Could Scotland Office's days be numbered?

by DOUGLAS SHEPHERD

The need for the UK Government's Scotland Office which has an annual budget of more than £28 million and a total payroll of over 100 staff to remain in business has been questioned by politicians of every hue as part of an investigation into the relationship between Westminster and Holyrood.

Michael Moore, a former Borders MP who served as Secretary of State for Scotland from 2010-13 in the Tory-Lib. Dem. Coalition, was one of the witnesses invited to give evidence to the Commons Scottish Affairs Committee.

And David Mundell (Conservative) , another MP for part of the Scottish Borders, currently holds the office of Scottish Secretary.

A recent evidence session before the Committee heard several members and a number of 'elder statesmen' advocate abolition of Mr Mundell's department by posing the question "why is it still there?" It was suggested the Scotland Office could be replaced by a senior minister for the regions and nations who would carry far more influence in Cabinet.

Lord McConnell, who was Scotland's First Minister from 2001-2007 told the committee:"If I am being absolutely honest, I was surprised in 1999 that there was still a Secretary of State for Scotland. I had assumed that that position would just go. I think 20 years on, what you need here is a big decision, a big change—not a wee incremental change, a big change—and in that way you would move on and move into a new era."

His views were echoed by Lord Wallace, a former Deputy First Minister of Scotland. He said: "I adopt what my noble friend Lord McConnell has said about a very senior Minister who would have responsibility for the nations and regions. David Lidington (so-called Deputy Prime Minister) does quite a lot of work in dealing with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. There is something embryonic here. I suspect he carries more clout for Scotland’s interests, if I dare say so, than Mr Mundell does. No disrespect to Mr Mundell but David Lidington probably has clout."

SNP MP Tommy Sheppard, a member of the Scottish Affairs Committee, asked witnesses: "What is the point of the Scotland Office? If its relevance was being questioned in 2003, surely two decades after devolution it needs to be questioned further. Could I invite you, if you wish to, to make the case for the continuation of the Scotland Office or to speculate on whether there might be any adverse consequences of it being wound up?"

Lord Wallace told him: "You will probably find me on record, from the early days of devolution, saying that there should not be a Scotland Office. I think you will find I am on record—from possibly even before the Scottish Parliament was established—saying that the natural consequence of this might be that you did not need a Scotland Office, as such, and there could be an office that looked over general constitutional issues."

John Lamont (Con), a current Borders MP and a colleague of Mr Mundell warned the committee:  "Some argue that we need to have a structure whereby the Scottish Government could potentially block or need to give consent to things that the UK Government are doing that impact on Scotland. From my perspective, that is not acceptable because, when we have the stand-off scenario that Kirstene (Hair MP) described, effectively the Scottish Government would have a veto over the ability of the UK Government to take action on a UK-wide basis. Where is that special place where we can get the Governments working together but we do not have one Government, for whatever reason, exercising some sort of right of veto?"

Recalling his time as the Scottish Secretary, Mr Moore, whose constituency is now represented by Mr Lamont, said: "The Scotland Office led presentations and lots of different things in terms of negotiations and relationships, but it had the resources of a wider Whitehall that it could adapt and deliver.

"Sometimes the politics and the egos and the policy thing will be challenging, but that goes to the heart of the reason for this inquiry. Are the intergovernmental relations fit for purpose in a very different world to the one we were in 20 years ago? I do not want to preempt your findings, but I would suggest my feeling is no and that it needs to catch up with reality.

"The Scotland Office, as I have already remarked, changed in its nature in the short period I was there, from a period where it might have been guilty and open to the criticisms Mr Sheppard and others made in the previous session about, “What is it for? Why would it be there?” My party and others suggested it should be abolished until we were in the office and then of course we wanted to stay."

Even a former top civil servant cast doubts on the future of Mr Mundell's office.

Alun Evans - between 2012 and 2015 Head of the Scotland Office during the Edinburgh Agreement and the independence referendum - remarked: "When I was there, there were about 90 people in total. I think there is a need for a Department of the Nations and Regions. The nature of the Scotland Office and particularly the Wales Office—Northern Ireland is slightly different—is not tenable in the post-devolution system we work in now. It would be far better for Government and governance as a whole, and the way Cabinet works, if there could be a Department of nations and regions headed by a powerful Secretary of State/Deputy Prime Minister."

He was reacting to a question from Tory MP Ross Thomson.who asked witnesses: "Just in my experience, having been in Dover House and the offices in Edinburgh, there are still a lot of personnel there, a lot of people who are Deputy Directors and policy people. I still do not understand what their role or contribution is. Does this have to change?"