§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Newton.]
11.30 pm§ Mr. Frank Field (Birkenhead)I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to introduce the debate. I declare an interest. I am the parliamentary consultant to the CPSA, but even without that interest I should have introduced the subject, which is part of a fundamental debate—the maintenance of a free society.
Given the hour and the time allowed for debate, the Minister will be pleased that I am asking him not to contemplate the entire topic but to cast his gaze more narrowly on the political canvas and particularly on the two beliefs that have been important in governing the activities of civil servants—that at all time the Civil Service should remain impartial and that as a community we should offer every possible opportunity for civil servants to participate in political activity.
I wish to develop briefly the theme of how we have reinterpreted the two beliefs and their relationship to each other over the century. There has been a steady advance. We have made it easier for more civil servants to participate as ordinary citizens in political life, yet few would impugn the integrity and political neutrality of our Civil Service. I am pushing at an open door in propounding the tradition, as the Minister fully understands that aspect of that Tory tradition—namely, that the safest way to bring about change is to build, brick by brick, on a secure foundation.
I wish to show how we have changed in this century and to suggest that we may be at a stage where a new initiative is required by the Government. Before 1948, three forces governed the political behaviour of the Civil Service. First, the 1909 Treasury circular laid down the rules under which civil servants could participate in political activity at local government level. Civil servants could participate in local politics if their head of department agreed. Secondly, the 1927 order forbade most civil servants from being adopted as candidates for Parliament and remaining within the service.
The third force, which was the linchpin between those other two forces, was the strong convention within the service that at all times civil servants should maintain a reserve in respect of political activities.
Those were the forces which governed up to 1948, when the then Labour Government published the Masterman report. I hope that I do not do an injustice to the report if I say that the findings had one significant change for the political activities of civil servants. The report advocated that there should be two categories of civil servants, those who could and those who could not become involved politically, or, as it was known, those above and those below the line. Because the staff side was unhappy with this classification, the Government finally, in 1952 I think, suggested that there should be three categories of civil servants—those who were unlikely to participate in political activity as most of us know it, an intermediate category and those who would be free to participate as ordinary citizens.
It is right to say that the rulings of the Masterman report lasted for another 30 years, up to 1978 when the Armitage report was published. Given the criticisms that we have 1181 recently had of civil servants, I ask the House to bear with me when I quote a couple of sentences from the Armitage report. In paragraph 137, Armitage says:
Over the last few years the Civil Service has been under constant scrutiny from Parliament, the press and the public. Questions have been raised about its size, its central organisation, its pay, its pensions, its career structure and its methods of recruitment. But few have challenged its capacity to serve Governments of different political views impartially.In other words, although there have been changes over the 80-odd years of this century, no one has doubted the political impartiality of the Civil Service.After considering the political role of civil servants, the Armitage report came up with one major suggestion for the Government, Parliament and the Civil Service to consider. That was that there should be a reallocation of civil servants within the three categories I have mentioned. The report advocated that the restricted class of civil servant should be reduced still further—down to 3 per cent. —the intermediate grade of civil servant who could participate in some political activities should be raised to 68 per cent. and the free category, those who live almost without bondage and act as ordinary citizens of the State, should rise to 29 per cent.
In my remaining minutes I want to make two points. The first is that Armitage was perhaps wrong with regard to its findings in one respect to one group of civil servants, and the second is that events have, to some extent, overtaken the report since its publication. We cannot blame the committee for that. I mention first the area where I think the Armitage committee was wrong in its suggestion. Rightly, and mindful of the way one or two civil servants behaved back in the 1960s, the committee reinforced the accepted convention of the Civil Service that civil servants who come into close and regular contact with the public should be in the intermediate grade of civil servants, whose political activities should be carefully restricted. In particular, there were included in this category the junior clerical grades within the DHSS and the Department of Employment. The first thing I want to ask the Minister is whether it was correct in allocating that group of civil servant to that category of restriction.
The second and, perhaps, more important point is that the world has changed considerably since Armitage reported. I seek to make no party point here, not even that of saying that I do not intend to make party points and then going on to make them, as some politicians do. I believe that we have entered a new political era in which Governments who put forward radical manifestos before the electorate try to carry them out. While I may disagree with the Government's policies, I have never accused them of being dishonest or deceitful to the electorate in the way in which they presented their programme to it.
Nevertheless, because the programme was so radical, there have been pressures upon many civil servants in a new way, in the sense that they feel that because the Government are changing the rules of the game and that the scope of the Government's activities is being changed, they are no longer able to give the public service that they used to be able to give and for which they entered the Civil Service.
To illustrate this changed world, I cite three examples which have arisen in public debate recently and on which I feel that the Armitage report does not give adequate guidelines to lay down the framework in which there will be an accepted programme of activity for both middle-ranking and junior civil servants.
1182 The first concerns the right of civil servants to write to their Members of Parliament. The Minster will be aware of one case in Manchester in which a civil servant wrote to her local Member of Parliament about the loss of the vocational guidance service from the Department of Employment. Looking through the correspondence, I believe that the Government's reaction was of two kinds. The first was that it was wrong for civil servants to write in order to protect their own jobs. It is strange that the Government should say that civil servants should not have that right, as much of my time and that of hon. Members on both sides of the House is taken up by people who are fearful about the loss of their jobs. Why should not civil servants approach their Members of Parliament about the possible loss of their jobs?
Many civil servants are also concerned about the loss of service to the public through the loss of their jobs. We all live in a post-Freudian world in which it is very difficult to know our own motives clearly. I imagine that all of us have a mixture of motives. We hope to put the motives of high principle first, but it does not always work out like that, and civil servants will be concerned about the service they provide and any loss of jobs and will write to their Members of Parliament about this.
Secondly, there is the right of civil servants to participate in their own political parties. In a recent case, an official from the Department of Employment attended the Conservative Party conference. It is clear from the correspondence that she intended to speak on the subject of pensions if it arose during the conference. She was so stung by the comments about civil servants during the conference, however, that at one point—I think that it was during the debate on Tory Party organization—she got up and spoke her mind to the conference on the subject. That was an understandable reaction. The correspondence with her superiors on the matter, like all of the correspondence that I have read, illustrates the honesty and integrity of civil servants. None has tried to hide one iota of his or her actions.
A third area of difficulty is when individual members of a union are asked to appear on the media as trade union branch officials and to comment on how Government policy may be affecting the service and the livelihood of their members.
It seems to me that in all three examples we do not yet have clear rules by which to govern the conduct of civil servants. We need those rules, for the simple reason that I outlined earlier. We have entered a new political age. I do not see that age coming to an end in the foreseeable future.
I hope that we shall have clarification of the rules in the near future. When thinking about that clarification, I hope that we are mindful of the advantages as well as the real disadvantages of some civil servants taking a more overt political stance. I hope that we shall also be mindful of how this could be a strengthening of our system of democracy.
I summarise my argument by posing two questions. I know that the Administration is in consultation with the staff side on the Armitage report. When will the Minister be able to make a statement about the Government's reaction to that important report? Secondly, does he accept my contention that to some extent the world in which we now live has changed significantly from the world surveyed by Armitage in 1978? Therefore, the way in 1183 which to respond to the Armitage suggestions may be to develop on its foundations rather than to enact a policy of retrenchment.
§ The Minister of State, Civil Service Department (Mr. Barney Hayhoe)I congratulate the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) on raising an extremely important subject with which I have had some personal experience.
I became a civil servant in 1944, in what one might call the "pre-Masterman" days. At that time I held a fairly junior grade in the Ministry of Supply, where there was some doubt as to the precise political activities in which one could be involved. I managed within the rules, and certainly with the knowledge of my superiors, to become a national vice-chairman of the Young Conservatives. Then Masterman hit the scene. When the Masterman report appeared, there was a period of dullness and greyness. About 25 years ago, I managed to speak at a Conservative Party conference. I was not disciplined—I am not even sure that I was noticed—for what I said. I sometimes wonder about my fate had I been disciplined and not allowed to be involved in politics. I wonder whether I would have ended up in the House or had much more influence in some other position within the government machine.
It may be best if I give the general basis of the rules which govern the conduct of civil servants generally as they affect policy matters and specifically as they involve party political matters. I begin from the basic proposition that the exposition of Government policies and decisions must be, and is, the responsibility of Ministers. Ministers are responsible and answerable to Parliament.
There are occasions when civil servants can help to improve the understanding of the way in which government works. Indeed, those who watch "Yes Minister" may well think that only the Sir Humphreys of this world actually know how it works.
The factual and technical background to Government policies and decisions can be provided by civil servants. There are occasions when they can, and should, contribute on the basis of their specialised information and experience obtained in the course of their official duties.
I am sure that it is widely accepted that such participation in public discussion must not prejudice national security, create the possibility of embarrassment to the Government in the conduct of their policies or bring into question the impartiality of the Civil Service.
I was delighted that the hon. Member quoted from the Armitage report in underlining the importance of the impartiality of the Civil Service and the way that, despite stresses and strains, no real criticism has been directed to it.
It is quite normal for civil servants to be given permission to use official information in outside activities, broadcasts, speeches and contacts with the press, and they are subject to various principles. There must be no disclosure of classified or "in confidence" information. There should be no discussion of matters of current or potential political controversy. Relations between civil servants and Ministers and the confidential advice given to Ministers should not be disclosed. There should be no comment on individuals or organisations in terms which 1184 the Department would regard as objectionable. The activities should not conflict with the interests of the Department or bring the good name of the Department or the Civil Service generally into disrepute.
That is the general framework and background of the code of conduct that applies. The hon. Member directed most of his remarks to the political activities of civil servants. The extent to which civil servants may become involved in national or local political activities depends on a number of factors, as he said—the extent to which the individual is involved in advising Ministers and carrying out Ministers' policies and the degree and nature of the individual's contact with the public in pursuit of his official duties.
Of considerable importance and one of the matters to which the hon. Gentleman referred was the question—though I do not know it in detail—of Department of Health and Social Security personnel having normal steady contact with the public in their vicinity and the fact that Armitage suggests and recommends that their activities be restricted. My judgment is that one must be particularly careful that a member of the public is not, for example, canvassed on one night by someone asking for support for a political party and the following day confronted by the same person in an official capacity at a DHSS office. That problem is associated not so much with the grade or seniority of the person as with his closeness to the public with whom he might come in contact in his political activities.
The third condition was the extent to which the political activities of the individual are likely to become known. In the case of my own experience, I was involved in a highly technical Department. I did not come in contact with the public in any of my official duties and I was not ever involved as an official in any of the matters which I spoke about in public. Although I also took part in political activities, there was a great separation, and that sustained me that I was not behaving in any way improperly in my political activity.
Generally, industrial staff are free to involve themselves in both national and local activities. More junior office staff—typists, clerks and so on—are free to engage in both, subject to conditional permission from their Departments. Staff in the executive and more senior grades are, as the rules now stand, debarred from national political activities, including expressing views on any matters of national political controversy, but may—dependent upon individual circumstances—be granted permission to take part in local political activity.
The present rules were recently considered by the Armitage Committee, as the hon. Gentleman said. The Committee endorsed the basic framework of the present rules but concluded that the expansion of the Civil Service over the past 25 years and the wider variety of work now undertaken by staff in any one grade pointed to some liberalisation of the rules without detriment to the impartial reputation of the service.
The Armitage committee was established in 1976 and reported in January 1978. The Labour Government put detailed proposals to the Civil Service unions a year later, in January 1979. There was then an election and a change of Administration. Those discussions were picked up—very much in the same vein—with the Civil Service trade unions in December 1979. In those discussions, it was perfectly clear that the trade unions supported the Armitage report and the additions to the majority report 1185 that were made by the minority of Barbara Castle and Stanley Mayne. I shall not go into the details, but there were four specific points on which the minority reported.
The latest development on Armitage is that at the end of last month a letter was sent from my Department to the secretary-general of the Council of Civil Service Unions which took this matter one stage further. It said that Ministers had authorised Civil Service Department officials to proceed with further consultations with a view to implementing the recommendations of the Armitage committee. The letter continued:
At the December 1979 meeting the Trade Union Side expressed support for the minority views of the Armitage Committee"——that is the point that I have sought to make. It continued:namely a lifting of the bar on canvassing, the keeping under review of the composition of the politically free group, the possibility of the adjudication body being chaired by a Privy Councillor, and a relaxation of the rules on parliamentary candidature. Ministers"——this is the important point——have considered these minority views but have decided that they are prepared to proceed with implementation of Armitage only on the basis of the acceptance of the majority recommendations in toto. They do not agree that there should be any relaxation in the rules on political activities other than that recommended by Armitage in relation to the proposed extended intermediate category".One should stress that that is a substantial liberalisation of the regime for many civil servants.The hon. Gentleman raised two specific points, one of which referred to the restrictions on DHSS junior grades. I tried to respond to that. He then spoke of the new pressures on the Civil Service. He wondered whether it was right to keep the rules as they are. He referred to Meg MacDonald, who spoke at the Conservative Party conference and was reprimanded by her Department for doing so. This was a matter for the Department of Employment. Specific questions should be addressed to that Department. However, it judged that she had broken the rules.
The question of letters to Members of Parliament was raised. We must be careful about imposing restrictions in 1186 any way on the rights of individual constituents to contact their Members of Parliament. Obviously, they must Oct use the special knowledge that they obtain by reason of their job to pursue that contact. This has nothing to do with the political activities mentioned in Armitage. It falls within the general code of conduct.
The question of media requests is sometimes linked with trade union activity. The Armitage committee considered the rules on political activity in relation to staff acting in their capacity as staff association members when engaged in legitimate union business, on which a relaxed attitude has been, and continues to be taken. It commented that it is a long-standing tradition that trade unions may deploy any argument that is relevant to the legitimate interests of their members. It is inescapable that occasions will arise in the public service when unions and their members will criticise the policy of their employer, who is the Government of the day.
The committee considered that the public at large generally understood the distinction between criticisms of that nature, which arise out of legitimage trade union activity, and opposition to the Government that arises in the course of party political activity. No additional guidance was thought necessary in that respect. The existing rules are necessary to maintain the political impartiality of the Civil Service and the relationship between the Government and the Civil Service.
Relaxations are being made as a result of the Armitage report. It will always be claimed that not enough is being done. I refer to the speech that I made at the patty conference. Harold Macmillan replied and quoted— I think—from Disraeli. He said that people always said that it came too late. In fact, it was something that it came at all.
§ The Question having been proposed after Ten 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 Twelve o'clock midnight.