68. We have dealt above with areas where there may be friction between the two administrations. We now come to two elements of the machinery of government which will certainly be affected by devolution. Problems in these areas are unlikely to threaten the stability of the settlement but would certainly affect the quality of life in a devolved Scotland. They are the civil service and local government.

The civil servants

69. When the Secretary of State for Scotland gave evidence to us on his responsibilities in October 1997, he indicated that he did not expect the setting up of the Scottish Parliament greatly to increase the volume of work required of Scottish Office civil servants, or consequently their numbers. Douglas Sinclair of COSLA on the other hand, predicted a large increase in the work-load of local government ('Oh, goodness me, yes'[78]) and felt the same was likely to be true of the civil service. The PCS, the largest civil service union both in Scotland and in the UK commented 'if the Scottish Executive is to function properly, this will inevitably mean a staff increase. There will be a need to develop separate Scottish policies on topics where Whitehall Departments do the bulk of the work at present. There will also be an additional workload involved in responding to the questions which the 129 Members of Parliament will regularly ask in the interests of the constituents'.[79] The Scottish Council Foundation calculate that an extra 300 civil servants at an average cost of £35,000 a year (out of the Scottish bloc, it will be remembered) will be needed. We put this suggestion to Mr McLeish, who replied that he did not accept the Scottish Council Foundation figure which depended on that body's view of how the Scottish Civil Service would arrange its work.[80] He maintained that, apart from the 200-odd staff needed to service the Parliament itself any increase in staff would be 'very small'.[81] He told us that estimates were still being worked out. We believe the Minister was being unduly optimistic.

70. The civil servants serving the Scottish Executive will remain members of the UK civil service, a principle welcomed by the PCS.[82] They may be expected to maintain the high traditions of that service, including that of absolute political neutrality. Nonetheless, their role is bound to change somewhat, and this may cause strains. Douglas Sinclair pointed out that COSLA serviced the Committee of the Regions on an all-party basis and suggested that this would be unfamiliar to civil servants who are used to servicing the Government, adding 'they would find it strange to service opposition members'.[83] He also said 'the Scottish Parliament has huge implications for the Scottish civil service, because they are going to have a relationship with 129 MSPs which is going to be much more direct than the relationship they have with the 600-odd MPs in Westminster. Some of those are going to have a relationship with Ministers which is more akin—and those of you with a local government background will understand what I am going to say—to the relationship between the convenor of a committee than the director of a service, they are going to be subject to a much greater degree of scrutiny than they have been in the past'[84], a circumstance he felt had implications for training. The PCS also had concerns, suggesting that there was a risk that civil servants might be exposed to public scrutiny at an unacceptably low level, and commenting while 'we are not arguing that the Scottish Executive is responsible for every decision that is taken by civil servants, however where there is clear ministerial responsibility we would expect those elected to admit some culpability'.[85] A further area of difficulty for civil service might arise in the event of a disagreement on, for instance, a European matter, between a UK administration of one colour and a Scottish one of another.

The Secretary of State and his staff

71. The medium and long-term future of the office of Secretary of State for Scotland is somewhat uncertain. The Act refers to the 'Secretary of State' but by constitutional convention any Secretary of State can perform functions allocated to any other. The coming into effect of the Act will see most of the post's current functions stripped away. The White Paper suggests that 'Once the Scottish Parliament is in being the responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Scotland will change. The focus will be on promoting communication between the Scottish Parliament and Executive and between the UK Government and Parliament on matters of mutual interest; and on representing Scottish interests in reserved areas.[86] He also has some powers to prohibit the submission of an enactment of the Assembly for Royal Assent in certain circumstances relating to international conventions, Scots private law or reserved matters.[87] Mr McLeish said 'The Secretary of State's role, I think, is a very important one and it will continue. Obviously there is a practical need for proper liaison...Secondly, in areas of the budget for the Parliament, and also in terms of private law...the Secretary of State will have a practical role to play. Thirdly, the Secretary of State will, of course, be a member of the Cabinet because there are substantial reserved matters for Westminster that have tremendous implications for Scotland'.[88] We agree that there should continue to be a separate Secretary of State for Scotland.

72. As the Secretary of State loses areas of responsibility, his staff can be expected to shrink. Mr McLeish told us that the level of civil service support for the Secretary of State following devolution was under consideration.[89]

Local government

73. The White Paper states that 'the Government does not expect the Scottish Parliament and its Executive to accumulate a range of new functions which would be more appropriately and efficiently delivered by other bodies within Scotland. The Government believe that the principle that decisions should be made as close as possible to the citizen [ie subsidiarity] holds within Scotland as it does within the United Kingdom'.[90] We have already noted that COSLA expect an increase in the workload of local government to follow devolution. If experience abroad is any guide, it may find itself under pressure of a different kind. Experience in Germany and Spain yields many examples of turf wars and financial friction between sub-state units and local government. Professor Bogdanor reminded us that in Catalonia the Government of the autonomous community attempted to abolish local government entirely[91] and Dr Jeffery certainly expected that the role of local government in Scotland might be 'challenged and re-calibrated'[92] as a result of devolution. Mr Barnes raised the spectre of a Scottish local authority 'appealing to Westminster against the action of a government in Edinburgh that it dislikes and then .... the UK Parliament .....dare not intervene'.[93]

74. Douglas Sinclair could not see any possibility of an appeal from Scottish local government to Westminster, but he agreed that 'any parliament is a threat to local government, that is a matter of fact; the issue is to develop that culture of co-operation rather than the culture of conflict.'[94] He wanted to see local government in Scotland taking on more of a function of community leadership (as happens more often on the continent of Europe) rather than simply as a service provider. He gave as a personal view that there might be too many local authorities for strategic efficiency and that it might be that local government would have to 'face up to a point in time when it either cedes further powers to the Parliament or accept that the only way to stop [this] is a further reorganisation'.[95]

75. The Minister reminded us that the problem of new responsibilities being given to local authorities without these being accompanied by the necessary additional finance about which we heard complaints in Germany and Spain and which is feared by some in Scotland was not a new one.[96] He also explained that the Government had looked at the possibility of entrenching the position of local government but 'in reality these clauses are simply not worth the paper they are printed on in legal terms'.[97]

76. COSLA is currently playing an active role in Europe, not only in terms of lobbying in Brussels, but also in terms of providing and servicing the Scottish delegation to the Committee of the regions. Its role will certainly be affected by the establishment of the Parliament; while the lobbying function will remain or increase as Europe's importance in Scottish life increases the involvement in the Committee of the regions is likely to be reduced as the Parliament provides half (COSLA's proposal) or indeed the whole of this delegation. COSLA would like to see local government representatives co-opted to the Scottish Parliament's European Committee but it remains to be seen whether this will happen.

77. Even if the role of local government remains unchanged, the proliferation of elected representatives may confuse constituents. Even now, they often write to MPs rather than to local councillors and the interpolation of an additional layer (in addition to the already-existing MEPs) may serve to result in an increase in inappropriately-addressed requests. COSLA's suggested that there might be a need for a protocol to cover the handling of constituency matters between 'the MSP elected, the regional MSP, the Westminster MP and the local councillor'.[98] To that list might usefully be added the MEP. We believe that such a protocol could be drawn up in respect of the new distribution of powers but that in reality it would not be observed, specially by constituents. We endorse the Westminster tradition that one Member does not interfere in another's constituency business.

78. In view of the above considerations, we were glad to learn from COSLA and Mr McLeish that an independent commission—the Macintosh Commission—has been set up 'to look at local government itself, its functions and the way it works and to look to the future, but, secondly and equally important for me, it is looking at the relationship, or the interface between the new Scottish Parliament and local government'.[99]

79  Ev.p.20. Back

80  Q384. Back

81  Q380. Back

82  Ev.p.20. Back

83  Q187. Back

84  Q209. Back

85  Ev.p.16. Back

86  Scotland's Parliament para.4.12. Back

87  Section 33. Back

88  Q306. Back

89  ibid. Back

90  Scotland's Parliament para.6.2. Back

91  Ev.p.2-3. Back

92  Q80. Back

93  Q294. Back

94  Q230. Back

95  Q238. Back

96  Q357. Back

97  Q356. Back

98  Q231. Back

99  Q298. Back