Civil Service Reform (Hansard, 28 April 1981)

§ Mr. John Loveridge (Upminster)
I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to appoint a Committee of Inquiry on how to increase the individual and personal responsibility to the public of civil servants, other public servants and the staffs of nationalised industries, and to examine further the recommendations of the Expenditure Committee of the House of Commons in their Eleventh Report of Session 1976–77; and for connected purposes. The Bill calls for an inquiry into three areas that are important for morale and efficiency in the public service. The first concerns contacts with the public. There should be greater personal responsibility by public servants as individuals. Secondly, there should be greater direct acknowledgement of good work done by individual public servants, including incentive awards. Thirdly, there should be more mutual exchanges of staff between the public and private sectors.
The Bill also reminds the House of the 54 recommendations of the eleventh report of the Expenditure Committee—known as the English report—in the 1976–77 Session. However, I shall not try to cover all that ground today. That report was the major survey of the Civil Service since the Fulton report. I am glad to welcome what Government have done in response, especially on cash limits and on the direct accountability of separate Departments, although not all the recommendations have been fulfilled and some require further consideration.
My Bill arises from the feeling that there are more deep-seated problems than those revealed by the present strikes. That these threaten our defence capability, close courts to deny justice, delay travellers and injure the public generally, is evidence that there is a lack of good will between the Government and the Civil Service. It is seen in the strike to break the cash limits—a strange strike, at a time when the ratio of public spending as a proportion of gross domestic product has risen sharply—at market prices—from 40½ per cent. of the gross domestic product for 1977–78 to an estimated 44½ per cent. of the gross domestic product for 1980–81. The action against the public comes at a time when 2½ million of our fellow countrymen have no job, in conditions of severe world recession, and when there is cut-throat competition for our exports.
In two years Civil Service pay has increased by a figure approaching 50 per cent., and yet, because of their grievance at the way in which a fresh 7 per cent. has been put to them, many civil servants feel it reasonable to destroy the plans of their fellow citizens by not doing their work. It is notable, however, that many continue to carry on with their work, although under considerable pressure.
Over a decade Civil Service pay has more than kept pace with the declining internal value of the pound. But the issues on pay comparability are beyond the immediate scope of my Bill, except that it is worth noting that there was not such a severe reaction when pay research was abandoned by a previous Government. One hopes that there is not political motivation in the people who are leading the strikes.
On these strikes, Lord George-Brown wrote in the press that the nation is bound to question the justification for the quite recent change in the law which made it legal for public service and public utility workers to strike". 652 That needs close study. However, the present troubles in the Civil Service arise from deep-seated roots. The late Lord Armstrong, in an article in The Times in 1977, said that when he left the Civil Service he found an enthusiasm in the Midland Bank that was not to be found in the Civil Service, either in the Inland Revenue or in the Department of Health and Social Security. He said that enthusiasm went right down to the young girls in the organisation. That important comparison alone is sufficient to call for a specific inquiry into this aspect of morale.
Lord Armstrong also gave evidence to the General Purposes Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman must not make the speech that he would make if his motion were granted. He need only say why he wants the Bill.

§ Mr. Loveridge
I am grateful, Mr. Speaker. These are the reasons that I am commending to the House, and I hope that the House will agree that they are adequate.
Lord Armstrong said that in studies that took place about social security cases when he was Head of Civil Service, It appeared over a period of years that productivity had worsened in the sense that more people were needed for the same number of cases, so we went to them and said, 'Why?' The reply was 'Oh, it is more complicated now. The rules and regulations are more complicated."' He also said about the Inland Revenue: There is no doubt that the system could be drastically simplified but of the great Departments of State he said that he did not recollect cases where they proposed simplifications. I asked whether a collective system of management did not inevitably cause greater complexity. I also asked that all public servants should make certain that they have to give their names to the public with whom they deal, so that the public can always try to come back to the same man if possible. Lord Armstrong replied: I personally have a lot of sympathy with that in particular areas, but I am bound to say that as far as I know the whole movement of opinion over the last few years has moved totally the other way. Are we not here at the heart of the problems of morale in the Civil Service? All right hon. and hon. Members must have had the experience of those who come to their advice bureaux because they have got lost and worried in dealing with many officials whose names they do not know. They are lost and confused as a result of the impersonal nature of these contacts, and then they bring their troubles to their Members of Parliament. Of course, public servants are anxious to do good work; it is their life's work to please the public. An effective inquiry into how to increase individual and personal responsibility to the public would surely serve to create a greater sense of fulfilment and job satisfaction.
The second aspect of morale is the need for recognition from outside the service, as well as within it for work well done. As Sir Derek Rayner put it: I have never heard of the Committee of Public Accounts sending for somebody who did an excellent job. I have certainly heard of a Board of Directors sending for somebody who has done an excellent job. How that acknowledgement should best be given should form part of the inquiry under the Bill.
The third aspect is that in these days we must all be cost-conscious. Individuals without jobs are forced to be. In his evidence on this question, Sir Derek said: 653 In developing an efficient approach to the most rapid and least manpower-consuming way of organising the work, I did not find that the Civil Servants were very conscious that time was money. It should also be noted that in his recent report the Comptroller and Auditor General said that the overall standard of the internal audit in central Government was substantially lower than it ought to be, with an almost universal absence of an adequate capability to audit computer-based systems. Clearly, much needs to be done.
On the need for greater interchangeability between the public service and outside business, Sir Derek told us: I certainly believe that there is benefit for industry as well as the Civil Service in having a greater interchange. If more interchanges took place, I am convinced that it would be good for both the public and private sectors and that it would lead especially to greater knowledge of controlling costs within the public service.
The fruits of the inquiry called for in the Bill would make for a better working life for public servants as well as providing better service at less cost.