HC Deb 12 March 1973 vol 852 cc880-3
31. Mr. R. C. Mitchell

asked the Minister for the Civil Service whether he will send a communication to all civil servants countermanding Sir William Armstrong's recent letter, in view of the resentment felt by many civil servants at the implied threats contained in this letter.

30. Mr. Judd

asked the Minister for the Civil Service whether he will send a communication to all civil servants withdrawing the threat of possible victimisation contained in the third paragraph of Sir William Armstrong's recent message.

Mr. Kenneth Baker

No, Sir. I do not accept that the message contains or implies any threat of victimisation.

Mr. Mitchell

Is it not quite disgraceful that Sir William Armstrong, as the senior civil servant, should have got himself involved in an industrial dispute of this kind? Surely, if the Government had felt that such a letter to civil servants was necessary, it should have been signed by the Prime Minister, or at least by the hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Baker

It was Sir William's idea to send the letter and it had the full support of all the Ministers concerned with the Civil Service. I see nothing wrong, in a situation in which trade unions communicate with their members, with the Head of the Civil Service writing to all members of the staff.

Mr. Charles R. Morris

The average civil servant considers Sir William Armstrong to be the voice of the Civil Service in the Cabinet and in the Government. Will the hon. Gentleman remind Sir William that civil servants do not want to see him change his rôle and become the Government's voice in the Civil Service?

Mr. Baker

I reject that implication That was not the idea behind the letter at all. I remind the hon. Gentleman that Sir William was also writing not just to those who were on strike, or were likely to strike on 27th February, but to many hundreds of thousands of civil servants who did not strike.

Mr. Sheldon

But is the hon. Gentleman not aware that there is some conflict here between the rôle of the Head of the Civil Service doing his job in the Civil Service and his rôle as economic adviser to the Government, which he now seems to be, on matters of pay and prices? Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that it causes some resentment amongst those suffering from this multiplicity of rôles?

Will the hon. Gentleman comment on the report that the Chairman of the Board of Customs and Excise has stated that there is to be disciplinary action and suspension without pay for certain of those concerned in industrial action? Are we not now facing a new and even more serious situation? We would like to hear the hon. Gentleman's reply on this issue.

Mr. Baker

The hon. Gentleman is referring to a letter from Sir Louis Petch, which was sent to the staff of Customs and Excise on Friday. There have been discussions today. Sir Louis reminded the staff that they have to discharge certain duties laid upon them by the House of Commons and that it is his responsibility to ensure that those statutory obligations are carried out.

Mr. Dalyell

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

34. Mrs. Renée Short

asked the Minister for the Civil Service why staff who were absent on Tuesday 27th February were asked to give the precise reasons for their absence on a form which is to be attached to their personal files.

Mr. Kenneth Baker

When staff are away, Departments need to know the reason, particularly for purposes of pay. Absence on uncertificated sick leave, for instance, might be expected to involve filling in a form. This is a matter for Departments but most of them have not asked those known to be on strike to complete a form.

Mrs. Short

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is evidence that members of the Civil Service who were out on strike on 27th February have been asked to give reasons and to provide the information on a form which has a certain code on it, and that the code implies that the information will be transferred to their personal files?

Sir G. Nabarro

A very good thing.

Mrs. Short

Will the hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that this will not be done, since it would amount to discrimination and victimisation?

Mr. Baker

Members of the Civil Service on strike on 27th February, or thought to be on strike by their Departments, have been asked for the information because their pay had to be stopped for that day. The record is being kept on their pay records and pay files. In nearly all cases in the Civil Service, this is not the same as the personal records file.

Mr. Sheldon

Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that there will be no victimisation?

Mr. Baker

There will be no victim—may I say this? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The House will appreciate that if action has taken place of intimidation and that sort of thing—of which I am glad to say I have had no reports at all—I can assure the House that the civil servants who went on strike today or on 27th February will lose one day's pay or pay for as many days as they are out on strike, and that also means that they will lose the pension entitlement that that day or days would have earned.

Back to