§ 39. Mr. Dalyellasked the Minister for the Civil Service what study he has made of comments on Sir Douglas Wass's proposal for the establishment of a Royal Commission to look at questions of civil servants' loyalty, ministerial involvement in appointments and public accountability of officials and an independent appeal procedure for civil servants who consider that Ministers are attempting to mislead Parliament.
§ Mr. LuceI have nothing to add to the answers that I gave to the hon. Member's earlier questions on 28 October.
§ Mr. DalyellWhat should civil servants do when they find that the draft report of an account to Parliament, such 610 as Sir John Nott's last draft account of 4 May 1982, which was basically true, is deliberately altered by Ministers and 10 Downing street, to an account to Parliament that is deceptive and untrue? Is it sufficient to say that they should go along to their superiors? Bluntly, Sir Clive Whitmore and Sir Robert Armstrong would not have seen any civil servant who dared to do so and who risked his career in doing it. If Sir Douglas Wass thinks that that is a serious subject, should not a Minister who honourably gave up his Foreign Office job because of the Falklands episode at least devote a serious amount of thought to a real problem?
§ Mr. LuceAs usual, the hon. Gentleman has the whole issue quite wrong. We have a system which he understands as fully as anyone. It is a constitutional system, and the heart of that system is that there should be ministerial accountability to the House, not Civil Service accountability. That has taken place in this context. Every Minister is accountable to the House, and every Minister can be scrutinised. I believe that the procedures already clearly laid down by the head of the Home Civil Service and announced by the Prime Minister earlier this year for civil servants who have grievances are perfectly fair and reasonable.