Scotland Bill

My Lords, this amendment deals with the Civil Service in Scotland. It says: "““Any code of conduct covering civil servants who serve the Devolved Scottish Government must make clear that advice given to Scottish Ministers by civil servants in Scotland should be limited to devolved matters and should not concern reserved matters””." That might be a bit draconian, and obviously some account needs to be taken of where reserved and devolved matters overlap to enable civil servants to advise Ministers on that. However, the amendment arises—and I say this in particular to those who are not from Scotland—from a real controversy. A huge furore has arisen in Scotland over the way in which two successive senior civil servants—the Permanent Secretaries Sir John Elvidge and now Sir Peter Housden—have effectively gone native and are advising the SNP Government on how they can achieve their policy to break up Britain. I do not see that it is any function of members of the British Civil Service—they remain members of the British Civil Service—to advise a devolved Government on how to achieve their political aim of breaking up Britain. They are there to advise and make sure that the education service is as efficient as possible, that social work is carried out effectively, that the NHS works as well as possible and that the legal system is properly administered. That is a huge responsibility for the head of the Scottish Civil Service. That is what he should be doing—getting on with that and advising Ministers responsible for education and Ministers for health on those responsibilities. Instead they seem to be accepting the SNP notion that the Scottish Government are not just a devolved Government but effectively already a quasi-independent Government. Just as the First Minister assumes a great deal about the Scottish Government and implies that they can and should operate like an independent Government, they have been advising them in relation to that. To give a brief indication of the kind of furore that has arisen, and I shall be brief, I will quote from one or two of the Scottish newspapers. First, Sir John Elvidge retired last year as Permanent Secretary. The Scottish Express stated: "““The row over alleged political bias in the Scottish civil service deepened yesterday, after the country's former top mandarin claimed that his work behind the scenes contributed to the SNP's election win””." He claims that as a result of his work as a supposedly unbiased civil servant—after all, that is supposed to be the ethos of the Civil Service—he helped the SNP to win the election. Sir John Elvidge, who stood down as Permanent Secretary last year, wrote a glowing article in praise of the nationalists. Is that non-political? Is it carrying out a non-political role to suggest that he helped Alex Salmond to stay in power, contributing to his political success? Sir John Elvidge out of his own mouth condemns himself by claiming part of the SNP's and Alex Salmond's successes. Sir John retired and then Sir Peter Housden was appointed. He is from Shropshire. As I was born in Shropshire—and then moved quickly to Scotland, by the way—I assumed that he might have a little bit more understanding of how to advise in a proper Civil Service manner. But then Sir Peter started his blog—the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, has referred to it in a previous debate—and his famous messages to his Civil Service. This time I quote from the Mail Online, so I am not quoting from left-wing newspapers. It said: "““The notion of Scotland being reoriented as a 'Scandinavian' country, at the expense of links with England, the Commonwealth and Europe, is odd enough; but stranger still is the revelation this week that the plan—part of a massive 'Prospectus for Independence' —is being put together by a branch of the UK Civil Service.""These servants of the Crown have been tasked by Alex Salmond with selling separatism to the electorate, in advance of an independence referendum””." I ask the Minister: is it any responsibility of a civil servant to sell separatism to the electorate in advance of an independence referendum? The article continues: "““For Scots it was a shock, but not a surprise. This is only the latest demonstration of how what ought to be part of the British government machine has been made an instrument of separatist propaganda””." The article mentions the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, raising the subject in this House, and then continues: "““In a memo to subordinates immediately after the SNP won an overall majority at last May's Scottish elections, beginning 'And now we go to it', Housden dismissed David Cameron's plans for a limited transfer of tax-raising powers to Holyrood””." Sir Peter Housden, a UK civil servant, dismissed the Prime Minister's plan for Calman, which we are discussing today. He pooh-poohed it. That is astonishing. The Minister is looking unmoved. I hope that when he comes to reply, he will express his astonishment in relation to this and tell us what is going to be done about it. The report about Sir Peter Housden goes on: "““He urged his officials to 'embark on a journey toward constitutional reform' and provided an internet link to a newspaper article, which he described as 'essential reading', that denounced 'unionist fundamentalism'””." It denounced the policy of the United Kingdom Government. Finally, I shall quote from the Daily Telegraph—again, not a left-wing newspaper. It says that all three of Scotland's opposition leaders wrote to make a formal complaint to the head of the Civil Service, then Sir Gus O'Donnell, now our colleague the noble Lord, Lord O'Donnell, who dismissed it. One of the problems, and I have seen this in my dealings with the UK Civil Service recently, is that most of the UK Civil Service does not understand the concept of devolution. I do not think that they realise how it works and how it is meant to work. Recently, for example, in the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, we found that the then national security adviser, Sir Peter Ricketts, had not even considered or advised the Government about the potential dangers of Scottish independence and how it might affect national security. As soon as I raised it in the committee, it became an issue and the committee started pursuing it. I think that civil servants in Whitehall do not fully realise what is going on. I did say finally, but I have one more quotation from the Daily Telegraph. It states: "““The head of Scotland's Civil Service faced fresh accusations of being politically partisan last night after he told thousands of his officials that he expected Alex Salmond to emerge victorious in the independence referendum””." This is one more occasion after another where he is supporting the SNP. Sir Gus O'Donnell said that civil servants have to advise the Government they work for. Of course, it is right that they should advise the Scottish Government on all the devolved areas—how to work effectively, what their policies are—but on a reserved matter, such as the constitution, should they advise the devolved, SNP-controlled Scottish Government to help it to break up Britain? I think the answer should be no and I hope that the Minister will say that the answer should be no. We know that the SNP wants to start discussing defence, and it is against Trident. It wants Trident removed from Scotland, against the policy of the United Kingdom Government. Will Sir Peter Housden advise it on Trident and how to end the United Kingdom's independent deterrent? I hope not, otherwise we may get onto foreign affairs. The United Kingdom Government have a very clear policy on the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. Supposing Mr Salmond takes a notion to support Argentina and say that the Malvinas belong to Argentina, will Sir Peter Housden advise him on how he can achieve that? That may seem fanciful but once you get to know the kind of things that go on in Bute House it does not sound so fanciful at all. The Minister seems preoccupied; I can understand why, but I hope that he will express concern about this—I know that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, will. Even more, I hope that he will indicate that the new head of the Civil Service, Sir Jeremy Heywood, is making it clear to Sir Peter Housden that he has no business advising the SNP on how to achieve its policy to break up Britain, and he should get on with advising it on making the services that have been devolved to the Scottish Executive work as effectively as possible.