§ 51. Mr. Dalyellasked the Minister for the Civil Service what representations have been received by Her Majesty's Government from the First Division Association of Civil Servants about relations between Ministers and civil servants during the Westland affair.
§ Mr. DalyellMay I ask the Minister a question of which I gave his office notice last Wednesday in the hope of a considered reply? Is it the view of Her Majesty's Government that Sir Robert Armstrong's guidelines are sufficient? If Ministers start criticising the professionalism of civil servants for lack of understanding, even high flying civil servants will take that as a professional insult. Should there not be a method whereby civil servants can defend themselves in public if they are to be named and criticised in public?
§ Mr. LuceI appreciate the fact that the hon. Gentleman told me in advance what his question was about. I understand the nature of the question. As I said in answer to a question that the hon. Gentleman posed some months ago, I consider that the guidelines established by Sir Robert Armstrong—the restatement of principle—which deal with the matter of conscience, which allow for various procedures to be followed if a civil servant is worried about his position and his conscience, and which are applicable right up to the post of permanent secretary are adequate. The hon. Gentleman probably knows that the Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service is looking at the relationship between Ministers and civil servants, and it may be that the hon. Gentleman would wish to give evidence to the Committee.
§ Mr. WrigglesworthWill the Minister be prepared to look at the findings of the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service when they come forward and to think again about the adequacy of those rules? Do not the events surrounding the Westland affair illustrate the fact that civil servants are sometimes put in dreadful dilemmas when collective responsibility breaks down? Does the Minister agree that this area needs to be covered more adequately than it is covered by the Armstrong guidelines?
§ Mr. LuceOf course I attach importance to the work of the Select Committee and will study with great care what it has to say in its recommendations. As I have said, I consider that the guidelines laid down are adequate. They allow for questions of conscience by any civil servant to be dealt with through internal procedures up to the level of permanent secretary. The Select Committee is looking at this matter, and I wait with great interest to hear what it has to say.
§ Mr. FormanCan my right hon. Friend say whether the Armstrong guidelines, to which he and the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) have referred, are mandatory, or discretionary, upon Departments?
§ Mr. LuceThose are established guidelines which every Department is expected to follow. A point that I have not made hitherto is that at the end of the day it is Ministers, not civil servants, who are accountable for policies. The relationship between civil servants and Ministers is clearly established in the guidelines.
§ Mr. WinnickIs the Minister aware that civil servants are worried because of the way in which Ministers, including the Prime Minister, have put the responsibility on civil servants for the leaking of the letter from the Solicitor-General to the then Secretary of State for Defence? Is that not a most unfortunate practice? Should not the Prime Minister accept the responsibility instead of putting it on to the private secretary in her office and on to the director of information in the Department of Trade and Industry?
§ Mr. LuceIn the light of all that has happened, we have seen a fine example of ministerial accountability in the actions of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan).
§ Mr. MarlowIf any civil servant has been less than competent in his or her advice or action during the Westland affair, will action eventually be taken against him or her, or is it just politicians who always have to take the blame for everything?
§ Mr. LuceIt is absolutely right that the principle of ministerial accountability should be at the heart of our system, and I am a firm believer in that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) knows, disciplinary procedures are available in the service, and they are brought into action as and when necessary.
§ Dr. McDonaldI am glad to hear the Minister's last remarks. In view of what he has said, will he admit that during the Westland affair civil servants have all too often been made to carry the can for the Government's 20 responsibility? Will he consult his ministerial colleagues to see whether the Government can go beyond the Armstrong guidelines and introduce a code of ethics which will make clear the distinction between a civil servant's responsibility to the Government of the day and his responsibility to higher duties?
§ Mr. LuceI know that some, including the hon. Lady, take the view that some sort of code of ethics should be developed, but it is exceedingly difficult to know on what basis one could anticipate every set of circumstances in the relationship between a Minister and his civil servants. I believe that the guideline procedures are perfectly adequate.
§ Mr. BeithIf the civil servants who have been publicly blamed are not to be disciplined, as the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) suggests, ought they not to be publicly exonerated?
§ Mr. LuceThe principle at the heart of this discussion is ministerial accountability, and we have seen a fine example of that in the past few weeks.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I will take points of order in their usual place, after the private notice questions.
§ Mr. SpeakerI know, but I will take points of order after the private notice questions.