CIVIL SERVICE LETTER (SIR WILLIAM BEVERIDGE) (Hansard, 10 December 1943)

§ Mr. W. J. Brown (Rugby)
I rise to draw attention to the ban issued upon Civil Servants having contact with or discussions with Sir William Beveridge. Anyone who listened to the Question and answer the other day would have derived the impression that the instruction issued by Sir Richard Hopkins to civil servants affected only a small body of men, those civil servants whose official work was directly in connection with the Government's unemployment plans. I want to make it plain that that is not the case. The actual language of the circular issued by Sir Richard Hopkins makes it perfectly plain that this prohibition against which I protested applies to all civil servants of whatever category anywhere.

§ Mr. A. Bevan (Ebbw Vale)
Established and unestablished?

§ Mr. W. J. Brown
In any Department, in any part of the country. The actual language is: I do not think that officials of any type in Government service could engage in such discussions without the risk of a doubt hereafter arising whether in some degree they may not have made known or implied the lines on which the Government were attacking this question. There are 700,000 civil servants in Britain. Of that number I doubt whether more than a few score, or a few hundred at the outside, are actively connected with the Government's plans for unemployment. Let me put it, with an excess of generosity, at a few thousand. The circumstance that a few thousand civil servants may be on work connected with the Government's plan for unemployment is no justification whatever for placing a restriction upon the liberties of the 690 odd other thousands whose work has no relation whatever to the Government's plans. That is the first of the four points that I want to make.
Secondly, I ask, is it appropriate that this document should have been issued even to those civil servants whose work is directly in connection with the Government's plan for unemployment? This problem of the relations between a civil servant and a member of the public is not a new one. It is governed by two things which are both of ancient date. The first is the statutory restriction laid down by the Official Secrets Act, with which every civil servant is perfectly familiar, and the second is the standard of professional conduct which has been developed over the years, and which imposes on a civil servant the obligation, not merely of not directly revealing information that he has acquired as a Government servant, but not even revealing it indirectly. Both the Official Secrets Act and the implications of this professional conduct are perfectly well known to civil servants, and they resent, in all grades, and especially in the higher grades, the issue of a circular which implies that there is some possibility of a breach of the Official Secrets Act, or an imputation on their own professional standard of conduct with reference to Sir William Beveridge. They object to that imputation, and the higher the grades are the more they resent it.
There is another imputation in this 1352 document. It is an imputation on Sir William Beveridge. The document can only bear the meaning that the Government have some reason for supposing that Sir William is the type of man who is either ignorant of the Official Secrets Act or of Civil Service professional standards of conduct, or, if he is not ignorant, that he is the sort of person who would persuade civil servants to ignore the Official Secrets Act or their own professional standards of conduct.

§ Mr. W. J. Brown
Sir William Beveridge is a very distinguished economist, he is a distinguished university professor, and he has had a distinguished Civil Service career as well. The Government have utilised his services from time to time on important work, and it seems to me to be wholly wrong to issue a document into which there can be read that kind of imputation against him. The House ought to know that the situation is none of Sir William Beveridge's seeking. When the Chancellor replied to me the other day he was at pains to make it plain that Sir William Beveridge's inquiry is a private and unofficial inquiry. There was a Question from the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams), who asked whether Sir William should be favoured beyond other men with regard to access to Government information. The House and the country ought to know that if Sir William Beveridge's inquiry into unemployment is a private one, it is only because the Government refuse to utilise his services in an official inquiry into that problem.

§ Mr. MacLaren (Burslem)
Is that so? Can it be substantiated?

§ Mr. W. J. Brown
I would ask the Financial Secretary whether he will contradict what I have said. He knows as well as I do that at the end of Sir William Beveridge's first inquiry into social security, he made it plain to the Government that he was willing to go on and complete the job by dealing with the second half of the problem, how to keep unemployment within reasonable limits. If his inquiry is a private and unofficial 1353 inquiry, it is not his fault, and it ought not to be the basis of a circular issued by Sir Richard Hopkins.

§ Mr. MacLaren
Have the Government intimated to Sir William that they refuse to have any inquiry of that kind?

§ Mr. W. J. Brown
Yes, Sir, and that brings me to the next point I want to make. It is wrong for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to try and impose upon civil servants, whether permanent or temporary, restrictions which he has neither the authority nor the power to impose. A civil servant does not cease to be a citizen because he is a civil servant. If he discharges faithfully and conscientiously the conditions attached to his job, which are, first, the observance of the Official Secrets Act and, second, the living up to the professional standards of conduct I have referred to, it is utterly improper and wrong of Sir Richard Hopkins or the Chancellor of the Exchequer to tell them whom they can talk to in their spare time, whom they are to associate with, and what contacts they are to make.
I want to tell the Financial Secretary that my union, which is a pacific union led by a very pacific person, has issued instructions that these instructions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer are to be disregarded. What the Government buy are our services and not our souls, and when they issue circulars which go beyond their authority those circulars will be disregarded. I hope that that is categorical and blunt enough. If any civil servant is victimised as the result of doing what he has a perfect right to do, my union will have something to say about it.

§ Sir Patrick Hannon (Birmingham, Moseley)
No civil servant would do it.

§ Mr. W. J. Brown
Would do what?

§ Sir P. Hannon
Would violate his position in the Civil Service.

§ Mr. Brown
I see no reason for that. That, I think, is one of the serious elements. If ever there was a public service in the world which showed an almost religious regard for its obligations to the public, which observed with an almost excessive zeal the professional standards of conduct required from it, it is the British Civil Service, and its members resent deeply the imputation contained in the circular that there is some need to remind them of it.

§ Sir P. Hannon
But there is no imputation at all.

§ Mr. Brown
I may be told that no such imputation may be intended either on civil servants or on Sir William Beveridge, that what the Government fear is not that civil servants will say more than they ought to, or that Sir William Beveridge will tempt them to do so, but that all that the Government want is to avoid confusion in the public mind as between the Government's proposals for unemployment and Sir William Beveridge's proposals for unemployment, which might arise if any civil servant accidentally happened to bump into Sir William Beveridge in Whitehall or in the train. I shall find it difficult to accept that view, for two reasons. In the first place, the Government have at their disposal ample means of avoiding any such confusion. Sir William Beveridge has announced publicly that his inquiry is an unofficial one. My right hon. Friend has at his disposal the immense mechanism of the wireless to make it public to the country that it was an unofficial inquiry. The Press have already published the statement that it was unofficial, and I am certain that they will be prepared to publish as many other announcements of that fact as the Government desire. I decline to believe that it is necessary to tell civil servants not to speak to Sir William Beveridge, to treat him as a pariah. Even if I were inclined to suppose that were the Government's reason, is it necessary to issue a document which brands Sir William Beveridge, who has done great public service, for which this country ought to be grateful, as a pariah, in order to avoid a misunderstanding? Why could not my right hon. Friend have sent for Sir William Beveridge and have said to him: "Beveridge, we fear that if you come into Government offices and talk to civil servants there may be some misunderstanding. In the interests of avoiding that would you please stay away"? Why should they not have sent for him for a friendly chat, or dropped him a friendly note?

§ Mr. A. Bevan
Because they are not friendly to him.

§ Mr. W. J. Brown
Why must they choose the method of sending out a circular which, if they had any sense, they would know must become public, branding him as a pariah and instructing civil 1355 servants to have nothing to do with him? That is the method they chose.
Now I come to the last substantial point I want to make. I do not believe that what the Government are concerned about here is either the rectitude of the Civil Service, or the fear that Sir William Beveridge would tempt them, or a misunderstanding in the public mind, or any of those things. This is what I do believe. A little while ago the Government asked Sir William Beveridge to produce a Report upon social security. He was commissioned to do so by the Government. He produced a Report, but it was more than the Government bargained for. He produced a Report which is acting as an unwelcome pace-maker to the Government. It was not a revolutionary document.

§ Mr. Glenvil Hall (Colne Valley)
It was good 1906 Liberalism.

§ Mr. W. J. Brown
No, it was not. It is in the well-established Liberal tradition of change within the existing order. That is the real definition. If one wanted to be unkind about it, one might describe it as a device for compelling the poor to insure each other in a way that involves the minimum expenditure by the rich or by the State. However that may be, and reformist as it was, it was too much for elements in this Government. They ought to have regarded Sir William Beveridge as a saviour of the capitalist order, but their attitude towards his Report was more like that of the unclean spirits in the New Testament who cried out with a loud voice, "Art thou come to torment us before our time?" That is their real attitude, and they are afraid that if Sir William Beveridge makes another report on the limitation and possible cure of unemployment, that report will be as big a pacemaker as his Report on social security has already been.
I want to leave the Minister ample time to reply, so I shall draw my remarks to a close, but I must say this: Not only is it desirable that civil servants shall talk to Sir William Beveridge, but it is a positive advantage that civil servants should not be mandarins enclosed in a palace in Whitehall. The more they see of the outside world and are able to exchange ideas with people moving in freer air, the better it must be from the public point of view. I noticed in the 1356 "Economist" of 4th December—and this is not a Communist organ—an expression of the same point of view. It says: That civil servants should be forbidden to make their contribution to the widespread and valuable examination of British postwar problems is not unlike sabotage, and calls for the most vigorous protest in Parliament. It is the strength of democratic communities that official and non-official views can be combined in free discussion to produce the right answer to the right question; and the formal prohibitions of the Civil Service, based, quite illogically, on the non-political character of civil servants, adds a distasteful and undemocratic quality to the freedom of speech and opinion, a quality which contrasts strangely with the causes for which, ostensibly, this war is being fought. I entirely agree with the "Economist."
I want to tell the House that the executive committee of my association met yesterday and that they considered this matter. They adopted this resolution, of which the Government would do well to take notice: We reject completely the contention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this ban involves no new restriction on the personal rights of civil servants. The Association will be prepared to defend by every means in its power"— and that means every means in its power— any members who, in their personal capacity, and provided they betray no confidential information, give such assistance as they are able to to Sir William Beveridge or any other person engaged in similar public-spirited enterprises. That is a plain intimation to the Government that if they seek to impose this ban and the Civil Service disregard it, and the Government seek to take action against it, they will have to deal with us. I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day to withdraw that instruction. If he does not withdraw it, I tell him that it will be disregarded, and that we civil servants, as an organised body, will not be used as an instrument of the Tory Party in this country against other parties in the matter of great social movements. I say to the Government, "You are entitled to ask from us certain things. You are entitled to ask for a rigid observance of the Official Secrets Act and of standards of conduct that have been built up over the centuries. These things we will give you, but we will give you no more, and least of all will we consent to be made an instrument in the dirty game of party politics in this country." I warn the Minister that 1357 if he goes further than this document, he goes further at his own peril.

§ Sir Patrick Hannon (Birmingham, Moseley)
I want to intervene for a moment or two because I had the honour for about eight years to represent this House on the National Whitley Council for the Civil Service. I have had the opportunity of having been face to face with my hon. Friend in many discussions that took place with regard to the welfare of the Civil Service. With that experience I feel it unfortunate that a Motion of this kind should be brought before the House. I think the whole position of the Civil Service being entirely detached from political parties is a tradition that ought to be preserved as one of the assets in our national life. There is no doubt there has been a misunderstanding in the public mind, in view of the fact that the present Beveridge investigation is unofficial. I do not know why this House should not be satisfied that the head of the Civil Service or the head of any Department of the Civil Service has the right to issue any proper instructions to members of his staff as to the attitude to be taken towards an unofficial inquiry with which they are not concerned. I deprecate very much questions affecting the Civil Service being dragged in any way into contact with—

§ Mr. Bevan
Where are they going to be taken to?

§ Sir P. Hannon
The hon. Member has become the first-class interrupter in this House. Nobody has a higher opinion of the dignity, prestige, honour and integrity of the Civil Service than I have. I am an old civil servant myself, and I resent the imputation put on this letter, the imputation against the Civil Service and Sir William Beveridge. [Interruption.] Imputation was scattered all over the speech. That is not the sort of thing to say about a perfectly proper circular.

§ Mr. W. J. Brown
Does the hon. Member not realise that that is the point at issue? I am characterising this as being an impertinent and improper circular to issue.

§ Sir P. Hannon
I know what the hon. Member is doing. He has brought this Motion. [Interruption.] I have been a Member of this House longer than the hon. Member, and I think I know the feeling of the House pretty well. I am sure that on behalf of the great majority 1358 of this House, as well as myself, I can say what a tragedy it would be if the great Civil Service of this country was brought into the field of political discussion.

§ Mr. A. Bevan (Ebbw Vale)
I want to say, very briefly, that I entirely deprecate the assumption behind the last speech that the relationship within the Civil Service, as a whole, and the country and the Government cannot be a matter for a discussion in this House. I have never listened to greater nonsense in my life.

§ Sir P. Hannon
I did not say "not for discussion."

§ Mr. Bevan
The hon. Member did say that.

§ The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Assheton)
I should like to clear up a little bit of misunderstanding about this matter. I should like to make it quite clear that this letter, which was not a circular but which was addressed to heads of certain Departments whose functions included the field likely to be covered by Sir William Beveridge's inquiry, was issued with the authority and full responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend who raised this Adjournment Motion will recognise that it is not appropriate that he should in any way criticise the actions of Sir Richard Hopkins.

§ Mr. W. J. Brown
I am prepared to accept that.

§ Mr. Assheton
The Chancellor of the Exchequer takes full responsibility for it, and in so far as I have responsibility I accept my full share; it was issued with the authority of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. My hon. Friend made one point which I think should perhaps be cleared up. He referred to a passage in Sir Richard's letter where he said: I do not think that officials of any type in Government service could engage in such discussions without the risk of a doubt hereafter arising whether in some degree they may not have made known or implied the lines on which the Government were attacking this question. I suggest that my hon. Friend has read a good deal more into that than it contains. It is clear from the context that this was directed to an exchange of views with officials, including economists, engaged in work in this connection.

§ Mr. W. J. Brown
Is the hon. Member making it clear that the 695,000 are not affected by the circular?

§ Mr. Assheton
That is quite an academic question. Sir William Beveridge would perhaps wish to engage in discussions on the subject of unemployment with those officials of the Government who had some special knowledge and interest in it. It is for the guidance of those officials that the letter was written. It was not a circular: it was a letter, written to the heads of those Departments which might be specially interested in this subject. The expression "officials of any type" derives, I think, from the difficulty which has been sometimes experienced of distinguishing between permanent and temporary civil servants. It is quite clear that permanent as well as temporary civil servants are included and economists as well as other types of civil servants, if they are engaged upon this particular work.

§ Mr. Glenvil Hall
Does the circular cover those types both in and out of office hours?

§ Mr. Assheton
Yes. It is a purely academic question whether it applies to a conversation which might take place between Sir William Beveridge and civil servants engaged on entirely different work. If the hon. Member thinks that this might refer to a conversation between Sir William Beveridge and, say, a postman, he is putting an interpretation upon it which I do not think it can bear. I should also like to comment on what he calls the resentment caused among civil servants. The hon. Member was himself for many years a civil servant, and he has a further connection with civil servants extending over many years, but on that point I cannot agree with him. I think my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was right when he said, on 7th December: I am perfectly certain that the civil servants to whom the circular was directed welcome clear guidance in a matter of this kind."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th December, 1943; col. 778, Vol. 395.]

§ Mr. W. J. Brown
Will the hon. Member ask heads of Departments how many letters of protest they have had from high-ranking civil servants on this subject? What are they protesting about?

§ Mr. Assheton
I do not think that they are protesting. I think they are very glad to have the guidance which is given in this letter. Experience has shown that the code of conduct which civil servants are expected to follow is not always so easy to interpret as it might at first sight seem to be. The purpose of the letter was to give some guidance and to remove doubts on this issue. To suggest that there is some infringement of the liberties of civil servants does not seem to me to be an interpretation that you can possibly put upon it. If my hon. Friend is right in saying that there is some infringement of the liberties of civil servants, he cannot also be right in saying that it is an insult to civil servants to draw their attention to it. If it is an infringement of their liberties, it is clear that it is a matter which ought to be made known.

§ Mr. W. J. Brown
I should have thought that an infringement of their liberties might also be an insult.

§ Mr. Assheton
If it was a limitation of the liberties of civil servants, he cannot also make the point that to have given such a ruling was an insult.

§ Mr. W. J. Brown
But cannot being shorn of one's liberties also be an insult?

§ Mr. Assheton
I have not made myself clear. If it had been an infringement on the liberty of the Civil Service—and I am claiming here definitely it was not an infringement but an explanation of the position—it could not be an insult to the Civil Service that such an explanation should be made.

§ Mr. Glenvil Hall (Colne Valley)
Does the hon. Gentleman's argument amount to this, that they were not aware of what the position was and that is why instructions were given?

§ Mr. Assheton
That may well be. The instructions to the Civil Service are based partly on various Treasury circulars issued in the past. Let us examine the circular dated March, 1928. Perhaps I might read to the House two of the passages in that circular. One is— His Majesty's Civil Service, unlike other great professions, is not and cannot in the nature of things be an autonomous profession. In common with the Royal Navy, the Army, and the Royal Air Force, it must always be subject to the rules and regulations laid down for its guidance by His Majesty's Government. 1361 The next is as follows: There are spheres of activity legitimately open to the ordinary citizen in which the civil servant can play no part or only a limited part. He is not to indulge in political or party controversy, lest by so doing he should appear no longer the disinterested adviser of Ministers or able impartially to execute their policy. And again: He is bound to maintain a proper reticence in discussing public affairs and more particularly those with which his own Department is concerned. The Civil Service Code is not one document but is derived from past experience and as I have said from various circulars which have been issued and from the whole body of tradition which has been built up. From time to time there may be difficulties for individual civil servants in determining what their position may be. It is not only reasonable, but surely the duty of the Treasury to give on such occasions such guidance as may reasonably be called for. This was such an occasion, and that was the reason why the letter was written, and I do not think that the House will for a moment accept the view my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) put forward rather than that of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

§ Mr. Evelyn Walkden (Doncaster)
Will the hon. Gentleman explain whether the letter applies to the whole of the staff or to principal officers of the Ministry of Labour?

§ Mr. Assheton
It was a letter written to certain heads of Departments. The Ministry of Labour would certainly be one of the Departments concerned. The object of the letter would be to direct the attention of the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Labour and his principal 1362 high officials to the fact that it would be undesirable in present circumstances to hold discussions with Sir William Beveridge with regard to this problem. If my hon. Friend asks me whether that means that a member of the staff of the Ministry of Labour in some employment exchange in some remote part of England might not have conversation with Sir William Beveridge, then that is quite a different matter. That is an academic question and far removed from the terms of the letter and the object to which it was directed.

§ Mr. Bevan
Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that, in view of the fact that the war has now been going on for four years and a good deal of statistical information and indices have been withheld from the country because it would be giving information to the enemy, to prevent evidence being put to Sir William Beveridge really hamstrings the whole thing?

§ Mr. Assheton
I must point out that that is another issue. I would like also to suggest to the House that this inquiry which Sir William Beveridge is conducting was specifically described as an unofficial and independent inquiry, and it may well be that it will have a great advantage on that account over any inquiry which was deriving its information from the same sources as those at the disposal of the Government. It may prove useful to the country and the Government that an independent inquiry has been carried out.