HC Deb 26 June 1981 vol 7 cc551-8

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Berry.]

2.30 pm
Mr. Alfred Dubs (Battersea, South)

I welcome this chance to discuss the equal opportunity policies in the Civil Service.

As hon. Members know, the Civil Service is a major employer in Britain. In 1980 there were more than 700,000 civil servants. If industrial civil servants are excluded, there were 548,000 civil servants in 1980, of whom 46 per cent.—or about 248,000—were women. We do not know how many black civil servants there were. It is my contention that the Civil Service has an obligation to set an example as a model employer, particularly in respect of the equal opportunities that it offers to women and to blacks.

If there is an effective equal opportunity policy in the Civil Service, it will show that the Government mean what they say. In addition, it will set an example to other employers and will enable the Government to introduce non-discrimination clauses into Government contracts. The Government would then be able to point to its Departments as an example of how such nondiscrimination clauses could be made to work. On 3 June 1981, I asked the Minister about equal opportunities in the Civil Service. He replied: The Civil Service has a long standing policy that there must be no discrimination, either before or after entry, against any person on account of race, ethnic origin, sex or marital status. The policy is widely known throughout the service and I am determined that it shall be rigourously applied."—[Official Report, 3 June 1981; Vol. 5, c. 923.] As a statement of intention, that is fair enough. The trouble is that there is little evidence to show that the Minister can ensure that policy is rigorously applied.

By way of partial contrast, I shall quote something that Lord Gowrie, the Minister of State, Department of Employment recently said to the Bedford Community Relations Association. I quote from the June issue of Employment News. He said: Britain cannot afford to be passive or complacent about racial discrimination…there must be a sense of urgency in what we do…Five years after the passing of the Race Relations Act, it is just not acceptable to adopt the attitude that tomorrow will be soon enough. It is no use everyone sitting back and assuming that all the responsibility rests with the Government. Governments can only do so much. I agree with that sentiment, but I wish to say something about how much Governments can do.

I turn to the subject of equal opportunities for women within the Civil Service. In the Civil Service, as in many other organisations, the more junior employees are, the more likely it is that a greater number of them will be women. For example, according to Civil Service statistics, on 1 January 80 per cent. of clerical assistants were women. If one goes one grade up, one finds that 66 per cent. of clerical officers were women. Again, 17 per cent. of higher executive officers were women. Just under 8 per cent. of those holding the post of principal were women. Only 5.7 per cent. of assistant secretaries were women and only 2.6 per cent. of deputy secretaries were women. There were no women at the permanent secretary level.

The work force of the Civil Service reflects appointment policies and prejudices of as many as 40 years. Perhaps a better guide might be what is happening now. Between 1971 and 1979 the proportion of women in the three grades above higher executive officer fell. Other statistics on promotion suggest that women are not doing better now then they were some years ago. It is apposite to quote what Kate Millett said in her book on sexual politics: In modern patriarchies, the kinds of employment open to women are with few exeptions menial, ill-paid and without status. That reflects the bulk of the posts held by women in the Civil Service.

The Civil Service began looking at the matter 10 years ago and the Kemp-Jones report made a number of recommendations. One that has hardly been implemented was a request for more opportunities for women to have part-time employment within the Civil Service. A number of women have such employment, but if the opportunities were widened many more would avail themselves of the opportunity, because for many it is the only alternative to not working.

The joint review group on employment opportunities for women in the Civil Service was set up last year, possibly to consider some of the recommendations of the Kemp-Jones report of many years before. Has the review group produced any results? Is there confirmation of the belief expressed to me that, in their quest for promotion in the Civil Service, women have only about two-thirds of the success of men of similar backgrounds?

It is a matter of regret that the Civil Service statistics include no information about the numbers who apply for posts. There is information about successful applicants and promotions, but none about the number of applicants. I wish that we had such information because it would enable us to see what is happening in more detail.

I read with interest the 1981–82 programme of the Civil Service college, which provides a range of courses for various grades. There are courses about Government and industry, how the British economy works and so on, and one course "Developing skills for women in middle management", is designed for women of HEO to principal level. The course has been designed specifically for women currently in or about to enter middle management. The programme says that the objectives of the course are to help women understand managerial roles and styles of managerial behavior…develop presentational and communications skills…acquire diagnostic skills and so on. No doubt those are all worthy aids to having a responsible post in the Civil Service, but they are no more difficult for women to attain than for men. It may be a worthy aim of the Civil Service college to provide such a course, but there is a patronising element in that approach.

I do not suggest that there is overt and blatant discrimination against women in the Civil Service. Indeed, the general view is that, as an employer, the Civil Service is not too bad. Nevertheless, there is enough evidence to suggest that there is a possible element of discrimination in Civil Service employment and promotion policies.

That may be inadvertent and it may stem from the simple proposition that those who interview or select for posts tend to do so in their own image. If the majority of those conducting interviews are white men, it cannot be much of a surprise if most of those who are appointed are white men. That brings me to the position of blacks in the Civil Service. The Tavistock report was an eye-opener for many people. It dealt with the application of race relations policy in the Civil Service and was published in November 1978. It reached a number of conclusions that caused concern.

For example, in doing checks on certain bits of the Civil Service it said that, for clerical officer posts, of the original black applicants 2 per cent. were offered the jobs whereas 15 per cent. of the white applicants were offered the jobs. Overall, 6 per cent. of black applicants were offered either clerical officer or clerical assistant posts, compared with 24 per cent. of white applicants. This goes on over a range of posts.

I am not saying that this proves that discrimination exists. It may be that the black applicants were not as well qualified or not as experienced as their white competitors. However, it suggests that with this sort of information there is at least a prima facie case for putting a spotlight on that activity to see whether discrimination has been taking place.

It is disappointing to note, however, that in the Minister's response to the Tavistock report he rejected outright the idea of providing hard statistics which would enable anyone to look in more detail at selection and promotion procedures. Yet monitoring has been supported not only by Tavistock but by the Runnymede Trust, by the Commission for Racial Equality, by the Select Committee which existed up to 1979, and by many other bodies.

I agree that monitoring as a concept is controversial and that not all black people support it. Nevertheless, I argue that there is increasing backing for introducing monitoring if we wish to have an equal opportunities policy carried out effectively. After all, statistics are neutral. It is how they are used which can be discriminatory or can reduce the amount of discrimination.

No one objects to having statistics kept to analyse the position of women in the Civil Service. I argue that we have not got the right statistics for women or that they are not presented in the right way. But we do not have any objection from women or from anyone else that records should be kept for all employees and potential employees according to their sex so that their progress may be analysed. That is the basis of some of the tables in the annual Civil Service statistics. I suggest that the argument for blacks is similar.

In the United States we see the development of the concept of "adverse impact", again based upon monitoring information. I understand that this concept draws attention to occasions where fewer than 80 per cent. of one group applying for selection get the jobs, compared with the most favoured group or the group which does best. That at least puts into numerical terms a simple rule of thumb test for seeing whether there has been this adverse impact. I am not suggesting that we should apply it directly, but it gives one food for thought.

I note that at least some of the trade unions in the Civil Service have come out positively in support of monitoring. The CPSA supports it, as does the Inland Revenue Staff Federation. Some of the other trade unions would not be that hostile and would be open to persuasion.

I notice that one of the arguments used by the Minister against introducing monitoring is that it would require a substantial increase in resources to carry it out. However, I argue that the way in which monitoring can be carried out has not always been understood fully and that there are a number of short cuts.

It is not necessary to have a profile by race of the staff of every Civil Service Department. As I said earlier, the total staff reflects the employment conditions and prejudices over a long period of years. I argue that there are two sets of figures which are important. One is to look for applicants for posts compared with those appointed. For example, if 10 per cent. of the people applying are black and only 1 per cent. of those appointed are black, that result should be investigated further. The same applies to applications for promotion compared with those promoted.

This information can be collected on the application forms and it can be analysed by computer, possibly even by putting it on the computer which controls the payroll of the staff concerned. If there is space in the computer programme for this, it is fairly easy to do and it is kept up to date because all the people employed will appear on the payroll.

Equal opportunity statements are all very well, but they must be made effective for both women and blacks. In respect of blacks especially, I argue that there is a challenge to us all to make sure that in our society blacks have the same opportunities as their white competitors, ability for ability, and that they must not feel that there are no openings for them. It is up to the Civil Service and the Minister to set the example.

Again, I ask the Minister to look at the nature of the equal opportunity policies in the Civil Service and to give a positive commitment towards making them effective. He can do that only by introducing monitoring, at least on the basis that I have suggested. I hope that he will respond favourably to my suggestion.

2.45 pm
The Minister of State, Civil Service Department (Mr. Barney Hayhoe)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubs) for raising this subject and I welcome the opportunity that this short debate provides for me to restate the Government's firm and formal commitment to policies of equal opportunity for the Civil Service.

Let me again make it absolutely clear what this entails. All eligible persons must have equal opportunity for employment and advancement on the basis of their ability and qualifications and fitness for the work. There must be no discrimination, direct or indirect, against any eligible person, whether in recruitment, promotion or in any other way, on grounds of sex or marital status, colour, race or ethnic or national origins. This applies to all Departments and to all grades and positions in both the industrial and non-industrial Civil Service. The Government are concerned that their policy should be widely known and understood, and they are determined that it should be a practical and generally accepted programme for action. I am determined to do all that I can to ensure its full and effective implementation.

The hon. Member referred to the two main aspects of these matters—the first concerning women, and the second concerning blacks and ehtnic and racial minorities. He made a number of detailed suggestions, and if I do not respond to all of them today, I assure him that I shall look at them carefully.

Regarding women, I start as the hon. Gentleman did with this aspect of the matter. I agree that the Civil Service is a good employer of women. It has a good record of nondiscrimination on grounds of sex. It introduced equal pay for like work for non-industrials in 1961, well before the Equal Pay Act 1970. It was among the first employers to do so. The highest posts are open to women. The hon. Gentleman said that there were no women permanent secretaries today, but there have been formidable women occupying those posts, as anyone who reads the "Crossman Diaries" will know.

As the hon. Gentleman said, a committee was set up in 1970 under the chairmanship of Mrs. Kemp-Jones to consider the employment of women in the non-industrial Home Civil Service. Like the hon. Gentleman, I shall not go over its recommendations, but these too—I think he will agree—were in advance of their time. They provided the basis for a number of reforms which encouraged the fuller use of the abilities of women staff, both by helping those with comestic responsibilities to continue their careers, and making it easier for women to return to the service after having had their families. All the recommendations were accepted in principle in December 1971. A review of progress in implementing these recommendations was published in 1975 and it showed that substantial advance had been made.

A joint review group was set up last year, composed of people from representative Departments and from the Council of Civil Service Unions, to review developments in the area of employment opportunities for women in the Civil Service since 1971. As yet, this group has not produced its full range of reports, and is inviting individual civil servants, both men and women, to express their views to it on any matters or ways in which careers and family responsibilities could be combined. It would be willing to receive representations on these matters from all levels of staff.

About half of the Civil Service's non-industrial workers are women-250,000 out of a total of just under 550,000. In common with other areas of employment, both public and private, women predominate in the clerical and secretarial areas. They tend to outnumber men by about 4:1 in the clerical assistant grades. That pattern of employment is reflected in recruitment to those grades.

There is an increasing number of women now, not only in middle management posts but at more senior levels. I believe that this trend will continue. It must not be subject in any way to any form of discriminatory constraint. I have heard concern expressed—indeed, the hon. Gentleman expressed such concern this afternoon—about there being too few women in the most senior posts in the Civil Service.

In more recent times conditions have become more favourable for women to combine a full career with the responsibilities of marriage and raising a family. But inevitably, as the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, it takes time for all these opportunities to feed through and to be reflected in the number of women occupying senior positions. In the Civil Service, for many years now, women have been competing on equal terms with men. I confidently expect more women in future to reach the highest ranks of the Civil Service.

The hon. Gentleman referred, not so much to high flyers as to other women within the Civil Service as regards part-time and flexible working hours. This has been a matter for local initiative by individual Departments. There has been a modest increase in the number of civil servants working part-time, but another development arising from the Kemp-Jones committee has materially influenced the need for part-time working. The committee invited Departments to consider whether the arrangements of the working day were sufficiently flexible to meet the needs of their staff.

Beginning in 1972, various schemes for flexible working hours have been introduced. They allow individual civil servants to arrange their own working hours round a central core time and, usually over a four-week cycle, to work longer hours on some days and take occasional days off. About 200,000 men and women civil servants are now working flexible hours. This development will have had an effect on the demand for part-time working. I think that this development is of particular interest to many women.

We have also been looking at nursery provision. Alas, the experiment that flowed from the Kemp-Jones committee of a purpose-built nursery at Llanishen, near Cardiff, sank into the sands of economic difficulty. But other ways are being looked at. Schemes are being set up in a number of Departments. The essential elements of schemes are that sufficient staff should be willing to participate, that there should be a reasonable expectation of the schemes becoming self-financing in due course and that local authority requirements will be met. There is some growth in these schemes, and that is generally to be welcomed.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the Race Relations and Immigration Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Home Affairs. A report from that Select Committee is awaited. The hon. Gentleman referred to the evidence given to the Select Committee. I am looking forward to receiving its report. As ever, the Government will give the most careful consideration to the recommendations that are made.

The hon. Gentleman concentrated on monitoring. He regards monitoring as the talisman of the sincerity of the Government's intentions on an equal opportunities policy. Since coming to these responsibilities as Minister of State in January this year I have found undue emphasis being placed on what the hon. Gentleman acknowledged was the controversial subject of monitoring. Perhaps too much time has been spent arguing about that aspect. I do not deny the importance attached to it by many people with authority. Perhaps there has been too much argument to the detriment of other measures that could be taken to achieve the objective of implementing the policies which we all share, whatever our views about monitoring.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the report by the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations that was commissioned by the Civil Service Department. We asked that our own family be looked at because of the concern that we had that procedures to ensure equal opportunity for racial and ethnic minority groups should be effective.

It cannot be said too often that the Tavistock report did not disclose any evidence of discrimination against minority ethnic groups. However, the report spotlighted potential hazards to fairness. It identified a number of areas of risk such as initial selection for appointment, promotion, posting and training. The report noted that many staff were unaware of the Civil Service equal opportunity policy and suggested the appointment of race relations officers. It drew attention to the importance of monitoring and outlined a variety of methods of monitoring racial equality of opportunity.

Following that report a joint working party of management and trade unions, representing non-industrial and industrial staff, was established. Views differed about the desirability of recording the ethnic origin of applicants or of members of the Civil Service.

The industrial unions were opposed to any form of head counting and the use of monitoring. Individual non-industrial unions had differing views. The CPSA and the Inland Revenue Staff Federation were in favour of a substantial experiment in the form of an ethnic census of secretarial and clerical grades. The proposal was put forward to the Race Relations and Immigration Sub-Committee. I have no doubt that it will comment upon it. I have responded to that proposal in a way that I know is disappointing to the proposers of it within the two Civil Service unions and perhaps more widely in the Council of Civil Service Unions.

Resources present a real constraint at a time when the Government are committed to a policy of reducing the functions of Government and the size of the Civil Service. We are not convinced that censuses, head counting or monitoring, or even the more limited exercise proposed, are the most appropriate and effective ways of using the scarce resources. They should be concentrated on positive safeguards against discrimination. There are significant safeguards in the Civil Service which are not generally available elsewhere.

It is a highly structured organisation where many procedures are centrally agreed and laid down in some detail. In recruitment, for example, the Civil Service Commissioners, under their Order in Council, are charged with recruiting civil servants by fair and open competition and on the basis of merit alone. They are independent of the Government as selectors, and they are recruiting for other people, not for themselves.

Where the Commissioners' responsibilities for recruitment to junior grades are delegated to Departments the procedures to be followed—in advertising, short-listing, the conduct of selection boards—are laid down in detail. Equally, the rules governing promotion lay down set procedures for the conduct of promotion boards which have been agreed with the trade unions. They include formal rights of appeal against non-selection for promotion and against not being invited to appear before a promotion board. Such procedures in themselves provide a substantial safeguard against unfair discrimination which is not available to people in other employment.

The Government have concluded that, for the time being, available resources will be best utilised in a rigorous scrutiny of existing procedures with a view to eliminating further the possibility of discrimination. I am seeking the support of the trade unions in undertaking this review of procedures, especially in relation to the key areas of recruitment, promotion, selection for training and allocation to duties. Such a review would cover the measures taken to see that all—

The Question having been proposed at half-past Two o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Three o'clock.