CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSIONER (Hansard, 21 February 1990)

§ Dr. Marek
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 6 is related to new clause 5, but goes a little further. It would give the public a little more confidence in the quality standards that are to be set by agencies and trading funds. It provides for an ombudsman who would have control over quality standards. It would not be left just to the Government.
The Government and the Civil Service have not done much work on establishing how agencies could measure the quality of services provided. Certainly very little work has been done on providing the mechanisms for consumer or staff input into quality control.
Mr. Peter Kemp, the "next steps" projects manager, gave evidence to the Public Accounts Committee which is recorded in the Committee's 38th report, published in October 1989. He said: The word 'customer' is a very dangerous and difficult word to use in the context of public service. That leads me to believe that those who are organising agencies and Government trading funds do not like the word "customer" and therefore do not use it. They are more concerned with administration and saving public money.
A better quotation is again to be found in the Public Accounts Committee's October 1989 report. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) asked: How do they know what the taxpayers and customers who use the DSS want and think of their present service? The matter under discussion was the introduction of agency status for the Department of Social Security. My hon. Friend said: 1026 If you do not know it how can you set up an agency system designed to meet their requirements efficiently and effectively? I am asking what specific plans you have to consult them. Mr. Kemp replied: I do not know what specific plans the DSS have, nor am I quite sure how the DSS would set out specifically consulting claimants or claimants' representatives. That is the problem. Therefore, we have tabled the new clauses. The work has not been done. The introduction of trading agencies and trading funds has more to do with the Government's wish to save public money and to improve administration. They want to introduce even more commercialisation, with a view to eventual privatisation.
It is possible to consider the consumer and staff input. To make a constituency point, Wrexham has a DSS consumer committee. I wonder how many DSS consumer committees there are up and down the country. That is one way of getting more consumer input into quality control. The DSS office in Wrexham works very well, but that is certainly not always the case in other parts of the country.
I shall quote two documents about civil servants, their contact with journalists and their use of official information. My first quote has some lessons for Government trading funds. The new draft code of conduct was published following the Official Secrets Act 1989. Paragraph 9904 states: Civil servants must exercise care in handling the information that has come into their possession in the course of their official duties and should not forget that they arc employed for the purposes of the Department in which they are now serving. They owe duties of confidentiality and loyal service to the Crown. Since constitutionally the Crown acts on the advice of Ministers who are answerable for their Departments in Parliament, these duties are for all practical purposes only to the Government of the day. Of course there is no question of looking after arty concerns of the consumer or the public—some people might say, quite rightly—but the Government exist for the benefit of the public and the consumer and it should be absolutely clear what rights consumers have and what quality standards Ministers set for their civil servants in various Departments so that they can perform their services for the benefit of the public.
If the ethos behind the new draft of the code of conduct were enlarged, quality standards would not be made available for the public. Something would be said so that the public thought that there were quality standards, but they would not have full access to information about exactly what they meant, how they operated and what redress the public would have in any instance where they thought that the standard of quality fell short.
I shall also quote a document dated November 1989 which has been circulated quite widely in the Civil Service. It is from the office of the Minister for the Civil Service and is entitled, "Relations with Journalists". Paragraph 11 states: In cases of doubt or disagreement, the final approval for appearances in these as in other current affairs programmes rests with the Prime Minister,"— the Prime Minister's heavy hand is appearing again— who will wish to take account of recommendations by Ministerial colleagues and, as Minister for the Civil Service, of any views put forward by the Head of the Home Civil Service, as to the propriety of participation by civil servants. The main considerations will be whether the final result is likely to be of value to the Government, the Civil Service and to the Department concerned. It says nothing about whether it will be of any value to the public or whether quality standards will be maintained.
1027 I know that the document deals with relations with journalists, but it is pertinent to say that that paragraph says nothing about objectivity, truth or benefit to the public. It simply says that the final result is likely to be of value to the Government; whether it is right or wrong or whether it is meritorious is not mentioned. It is concerned only with the Civil Service and … the Department concerned; whether Ministers and civil servants can be seen to be behaving naturally, or forced in a play-acting situation by 'fly on the wall' techniques; and whether the discussions can be recorded without damage to the relationship between Ministers and civil servants. Any submission to No. 10 should deal specifically with these points. If the relations that the Government have or would like civil servants to have with the media and the press and their code of conduct are anything to go by I do not have much confidence in what the Government say about quality standards to the public, being understood by the public and having the general confidence of the public.
I tabled a written question about the passport office and how it would improve its quality standards. I was told in reply: The passport department will be aiming in 1990 to process all straightforward, non-urgent passport applications within a maximum of 30 working days during the peak period between January and June, and within 20 working days at other times. Urgent cases will receive priority and should not normally be subject to delay".—[Official Report, 25 January 1990; Vol. 165, c. 882.] I am confused about what should not normally be subject to delay means when the first part of the answer refers to 20 days and the latter to 30 days. It is not good enough to have passport offices with quality standards of 20 days for half of the year and 30 days for the other half. That is not good enough and the public will not put up with it. The Government must do better. The new clause seeks to do something about it, and it would be a step in the right direction.
The Opposition are the party of the consumer. The Conservatives are for bureaucracy and administration and it is time they realised that if they are to do better—and they must do better if they are to come within sight of the Labour party at the next general election—they should consider the consumer more.

§ Mr. Lilley
I can appreciate the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) showing interest in, and having views about, the draft code of conduct, but it concerns only relationships between the Crown as employer and civil servants as employees of the Crown, so it is not strictly relevant to quality of service. Nor is it distinctly related to agencies and trading funds.
I have some sympathy for the intentions of the new clause. Next steps agencies fall within the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, the ombudsman, and he can investigate complaints of maladministration made against them. The ombudsman proposed by the amendment would unnecessarily duplicate the existing investigative powers of the parliamentary commissioner.
The new clause also proposes that the ombudsman should have statutory powers to set minimum standards. That would clearly conflict with the exercise of ministerial responsibility and accountability to Parliament. The Minister in charge of a Department is responsible for 1028 setting standards for quality of service. That remains just as true in the context of agencies. He may be called to account by Parliament for his decisions.
It would, at the least, cause confusion to superimpose on those established and well-understood arrangements a separate statutory authority for an ombudsman to set standards. I therefore cannot advise the House to accept the new clause.

§ Mr. Bill Michie
I listened to the Minister carefully, having listened even more carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek). It seems strange that the Government should feel that there is no need to protect public interests by means of an ombudsman to whom people can bring complaints and queries.
I recall long debates on social security legislation involving the establishment of new regulations by which people would get money from the DSS. The system of appeal was changed. My hon. Friends and I complained that instead of having the normal independent tribunal, the Government were removing from the public their ordinary rights should they feel aggrieved about their treatment by Government Departments or other organs of the establishment.
In that case, the Government of the day took away the right of appeal to an independent tribunal and announced that should there be anomalies or complaints, complainants should appeal to an officer in the department concerned. If, after that officer had made his judgment—saying, perhaps, " I am sorry, but you are not entitled to a grant"—the person still felt aggrieved, he or she could appeal to the next senior officer. As we pointed out at the time, the junior officer concerned would be in the same department as the senior officer and would, of course, take instructions from his superior. In that case there was no genuine appeals system. Although we pointed that out, the Government were not prepared to listen to our pleas.
We are anxious to have in position a genuine ombudsman so that if a person feels that he or she has not had a fair deal from, say, a DSS office, application can be made to the ombudsman. It seems that the existing ombudsman is not all that busy, due, no doubt, to the existing mechanism for appeal. The Government say that we do not need an ombudsman and that the work can be done through the Secretary of State, yet they have set up an ombudsman mechanism that is additional to the Secretary of State to deal with social security benefits. Goodness knows, the Secretary of State has enough power already.
An anomaly exists. For some strange reason, the Government are afraid of having someone who is independent of the Government and Departments and who can protect the interests of ordinary people who come across misdeeds or misunderstandings in Departments. I hope that, even at this late hour, the Minister will reconsider and at least be consistent with Government philosophy in the past.

§ Dr. Marek
The Financial Secretary's reply was unconvincing. We must stand up for the consumer, who has a vital interest in these matters. The new clause goes some way towards securing that interest, and I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to join me in the Division Lobby.

Division No. 95]	[10–15 pm
AYES
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)	McAvoy, Thomas
Battle, John	McWilliam, John
Beith, A. J.	Mahon, Mrs Alice
Boateng, Paul	Marek, Dr John
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)	Meale, Alan
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)	Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Campbell-Savours, D. N.	Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)
Clay, Bob	Nellist, Dave
Clelland, David	Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Cryer, Bob	Patchett, Terry
Dalyell, Tarn	Pike, Peter L.
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)	Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Dewar, Donald	Primarolo, Dawn
Dixon, Don	Robertson, George
Duffy, A. E. P.	Ross, William (Londonderry E)
Eadie, Alexander	Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Evans, John (St Helens N)	Skinner, Dennis
Flynn, Paul	Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)	Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Foster, Derek	Wareing, Robert N.
Fyfe, Maria	Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)
Golding, Mrs Llin	Wise, Mrs Audrey
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)	Worthington, Tony
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Howells, Geraint	Tellers for the Ayes:
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)	Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie and Mr. Allen McKay.
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

NOES
Alexander, Richard	Butterfill, John
Alison, Rt Hon Michael	Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Amess, David	Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Arbuthnot, James	Carrington, Matthew
Ashby, David	Carttiss, Michael
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)	Chapman, Sydney
Batiste, Spencer	Chope, Christopher
Bendall, Vivian	Churchill, Mr
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)	Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)
Benyon, W.	Day, Stephen
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Devlin, Tim
Boswell, Tim	Dorrell, Stephen
Bottom ley, Peter	Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Brazier, Julian	Dover, Den
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter	Dunn, Bob
Browne, John (Winchester)	Fallon, Michael
Buck, Sir Antony	Favell, Tony
Burns, Simon	Forman, Nigel
Burt, Alistair	Forth, Eric
Butler, Chris	Franks, Cecil

Fry, Peter	Neubert, Michael
Garel-Jones, Tristan	Nicholls, Patrick
Goodhart, Sir Philip	Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Goodlad, Alastair	Oppenheim, Phillip
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn	Paice, James
Hanley, Jeremy	Patnick, Irvine
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)	Pawsey, James
Harris, David	Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Hawkins, Christopher	Porter, David (Waveney)
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)	Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Howard, Rt Hon Michael	Rathbone, Tim
Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)	Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)	Rhodes James, Robert
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)	Shaw, David (Dover)
Hunter, Andrew	Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Irvine, Michael	Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Jack, Michael	Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Jessel, Toby	Speller, Tony
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey	Stanbrook, Ivor
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael	Steen, Anthony
Kilfedder, James	Stern, Michael
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)	Stevens, Lewis
Knapman, Roger	Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Knight, Greg (Derby North)	Summerson, Hugo
Knowles, Michael	Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Lang, Ian	Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Lawrence, Ivan	Temple-Morris, Peter
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)	Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Lightbown, David	Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Lilley, Peter	Thorne, Neil
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)	Thurnham, Peter
Lord, Michael	Trippier, David
Luce, Rt Hon Richard	Walden, George
MacGregor, Rt Hon John	Waller, Gary
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)	Ward, John
Maclean, David	Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael	Watts, John
Malins, Humfrey	Wells, Bowen
Mans, Keith	Wheeler, Sir John
Marshall, John (Hendon S)	Widdecombe, Ann
Mawhinney, Dr Brian	Winterton, Mrs Ann
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick	Wood, Timothy
Miller, Sir Hal	Yeo, Tim
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)	Young, Sir George (Acton)
Mitchell, Sir David
Moate, Roger	Tellers for the Noes:
Morris, M (N'hampton S)	Mr. John M. Taylor and Mr. Tom Sackville.
Morrison, Sir Charles
Moynihan, Hon Colin