
Professor Susan Deacon discussed the status of the document:
It is very explicitly produced in a way that
it is divided into two parts, one part of which are [
] propositions
that a SNP Government would follow with an independent Scotland.
But the word "manifesto" in a very literal sense is
taken to describe what is produced by a party in advance of an
election. So I guess in literal terms it is not that.[66]
Simon Johnson of the Telegraph described the
process for producing such a document:
My understanding of the way the Scottish Government
works with some documents, such as this one, is that the Civil
Service do provide the information, the figures or whatever, the
research that ministers need, but I think it does go through the
special adviser's office, then the political appointees and certainly
directly to the First Minister's office as well. They look at
things like the language and they have the final say on how things
are presented.[67]
46. The Deputy First Minister did not reassure us
that civil servants were excused from working on the more party
political propositions the document contained:
Lindsay Roy MP: You said the report had been
substantially written by civil servants. Who wrote the other parts?
John Swinney MSP: Well, it would obviously be
subject to contributions by ministers and contributions by special
advisers.[68]
47. The Rt Hon Peter Riddell, Director of the Institute
for Government, did not see civil service support for the White
Paper as "dramatically different from what would happen within
Whitehall with a White Paper".[69]
A number of our witnesses suggested that, while politicians might
object to policies pursued by devolved administrations, the actions
of the Civil Service in developing such policies did not in themselves
call into question the impartiality of the Civil Service.[70]
As the Minister for the Cabinet Office explained, the key test
is whether the same level of commitment can be transferred to
another party pursuing a different policy agenda in the event
of a change of government. He quoted the Civil Service Code, which
states that:
You must serve the Government, whatever its political
persuasion, to the best of your ability in a way which maintains
political impartiality and is in line with the requirements of
this Code, no matter what your own political beliefs are [and
you must] act in a way which deserves and retains the confidence
of ministers, while at the same time ensuring that you will be
able to establish the same relationship with those whom you may
be required to serve in some future Government.[71]
48. Professor James Mitchell described the idea that
Scottish Government officials would be unable to provide the appropriate
level of support to a different Scottish governing party or parties
as "fanciful".[72]
Michael McCann MP wrote in evidence to this inquiry that:
Civil servants could have been willingly compliant
with the First Minister's partisan agenda. Alternatively, they
could have been bullied or cajoled into going along with the plan.
Whatever the answer, I feel that it should be found, as although
it may be too late to have an impact on the Scottish debate about
independence, there may be lessons to learn for the future.[73]
49. The Deputy First Minister told us that "civil
servants provided a very comprehensive amount of advice to ministers
about the document [the White Paper]. Civil servants would have
written, very substantially, the material within the White Paper,
but ultimately the decisions about what was in the White Paper
and the signing off of the White Paper were taken by ministers".[74]
50. The Deputy First Minister was clear that the
Scottish Government was aware of the importance of operating "utterly
consistently with the Code", he said that:
We were all very clear about what the approach
should and would be and how that would be followed. Ultimately,
the contents of Scotland's Future were a matter for ministers,
but it was essentially operating on the basis of advice and information
supplied by civil servants.[75]
51. The Deputy First Minister did not accept that
Scotland's Future went beyond "what one might consider
to be the norm".[76]
He said that it was very common for UK governments to set out
policy material of what is going to happen beyond the term of
a Parliament.[77]
52. Our witness Simon Johnson of the Telegraph newspaper
had other reasons for doubting the White Paper (see Box 1):
The lack of detail on figures and things, things
that people would probably want to see before they voted for independence,
the lack of costs and expenditure leads me to the belief that
this is a document intended to elicit the "Yes" vote
primarily rather than a document to inform.[78]
Box 1: Arguments made in the Scottish Government's
White Paper, Scotland's Future
The White Paper, Scotland's Future, contained the expected arguments in favour of Scottish independence. However, it also contained such material as contained in Chapter 2, under the heading, 'Early priorities for action within sound public finances'. These 'priorities' were not just contingent upon a "yes" vote in the referendum. These were a description of the SNP's proposed programme for government contingent upon their winning the 2016 Scottish Parliament elections-
'This Government intends to raise revenue and reduce spending by:
· reducing defence and security spending to £2.5 billion per year (which is still more than Westminster spends on defence in Scotland)
· ending the married couples tax allowance, planned for introduction in 2015
· cancelling the Westminster Government's Shares for Rights scheme in Scotland
· providing for a streamlined system of overseas representation focused on Scottish citizens and priority business sectors
There will also be savings from no longer having to fund the Westminster Parliament.
We expect these changes to deliver savings or increases in revenue totalling around £600 million in a full year.
This will provide scope to take action in the first budget of an independent Scotland to create a fairer and more successful country. The priorities of the current Scottish Government for that first budget will be to:
· maintain a commitment to protecting free personal care, free prescriptions, free higher education tuition for Scottish students and free concessionary travel
· abolish the "bedroom tax"
· extend the period of the triple lock for uprating of state pensions
· reduce energy bills by moving the cost of the Energy Company Obligation and Warm Home Discount Scheme to the Scottish Government
· provide 600 hours of childcare to around half of two year olds, as part of a longer term plan to deliver a transformational expansion in childcare
· equalise the earnings disregard between first and second earners for those already in receipt of Universal Credit
· increase tax allowances, tax credits and benefits in line with inflation
· meet international commitments to spend 0.7 per cent of Gross National Income on international aid
We expect these commitments to cost around £500-600 million per year in total to deliver.
Over the course of the first term of an independent Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Government proposes to work with Scotland's tax authority, Revenue Scotland, to simplify the tax system to reduce compliance costs, streamline reliefs and help to reduce tax avoidance, with a target revenue gain of £250 million per year by the end of the first term.
Alongside simplification, this Government plans for Revenue Scotland to deploy modern digital collection technologies to help ensure that all taxpayers pay their fair share of taxes, bearing down on the amount of revenues which are lost to error, avoidance and evasion.
Within our framework for robust and sustainable public finances, we propose to deliver the following measures to boost Scotland's competitiveness within the first term of an independent Scottish Parliament:
· provide childcare for 30 hours per week for 38 weeks per year - equivalent to primary school hours - for every three and four year old and vulnerable two year old, as part of a longer-term commitment to provide this level of provision to all children from age one until they start school
· cut Air Passenger Duty by 50 per cent, with a view to eventually abolishing it
· provide a clear timetable for cutting corporation tax by up to three percentage points for businesses paying tax in Scotland
We will also examine an increase in the National Insurance Employment Allowance to help small businesses, and will commence negotiations to return Royal Mail in Scotland to public ownership.
|
53. The Deputy First Minister compared the commitments
made in the White Paper Scotland's Future to those made
in the 2010 Budget, which was published "about six weeks
before the United Kingdom general election". He noted that
the contents of that Budget were largely about what the then Government
would do after the forthcoming election, which would require the
Government to be re-elected for the Budget to be put into effect.
54. The Deputy First Minister went on to defend the
tone of White Paper, pointing out that the document "is caveated
to make it absolutely crystal clear what is material that would
be incumbent on the election of a Government of a particular colour
and makes it expressly clear that that is not a given outcome
as a consequence of a "Yes" vote in the referendum in
September".[79]
55. When asked if civil servants had expressed concerns
to their ministers during its drafting, the Deputy First Minister
told us that "the process of producing the White Paper was
carefully considered by ministers in dialogue with civil servants
and we received no concerns that we were in any way taking an
approach that was beyond what was appropriate in the circumstances".[80]
56. Other issues during the referendum campaign also
gave rise to accusations of breaches of impartiality by Scottish
Government and UK Government civil servants. For example, former
civil servant Andrew Inglis wrote to tell us about what he saw
as breaches in impartially and neutrality in tweets by the Scotland
Office, in particular, criticism of the Scottish Government and
First Minister, and similarities with tweets by the Better Together
campaign.[81]
57. Many of
the ministers and senior civil servants from whom we heard were
keen to emphasise the professionalism of civil servants working
in Scotland and Westminster during the referendum process. Our
witnesses highlighted the dedication and hard work of many officials
in both the devolved administrations and the UK Government. We
wish to pay tribute to all the civil servants involved for their
contribution to the process of the referendum.
58. The contents
of the Scottish Government White Paper, Scotland's Future,
included a description of the SNP's proposed programme for government
that was contingent upon their winning the 2016 Scottish Parliament
elections. This did not uphold the factual standards expected
of a UK Government White Paper and therefore raised questions
about the use of public money for partisan purposes. Civil servants
serving the Scottish Government are obliged to serve the objectives
of their Government. We recognise that the exceptional circumstances
of the Scottish referendum placed some civil servants in a challenging
position, which would have been difficult for them to express
publicly.
59. Parts of
the White Paper should not have been included in a Government
publication. Civil servants should always advise against the appearance
of partisan bias in Government documentsand they should
not be required to carry out ministers' wishes, if they are being
asked to use public funds to promote the agenda of a political
party, as was evident in this case. At the very least, Sir Peter
Housden, Scotland's Permanent Secretary, should have required
a letter of direction.
60. We recommend that the Civil Service Code should
be revised to specifically refer to referendums and provide civil
servants across the UK with clear and definitive guidance on their
role in respect of referendum campaigns. We have provided a suggested
amendment to the code in the Annex to this Report.
Impartiality and the publication
of advice to ministers
61. Criticism has also been directed at the Civil
Service in respect of its impartiality and objectivity. Sir Nicholas
Macpherson, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, gave a speech
to the Mile End group in January 2014 that set out reflections
on economic policy based on his personal experience and Treasury
history. In this speech Sir Nicholas said:
[
] just as the Treasury has played a leading
role in setting out the implications of Scotland leaving the free
trade area that is the United Kingdom, so would I expect it to
play a critical role in setting out the economic implications
of the options of staying in or leaving the EU, should there be
a referendum on our membership in the next Parliament.[82]
The Daily Mail reported that after the speech, MPs
accused the Treasury of "attempting to scare the public in
favour of a 'yes' vote".[83]
62. On 11 February 2014 Sir Nicholas wrote to the
Chancellor of the Exchequer with advice on the possibility of
a currency union with Scotland, should Scotland become independent.[84]
In the letter Sir Nicholas wrote that a currency union with an
independent Scotland would be "fraught with difficulty".
On this advice, the Chancellor ruled out the First Minister's
preferred option of a currency union between an independent Scotland
and the rest of the UK.
63. In what Sir Nicholas himself described as "a
highly unusual" decision the letter he wrote was made public.[85]
As a consequence Sir Nicholas' impartiality was called into question.
The then Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Constitution and Economy,
John Swinney, for example, said Sir Nicholas had "crossed
the line" of civil service neutrality in his advice.[86]
He added that it was "perfectly permissible for civil servants
to provide advice to ministers on all sorts of questions."[87]
To enter a debate in the fashion that Sir Nicholas entered the
debate, which was a partial entrance, I thought was entirely over
the line."[88]
64. George Parker writing in the Financial Times
questioned the wisdom of publishing the advice, stating:
And with this, Sir Nickthe longest-serving
permanent secretary in Whitehallopened up a can of worms.
Civil service advice to ministers has long been protectedexempt
from Freedom of Information laws and never spoken of in public.
How long can that position last now? There will presumably be
great pressure, for example, for civil servants to say what their
advice is over leaving or staying in the European Union.[89]
65. The Rt Hon Peter Riddell, Director of the Institute
for Government, published a statement on the publication of the
letter:
It is highly unusual to see a permanent secretary's
personal advice to a minister published, especially in the midst
of a major national political debate. Such advice is currently
exempt from FOI. Historically civil servants are kept out of the
limelight to protect them from accusations of political bias.
This may be a well-thought-through departure from the usual rules,
in which case the civil service, Parliament and public need to
be informed at the earliest opportunity as to how the new system
will operate.[90]
66. In evidence to this inquiry, Michael Keating,
Professor of Politics at the University of Aberdeen and Director
of the Scottish Centre on Constitutional Change, said that it
was "very unusual that ministers should now rely on the advice
of a named civil servant as an argument, rather than taking Civil
Service advice and then making their own argument on the basis
of it".[91] He went
on to say that might not be a "bad" precedent: "ministers
are even more responsible, because we know what advice they have
been given. If they have overridden what turns out to be good
advice, they have to answer for it."[92]
David Clegg of the Daily Record told us that:
If part of the Civil Service job is to be able
to change from one Government to the other, the publication of
that advice has limited Sir Nicholas Macpherson's hand in the
future. Hypothetically, he could find himself working for a Government
that is considering negotiating the currency union with an independent
Scotland. It seems very difficult to see how he could do that
when this advice is on the record.[93]
67. However, Sir Bob Kerslake, Head of the Civil
Service, defended the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury and
told us that "I do not think it is the case that Nick crossed
the line of neutrality, because he is there to give advice to
the Government of the day".[94]
Sir Bob also said that this example did "not constitute a
change in rules or practice, and there have been precedents where
Civil Service advice has been published in the past, but not very
many".[95]
68. In evidence to this inquiry, Sir Nicholas cited
'reassuring the markets' in his explanation of the reasons for
publishing the letter:
This was quite an exceptional set of circumstances,
which goes to the heart of the integrity of our currency. I should
also say that, as Accounting Officer, I have a wider responsibility
to ensure that the British Government can borrow as cheaply as
possible. By setting out my views on the Scottish Government's
threat to walk away from their share of the debt in the event
of independence, I was seeking to provide reassurance to the markets,
not just in the short run, but potentially further into the future.
I regard this as a very exceptional set of circumstances, but
it is one where the interests of the British statethe Government,
the official Treasury, and the pound sterling's position in the
marketswere all completely aligned.[96]
69. The circumstances
of the Scottish referendum, where the very existence of the British
state was at stake, were exceptional. However, the case presented
in Sir Nicholas Macpherson's advice on a currency union with an
independent Scotland could have been presented in other ways and
just as powerfully. The only purpose was to use the impartial
status of a Permanent Secretary to give authority to the advocacy
of a political argument. There were other ways of 'reassuring
the markets'. In any case, we do not accept that this was the
primary reason for publishing this advice, because entering a
currency union with an independent Scotland is a decision for
government, not the Civil Service. The advice should not have
been published. Its publication compromised the perceived impartiality
of one of the UK's most senior civil servants.
70. It remains the view of this
Committee that civil service advice should remain protected. The
decision to publish will have unintended consequences for advice
given to ministers on future major issuesincluding referendums.F
71. We recommend that guidance regarding the publication
of Civil Service advice should be reiterated and if necessary
revised to ensure that a civil servant's advice to a minister
cannot be published in future, in order to protect the impartiality
of the Civil Service in accordance with the Northcote-Trevelyan
settlement.
72. The publication of this advice only occurred
because it suited ministers' political objectives in respect of
the Scottish referendum. The Government in response to this Report
must make it clear that this will never recur.
26 Dicey, A. V. (2013 [1885]) The Law of the Constitution.
Oxford University Press. Back
27
Public Administration Select Committee, Eighth Report of Session
2013-14, Truth to power: how Civil Service reform can succeed,
HC 74 [incorporating HC 664-i-x, Session 2012-13], September 2013 Back
28
Civil Service Commission [SIR16] Back
29
As above Back
30
As above Back
31
Q 581 Back
32
As above Back
33
Q 6 Back
34
Hansard (2014) 3 April : Column 1112 Back
35
Head of the Civil Service [SIR13] Back
36
As above Back
37
Scottish Government, Future of the Civil Service written evidence,
May 2013 Back
38
Better Government Initiative [SIR5] Back
39
Institute for Government, Year Five: Whitehall and the Parties in the Final Year of Coalition,
May 2014 Back
40
Keith Howell [SIR03] Back
41
As above Back
42
Q 690 Back
43
Q 691 Back
44
Institute for Government, Risk of danger surrounding how political parties work with civil servants in final year of parliament,
May 2014 Back
45
Q 503 Back
46
Q 504 Back
47
Cabinet Office, Civil Service Code, laid in Parliament on 11 November
2010 Back
48
Head of the Civil Service [SIR13] Back
49
BBC News, 'Scottish independence: Swinney steps up Treasury criticism over pound',
22 February 2014 Back
50
BBC News, 'Scottish independence: Swinney steps up Treasury criticism over pound',
22 February 2014 Back
51
Q 586 Back
52
Q 692 Back
53
Q 588 Back
54
As above Back
55
Scottish Government, Scotland's Future: Your guide to an independent Scotland,
November 2013 Back
56
Q 692 Back
57
'John McTernan: White paper damns civil service', The Scotsman,
4 April 2014 Back
58
John McTernan [SIR8] Back
59
As above Back
60
FDA [SIR10] Back
61
'It's time for Whitehall to stand up to the Nationalists', Daily
Telegraph, 13 December 2013 Back
62
As above Back
63
'Civil servants were just doing their job', Sunday Herald,
20 April 2014 Back
64
Hansard (2013) 5 Dec : Column 398 Back
65
Hansard (2014) 16 Jan : Column 378 Back
66
Q 683 Back
67
Q 693 Back
68
Q 597 Back
69
Q 394 Back
70
For example, Head of the Civil Service [SIR13] Back
71
Q 501 and Cabinet Office, Civil Service Code, laid in Parliament
on 11 November 2010 Back
72
'A unified civil service?', Holyrood Magazine, 17 November
2014 Back
73
Michael McCann MP [SIR2] Back
74
Q 590 Back
75
Q 591 Back
76
Q 592 Back
77
As above Back
78
Q 684 Back
79
Q 684 Back
80
Q 593 Back
81
Andrew Inglis [SIR9] Back
82
HM Treasury, Speech by the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, The Treasury view: a testament of experience,
January 2014 Back
83
'Treasury mandarins to campaign against Britain leaving the EU to the fury of Tory Eurosceptics',
Daily Mail, 24 January 2014 Back
84
Letter from Sir Nicholas Macpherson to the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
Scotland and a currency union, 11 February 2014 Back
85
'Scottish independence: 'Yes' vote means leaving pound, says Osborne',
BBC News online, 13 February 2014 Back
86
Q 619 Back
87
As above Back
88
As above Back
89
'Sir Nick Macpherson: very bold, perm sec', Financial Times,
13 February 2014 Back
90
Institute for Government, IfG statement on HM Treasury letter to Chancellor,
February 2014 Back
91
Q 80 Back
92
Q 97 Back
93
Q 679 Back
94
Q 189 Back
95
Q 271 Back
96
Q 137 Back
|