PUBLIC EMPLOYEES (MEMBERSHIP OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES) (Hansard, 13 May 1976)

§ Mr. Geoffrey Rippon (Hexham)

The matter I am raising tonight arises out of a particular case affecting my own constituency but raises a general issue of considerable importance.

The village of Kielder, in my constituency, was mostly built by and is largely owned by the Forestry Commission. Its inhabitants are not only the commission's tenants but nearly all get their livelihood directly or indirectly from the commission.

Kielder has a parish council, and not unnaturally a number of people who serve on the council are employees of the Forestry Commission. From time to time issues arise which affect the Forestry Commission and upon which the com- 804 mission has a view. A case arose—I think that the facts are known to the Minister as they have been discussed in another place—affecting the relationship between the chairman of the parish council, who is also the head forester in the area, and his employers, the Forestry Commission. Mr. Weir was summoned to a meeting 60 miles away in Newcastle on 19th January, and two days later he resigned. He wrote a letter of resignation in which he said: Following my interview on Monday, 19th January 1976, the conditions imposed by the Commission make it no longer possible for me to carry out my duties as chairman or councillor in the manner expected by the electorate. Therefore, with great regret, I tender my resignation from the Kielder Parish Council with effect from the above date, and wish to thank all members of the council for their full and loyal co-operation." That gave the impression, not unnaturally, that influence had been brought to bear by the commission upon an employee carrying out his public duties as a councillor. This caused considerable concern locally and eventually nationally. When the matter was raised in another place some misunderstanding arose because the Minister who replied to the debate spoke of the rules which bind civil servants. He said that civil servants. are classed into three groups—broadly those who are free to take part in national and local political activities, subject of course to moderation and discretion"— and I should like to repeat "subject to moderation and discretion"— because it has a very important bearing in this particular case. Secondly, there are those who make take part in such political activities subject to certain conditions; and, thirdly, those who may not take part in national political activities but may seek permission to take part in local political activity. I must say that the chairman of the parish council in question comes in the first category; that is to say, he could take part in local politics subject to moderation and discretion. It is one of the distinctive features of our Civil Service that civil servants do not mix politics with business. That is a restriction which civil servants accept when they accept employment in the public service."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4th March 1976; Vol. 368, c. 1193–4.] It is true that public employers may lay down certain conditions of service, but there are many people who work for various public authorities who are completely politically free. Mr. Weir was one of those persons. As head forester he fell into the class of politically-free employees under the Forestry Commission 805 Staff Code. As such he was not even required to notify his employers that he had been elected a parish councillor. The only conditions imposed upon his parish council activities, which were not breached at any time, were that he should observe the Official Secrets Act—that is a condition that applies to a great many of us—and that his activities should not take place while on duty, while in uniform or while on official premises. There is no question of those conditions requiring this public employee of the Forestry Commission, and no doubt this applies to other public authorities, to exercise moderation or discretion.

I believe that it will be helpful if the Minister, or the Secretary of State, in due course, if it cannot be done tonight, makes it clear by way of circular, or in some other appropriate form, that once someone is eligible to be a member of a local authority, and is a member, he should be free to act in the interests of the electorate without any sort of pressure being brought to bear on him.

This matter was first raised in another place on 4th March. The disturbing feature of the case is that on 25th March the personnel officer of the Forestry Commission wrote to J. Sheldon, Esq., of the Civil Service Union. He wrote.

Following the resignation of Mr. Weir, the Bellingham Courant"— in fact, he means the Hexham Courant— of 6th February carried a fairly full report of the episode and Mr. John Wharam, the.Conservancy A & FO, is quoted as follows: 'We welcome, and indeed encourage, any of our employees to serve on parish councils or as magistrates, and provide facilities for them to do so. We asked Mr. Weir to consider where his responsibilities lay, and whether there was not a clash of interests with his parish duties and those of his job as a head forester. We certainly did not want him to leave the meeting with the impression that we wanted him to resign.' He said it was not the Forestry Commission's intention to 'muffle' opinion at parish meetings and added: 'It is not our business to interfere in Parish Council business—that would be a monstrous suggestion. But we do feel that our employees owe us some sort of responsibility.' I think this quotation sums up fairly well our general feelings about the problems which arose at Kielder and I can only repeat what I said in my 10 March letter, that I think both the Commission and the Parish Council have to accept that there is a special relationship in Kielder and that both sides have to try to establish an effective working relationship, and that it is incumbent on both sides to avoid any extreme action. 806 I challenge two of those statements. There can be no question, it seems to me, once it is accepted that an employee is entitled to be a member of the council, that he owes any sort of responsibility to his employer as such. If any private employer who allowed or encouraged one of his staff to become a member of a council subsequently brought any pressure on him to look after the employer's interests in any shape or form, there would be a public outcry. Therefore, it is important, when dealing with public bodies, that they should bring no sort of pressure on their employees.

I submit that no sort of special relationship can exist between any local authority and any employer, public or private. It would be helpful to all those who serve on local authorities who are employees of public bodies if that were made clear beyond any doubt. That is the nub of the matter that I want to raise tonight.

I am concerned not so much with the particular case though that was regrettable and I think that the Forestry Commission must realise that it made an error of judgment—as with the fact that it is important to lay down some kind of general guidance for the benefit of local authorities generally on the relationships which should exist between public employees and the local government bodies on which they serve. With such a large number of people employed by one public authority or another, this matter has very wide implications.

In the case of Kielder, a large proportion of the inhabitants' jobs are affected, directly or indirectly, by the Forestry Commission. There are many mining villages or steel towns in which the same kind of conditions are likely to arise. Many people are directly or indirectly employed by or affected by the operations of large public corporations. However, if they are free to serve on their local authorities they must equally be free to speak and to vote in what they consider to be the interests of the electorate, without any pressure being brought to bear upon them.

I spent many years in local government. When I first went on the Surbiton Borough Council there was a senior civil servant—the Accountant General at the Ministry of Pensions at the time—who also served. No doubt it could be said that a senior civil servant should behave 807 with moderation and discretion. But that cannot apply in the majority of cases. Of course, such people must declare an interest, if they have an interest, just like any other member of the local authority, but on matters of general policy they should be free.

I recall that when I was the Secretary of State for the Environment there was a good deal of public controversy over Maplin. One of the main objectors was a civil servant. I made it clear—I hope that my successors would also make it clear—that, having accepted that a public servant had the right to take part in a political activity and was not precluded, by the nature of his employment or the terms and conditions of his service, from taking part in a political activity, we must let him carry out his civic duty fully and freely without any possible interference.

I think I can indicate the strength of feeling on this matter by referring to a powerful leader in the Local Government Chronicle dated 30th April, which concludes: All employers will have to learn to live with the requirements put upon them by law and to take the rough with the smooth: in no circumstances are they justified in using disciplinary measures to impose their own wishes on members of a public authority. " I would like the Minister to clarify the position tonight, and to emphasise that members of local authorities must be allowed to be free. I hope the Secretary of State will consider the possibility of issuing a circular, or taking some other action in order to clear up some of the misunderstandings which have arisen in recent weeks.

§ The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Guy Barnett)

The House will be grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) for raising this important subject in the debate tonight. I would like to express a personal interest, for two reasons. First, before I came into the House I was employed by a grant-aided institution and was personally involved in some of the restrictions of which the right hon. and learned Member has spoken. Secondly, before I took up my present appointment I was consultant to the Society of Civil Servants, which is 808 very concerned about the issues he has raised. Another reason why I am glad to answer this debate is the long personal interest I have had in the Forestry Commission, among whose staff I number several close friends.

I am aware of the issue that the right hon. and leared Member has put before us this evening. I was interested in what he had to say about Kielder, and the number of people who live there who are employees of the Forestry Commission. That illustrates the dilemma in which we are placed as a consequence of the Civil Service rules which govern the behaviour of civil servants, and grant-aided and other public service organisations and their employees.

Unfortunately, it is very difficult for me to give the kind of undertaking that the right hon. and learned Gentleman asked for. He wanted the Secretary of State to issue some kind of circular on this subject. I must explain the difficulties involved in this. A Royal Commission has been set up—the Salmon Commission—to study the standards of conduct in public life, and it is dealing with the very subject that the right hon. and learned Gentleman raised tonight. I accept everything that he said. Certain individuals do find themselves in a difficult situation, and the Royal Commission will give full attention to their position. But in view of the fact that the Royal Commission is studying this matter, it would be very difficult for me to comment in detail, and I am sure he would not expect me to do so. In view of the case that he has raised, I undertake to consider it carefully from the point of view of the Department of the Environment and write to him, giving whatever assistance and guidance I can.

I have no doubt that the right hon. and learned Member has a certain measure of fellow-feeling for me, having no doubt answered similar debates when, many years ago, he was my predecessor in this post. And, as an ex-Secretary of State in this Department, and with his own experience in local government, the House will of course have listened with great interest to his remarks. Indeed, had it not been for the good fortune of the 1974 elections, one of his colleagues might now have been replying in not dissimilar terms to me. His right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. 809 Page) promised, in answering my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry), in a debate some three years ago, that he would look into this subject.

Perhaps one way in which I could illustrate the sort of difficulties that we are facing is by looking at the situation of local government employees. The situation is raised in an acute form for them.

The whole question of employee participation in the running of the affairs of the body for which the employees work is of course a very important one, with wide-ranging implications, and I would not like to suggest that there are not strongly held political differences of opinion. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know, it is something to which this Government are committed. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, when at the Department of Trade, said in a statement to the House on 5th August last year: The Government are committed to carrying through as soon as possible a programme for the radical extension of industrial democracy in both the private and public sector. He went on: …development in industrial democracy, particularly below board level, are now taking place and more are planned. It is desirable these should continue."—[Official Report, 5th August 1975; Vol, 897, c. 245.] He then announced the setting-up of the committee of inquiry, under Lord Bullock, which is to advise on questions relating to representation at board level in the private sector—a move that was welcomed by hon. Members on the Opposition Benches—as, indeed it is broadly welcomed in British industry. He also announced that industrial democracy in the nationalised industries was to be reviewed—a review that is now under way.

Industrial democracy in public services is, however, a rather different matter, and that we are studying separately. I can illustrate the difficulties that we face. On 11th February my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Civil Service Department, in a reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth), said a co-ordinated series of studies is now proposed, in consultation with the appropriate 810 unions and management, into the scope for the extension of industrial democracy—within the accepted principle which governs the operation of elected bodies—throughout the public services, including both central and local government and related bodies."—[Official Report, 11th February 1976; Vol. 905, c. 241.] I want to stress that central phrase, within the accepted principle which governs the operation of elected bodies Industrial democracy in the public sector presents special problems, because of the role of Parliament and local authorities as representatives of the electorate. It is fundamental to the working of democracy as we know it that elected representatives take decisions and act in the interests of the community as a whole. That principle cannot be breached. I noted the hon. and learned Gentleman's comment on that. But the Government feel that, within the need to safeguard accountability of elected representatives and the requirements of the public interest, local government employees and their representatives should be given the maximum opportunity to contribute their views on matters of legitimate staff interest.

I want to deal with the question of the position of local authority employees vis-à-vis membership of the council by which they are employed. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know, the long-standing and fundamental distinction between the roles of the elected member and the appointed employee was preserved in the Local Government Act 1972. Under that Act, Section 116 debars a member of an authority from becoming its employee whilst he remains a member, and for 12 months thereafter. Section 80 disqualifies an employee of an authority from election to it.

As the House will know, this subject was studied by Lord Redcliffe-Maud, in his report on conduct in local government. He heard the arguments of those who want to maintain the existing disqualification. His Committee endorsed the present position and argued the need to avoid a conflict of interest between an individual's public duty as an elected member and his personal interest as an employee; the need to preserve political impartiality of officers; and the need to maintain sound working relationships at all levels in the authority and to avoid divided loyalties.

811 However, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know, the party to which I belong, and the TUC, have argued that this "disenfranchisment" is anomalous in modern conditions and that the rule should be relaxed. That is the view of my party and the TUC. But this whole issue is being examined by the Royal Commission. We shall await its report with great interest: until we have received and considered it, I can assume the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the Government will not reach any conclusion on this matter.

I hope that the Royal Commission will consider the many subjects raised by the 812 right hon. and learned Gentleman tonight.

I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for raising those interesting and very important matters. I have listened with great interest to the views that he has expressed. I am sorry that I have been unable to say anything more specific. I shall write to him if there is anything I can add which would assist him in the difficult cases he has raised and the dilemmas he has presented.