UK Parliament / Open data

Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill

I am not sure whether I can speak on behalf of the old Liberal party, of which I used to be a member, but I can certainly speak on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. I would urge Liberal Democrat Members to support the amendment if it is pressed to a vote. As the hon. Gentleman said, the amendment does not represent the separation of the civil services which some in his party seek. It is simply a measure of further devolution politically—not by further devolving the power itself, but by removing a power from the UK Prime Minister. It seems a perfectly sensible suggestion to transfer power over senior appointments in Scotland from a politician—the UK Prime Minister—to the head of the home civil service for the United Kingdom, the Cabinet Secretary. Some people might think that that is a purely symbolic gesture, but it would provide some protection for the process of appointment to the civil service in Scotland, which does not exist now. Given the history of prime ministerial interference in senior civil service appointments that we suspect has been going on at United Kingdom level—at least under a previous Prime Minister—that seems an entirely sensible thing to do. It raises the question why the Bill retains the power of the Prime Minister, as Minister for the Civil Service, to interfere with senior appointments at United Kingdom level—an issue that seems to have disappeared from the Bill, in comparison with previous drafts. Perhaps that is the reason why the Government are nervous about the amendment. I come back to the point about devolution. It seems perfectly reasonable to have a different system even on that question in Scotland, compared with the rest of the United Kingdom. I do not think that threatens the unity of the civil service, and it provides a sensible way forward. Speaking as an outsider, I think that the Calman commission provides a sensible way forward for further devolution to Scotland, so I approve of the amendment and would vote for it if the House were to divide on it.

About this proceeding contribution

Reference

498 c801-2 

Session

2008-09

Chamber / Committee

House of Commons chamber
Back to top