THE CIVIL SERVICE IS FAILING SCOTLAND

Scotland is struggling amid woeful governance and it's high time the civil service role in SNP policy failures is confronted

When Nicola Sturgeon resigned even fellow SNP politicians admitted her administration left much to be desired. “If they were asked to deliver a pizza” the anonymous nationalist explained, “they would set up a working group, would have a public consultation, then an over-engineered plan. The pizza would be square instead of round, would cost twice as much as originally thought and take three time as long to make.” The litany of high profile policy debacles has lent credibility to the view of a Scottish Government unable to be trusted to govern competently. But amid a culture where too much failure has been too widespread, blaming Nicola Sturgeon and SNP MSPs alone is insufficient. It is well past time Scotland turned to the question of governance and shown a spotlight on the civil service.

“A ‘cover your own back’ culture”

According to Sunday Times reporting, MSPs have been told by former ministers, special advisers and civil servants “that sometimes there is a bit of a ‘cover your own back’ culture”. In terms of the civil service in Scotland after a quarter century of devolution, I for one don’t doubt the truth of the statement. It was only March last year when I wrote an article (Ferry Fiasco: civil service paper trails) where questions ought to have been asked concerning the role of civil servants.

When Audit Scotland reported “There is insufficient documentary evidence” to explain why SNP ministers accepted the financial risks regarding the ferry contract ward in October 2015, everyone’s mind ought to have leapt to how that is even possible.

For there to be insufficient documentary evidence to ascertain why the Scottish Government opted to ignore the financial risks in October 2015, raises questions about the civil servants involved. Despite knowing in September 2015 Fergusson Marine could not satisfy a mandatory requirement for the contract (namely a full taxpayer refund guarantee) the award went out and the ferry fiasco has since become infamy. This episode demonstrates that the civil servants involved in the process seemed not to have been tasked with responsibility for taking policy implementation forward. Put simply, I feel that the civil service has far too long under the SNP been focused on presentation rather than on policy development and implementation.

In the case of the ferry fiasco and decisions to award the contract to Fergusson Marine, why have so few questions been asked publicly of Alyson Stafford? For those who don’t know, she was Director General Finance October 2010-June 2017 and according to her own words must have been cc’d into many emails concerning the ferry procurement process.

As per her own job description, she must have been someone who would have signed-off after knowledge broke in September 2015 that, as preferred bidder, FMEL were unable to provide full taxpayer refund guarantee (a mandatory requirement for the contract). And she would have directly reported to Leslie Evans as Permanent Secretary.

But according to the Auditor General “There is insufficient documentary evidence to explain why Scottish ministers accepted the risks and were content to approve the contract award in October 2015”

How is it that the Accountable Officer of the time (Alyson Stafford) and the Principle Accountable Officer (Leslie Evans) signed-off on such disastrous spending decisions? How is it even conceivable that despite them inevitably being cc’d into emails etc, there is insufficient documentary evidence to answer how such a disastrous spending decisions regarding the ferries were reached?

It all circles back to the larger issue of a ‘cover your own back’ culture in the civil service, sure, but more worryingly perhaps something darker.

After all, anyone who has ever worked in the civil service (or any professional bureaucracy) will tell you that there is always a paper trail. Emails are sent, anyone with even remote overlapping authority is copied in. Why? Spread risk, ensure accountability, body-swerve blame., avoid stepping on toes. Top civil servants are masters of their departmental empires.

It is a normal civil service process to ensure people are copied into emails, minutes are made, t’s are crossed and i’s are dotted. Contemporaneous notes are made, kept, retained for periods of time afterward. This is how a professional, normal bureaucracy functions; regardless of the political masters who are ‘here today, gone tomorrow’ heading up ministries. The TV show ‘Yes Minister’ comically pokes fun at all of this dry civil service process with its character ‘Sir Humphrey Appleby’; and it worked so well because it captured something of the realistic.

But apparently not in the civil service in Scotland. When things go wrong such as in the case of the ferry fiasco suddenly there are no contemporaneous notes to explain how ministerial (and civil servant) decision making was reached. And you should be deeply alarmed by this fact.

Ministerial directions

The spectre of broken governance structures and procedures in Scotland is best captured by the complete absence of ministerial direction.

For those who don’t know ministerial directions are formal instructions telling departments to proceed with a spending proposal, despite objection from permanent secretaries.

Ministerial directions are formal instructions from ministers telling their department to proceed with a spending proposal, despite objection from their departmental permanent secretary.

Each permanent secretary – the most senior civil servant in each department – is also the ‘accounting officer’ for their department: the person who parliament would call to account for how the department spends its money. These accountable officers (such as Alyson Stafford in the case of the Scottish ferry fiasco) have a duty to seek a ministerial direction if they think a spending proposal breaches any of the following criteria:

• Regularity – if the proposal is beyond the department’s legal powers, or agreed spending budgets

• Propriety – if it doesn’t meet ‘high standards of public conduct’, such as appropriate governance or parliamentary expectations

• Value for money – if something else, or doing nothing, would be cheaper and better

• Feasibility – if there is doubt about the proposal being ‘implemented accurately, sustainably or to the intended timetable’

The permanent secretary of a department writes to their secretary of state expressing their concerns, seeking a direction.

In response, the ministerial direction instructs the permanent secretary to implement the decision. As a result of this direction, the minister, not the permanent secretary, is now accountable for the decision.

In Westminster it is common for this to take place - to cycle back to an earlier point - it is a necessary part of how a normal civil service process ensures t’s are crossed and 'i’s are dotted (if only to cover your own metaphorical civil servant arse).

So far in 2023 there have already been two cases of ministerial direction down in London. One regarding a ministerial direction request regarding NHS pay settlement, the other regarding a ministerial direction to continue spend on the UK Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre ahead of Royal Assent for the Holocaust Memorial Bill.

Looking back on 2022 there were six alone and nineteen for 2020 (the year of the pandemic). But in Scotland? According to April 2022 figures, there have been no formal objections raised against SNP ministers’ spending decisions in 15 years.

So throughout the ferry fiasco in September-October 2015, no ministerial direction it seems was sought by the accountable officer when awarding a contract to a shipyard unable to meet mandatory terms of contract. Throughout the pandemic, when covid-19 emergency funding was being spent to support businesses, households etc, no ministerial directions were ever sought by the civil service in Scotland.

Nineteen sought in 2020 down in Westminster, but nada - zilch - in Holyrood.

It underscores the larger crisis befalling Scotland, evidence of a politicised civil service more concerned with presentation than policy delivery. Reluctant to push back on SNP ministers via ministerial directions and apparently unable to maintain evidential paper-trails to ensure accountability for decision making.

If the Nicola Sturgeon has any legacy one of the biggest - albeit unsexy and often ignored - is a blurring of the lines between politicking and officialdom. If I may quote one veteran civil servant, “Something’s going badly wrong in policy making and implementation in the Scottish government…the legions of special advisers walking the corridors playing at The West Wing certainly aren’t helping.”

---

My work is entirely reader-supported. To receive new posts and support my work, please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber

Alternatively why not make a one-off donation? All support is appreciated